User talk:Bignole/Archive/2009/April

Don't edit your own comments
Please do not edit your own comments when someone has already replied to you. I have undid your editing of your own comment. See WP:REDACT for more. — Mythdon  ( talk ) 02:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that's a misunderstanding of that guideline. Editing spelling errors is not what it is referring to.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A Nightmare on Elm Street
The film has confirmed it's film shooting day. It's just on 27 April. The A Nightmare on Elm Street should be changed into A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984 film). And also, can you help me movemy article of the nightmare film into this A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film). I'm new to Wikipedia. So Thanks. World Cinema Writer (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

South Park task force
Bignole, I've made a proposal for a task force based on the discussions that have stemmed from the talk page, and I'd love to hear your feedback and thoughts on the issue if you can spare the time. There's already been some feedback about perhaps increasing the scope of the task force, but I'd like to hear a bit more feedback before moving on with it... —  Hunter  Kahn  ( contribs )  04:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Horror Newsletter - April 2009
{| width=100%
 * valign=top style="border:1px solid red; -moz-border-radius: 10px; background-color: transparent;"|
 * valign=top style="border:1px solid red; -moz-border-radius: 10px; background-color: transparent;"|

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page. → This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 05:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Previews
Do you ever see the previews for the next episode when watching Smallville? If you had, you would know what I was talking about. I mentioned Lois dressed up as a superhereo, no webiste mentions that, or how Clark discovers who "Stiletto" really is. 65.92.170.155 (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Then why did you accept it before when I put it up? What's changed? 65.92.170.155 (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Short memory here. I saw a preview on TV for the return of Smallville in January, before MSN bothered to put up any info and you accepted it. 65.92.170.155 (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Friday FAC
The edits do look good, definitely a big improvement. If I have comment so far (I know you're not finished), it's that there's still plenty of words that could be eliminated without losing any of the intended meaning. Going through the article to remove redundancies is 90% of the copyediting job, IMO. Doing so not only makes segments read more cleanly, but with fewer words in play it also reduces the likelihood of other errors creeping in. So I'd definitely recommend scanning and rescanning until each section is honed to the bone. It's how I managed to clock up more than 800 edits at Changeling in less than 18 months; I guarantee you'll spot something else each and every time. When it gets closer to renomination, I should be able to take a closer look and make more direct prose recommendations—if you want them! Remember, I'm no expert. But for now, my main recommendation is to concentrate on those multiple sweeps for redundancies. Steve T • C 23:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Since the prose seemed to be the only major problem with the FAC, I think that in a couple of weeks, the article could be back there. The big problem is redundancy and this is the first hurdle. We have to ask ourselves is every single word, clause, phrase and sentence needed? If there is any doubt, delete them. Oh, I have have just noticed Steve has said the same thing above, anyhow, once this done, the final polish will de relatively easy. The article is still on my watchlist :-) and this will act as a constant reminder to me of our agreement. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm Talk 17:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Bignole, I'm sorry our discussions on the article got a little heated, please accept my apologies and this olive branch. If you want, and after my current FAC is closed one way or the other, I am prepared to work with you on the article, with a view to improving the prose. You said that one of my edits introduced an error, and this was because I don't know anything about the films or the franchise. But this can be an advantage in helping bring out the facts in simple elegant prose. You might prefer me to go to hell, and this I can understand, but the offer stands. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm Talk 16:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Watchmen Irrelevent Stats?
Hey Bignole, just wanted to fire this question your way, as you probably are familiar with policy for streamlining. I posted this on the Watchmen (film) talk page with no response, so I was curious to hear your opinion.

For the paragraph listing the box office stats, and rankings, do you think we should cut some of these? I think some of them are so highly specialized, or so low ranking, as to be irrelevant.

"Thanks to its opening weekend, Watchmen currently sits fourth in all time openings for the month of March,[135] as well as the fifth highest grossing weekend for the spring season, which is defined by the first Friday in March through to the first Thursday in the month of May.[136] It is the sixth largest opening for an R-rated film in North American history,[137] and is currently the highest grossing R-rated film of 2009.[138] On the North American box office, Watchmen currently sits as the thirteenth highest grossing film based on a DC Comics comic book,[139] and the fourth highest grossing film of 2009.[140]"

Most of these were more significant early into 2009, but others films have pushed the film down in some of these (already extremely specific) categories. I mean the highest grossing weekend for the spring season would be impressive, as would the fifth highest grossing weekend of all time, but is the fifth highest grossing weekend for the spring season really that interesting a statistic? I definitely think Highest grossing R-rated film of 2009 is valid, but do others agree that some of these don't really mean anything any more? I wouldn't say I know where the line should be drawn, or if there's any precedent, but curious for a consensus. Briguy7783 (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Echo
Like I said, I didn't truly think the series was quite at the stage where individual character articles were quite notable. However, I didn't want to be really aggressive about it and shut the editors' attempts down myself. Not as much as in the main article as I'd like, actually, but its written in such a way that it could be copied over with minor alterations.~ZytheTalk to me! 16:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

FLC nominations and reviews
Hi, Bignole. You may not be aware, but the new Featured list criteria was implemented Sunday 5 April, 00:56 (UTC) following two weeks of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria.

I've gone through the nominations and have noticed you have !voted Support, Oppose or Neutral at the following nominations: Please could you take the time to revisit the articles and candidate pages, and check them against the new Featured list criteria, and confirm/revise your !vote; any !vote made against the old criteria that is not confirmed against the new criteria will be ignored when the nomination is closed.
 * 1) Featured list candidates/Veronica Mars (season 2)/archive1 (Veronica Mars (season 2))

Finally, please accept my apologies for the brusqueness of this message; the same wording is being sent to everyone who has outstanding reviews, with only the names of lists being changed. Regards, Matthewedwards : Chat  05:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Halloween
Urgh... yeah, I heard that rumour a while back but didn't put much stock in it. I heard that he has a total costume redesign... no overalls and no mask. It's pretty disgusting but I'm not surprised. Zombie never understood the concept of the Shape and now he seems to be throwing it out altogether so he can tell stories about wild hillbillies. Who knows, it might be a good movie in it's own right, but it won't be a popular movie. I kind of hope it bombs so someone else will take over the franchise...  Paul    730  13:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "I don't like this BS." Lol, why not... I agree but shouldn't we encourage creativity?  I'm sceptical but part of me is willing to just let Zombie do his thing, it's not like the franchise has anything to lose.  Wasn't there a lot of false reports on the first movie, like the music being omitted (which I heard is true of this film)?  At the end of the day, I don't like Zombie's taste and never wanted him for this movie, but I'd rather he did something original than some crap like Resurrection.  I don't like HIII either, but I respect it's uniqueness in the series.     Paul    730  21:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Zombie already destroyed what made him MM in the first movie when he humanized him. But that was in the name of "re-imagining" and "adding depth to the character".  Sorry, but the character in RZH is not the Shape, he's a totally different character dressed as the Shape.     Paul    730  04:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I know he hasn't been the Shape since the first movie, which is why I have such a love/hate relationship with the sequels. I've also said before that I think RZH, for all it's flaws, is a better movie in it's own right than most of the sequels.  I just wish there was at least one sequel made by someone who has some understanding of what makes Michael Myers actually work as a character, instead of just trying to explain him or turn him into some insane redneck/sasquatch.     Paul    730  04:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But the same old shit is exactly what we got in the Halloween sequels (F13 fans are an anomaly, no matter how bad those films are I will love them). Yes, they made up some rubbish about blood links and Thorn, but it was essentially just Michael killing people in increasingly gory ways, and getting further away from the original character every time.  They could have taken the original Shape and told different stories with him, instead of telling the same story with a different Shape.  I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, but the comic books have proven that "having a killer who you don't know why he is doing this" can be scary and entertaining more than once.  Nightdance has an complex narrative with powerful scenes, but the Shape is perfectly in-character to how he was in the original movie.  He's not the same, exactly, they do develop him and do new things with him, but not in a way which demystifies him by saying "this is why he does what he does".  He also isn't merely a killing machine, the scare-factor for me in Nightdance was how truly twisted and evil Michael was.  You could feel his sadism dripping off the page and it was way scarier than RZH.  First Death of Laurie Strode was a new story in how it developed Laurie's character, and left doubt as to whether Michael was real or just her hallucinations.  All these comics have powerful themes about the nature of evil and fate, there's an actual storyline and not just a body count.  It's not just "Michael Myers kills people because [insert reason here]" as was the case in the film sequels.     Paul    730  14:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

But we don't need to know "who Michael is", that's not what Halloween is about. He should be inexplicable, more of a symbol than an actual person. Notice how in those films that try to explain everything, Michael is actually far more one-dimensional and meaningless. In the original, he was intelligent and psychological in the way he played with his victims. There was style and personality to his actions, even though we didn't know why he was doing them. In the sequels, he just walks around like a robot killing random people. The fact that they tack on some new exposition every couple of films saying "he's killing people because of such-and-such" doesn't actually make him a deeper character, it's actually simplifying him. As for the comics, yes the exact plots of Nightdance and First Death etc would not work as effectively in films as they do in comics. But there's no reason the quality of writing and characterization couldn't transfer over, the fact is the comics have a more talented writer who understands the Shape better. Incidentally, FvJvA could totally work as a film. It was written as a film, the script was simply adapted, and there's nothing in it more outlandish than the original FvJ. The only thing that might not work is Bruce Campbell's age, but the comic actually compensates for that by making Ash much older. I can't speak for Nightmare Warriors, as that is written specifically for the comic medium and seems more superhero-y.  Paul    730  14:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that RZH did a better job of explaining Michael Myers than the sequels, but I'm still not a big fan of the movie. Objectively, I think it's one of the better films in the series, but as a fanboy it just rubs me the wrong way sometimes.  I never had a problem accepting Freddy and Jason in the same world, or Ash for that matter.  They're all pretty comic booky and supernatural so nothing really clashes.  It's not like having Michael or Leatherface there, who are more realistic IMO.  I thought the reason FvJvA never got made was because of rights issues or Raimi and Campbell not wanting to get involved... I don't think it was a case of "this would be better as a comic" so much as "we can't do it as a film but we might as well do the comic as plan B".
 * My only problems with the alien meteor and the sand machine was that they were just random plot devices with no backstory or follow-up. They just showed up to mutate the villains, they weren't really part of the story like the Oz formula or the metal arms.  That felt like lazy writing, at least compared to the first two movies.  I never felt that they were tonally innappropiate for the movies.  Again, it's do with the quality of the writing and nothing to do with the medium.  Also, from what you're saying, it sounds like you think the Halloween comics are cartoony and unrealistic.  They're not, they're more grounded in reality than most of the films (where Michael is totally superhuman) so I don't know where you're getting this "what works in comics doesn't work on film" mentality.     Paul    730  17:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It was the way you were using Venom and Sandman as analogies. I know that medium affects story... I actually use that argument a lot against the Buffy Season Eight haters.  They complain that the series is too OTT and epic, when it should be trying to emulate the down-to-earth tone of the TV series.  I try to explain to them that this is Buffy the comic and you shouldn't read it expecting the exact same thing as the TV series.  There's no sense in the comic trying to be a TV show when it can and should be it's own thing.
 * I'm aware that translating something into a new medium is difficult, but the talent of the people involved needs to be taken into consideration. Joss Whedon successfully moved Buffy from TV to comics, there's no reason from what I can see why Stefan Hutchinson couldn't write a kick-ass Halloween movie.  He probably hasn't been hired to write the movie because he's a nobody, whereas Rob Zombie is a (relatively) big name with an established fanbase.  Doesn't mean Hutchinson couldn't make a better movie than him.  And if studios gave a shit about fans, we'd be getting another Thorn movie so I'm glad they don't...    Paul    730  18:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How many of those sequels had someone like Rob Zombie wanting to write them? What do you want me to say, that the reason Hutchinson wasn't chosen was because he's incapable of writing a good screenplay and he should just stick to comics?  Maybe he didn't even put himself forward, he said himself he only had rough ideas and wasn't bothered when they hired someone else.  I remember us having this argument before... I don't care about medium or studios, Hutchinson is a better writer than Zombie and that's why I care about the comic books way more than the shitty new movie (which even you seem cynical about now).  And it's not just me who feels that way; the comics are critically acclaimed by the few review websites that have actually read them, whereas RZH was poorly recieved.     Paul    730  04:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool... pretty much what I expected from the mask. Btw, I had a lurk around the Halloween Message Board and the fanboys are being uncharacteristically positive about this new movie... maybe it won't be the disaster I'm predicting.  I read an interview with Scout, you've probably seen it (if not I'll find the link), and she was talking about her scenes with the psychologist character.  It seems fairly interesting.  What are your feelings, you've seemed kind of hot and cold about the whole thing.  Are you planning on seeing Wolverine, btw?  I think it looks awful, but my friend and I want to see it to make fun of it.    Paul    730  19:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Clash of the Titans
I am thinking that with three items (four, with the "not to be confused with" item), we could make Clash of the Titans a disambiguation page. Clash of the Titans (2010 film) was created too early, and you probably saw my message to Alientraveller. That article will get some cleaning up, but I think we should start a disambiguation page after the remake starts filming. That way we'll have four definite topics on the page. What do you think? — Erik (talk • contrib) 17:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've seen disambigs for just 2 subjects, so we could probably go ahead and do it for the three that have concrete articles. Is there belief that the remake's article will be redirected?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Belated, but... Talk:Clash of the Titans (2010 film). — Erik (talk • contrib) 18:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

List of South Park episodes‎
I requested another administrator look into it and semi-protect the page, at WP:RFPP. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 04:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You have probably noticed that this was semi-protected for one month. :) Cirt (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

South Park (season 1)
Hello! I saw your edits to South Park (season 1) and I just thought I'd let you know that I have begun expanding it in my Sandbox. Cheers,  The Le ft orium  15:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Smallville episodes
it's not about trying to get ppl to buy dvd's.

it's a series overview. See: that's what needs to be at the top of the smallville episodes article. list of smallville episodes Just get rid of the # of discs, and add season premiere + season finale, and bam, it's all good. Do you get what i mean now? While that smallville section was oringinally intended for the dvd information, the general theme for episode lists on wikipedia is just to add them to the series overview, which what that thing pratically is. All good?IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 11:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * List_of_30_rock_episodes
 * List_of_90210_episodes
 * Heroes_episodes
 * etc.

Re: Section move
Is there a single place where this can be discussed? I'm involved in a number of List of episode articles, and it seems silly to place the same response in all those places, causing a de-centralised discussion. How about leaving an additional note for all comments to be placed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage? Regards, Matthewedwards : Chat  20:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Lex Luthor (Smallville)
Right. I was thinking even after I did the edit that the explosion was not alleged. But it is only alleged Lex is there. How do we resolve that? Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 18:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That works. Thanks. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 18:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

South Park topic drive
Thanks for your great work on List of South Park episodes and South Park (season 1). Care to join the ongoing drive at WP:SOUTHPARK/TOPIC? Cirt (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Smallville
That's okay (re. the links), I just wanted to help out. I knew you were going to revert me, but I made the change so you knew what I was thinking about the section. Anyways, nice job with the season three page; it'll be an interesting read for me when I get around to it. :)  Corn.u. co.pia  •  Disc.u s.sion   03:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 17:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 17:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Lana Lang (Smallville)
I should explain my choice not to use "super-human." I was trying to come up with a description for the suit, and even though no one said "super suit" in the show, that's what I chose in several places where the suit wasn't even mentioned. Maybe there's a better choice.

There are serious problems with the Lana Lang section that should be addressed. The article goes into way too much detail. I'm not sure which details should be kept, and it's similar to what happened before when ... I think it was you, but I'm not sure, who reverted me when I tried to create a Jor-El (Smallville) article. At this point I'm trying to resolve a problem with "Project Prometheus," which seems to have sufficient information to start an article if I remove it from Lana Lang. I got into a discussion on the Village Pump about the Prometheus trivia section, which was the only place I found anything other than the Lana Lang article. I added it everywhere else, I think.

My qualifications aren't that great. I'm kind of the answer man for the CW message boards. I don't know the stuff, but I'm kind of creating an encyclopedia out of what people have posted there. I don't answer questions people ask, but I move information posted elsewhere. Another poster on the WB boards did a Frequently Asked Questions, and I just added to his work. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 19:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought a solution to the Lana Lang problem would be to move some of that content to a "Project Prometheus" article, which I named Project Prometheus (Smallville) on the disambiguation page. It looks like enough information for a full article, but then it might not meet Wikipedia's standards either. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 19:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll redirect then. But the information is most detailed in Lana Lang. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 19:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I used the Wikipedia search function and I think I found something that could be used for a redirect. I'm studying the excessive information in the other article, but I have my doubts whether I can use it. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 20:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The information in the Kryptonite Man article looks good, although maybe not ideal for Wikipedia. How to fit it in somewhere else, I don't know. Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 20:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * After your revisions, it looks like the paragraph is inappropriate for Kryptonite Man, so I relocated it, with the necessary changes for its new location, to Kryptonite, and replaced what I had added earlier.


 * I'd better stick to reading the CW message board and moving the best posts there to the frequently asked questions sections I developed. Fewer rules. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 22:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the Pinewood Derby (South Park) GA review! —  Hunter  Kahn  ( contribs )  06:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

H2 Trailer
Hey. it's been a while. Have you see the trailer for H2 or the Enteratinment Tonight Sneak peek?--Darkness2light (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Here it is: http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810061258/video/13140292 --Darkness2light (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Michael wearing a hood and half exposed face. That was unexpected. It looks like they kept the hospital (although it doesn't appear to be the main plot.) Looks like Mike's mom is going to be important to this one. What do you say about it?--Darkness2light (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You made a article? Well there's kinda enough info. At Least you didn't do it back in November. There should be more info coming in soon.--Darkness2light (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, should Sheri-Moon be on the returning cast list due to her being in the new film (however we still don't know Mrs.Meyers intentions other than telling Michael to kill).--Darkness2light (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to refer to what I said earlier that we don't know about her role in this film. but it looks like she will apear often in this film. What about Brad Dourif? Well he wasn't really leading so... but yeah it's based on source not speculation so we'll have to wait until the plot is announced--Darkness2light (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Cordelia
Thank you! I look forward to reading it. ~ZytheTalk to me! 15:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

you can help!
Yeah, this is random and stalkerish, but trust me when I have a reason for asking: where do you edit from? (City and country would be nice, but the country is really all I need.) You can just shoot me an email, or reply here, or via my talk. It's for a project I have to do involving Wikipedia articles and editing patterns, nothing special, but I'll let you see it when I'm finished :) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Florida.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

TV seasons
Hi Bignole. While the previous TV season articles I've been involved with have all become Featured content through the FLC process, I was wondering what you thought of Law & Order: Criminal Intent (season 1) and Law & Order: Criminal Intent (season 8). I wrote the season 1 page about a month ago, and season 8 article today. Do you think FLC is the best place to nominate, or would I be better aiming them for GA and FA? Regards, Matthewedwards : Chat  22:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate: Proposed topic ban of Nintendoman01 from Buffy/Angel articles
Hi, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buffyverse, which I believe could benefit from your input. Please consider this an invitation to participate. Jclemens (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)