User talk:Bignole/Archive/2010/June

Friday the 13th
I disagree. Most people would move their cursor over 2009 and see that it was 2009 in film. I will undo your revert but feel free to add any more points. Do not make the change again without further explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwhite148 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

94.1.114.72 (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)oh ok, thanks for the info94.1.114.72 (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Breaks
Of course David does know what he is talking about. &lt;br /> does have the advantage of being valid XHTML too. But really we should be using Break or something like it;_ banish non-wiki markup from articles! Rich Farmbrough, 01:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC).

94.1.114.72 (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC) i am the guy who edited the smallville page. ah ok thanks, but could you not fit the smallville infor about season 9 anywhere ekse? because thene noobs will not say ....ratings low..... it proves ratings are good. clicked ur account woah, the interwebz owes a lot to guys like you ;) 94.1.114.72 (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Predators-Movie.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Predators-Movie.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Television episodes
Thanks for your comments. Just as a "heads up", I will likely be nominating more today if I have some time. I just added Arrested Development, which is similar to the House box. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sigh is right :P
Yep. I mean, the producer says one thing, and something they most likely approved to sell to (basically) the world by the procuder says another..... I think they use the production number and episode number differently though, so, I don't know.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Request for mediation accepted
The request for mediation concerning Will Schuester, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK  11:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

Elm Street 2010; clarification
Hiya BN. In reference to this edit, I thought that since the new film was a remake (and I guess potentially, a reboot) of the franchise it would be considered its own thing outside of the original series of movies. I totally trust your judgment; you've been at this in much more depth for much longer than I have. Just trying to make sure I understand. I'm watching your talk, so you can respond here or where ever you feel is appropriate. Thanks in advance. :)   Millahnna (mouse)  talk  04:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It is considered it's "own thing", but as far as the infobox is concerned the "preceded by" and "followed by" sections are meant for stating what film comes next in the franchise. It has nothing to do with continuity. The remake is still a Nightmare on Elm Street film, and Freddy vs. Jason was the last Nightmare film released before the 2010 remake. The sequence of films is not supposed to be dictated by whether a film is part of the same storyline. For some other examples, see how Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope doesn't list Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith as "preceeding" A New Hope. Another example would be Halloween III: Season of the Witch, which has no connection to any other Halloween film an is in fact another film with "it's own thing" going on but we still include it between Halloween II and Halloween 4 because it is considered part of that franchise regardless of story.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool thanks. I think I got myself confused because of some odd edits recently that were trying to connect the Batman movies of the 80s and 90s  to the more recent films (i.e. Batman and Robin preceding Batman Begins) and, similarly, referencing the Incredible Hulk movies as following each other.  Since those were so obviously not correct I sort of carried over to this situation as well.  If you see what I mean.  Thanks for the help as always.   Millahnna (mouse)  talk  10:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Technically, they should be connected. Warner Bros owns and producers all of the Batman movies. Regardless of continuity, theire still part of the "Batman film franchise". If we're to interpret the "preceded by" as the infobox template (and prior discussions) states, then it films like Batman Begins would technically follow Batman & Robin. We don't separate Batman Forever from Batman Returns just because Kilmer replace Keaton and Schumacher replaced Burton. Look at the James Bond franchise. A part from the first like 6 movies, the rest of them have no connection to one another. They're still listed one after the other...even Casino Royale is listed after Die Another Day.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So would that be true of the two Hulk movies, as well? I guess I was thinking of them as different franchises because of the re-boot nature of the later films in all of my examples noted above (Batman, Hulk, Elm Street). Put another way, I consider those first four Batman movies (Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer, and George Clooney) one franchise – regardless of the cast changes – because they were considered to be a series.  Starting with Batman Begins, I think of the next two movies as a different Batman franchise because they were not part of the same story as the other four.  Likewise, I think of the two Hulk movies as separate from each other in franchise terms (possible a bad example since neither movie has had a sequel) and the newest Elm Street as a separate franchise stemming from the Elm Street story.  I swear I got this idea as some sort of common terminology in movie reviews and such but maybe I'm just making that up in my own head.  Going to your Bond example, I do tend to think of those as all one thing, actor changes and continuity aside.  In terms of reader usage, it makes sense to me to connect the Bond movies together but not the Batman, Hulk, or Elm Street movies.  When I see "preceded by" I tend to naturally assume the two films have a connected storyline which could be misleading for Batman, for example.  Apologies if I'm being ridiculously dense on this.  Am I over-thinking this one?  Millahnna (mouse)  talk  07:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, but why would you consider Clooney and Kilmer part of the Keaton films? Because the actors for Alfred and Com. Gordon are the same? Other than that, there is no mentioning of the previous film in them. No more at least than what is mentioned in any of the Bond films (and Judie Dench played "M" in Die Another Day and Casino Royale with the latter being a reboot of the continuity). A franchise is merely a set of films that have the same set of characters, and is not dictated by continuity--James Bond and Godzilla being the best examples of where each subsequence film is just another in the overall film series and not directly connected to the previous film. You're thinking as part of continuity, where the infobox is not based on continuity. It's all part of a single film franchise, just one with different continuity. In your case, how would you argue Halloween? You have Halloween Part 1, Part 2, Part 4, Part 5 and Part 6 making up one continuity. Then you have Halloween 1, 2, H20, and Resurrection making up a new continuity. Then you have the Rob Zombie films that are completely separate. Not to mention Halloween III: Season of the Witch which doesn't fall into continuity with any of the other films because it uses no characters, no setting, nothing from the other films except a title. I can understand the natural response to assume that say The Incredible Hulk must be the sequel to Hulk, because of it's place in the infobox, but that's where the lead for the former should clarify that it reboots the continuity of the previous film. If we followed the idea of continuity, then Halloween would be a mess, no James Bond film would be connected to one another (with exception to the last two), no Godzilla film would be connected. You'd have to question whether the Schumacher Batman films were connected to the Burton ones, given how the tone changes and actors are replaced. I think where you are mixing up is the difference between "franchise" and "continuity". It's all one giant franchise, but the elements within contain separate continuities.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I see it now (for real this time I think). It's funny that you ask that about the Burton/Schumacher Batman movies to illustrate what you mean (Alas my Halloween viewing is hit and miss).  They were so clearly being marketed as a series as they came out but I greatly preferred the tone of the Burton films and that particular element always bugged me.  So totally the perfect question to ask to get me to see what you meant.  One last question.  Earlier, when referencing the Batman franchise specifically, you noted that all of the movies had been made by WB and were thus part of the same franchise.  I don't have the movies' pages up to check this but lets say, purely as a hypothetical, those two Hulk movies were from different studios and the ownership rights to the characters for film had changed hands.  Would they be considered the same franchise then? From your most recent reply to me, my assumption would be yes.  From your earlier reply regarding the Batman films, I would have inferred that they would be considered a different franchise.  I honestly don't know if this would even happen but I'm just enough of a dork to be curious now.   Millahnna (mouse)  talk  16:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I wasn't trying to insinuate that if the film changed production company hands then it's somehow a new franchise. I just meant that as it's especially true when you look at who is producing them (i.e. one company)....so that comment was more specifically geared toward Batman than anything else. A franchise is a franchise, no matter who owns it. Based on the definition, who owns it really doesn't matter...it's really about the idea of a set of media (e.g., films, comics, toys, etc.) that are all based on the same set of characters, settings, and or trademarks (i.e. I'd say "trademarks" would be something like MADD magazine...but that criteria is lesser known for me). A new company may come in and buy a film series--for example, what is possibly happening to the Terminator franchise...which I believe has actually been sold a couple of times--but it's still a single franchise if they are using the same set of characters and/or settings. Continuity has no place in the actual argument for a "franchise" in that regard as if you own the franchise it means you own anything associated with it, past, present, or future. So, basically, Batman & Robin technically precedes Batman Begins, even though they don't share continuity. The film pages themselves should be there to explain that BB is a reboot of the continuity and not a sequel to B&R. As far as I'm concerned Batman Forever isn't a sequel to Batman Returns, just like Halloween III isn't a sequel to Halloween II (as it doesn't contain any character or setting from the original films), but they still follow the other in production order for that film franchise.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)