User talk:Bignole/Archive/2011/March

I've mailed you!
--'''Mwanaharakati(Longa) 10:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of season one episode articles of House for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the articles Paternity (House), Occam's Razor (House), Maternity (House), Damned If You Do, The Socratic Method (House), Fidelity (House), Poison (House), DNR (House), Histories (House), Detox (House), Sports Medicine (House), Cursed (House), Control (House), Mob Rules (House), Heavy (House), Role Model (House), Babies & Bathwater, Kids (House), Love Hurts (House) and Honeymoon (House) are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Paternity (House) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  X  eworlebi (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!
I just want to commend you on keeping an eye The Amazing Spider-Man film article. With editors like you keeping the article straight. It could give me faith (if we work hard enough) that this article could "possibly" become a good article in the future or maybe even more. Jhenderson 7 7 7  20:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * And additional kudos from me for your excellent work at The Dark Knight Rises. The journalistic care and meticulousness of your most recent Catwoman-related edit there, in particular, are outstanding! --Tenebrae (talk) 07:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Jason Voorhess
Hey Bighole, it's me Jabrona. We've had a little discussion on the history page regarding Freddy Vs. Jason and Jason X. But as I told you on the history page, the movies are in the same continuity. I pointed that out about it being obvious because Freddy Vs. Jason was meant to happen after Jason Goes To Hell's release but it took so long to get made Sean Cunningham decided to make a new Friday movie. That's also why Jason X began with Jason alive at the beginning, because Freddy Vs. Jason was going to feature Jason's resurrection after Jason Goes to Hell. Are you convinced now that the movies are in the same continuity? Jabrona (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Smallville DVDs
I noticed there's an extra column on the right side of the table for the DVDs. I hit the edit button, to see if I could find where the problem is but couldn't. Maybe you could take a look? GiantTiger001 (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Just dropping in to say hi
Wondering how you've been lately. Have you seen I Am Number Four? It was critically panned, but I keep planning on viewing it online sometime this week. Not sure if there's any film I'm looking forward to viewing in the theaters thus far. Like I told you before, I feel Hollywood doesn't produce too many good movies these days. I did recently view Underworld: Rise of the Lycans for the first time ever (it came on Syfy), and liked/like if well enough. Such a damn sad story, though.

As for my life in general, it's been tough...problems and all that...but I'm sticking through. And Wikipedia is always a pain, LOL. I hope you're doing well. Flyer22 (talk) 06:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm doing alright...busy in real life - as seems to be the case lately. Just doing basic clean up on pages (except Smallville (season 10)). I actually don't have any interest in seeing I Am Number Four, at least not in the theaters. To me, it's like Jumper and Push all rolled into one. I enjoyed Rise of the Lycans as well, I find it to be a more coherent story than Underworld 2. There only movies that I am anticipating right now are The Dark Knight Rises and the new Superman movies (though I'll probably lose that anticipation as I learn more about what they are doing with the Superman movie).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  08:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear you're doing well, or at least alright. I'm so behind on Smallville. I turned there one day, and I was like, "What in the... What is up with Clark's hero outfit? Has he become Dark Clark?... Oh, wait... He's got edge to him now." LOL. And then I was like, "I'll catch up online someday." I had interest in seeing I Am Number Four, but not now, after seeing so many bad reviews. I don't always go on reviews, but I wanted to believe that the film would at least be a smash hit, and would critically fair better than it actually did, especially with the Smallville creators/sometimes writers/producers working on it. And, yeah, I definitely agree about Rise of the Lycans; it's a very decent prequel, and made me like Lucian a lot more. Seeing their Wikipedia character articles only being full of plot makes me want to fix up a few of them. Oh, and I'm sure I'll be interested in seeing The Dark Knight Rises; it's just that I'm not in a "must see movie" mindset right now. As for the new Superman movies, any reason why they're replacing Brandon Routh? He did/does look a lot like the typical Superman. I don't want someone cast who is "off the mark" looks-wise as our man in blue. I also wonder if they'll be keeping the tights. It seems "edgier" versions of our superheroes are "in" right now.


 * With regard to film articles, I haven't edited much these days. I'm doing a little with Titanic (1997 film), but am currently clashing with Ring Cinema; I guess it's no surprise there (the clashing), seeing as, through the edit history, I saw the inappropriate message he left you on your talk page not too long ago. Sorry about that. Flyer22 (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the "Dark Clark" is gone now. This is what he looks like now. As for Brandon Routh being replaced, I'm happy about that. I didn't like him as Superman. He was too lean and less bulky. If I'm going to believe someone can pick up an airplane, I want some bulk muscle on his body. I'm still a firm believer that Tom Welling is the best choice for the role. He physically looks the part and he's been doing the character for 10 years so he knows the role better than anyone right now. As of yet, I'm just hoping that Henry Cavill has a decent American accent, because I wouldn't appreciate having a homegrown Kansas farmboy sound like he just stepped away from the Royal Family. I also hope they keep the tights. I dispised the suit in Superman Returns (which, sadly, they're currently using in Smallville as THE suit). It looked like something out of Tim Burton's Batman (which I love, BTW, I just think it's better suited for that character). I mean, a rubber cape? Really?


 * As for Ring Cinema....they're passionate, just like everyone else. It's nothing personal between us, even when it turns into personal attacks/snarky comments back and forth. They believe in what they are doing just the same as you or me. I hold no grudges.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * He looks good in that. I like it. I think I saw him in it on a commercial. To make clear, I can't say I found Brandon Routh charismatic. He didn't "click" for me either, but I felt he was okay. His look, they were trying to find someone who physically resembles Christopher Reeve in the part, as you know. I mean, didn't you like Christopher Reeve as Superman back in the day? But on the Tom Welling note, plenty of people wanted Tom Welling as Superman, and were angry or frustrated when he wasn't cast, including me. I would choose him any day, but wonder if he would be up to doing it. He probably already feels typecast. And I echo your sentiments about the new Superman. The tights? Hey, at least they kept the tights in Superman Returns. I hadn't even noticed they used a rubber cape. Goodness.


 * You're right about the passionate bit. I just don't feel too good about working with him right now (I do believe "he" is the correct pronoun in this case), but maybe that'll change in the future. You've never made me feel like you were talking down to me in our interactions, for example. But, yeah... Flyer22 (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I love C. Reeve as Superman. I think he both physically looked the part and has the characteristics down pat (I'm still amazed by the scene in Lois's apartment where he transitions from Clark Kent to Superman when he thinks about telling her the truth...he honestly looks like two different people in that one body movement). I though Routh was flat in his acting. I think he had moments where he reminded me of Reeve, but there were too many other moments where he just missed the mark. For the most part, I think everyone was miscast in the film except for maybe Spacey and I think that downfall was trying to make him into Gene Hackman's character. If he had the chance to be a more intelligent, sinister Lex Luthor I think he could have pulled it off better.


 * I got the impression that Welling would do Superman now that the show was over. I think he had apprehensions at first, but it looks like he's starting to see that he is this character and it's what he does well (IMO). He stated in a recent interview that he's never been against being Superman on film, just that nothing ever worked out to where he would either take that job or that it was even offered. The suit in Superman Returns isn't really "tights", it's more of a latex. Here is how it appears "today" on Smallville. They've at least replaced that hideous rubber cape with a cloth cape.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That moment you mentioned is brilliant. Simply brilliant acting by Reeve. I think part of the problem with Routh was that they were trying too hard to make him like Reeve; this may have had something to do with his performance as the character. In his Wikipedia article, he comments on not wanting to have been too much like Reeve. And Spacey... Spacey did seem to fit as Luthor, but I get where you feel they were trying to make him into Gene Hackman's version of the character. Overall, it's like they were trying too hard with the film...and not hard enough.


 * Interesting about Welling. I'm glad he's open to it. In the past, I think I read about his apprehension to only being known as Clark Kent/Superman. The outfit in Superman Returns, doesn't it resemble tights? It looked like tights to me. Except maybe, there's some latex muscle definition to it? My memory seems faulty on that right now. I'll have to Google the outfit, LOL. And I saw that outfit at the end of a recent Smallville episode. Was it the most recent? I'd turned it there all late, and felt completely lost. Like I said, I have catching up to do. I was excited to see that Clark will perhaps eventually appear in the suit on the show, maybe the last episode. Because I remember Welling saying he was not up for being in the suit, at least not tights.


 * As for the Titanic article, should the Commercial analysis section really not be a subsection of Box office? I mean, it's mostly about the impact it had on the box office and why. I did the same thing to the Avatar (2009 film) article. But then again, the section at the Avatar article is really only about its box office numbers. Flyer22 (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm hoping Welling will be in the suit for longer than just a couple of minutes. That suit hasn't been seen since the first episode of season 10. We're at episode 16 now, soo....I'm hoping that since the last episode is going to be 2 hours that he'll wear it for a good portion of the episode. I think Welling's comments before were more that he did not have any intention of wearing the suit full time on the show because the show was about becoming Superman and once he wore the suit that would mean the end of the show.

As for the subsection issue, that's merely a stylistic thing that should not be done. It's basic structure rule of thumb: "If you have an A then you must have a B". So, if you can think of a way to separate the Box office stuff into 2 distinct sections then it's ok. Otherwise it shouldn't be in a subsection all by itself for professional stylistic purposes.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping too. Yes, I believe you nailed his slight aversion to wearing the suit. Thanks for the timeline information too.


 * Also, thanks for the style tip. I don't see it strictly carried out by Wikipedia, and I might have missed it in the Manual of Style if it's there, but it makes sense. It just also made sense to me to not treat it as a distinct section. But since "commercial analysis" can touch on or cover more than the box office performance, as it does in the Titanic article, your change seems to make even more sense. Not to mention...it looks better. It was originally titled "Performance analysis" in both articles, to signify that it is analyses of the film's box office performance, but "Commercial analysis" was decided as the better title. Anyway, I'll split it in the Avatar article too, per what you stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you think of this style change I made to the Avatar article, so that the Commercial analysis section could remain a subsection of Box office? If it seems fine, I'll do the same to the Titanic article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing you think it's okay? Or are indifferent to it? The two sections are not super distinct, of course, since they both have to do with the box office performance. But they are distinct enough, I feel, as one is covering the general box office performance (its opening day, what films it beat, records it set, etc.) and the other is covering analyses of that box office performance.


 * I'll go ahead and do the same to the Titanic article. If you object, I will know. LOL. And as always, it was nice chatting with you about films and life. Flyer22 (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (franchise)
Most wikipedia articles mention the abbreviation in the opening sentence. So why you reverted the abbreviation? --Reference Desker (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguated titles of film series articles
I noticed your comments at Articles for deletion/Sherlock Holmes (2009 film series) regarding the title of the article, and thought I'd draw your attention to WP:NCF which asserts that this is the correct disambiguation as per guidelines. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Leatherface1974.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Leatherface1974.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Titanic (1997 film)
Bignole, would you weigh in on this? I'm just...I'm tired. I really am. Flyer22 (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Smallville season 10 airdates
If you disagree so passionately, then please come to the talk page and discuss it. I initially put up a template warning because I didn't realize that you were a seasoned editor (the "This user is an Administrator alerted me to it when I was saving the message). As a season editor, and an administrator, I would expect that you would be aware of when WP:BRD should be put into place. I understand why you keep reverting, but since there is clearly a disagreement I would ask that you simply bring it up on the talk page.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * My original additions, which I thought were common sense corrections to an article that omitted fairly obvious information, were reverted without discussion on the talk page and with only comments in the edit summaries, so I likewise responded via edit summaries, detailed ones explaining my reasoning therein. Furthermore, I attempted to compromise by searching for and adding citations. I do not care enough about this issue (this was never a big deal to me; this started as a casual addition while I was browsing through Wikipedia to an article and topic which I do not regularly edit) to continue pursuing it; I concede, and will agree to let the article stay in its incomplete state, though I disagree with it. In any case, the question will be moot in a few weeks, as the episodes air. —Lowellian (reply) 00:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Chain Saw
It's odd because I usually spell it with "ize" as well, but I think I misinterpreted the FAC comment.-- Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 21:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, could you keep an eye over the article, I'm going away for the weekend. Thanks,-- Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 17:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There might be a sizable review coming in tomorrow, judging by the reviewer's current comments at the FAC, but hopefully we'll be able to sort it out. I don't want to run into a sixth FAC, I don't think I have it in me.-- Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 17:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I'm slightly nervous about this FAC, and when the reviewer adds the rest of his comments tomorrow, I will be even more so, even though I probably shouldn't be. I just think that's it, then it won't be promoted. Maybe I'm being paranoid.-- Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 20:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, we got one oppose based on the lack of chainsaw mentions among other things, but it's not too bad.-- Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 13:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, fingers crossed for this FAC.-- Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 14:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * He's staying firm on his oppose, which, although I don't agree with, it's OK I guess, as long as it doesn't somehow drastically alter the FAC course. I don't even know when the FAC is/should be closing.-- Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 18:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Another person, an IP, raised issue with the wording. I don't understand though, the article has been copyedited several times. If this doesn't pass this time round, I'm thinking of just giving up all together, nothing that's done to this article seems good enough.-- Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 12:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * last FAC was sources, this one is prose. I can't win.-- Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 11:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I raised a suggestion on the FAC page, but now I think it sounds stupid. I'll retract it if you think it's not a good idea.-- Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 15:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * My faith in Wikipedia is dwindling, people seem to demand absolute perfection from the article, or they don't really know what they want. one person wants one thing, another wants something else. I don't know how much longer I can take it. Qutting this project seems almost like a good idea now.-- Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 09:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You're probably right, just got to take it in my stride I guess. 3 years of work shouldn't go to waste.-- Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 13:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, could you check out the proposals a user came up with at FAC about the post-release section? I don't think it's a bad idea, just don't know how to go about it.-- Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 16:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Might need help cutting down some of the post-release stuff, I'm removing the reviews of the sequels and remakes, not sure how to condense all the stuff really.-- Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 17:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure about some of the suggestions by a reviewer at the FAC, kinda seems like splitting hairs in a way, but still, let's keep going on this one.-- Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 15:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael Myers edit.
First of all, I am not being disruptive. I realise that you have been doing this longer than I have, so you feel you are more qualified than I to make decisions in editing.As for my Michael Myers /H3 edit: Yes, it is trivia. But trivia has a place in these matters. And I know this because after an exhaustive search through the Wiki pedia guidlines, I can find nothing that supports your theory that trivia is for IDMP not Wikipedia.And I quote"Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Rules on Wikipedia are not carved in stone, and the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. Be bold (but not reckless) in updating articles and do not worry about making mistakes. Your efforts do not need to be perfect; prior versions are saved, so no damage is irreparable." So the H3 connection is trivia. It doesn't hurt anything or anyone except,perhaps, you and your sensibilities.I will continue to add it in. I think(from what I have read in Rules & Guidlines) that if you should decide to report me for being disruptive, that Wikipedia will not side with you. I hope you will change your mind on this and see it as I do: a bit of trivia that creates a (possibly threadthin) connection in the Halloween series, and actually is one of the few reason that H3 should even be named a Halloween film. And even you would have to admit, having 3 in the title makes it part of the series, even if Michael is not the main focus of the film. Thank you, TheMitch1966 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMitch1966 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing photo from Midnight Cowboy
Hello, Bignole, I am Harry. I was just wondering: why did you remove the photo from Midnight Cowboy? While perhaps it did not contribute to the critical discussion of the film, it most certainly contributed to the layout of the page. Without graphic elements, so many of our pages become vast expanses of "gray" real estate, harder to read, and less likely to engage readers. What harm was there in having it there? As you can see, the grayness of our pages is an ongoing frustration for me. Cordially — HarringtonSmith (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Question about the Jason thing
Hey Bignole. I don't know if you remember, but we had a little disagreement about Jason Voorhees in 2009, particularly about Jason X with Jason's "unexplained resurrection from his death in Jason Goes to Hell", and his confirmed death at the end of Jason X. The film makers have said so, but I'm not here to argue with you again I'm here to ask you a question that's been bugging me.

As the creator of the Original Research policy here (I think), you should know better than anyone that includes unconfirmed theories stated as fact (ie: Saying "Kaepora Gaebora is Rauru the Sage transformed into an owl in Zelda: Ocarina of Time." It's a theory based off speculation and Nintendo has never confirmed it.) Well... Not trying to sound rude, especially to one of the chief admins of this wiki who could ban me with the raise of an eyebrow if you wanted to, but... um... couldn't other users fall under the impression that YOU committed original research by making statements contradictory to the film makers? I'm sure it wasn't your intention, but I don't want people to get the wrong impression of the unofficial ruler of "ErikBignolepedia", besides since you created the Original Research rule why would you disobey it? Ghostkaiba297 (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Clearly you haven't seen the commentary for Jason Goes to Hell (atleast of the part at the end with Freddy), nor the Jump to Death menu of Jason X. If you don't already have them on DVD, you should rent them and check. Saying that he survived would be just as much OR as it would be to say he is dead had the DVD not confirmed it. If there was no evidence, saying "He presumably burns to death" would not be original research, cause with presumed deaths there is a 1% chance of a retcon. But you made the rule, so I guess you state what extents "stated as fact" is. Ghostkaiba297 (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Opinion from regs needed
I am pinging you because you have over 150 edits at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, and have edited the page this month. I have gotten no responses at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film and need some to resume a major cleanup project I have been doing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Monsters University
As one of the more active contributors on the Articles for deletion/Superman (film_project) discussion, I thought I'd alert you to this "future film" article, and wondered whether you had anything to add at Talk:Monsters University... --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

King of the Hill episode articles
Hi there. The coverage of King of the Hill on Wikipedia is a clear problem (just about every episode has an article and the fans are treating this as their community wiki). I tagged most of them for notability issues in January, but presumably I did it wrong because nothing has been achieved (am I supposed to create a central discussion somewhere?). Most of the episode articles (see List of King of the Hill episodes are obvious redirect cases, and you seem to have been involved in this issue before so your advice would be welcome. Thanks. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be willing to help assert notability of any such episodes. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Headers
While it is true that no guideline covers headers, neutrality applies in this situation. There is no good reason to use such "eye catching" headers. Also, while it is a quite good article for the most part and doesn't follow the same fate of many earlier featured articles that passed under less strict FA requirements, we must remember that this article passed for featured nearly four years ago, and I'm guessing that the article hasn't had to be reviewed in any way since. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)