User talk:Bignole/Future films and reference guidelines

Film synopses
Due to the persistence in regard to the symbiote's origin at Spider-Man 3, I'm considering the deconstruction of the film article to avoid a description of the plot, only to quote the official synopsis or at least re-write that synopsis alone. What we've done with the Plot section so far is a pretty light form of synthesis, as we even use a picture and the movie storybook for the last two citations of the section. This seems like something that would happen again with films that have strong fanbases. I wouldn't be surprised if Transformers ran into some disputes with usage of leaked footage and so forth.

Basically, the Plot section is supposed to reference the film itself. In lieu of the film being available, we've drawn together outside citations. I don't believe what we have is wrong, but the disputing nature over what will be simple in the end makes the process seem weary. The film is the final product; it's doubtful that all our current information will be wrong, but these details were drawn together in the past, where things may actually be different in the end. I'm just tired of repeating the policies and guidelines, and it seems best to reduce the Plot section to solely the official synopsis until the film is public to everyone for verifiability's sake. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Can we actually just take the official policy and paste it into the article? Even citing it I don't know if that is "appropriate", but I'm not sure. It isn't like we are going to be nominating the article for anything any time soon, but for passerbys. Should we just take the official one and just reword it to be a paraphrase?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, let's request this option on the talk page. In addition, we could also send the dissenting editor to create Spider-Man 3 (novelization), have his own playground for writing all about the book.  What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur Sir Erik. I'd point him to the new article and also to WikiProject Books.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The proposal's been made. Perhaps we can instead link to the novelization's article with a disclaimer that the information may not reflect what is in the film. I doubt the article would be in good shape right off the bat, but it'd be a nice, well, redirect until the film comes out. It should be easier to make our film vs. novelization arguments without all the other variables (film magazine, photos, etc) involved. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So much for studying, huh? Shit.  And Lost comes on in less than an hour... —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm working on a late dinner with the lady. You're lucky, Smallville isn't new until the 19th. Speaking of Logan's Run, did you hear that Mr. Stone just picked up the picture.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I just put the headline in my future-articles subpage. I guess for some reason I thought it was old news, maybe 'cause ol' Silver (not Stone) says he'll do a lot of things. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Been thinking, and I don't think we should have them create a "Spidey novel" article. Adaptations generally don't get any press outside of fandomes. When was the last time you saw an adaptation make it to the best seller list?  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I've already contacted the dissenting editor about the option to do that. Not sure how I can take it back now?  I suppose I'm not too concerned with the quality of Wikipedia articles outside the scope of films. :-P —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I couldn't remember if it was Silver or Stone, but mow that I think back I remember them mentioning The Matrix in the article.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Current films
While I don't have an issue with these guidelines that we're doing here, this seems like a subset of a possible set of guidelines that would address the overall content of released films. We discussed budget info today, for example, and we can back up the uncertainty of actual budget info with citations like the one you've found. I guess it would be something more specific than the style guidelines at WikiProject Films; who knows, maybe we can propose to include that information gradually for the sake of comprehension. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think it's something that, if we are never positive about, won't be devastating to the article if it isn't included. I'd rather we get it right then feed rumors. Because it's data, so it isn't like you can take an NPOV stand about it, it either is or it isn't.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll do you the favor and house the subpage under my handle -- you've created subpages for Spider-Man (man, I wanna get that done sometime) and the future film guide. I'll have a link back here toward the end of my subpage.  We can address future film issues here and current film issues on the appropriate subpage. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's cool. Yeah, I keep putting so much on my plate, I think my arms won't be able to carry it all. I think that once I finish either the first Friday film, or Jason, that I'm going to take a break with that get back to the Spider-Man article. That should be easier than the Friday films, as it's more recent.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Here it is. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I got it saved on my watchlist.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

IMDb
I would definitely recommend a focus on exploring IMDb's reliability based on a recent discussion. It's apparent that IMDb is taken for granted. This would probably be one of the first steps we'll need to take in future AfD discussions or in regard to the creation of articles about future films. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I saw the discussion. It seems the only argument is "IMDb has it listed, so we should too."   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I asked him because his user page caught my eye in terms of his work with AfDs. I was hoping for something more enlightening, but I guess film articles require a different argument than most other issues that undergo AfD discussions.  I might ask at the help desk and similar places on Wikipedia for independent editors' thoughts, though it does seem so far that IMDb is generally well-received.  We'll need to outline something to explain its fallacies. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If only we'd thought of this sooner, we could have screen captured all of its mistakes..lol. I think the most convincing is that one interview you found about Ghost Rider. You can't get more convincing then a director saying "yeah, that IMDb don't know their shit" (well, paraphrased of course).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

We can try using the Wayback Archive to find the cached copies. I actually tried to look for the copy that showed Aunt May as Carnage in Spider-Man 3 (using Google search results to figure out the time that it popped up), but the Wayback Archive was pretty slow. I'll give that another shot to help support our goal. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, I remember why I couldn't find it. Its last copy was May 11, and sites like Digg.com reported it around May 29.  The Wayback Machine only presents page archives after a certain amount of time, I think.  Maybe in the next month or so, we'll see it?  I'll try to do the screen capture thing, though I'm not sure where we can host our images?  Just Photobucket or something? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, photobucket would be best. If you are going to use that, I'd make a special one just for this type of stuff. Because you wouldn't want people to have access to your other photos, if you already use Photobucket. If you don't and you find the source, I'll take the screen capture and load it up. I've removed all personal info from my photobucket.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, that seems to work, though I'd probably treat screen captures as a last resort. It may be a better alternative to present citations like Digg.com (but more attributable) that say at one point, IMDb showed inaccurate so-and-so information on the page for the film.  Speaking of attribution, what do you think of this citation citing a letter from Logan's Run author William E. Nolan, hosted on GeoCities?  I ran "new line" "logan's run" through Access World News, but there wasn't a single headline with these keywords in the 1990s. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you could argue for its reliability based on the copyright tag at the bottom, if someone questioned it.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I have other citations to use from my future films subpage. I'll use that as a last resort.  I did a few merges today for Onimusha (film), Street Fighter (2008 film), Voltron (film), and Spy Hunter: Nowhere To Run.  Just did Knight Rider (film) this past hour.  I also revised my link repository to mark film articles that may need to be redirected, but I basically took care of the lighter projects that did not have much history at all.  Stuff like Luke Cage and The Punisher 2 are trickier, but will be done in time. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's something interesting,, it's a page that talks about not only what IMDb is, but criticism. Some of the criticisms include the difficultness of getting factually inaccurate information removed, and that being a new user and providing information can basically guarantee that whatever you provide won't be used (kind of like when I created an account and then provided them with an interview with Singer about the Superman Returns budget).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's from Wikipedia itself; I found the revision. No criticism section exists on the article today; kind of creepy, no?  Looks like it got phased out.  This is definitely something to follow up.  Nice find! —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but I hate when someone copies information from a source and doesn't say so. I didn't pick up on the fact that it was from Wiki...did they say somewhere that it was from here, or do you just know that page? I hate when I do a search for something and "answers.com" pops up, because their every page is a direct copy of Wikipedia. But at least we have something that addresses some of the IMDb issues.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I just recognized the structure of the article to match the kind that's seen on Wikipedia, especially the linked subjects and the section titling. Like you, I'm familiar with Answers.com, so this seemed like something similar.  The page mentioned the "latest" update of how many films have pages at IMDb, so I took that date and dug into the page history of the site's Wikipedia article. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Logan's Run
I've gone ahead and redirected Logan's Run (2007 film). It's probably the most appropriate course of action, since there's currently no director, cast, or production start date that's been mentioned. Not sure if I'll get any kind of backlash for the merge; I'm finding that such a course of action is a lot quicker than what we've done. It's too bad that we can't redirect JPIV anywhere -- if there was a film franchise article, then the content could be redirected there until production is actually underway. I also almost thought I was getting backlash for merging Knight Rider (film) to its source material, but the editor who initially reverted did not notice the migration of the content. So, whew! It's good to follow up on my intents. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 06:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * One of my initial concerns (just all over the place here tonight, I know) was not being able to monitor the specific sections about film adaptations on the source materials' articles. I sort of figured out a way around this, but I won't implement it in a massive scale.  For Knight Rider and Logan's Run, I revised the history of both films in the film articles, then I merged the content to the source materials' articles.  I plan to do Ender's Game (film) next; I'll interrupt the redirect briefly, establish the content on that film article's page history, then restore the redirect.  I'll copy the information onto Ender's Game as well, but this is sort of a wiki-strategy of "tucking away" valid content so later a comparison can be made to ensure that nothing's been messed with.  I'll only do this for articles that have already been created, though -- I don't want to create articles and then redirect.  That'll be too much unnecessary maintenance.  So, yeah.  Now I'm off to bed at the nasty hour of 3 AM. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 06:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if I fully understand what you mean, but it sounds like a valid idea.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess it's sort of a backup plan so I don't have to keep on my watchlist the articles for the source material. Since edits are made on other parts of the article, I don't want to occupy the watchlist anymore than I have it now.  In having the information available in a revision prior to the redirect of a film article, it's easily available in page history.  With articles about source materials, there may be too many edits to really make sure that the "Film adaptation" section hasn't been corrupted with bad information or vandalism.  Maybe it'll be obvious to tell, maybe not.  Just one of my late-night hijinks, I suppose. :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, let me know how it goes...which should be in about 2 years for most of those films.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeez, outline my wiki-future for me, why dontcha. :) I was actually being nostalgic this morning and looked at what Spider-Man 3 looked like back in August 2006.  There's been 2,384 edits since what I think was my first contribution, to fix vandalism.  Just think -- we get to go through that all over again with Spider-Man 4! —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear lord don't remind me. Then again, I wasn't apart of the page when it first started, so I think that if you, Wiki (er..Alientraveller) and I (I'd include Ace but I haven't seen him in forever) stay on this from the beginning then I think we'll be just fine.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Aren't you forgetting someone else? Did they ever say why they became less involved? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming you mean TX. Looking at their contribs, they've been limiting their edits, probably over that massive Essjay scandal (as per their user page). They came back a week or so ago and reverted Alien for something. It seems like they are more focused on the comic articles themselves. That's why I said mainly you, Alien and myself, because it seems that even Ace has focused himself more on the comic articles.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm sad about the downsizing of the company. What do you think of the Essjay incident, anyway? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I vaguely remember running into him once, and that was it, nothing that stood out memory-wise. What he did..I don't know. Concealing your identity, not a problem, but if he used false information (mainly false credentials) to try and bully people out of an argument, as he was accused of, then I think that is wrong. But, I don't feel too much sympathy for anyone that ended their discussion on the basis of him saying "well I have a PhD in _______" or anything like that. I've been around plenty of people that were an authority in a certain field and they didn't know EVERYTHING in that field. If he was abusing Admin power, then that is wrong too. I've been blocked by an Admin because he didn't like my opposing his stand; he didn't get anything but a warning after I was unblocked, but abuse of power is out there. But, we don't know the gritty details of every action, so it's hard to say. You?  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)


 * I don't believe that editors' real-life backgrounds should ever be considered for their edits. If an editor wants to make a point regarding information or a certain perspective, they can provide a reference or a previous consensus by editors to support their view.  The incident doesn't really affect me because it's less likely for people to wave around credentials with these film articles under my wing.  The power of Wikipedia is that anyone can contribute, where a teenage editor is just as capable as a senior editor, given the right comprehension and skill.  However, I would not treat Wikipedia as the gospel truth, especially when it comes to articles mired with controversy, such as 300.  I believe a reasonable attempt should be made to present both perspectives, but nitpicking to find that perfect balance is just overkill.  Like I've said, I try to work on films that I like or would like, and the journeys have been worth it.  For example, the recent addition to Spider-Man 3 felt appropriate to include, as opposed to some ROFLMAOeRz "That dude from That 70's Show plays VENOM!" edit.  Heck, when I read a film article, I'm always cautious when I don't find a footnote at the end of it, doesn't matter who adds it.  There's grammar nazis; well, I'm a cite nazi. :)  Anyway, I know Wikipedia has good intentions, but I do believe that it would be a shell of its former self if all uncited information was removed from its articles.  So yeah, to conclude my spiel, an editor's credibility should be based on his Wikipedia contributions.  I look forward to hopefully having two purdy stars on my user page for The Fountain and Fight Club when I promote them after the end of this semester. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no doubt that you will. You can almost guarantee that you'll have one for S3 once it's been released (well, maybe a couple months after). I know what you mean about taking Wiki with a grain of salt. I had an editor (and you can see on my talk page) basically say that if we cannot trust that Wikipedia is right, then what is the point of having it.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Relevant discussion for notability guideline change on future films
See here; I thought you'd be interested. Girolamo Savonarola 19:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)