Talk:Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007 film)/Archive 2

Adaptation differences

{{Fact}} tags have been added to the three "variations" (or differences) between the film and Broadway productions; without reliable sources identifying these differences, they are original research. Also, noting the differences between a film and its source work(s) without real-world context is discouraged by MOS:FILM. Creating a section which merely lists the differences is especially discouraged. Perhaps – if these differences are truly of importance – they can be merged into the Production/Development sections.
Jim Dunning | talk 00:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you disagree with this section, I will remove it, but it seems perfectly fine as it is, as long as it's intergrated and changed into prose and not just a bulletted list as it is now. How else are we to compare the two versions of the tale, after all? --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 01:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with this section, but as it stands now it is unreferenced and doesn't explain why these three particular "differences" are significant to the film's adaptation/production process. A Wikipedia editor cannot be the one making the observation that there are differences; that is original research. We need credible, reliable sources to be the ones noting the differences and their import.
Jim Dunning | talk 10:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, that is true. I will hide the text (via <!-- -->) until good, third-party sources can be found; I know I saw something on the internet comparing the different versions awhile ago. Cheers, --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC).

Release date

Most theatrical trailers, posters, adverts, (et. al.) advertise that Sweeney Todd was to be released on Christmas Day, so why was it released everywhere in the US on December the 21st? When was the originally planned date changed? --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 08:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC).

Copyedit

I've (finally) got round to this copyedit, per request. I'll work my way through the article, and post questions/comments/etc in the sections below. Please feel free to alter anything I've altered, continue working on the article, or contact me on my talk page if needed ;) EyeSerene^talk 08:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply

(Not really sure where to put this :P) Thanks for all the help so far, ES. I'll try and assist you with these as best I can (I presume you haven't seen the film or the original).

Best of luck with the rest of it- the plot section is the most troubling, I think. If there's anything that'll stop it from reaching GA or FA, it it that. Let me know if you find anything else tricky about it; some elements may be hard to work with if you don't know the story. Cheers, and best of luck, --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 23:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC).

I've moved your replies under my questions, so it can all be followed more easily. Hope that's ok ;) I do apologise for the time this is taking - just when I think I have some free time, something comes along and fills it... We'll get there though! EyeSerene^talk 13:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :-) Thanks for all the help, again. Keep me posted! --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 05:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• One thing I meant to mention, but forgot - do you have any preference for British or US spelling in the article? It's a British story, so according to WP:ENGVAR it should probably be in B-E, but I'm not militant about it ;) However, I've copyedited mostly in B-E (force of habit!), so the article will need sweeping for consistency in any case, whichever variety we go for. EyeSerene^talk 16:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I tend to prefer BrE (force of habit as well; I used to live in Canada for a bit and have also spent some time in England), but per MoS conventions, it should probably be re-done with AmE spelling (this film is American; only the orig. Penny Dreadful that this is based upon was English and WP:ENGVAR says that's the way it must be done). --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 23:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, I'll sweep for that. You'll probably need to look over it too - it's easier to spot AmE that BrE with my spellchecker (for obvious reasons!) EyeSerene^talk 08:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• No problem. I'll review it now, I'm not sure whether you've swept it up yet. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 16:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead

• I'll leave this until last, as it needs to reflect the rest of the article. However, to comply with WP:LEAD it will need considerable expansion.
  • This should be easy, considering film articles should have a brief overview of the main plot elements in the lead, it'll expand when you add the necessary information. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss
    • Yes, I agree. Once the article body is in good shape, the lead pretty much writes itself. EyeSerene^talk 18:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
      • OK, I've expanded this now - not that it wouldn't benefit from further editing, but hopefully everything that needs to be mentioned has been. EyeSerene^talk 17:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot

• At over 1000 words, I think this may need reducing considerably (by around 1/3 if possible; see WP:FilmPlot). I'm happy to do this, but I'll wait for editor approval before butchering the section ;)

• Whenever you're ready. For some reason, there haven't been very many editors working on this a lot lately. There are some minor editors, but not many WP:DRAGON working on the article, so I'm one of few. :( Just let me know here on on my talk page if you find something that vexes you; again, plot sections can be a bit tricky to handle if you haven't seen the film. Many thanks for all your help! --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 23:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC).

• Additionally, I see WP:FilmPlot states that plot sections should not exceed 900 words unless the plot is complex; I would consider this film to be one of those exceptions to the guideline, as while I can see it needs much cleanup, I can find virtually nothing unimportant or redundant that needs removal. When you get around to it, we'll converse more on how we can shorten this lengthly section. Thanks, --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 18:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC).

• I've been through and trimmed it a little. There is more that could be done, but given your comment perhaps it's best to wait until/if someone objects before over-simplifying things ;) EyeSerene^talk 17:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Good idea. :-) The plot just needs a good prose sweep and it'll do fine. Now, as for how I'll bring this to Featured status, I have no clue, but I guess I'll work it out as I go along. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 03:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• I did tweak the prose as I went, but on a re-read I think you're right, it still needs further work. I won't mark this as done yet! EyeSerene^talk 16:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Something that's peculiar to me is how that little boy was able to kill Sweeney Todd when he was supposed to be a ghost...confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancerette11 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Cast

• I've reworded "Depp first learned of Sweeney Todd in 2000, when he was given an original cast recording of the musical by Burton." as it's ambiguous (did Burton give Depp the recording, or was the musical by Burton?). Hopefully my interpretation is correct, but in any case I think it would help to give more detail. I assume this refers to an earlier musical version of the story?

• To clarify things, the original musical was by Sondheim, Hugh Wheeler, and Christopher Bond. This film, an adaptation, is by Tim Burton, who gave Depp a recording of the original to listen to, and subsequently cast him into the title role.

• Added a few fact tags for stuff that needs citing.
• Moved this here for now from the Depp section, as I'm not sure what it's intended to illustrate: "Especially in the early stuff, there’s something about [Sweeney's] attack that’s haunting."<ref name=nymag/>

• As for the quote, you can go ahead and toss it if you don't think it serves any purpose, but what it generally means is that in the original version, the macabre rage that the title character exhibits throughout the story is haunting and frightening.

• I've delinked lots of words inside quotations (per MOS:QUOTE), but maybe "schmatte" needs explaining? Not sure... what do you think?
  • "Schmatte" links to List of English words of Yiddish origin, so it may be helpful (still, it's your call in this). The other ones, though, you were right to remove — I think the article is way over-linked, anyhow. Note that, however, Schmatte does not have an article unto itself, merely a brief entry at the aformentioned article. Perhaps a link to Wiktionary would be more practical? --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 05:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Please add the link back in if you think it should be there ;) EyeSerene^talk 08:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Production

Development

• Moved these here - not sure they're really relevant:

  Alan Parker expressed interest in filming the tale around the same time.

  Burton had completed a drawing that coincidentally resembled Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter, though it would be years before he met either of them.

• I've tweaked the sentences at the end of para 1 as they seemed a little orphaned. Burton approached Sondheim in the late 80s; Burton went and did other things. Hopefully I haven't introduced any errors!

• Do we have a date for when Mendes began working on a film version of the story?

• "Logan felt he and Burton "share[d] stunted childhoods watching Amicus movies" agreeing over the film's tone." I reworked this into what I think it was getting at - again, it needs checking :)
  • Wow, I think these are all ok. :-) Excellent! --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 18:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Filming

• "Burton said "the studio was cool about it and they accepted it because they knew what the show was. Any movie is a risk, but it is nice to be able to do something like that that doesn't fit into the musical or slasher movie categories."" Which studio is this? The text mentions three - can we name them?
  • This is a little confusing to me, as well. Do you think they are referring to Warner Bros. or Dreamworks (if that's even what the text is getting at)? --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 18:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure, to be honest. It mentions three studios further down the article too. I'll do some digging on t'internet... EyeSerene^talk 18:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Sounds good. ;-) --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 18:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, IMDB gives five production companies here, including Dreamworks and WB. I'll chase this again tomorrow when I've got more time. EyeSerene^talk 19:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Okay, no problem! --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 00:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Music

• As a general point, the soundtrack album might be best in its own article - I don't think one would normally expect to find a soundtrack listing in a film article (not at FA, anyway), but as it's a musical, it may be acceptable. Your thoughts?
  • Just yesterday, and editor merged the article—now a redirect— with the main film article. While I objected to this initially, especially after the result of the AFD, when I talked to the editor, he claimed that the article did not meet the criteria for inclusion, despite the fact that it was reviewed by the New York Times and was the soundtrack of an Academy Award-winning article. What are your thoughts on this: Shall I split it back? --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 13:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I hadn't seen that! Isn't Wikipedia wonderful sometimes ;) I don't have any massive objections to keeping it in the main article, although I still think it would be best in its own article, or possibly merged with an article about the original score (if there is one). To say it doesn't meet inclusion criteria is to misunderstand the criteria - one of the main reasons for the film's notability is its soundtrack. So long as it's more than just a tracklisting, it should be fine. EyeSerene^talk 14:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I might remove the track listing completely if it doesn't serve much of a purpose or will compromise the overall quality of the article. What do you think? --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 14:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I think I'd be inclined to leave it in for now, and see how the article develops. If you're planning to take it to FAC, it may be brought up there. While most similar FAs don't have tracklistings, I notice that A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant (a stage musical) does... although whether that soundtrack would be notable in its own right is debatable. EyeSerene^talk 14:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
          • In that case, I'll leave it per your suggestions. I'm not sure how it'll do now at GAC, but with your help it will be capable of FA status with a little work. ;-) Thanks, --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 14:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC).

• "Sweeney Todd has joined Ed Wood to become one of few films in Tim Burton's career with music not composed by Danny Elfman." This is only two films - can we say "...to become the second film in Tim Burton's career..."?
  • Sounds good. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 13:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about inline citations to Amazon (these probably fall foul of our linking policy), but I'll check first!
  • These definitely need to go. I don't recall seeing them before in the "references" section, but they surely don't belong here. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 13:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
    • That's what I thought. They do back up the release date, but per WP:LINKS I'll get rid of them. We may need another source there in that case. EyeSerene^talk 14:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I'll try to find some shortly. :-) Also, be sure to keep track of Talk:Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007 film)/GA1! --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 14:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Watchlisted! EyeSerene^talk 17:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Brilliant. Thanks for the help so far, ES. :-) --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 17:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Release

• I think we need more details on the release. I assume "The movie opened at the box office with $9,300,805 in 1,249 theaters with an average of $7,446 per theater." refers to a US release? Do we have release dates for other countries?
  • I had thought the article mentioned the wordwide gross, but it may have been removed (or maybe it was just an insane Wikipedia dream I had one night :P). I am still unsure about the release date: All theatrical trailers adverised that it would release Christmas Day, but everywhere in the US it was released four days earlier. Have you found any sources for the release date? I'll try to find some soon, as well. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 15:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, I've just noticed they're in the cited source. I'll add them in. EyeSerene^talk 16:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• I've reorganised things a little, and trimmed out some redundancy. I'm a bit dubious about the Top ten lists section - it's mostly unsourced, and I don't think it would hurt to remove it completely (a couple of examples are already mentioned in the previous section). Your call though ;)

• "Helena Bonham Carter won the London Evening Standard British film award." This was tagged on the end of that section, but doesn't actually say what she won it for (and it's unsourced). Should it stay or go?
  • I'd say remove both until/unless someone finds good, reliable sources for such claims. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 17:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, sorted. EyeSerene^talk 18:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

References

• These need going through for consistent formatting... everything is on WP:CITET if you want to make a start (although I usually leave this until last, and combine it with a MoS sweep).
  • If you want me to get to it now, I won't have any problem doing so, but perhaps for simplicity's sake we should just leave it until the end. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 18:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, no probs! EyeSerene^talk 18:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi. I will be your host today, if you need anything, just say it! Anyways, on to the review:

• Y The lead should be expanded. Perhaps add a second paragraph, discussing the plot.
• Y Could " Plot" be shortened? It's pretty long as it is now.
• Y Some of the references need to be formatted per WP:CITE/ES preferably with {{cite web}}.
• Y Insufficient references in "DVD & Blu-ray Disc release" and rename the section to "DVD and Blu-ray disc releases"
• Y Link: "21 December "
• Y Generally speaking, please give the entire article a thorough copyedit so that there aren't any major grammatical issues and such.

Gary King (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Prior to this article being nominated, I requested that User:EyeSerene copyedit the article (at the time I was far too busy to do so myself). He is currently rather busy himself, and I have contacted him on his talk page to ask about the present status of the copyediting. Most of these issues would normally be dealt with by him, but if he cannot copyedit the article within a day or so, I'll attempt to improve the article accordingly myself. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 01:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I will also attend to the review suggestions, and thank you Gary for evening the score by reviewing a GA I nominated :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I should get a clear run over the next few days, so hopefully we can finish up before the end of the week. EyeSerene^talk 09:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Great job so far! What hasn't yet been done already? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to pick from the various comments above ;) The cites still need formatting (as we're heading FA-wards eventually, I think using the templates on WP:CITET would be best, although Gary King quite rightly hasn't asked for it as part of this GA review!), and I'm sure any further copyediting would be very welcome. EyeSerene^talk 17:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, many thanks to EyeSerene for the brilliant copyedit. He did an excellent job, and there aren't many contributers to it nowadays besides Judge, EyeSerene and I, so it was much appreciated. Is there anything further we should work on to improve its quality, or is it ready? --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 21:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The other concerns I listed need to be addressed – only the prose has been worked on so far. Gary King (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right. ;-) I need some sleep, forgive me. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 06:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Gary, could you elaborate "insufficient references" per the list of concerns? I don't know if you mean purely unreliable sources, dead links, or just references that won't do. Thanks, --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 06:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC).

There are [citation needed] tags in that section, which need to be resolved. Gary King (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Done. :-) --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 07:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

← Please resolve all [citation needed] tags. Gary King (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The references are not all quite formatted yet. References 30–33 are all not formatted, for example. Please check them all to ensure that they each have at least a title, URL, publisher, and access date. Gary King (talk) 07:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Gary. I will resolve said issues promptly (tomorrow). For now, I need to get some sleep before I inadvertantly destroy Wikipedia and all its editors. :P Thank you all for your patience, and happy Fourth of July! Cheers, --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 07:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC).

The ref formatting is at the top of my to-do list. I should be able to get it done today... EyeSerene^talk 09:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought I got it all (I used Ctrl+F to find all the tags, but it took awhile), but I suppose I missed three. While you're formatting that, ES, I'll find references for the [citation needed] tags. It should be easy; the uncited quote about Bonham Carter's desire to fill the supporting role since she was eleven, for instance, was heard in a commentary on the DVD. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 15:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A brief query: does this make a reliable source? It appears to be somewhat of a fansite, but would solve some referencing problems in the article, and appears reliable. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 15:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

From a brief once-over, parts of it look ok. Certainly the interviews it reposts are good, although I'd suggest sourcing them to their primary source rather than this second-hand one if possible (btw, just to be clear, I mean tracking down the original interview rather than copying sourcing off the site :P) EyeSerene^talk 16:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No problemo. Thanks for the assistance! --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 16:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think that's all of them. I hesitate to say this, but we may need to look for a better source than IMDB for the alternate versions stuff - IMDB isn't generally regarded as WP:RS. EyeSerene^talk 17:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll try that, as well. I agree, IMDB is better as "External Links" (or "Further Reading") material. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 17:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

M'Kay...Anything further? --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 23:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, wow, a lot of discussion has taken place since I last commented here :) Give me a moment and I will take another look. Gary King (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

---

• "Box office release data. Box Office Mojo, LLC. (correct as of March 20, 2008). Retrieved on June 30, 2008." – correct as of is not necessary – that's what the retrieval date is for ;)
• Link the date in "Cinema Fans Accuse Sweeney Todd Of False Advertising. femalefirst.co.uk (February 5, 2008). Retrieved on July 4, 2008."
• Remove "from" in "2008 MTV Movie Awards Winners from MTV.com. Retrieved on June 7, 2008."
• Could a better reference be found for "^ Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007) - Alternate versions. IMDb.com, Inc.. Retrieved on July 4, 2008." since that's IMDB, a source that is not always reliable?

Gary King (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. Alrightie, I am on it. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 04:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the (correct as of March 20, 2008) in the first reference; it appears in the references section, but is not in the Wikicode in the infobox. Could someone double-check to see if it is there? --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 04:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a note on that - the retrieval date shows the date the website was last accessed, but the 'correct as of...' is the last time the box-office figures were updated on the site. The two are different. EyeSerene^talk 08:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Marcus Theatres not running 'Cloverfield'. Retrieved on July 4, 2008." needs a publisher Gary King (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This one is done. The rest of them I cannot remedy because I can't find the markup that's causing the undesirable text. Can anyone else see it? --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 16:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The other stuff are in the references. Gary King (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha! I've cunningly hidden my disruptive edits beyond all human ingenuity to find :D Seriously, I'll have a look. Are we OK with the "correct as of..." one per my above comment? EyeSerene^talk 17:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless it can't be removed, it should probably be taken out because that information can just be accessed on the page (I assume). BTW, I can't find any other references for the international versus american version info (other than IMDB and pages quoting IMDB, so I'll have you take one last look, and if you can't find any still, we'll throw it out. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 17:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I've got all the date formatting in the refs now. I do think that "correct as of..." is important, because it prevents misleading the reader - the figures may change again (as I noticed they had from what was originally there during my copyedit), and unless you want to keep checking the website and updating the article accordingly... EyeSerene^talk 17:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, then. I can't seem to find the inconsistency of 21 December, however. Maybe the same is set in my prefs. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 17:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Neither can I - I've left Cornucopia a note asking where they are. EyeSerene^talk 17:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

← Hi, any update to this? Gary King (talk) 08:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe all your points have now been addressed, with the exception of the "figures correct as of...", which hopefully I've justified above. However, if you insist on it going, we can do that too. Cornucopia has fixed the dates (s)he mentioned (see talk page), so hopefully there's nothing now outstanding? EyeSerene^talk 11:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, this discussion was getting long and unwieldy and I got completely lost sitting here while you guys worked away :) I'll take a second look now. Gary King (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I made this edit which I think keeps the information but makes it more succinct. Revert if you disagree, though. Anyways, the article looks good now, so I'm passing it. Gary King (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gary; no arguments with your edit ;) EyeSerene^talk 10:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Dates

Could there please be some conformity? Some are written as December 21, while others are 21 December. I tried changing one, but I was reverted. They are the same thing, I know, but conformity would be nice. :-) Corn.u.co.pia ĐЌ Disc.us.sion 03:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I was certain that I changed them all to 21 December for consistency, but perhaps it was changed (I've missed a lot of edits on my watchlist while at work, apparently). I'll be sure to change them back as soon as possible. Thanks for letting us know! --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 04:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hang on! I was the one who changed them back, the reason being that dates display however they are set to display in the user prefs. For example, if I type [[12 December]] and [[December 12]], what I'll see on screen is 12 December for both - that's the way my preferences are set. I'm not sure why you're seeing inconsistent dates. EyeSerene^talk 17:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Eh, but what difference does it make if it all shows up as 21 December; Why the need to change it? I'll go and switch them out. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 17:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Because readers without accounts will see them how they're displayed in the markup, and if we're going with AmE for the article, the date formatting should default to that (December 12, as opposed to 12 December). However, Cornucopia's right that they should be consistent for that reason. I thought they were, but we've obviously missed some. EyeSerene^talk 17:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: BTW, the reason I reverted Cornucopia was that (s)he had missed some in the markup, and it was just easier to change them all back than to trawl through the rest of the markup swapping days and months around. I was basically being lazy, for which I apologise :P EyeSerene^talk 17:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message EyeSerene. Well there seems to be some confusion, probably my fault. I meant 21 December and December 21 as an example, I just saw that date and wrote it down. Some of the dates are now written like 18 December and 21 December, but others (eps. in the DVD and Blu-ray release section) are written April 1 or May 19. Notice the alternating month and dates, well that's what I thought needs conformity. Either write them all this way (eg.) April 1, or this way 1 April. I think April 1 is the most common form, though I think either way is fine. Corn.u.co.pia ĐЌ Disc.us.sion 02:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 02:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe all the dates are the same now. Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 06:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, Cornucopia. EyeSerene^talk 09:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 16:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

FA Push?

It looks good!! How about a copyedit, and a FA candidacy? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what Serene and I are working on now. :-) The more the merrier, I suppose... —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 02:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clear things up (regarding Helena's referencing Angela Lansbury

In the article, there was a slight edit war over a quote of Helena's regarding "By the Sea" and how there's nowhere to breathe during it. In the Sweeney Todd official film guide book thingy by Mark Salisbury, there's a quote that refers to it:

"'By the Sea' is really tricky because there's no space to breath at all," [Helena] explains. "I was comforted to read that Angela Lansbury had said she confronted Sondheim and said, 'Well, where do I breathe?'. And he said, 'I didn't write anywhere you could breathe. You just don't.'"

You can find the quote on page 81 of the book. I hope that clears it up. TakaraLioness (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Funny because I was just about to commend you for reverting my edit on that. I just watched the interview (the film guide book is essentially just a written version of the interview; it's all spoken in the special features section on the DVD), and you're right. It wasn't an edit war though, I only reverted it once. :-) Cheers. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 01:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hehe. Yeah, I guess it wasn't a total war. I just didn't know what to call it. ^^; But I'm glad it's all settled. :) TakaraLioness (talk) 04:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(LOL) Not to worry. Cheers, —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 04:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC).