User talk:Bignole/Archive/2009/June

Some interesting asides

The greatest philosophers in world history have made mistakes in logic. It happens to everyone, so when it happens to you it's best to just be honest and humble about it. I would say the same thing about hypocrisy. Everyone falls into that mistake from time to time, too. Human nature is sort of that way. So if you want to take offense, I can't stop you. If you want to share our mutual interest, you can do that, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ring Cinema (talk • contribs) 13:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

"H2 (film)" title change

The official website for the film (http://www.halloween2-movie.com) has changed the title to "Halloween II." Do you think we can change the title of the page back to "Halloween II (2009 film)?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halloweenluver (talk • contribs) 19:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Terminator

So I've seen you editing the Salvation page a lot recently, what did you think of the movie? I saw it yesterday and am happy to say I really enjoyed it, despite the negative reviews. Obviously, it's not as good as 1 & 2, but that goes without saying. I found it really entertaining, with likable characters (besides John Connor, who was a badly acted and badly written waste of space), and overall infinitely better than Terminator 3.  Paul  730 23:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The Arnold scenes were awesome, a total fangasm moment. Bale's batvoice was ludicrous, I kept thinking "why are you talking like that, talk like a normal human being you idiot!". He was totally overracting, it was a disappointing performance, especially from him. I think the character was watered down by the script as well, there was no indication as to why John, of all people, can stop the machines. He just a generic soldier who kept saying "My name is John Connor, this is John Connor". You know your own name, well done! He has much more personality in T2 and SCC, where he actually has a tangible relationship with the machines and more of a rebellious attitude.

Marcus was the best thing in the film, period. I've heard critics say his character was under-developed, but I really got into his story and Worthington totally outshone Bale in the acting department. He was the heart of the film. I actually liked all the Resistance fighters, Star and Blair especially. What didn't you like about Blair, she was one of the coolest characters in the film! They've build up quite a nice supporting cast for more sequels. Yelchin was good (I've not seen Star Trek so I can't judge him there), but I felt like his Reese was a little too cheery and optimistic, not sure if it gelled with the fucked up Reese we see in the first film. I know he's young, but still. The whole future landscape seemed a lot less scary than it did in the first two movies, although it was always conveniently night-time whenever we saw it in those films.  Paul  730 23:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Barnes was just a minor background character, it wasn't like he took up a lot of screentime. He was pretty faceless, but not detrimental to the film IMO. If anyone was a waste of space, Kate was. I just liked Blair because she was strong and rebellious, she wasn't the most developed character but she was likable. You basically accusing her of being a slut seems unfair, she had genuine feelings for Marcus. Talking about human/machine connection, I was disappointed that the John/Marcus relationship wasn't developed further, given John's previous relationship with the T-800. You'd think he'd be less prejudiced towards the machines. Honestly, John was a total cardboard cutout in this movie. They probably should have spent more time on John/Marcus and less time on Blair/Marcus (although I liked Blair/Marcus).

You're totally right, it's just the way Reese was portrayed in the first film, it seemed like he'd never experienced happiness before in his life (I don't know if you've seen that deleted scene where he starts crying in the woods). I guess I was just surprised to see him so optimistic. He was kind of useless as well, I don't really see how he "earned" his Resistance jacket, besides being John's father. Did he do something particularly heroic that I'm forgetting? I think, if they do it well, Reese's character arc could be the major strength of this new trilogy.

I'm really not a fan of Star Trek, but I have heard good things about this film so I might see it. How's Simon Pegg?  Paul  730 01:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Lol, stop trying to wind me up by insulting Buffy. :P It just seemed weird to me that the film made a point of Reese having to earn his jacket, then receiving one at the end for no apparent reason. I was grateful that the film managed to resist doing an "I'll be back" reference. They did give in to "Come with me..." (which wasn't bad) but I don't remember a "Get out". That's a lot of will power for a Terminator movie. I read an interview with Pegg where he said he had to edit out all the dodgy Scottish slang they gave him. At one point in the script, he was going to say "boyo". I don't think I've ever heard any Scottish person say "boyo".  Paul  730 02:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it was obvious that the jacket thing was Kyle's whole character arc in the movie - he had to earn his stripes. Which is a great arc, I'm just not sure he actually did enough to earn it, except being John's dad. It was like in X2 when Bobby and Rogue get X-uniforms because they hi-jacked (and crashed) the Blackbird. You're kind of like "What? That's all they had to do to become X-Men?" Wow, I can't believe I didn't get the "I'll be back" line, I guessed I just switched off whenever Batman started talking. :P I wonder if there was a "Get out" in there somewhere as well.

Yeah, I think Pegg's wife is from Glasgow. Lol, I read that he snuck in a reference to square sausage to add authenticity. Like that's all we eat (I do like a nice square sausage mind you). ;) I really don't know anything about Star Trek, don't think I've ever sat through a whole episode. I've always thought it looked really boring, just people sat at controls spewing technobabble.  Paul  730 03:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

How was it initiative in X2? Rogue just randomly decided to pilot the jet and then crashed it a couple hundred feet away from where it was. Sure, it was ultimately a good thing because it helped them escape faster, but how was she to know the dam was going to break? Why did she do it? And why did Bobby get a uniform when all he did was sit in the passenger seat wetting himself while Rogue did all the work? He barely used his powers the whole film, he was fucking useless. Siryn was way more helpful and she never got a uniform. I guess you need to have a special relationship with Wolverine to get on the team. Anyway, back to Terminator, Kyle showed initiative throughout the movie but there wasn't one specific "Kyle proves himself" moment. I'm being overly nitpicky though, because overall he was one of the best things in the movie.  Paul  730 03:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

But why did she think it was necessary? The jet wasn't that far away in the first place and she risked destroying it completely with her crappy landing. It was stupid of her. I'm not trying to degrade Singer's movie, X2 is one of my favourite films, but that moment never made sense to me. Also, I refuse to defend Singer's Iceman, who is unforgivably weak and bland. In the comics, he's an omega-level mutant (meaning his powers are basically limitless) and the rebellious prankster of the team. In the films, he's... Rogue's boring boyfriend. Aside from the brilliant "coming out" scene, his character is totally worthless. Also, say what you want about Ratner, but at least Iceman actually ices up in his movie. Have you seen Wolverine btw? I really didn't like it, can't remember if we talked about this already.

Hey, I said I liked Reese in the movie. However, you can't use the "time changes people" argument with John, because he changes into a boring bastard with a silly voice and that's just not a good thing.  Paul  730 04:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Rogue's iconic power is her absorbing power, all the Ms. Marvel shit came later. Even so, she is pretty useless in the movies, especially the later two. If Singer wanted her to earn X-Men status, he should have shown her turning her "curse" into a useful ability. That would have been a better arc for her, and they actually touch on it when she zaps Pyro. If they'd followed it up in the final act, instead of that nonsense with the Blackbird, it would have been better. Iceman is usually better when he's a kid. He was the baby of the original X-Men, and my favourite portrayal of him is in X-Men: First Class, where he's only 16. Stan Lee has always admitted he was a Human Torch rip-off, so the more immature the better really. His youth does not excuse his bland characterisation and inactivity in the movies. Last Stand wasn't trash... it was incredibly flawed and disappointing, but it wasn't trash.

I saw the pirate version with the unfinished SFX, so I can't comment on those. One thing that annoyed me was that Cyclop's blasts generated heat (they set his school on fire). Cyclops' powers are not heat based. Do your fucking research. I don't really care about Deadpool, although he was crap. I found the whole film incredibly boring, it really was straight-to-DVD material. The only moment I even remotely enjoyed was the brief team-up between Cyclops and Emma, and that was just a cheap fanboy thrill.

Maybe the leaders don't take John seriously because he sounds so constipated. If he talked like a normal person, maybe they would listen to him. ;) Btw, I forgot to mention, I loved how they explained John's scar from T2, that was brilliant! :D  Paul  730 05:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, yes it is, Rogue's most famous power is her absorbtion. Everything else is just a result of that power. She doesn't even have her Ms. Marvel powers anymore in the comics. And in most adaptations of the character, like the films, two of the three cartoons, Ultimate X-Men, she doesn't have those powers. She may retain other mutant powers for extended periods of time, but the Ms. Marvel ones specifically are not that iconic for Rogue anymore. I agree that the films' depiction of Rogue is lacking; she had a good role in the first film, but the sequels failed to develop her further. I think the films in general are pretty guilty of watering down the other X-Men in favour of Wolverine. The comic book team is famous for it's diversity, with various ethnicities and nationalities, but in the films it's just Wolverine and a band of middle-class American teenagers. Storm and Rogue even lose their accents across the sequels. The Rogue of the comics is much more outgoing and sassy; I can see why they toned that down in the first film, since she's an audience surrogate, but they should have shown her becoming more empowered across the series.

I wasn't really aware of who wrote what, although I did hear John's role was increased due to Bale's casting so that might explain why he doesn't do much, because it wasn't in the original draft.

I think a shared JL page is a great idea and you already have enough substantial material to warrant a page. Just some reception info and you're good to go. How would this article affect their existing sections on the character page? I always thought it was a shame you couldn't have a shared Jonathan and Martha page, even a small one out of principle, but we've argued this extensively before.  Paul  730 22:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The animated series was back in the 90s, the X-franchise has evolved quite a bit since then, and Rogue is now much better known for her absorbtion powers. Quite right too, because it's what makes her character work, not some silly cosmic powers stolen from that D-list loser Ms. Marvel. X-Men Evolution (cool Evolution Rogue fanvid) and Mike Carey's run on the comics proved that Rogue can be totally badass and powerful with just her absorbtion ability, it just needs to be utilized right. The films never really achieved that.

Wolverine is the most marketable character so I have no problem with the films revolving around him. But that doesn't excuse the lazy, bland portrayals of the other characters. Storm is inexcusable, Berry was horribly miscast in that role, we got no real sense of Storm's African backround. She was whitewashed, quite frankly. I think Nightcrawler is one of the most successful, because they retain his appearance, his nationality, his religion, his circus background, and his sense of humour. They achieved a lot with that character, he feels unique instead of a generic American teenager. The overall sucess rate of the character adaptations is really hit and miss. Characters that worked: Wolverine, Prof X, Jean, Magneto, Nightcrawler, Mystique, Pyro, Stryker, Toad. Characters that didn't: Cyclops, Storm, Rogue, Iceman, Colossus, Angel, Gambit, Deadpool, Emma Frost. Others, like Kitty, Beast and Sabretooth, are debatable. Overall, the film series is very good, but a lot of great characters got unfortunately lost in the shuffle.

Well, good luck with the article, it looks great so far. What were you going to use for the main image? That iconic screenshot of them walking away from the explosion?  Paul  730 00:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never liked the 90s cartoon, always found it difficult to watch because of the godawful animation. I've not seen too many episodes, but if they never focused on Rogue's "death touch" then that's a total waste of potential characterisation. I also didn't like how characters like Jubilee and Gambit were in it instead of more long-term characters like Kitty and Colossus. Hated the crappy 90s costumes too, it just wasn't very good. Wolverine and the X-Men is brilliant, you should check that out on DVD.

I counted Toad in the "worked" column because the film portrayal was so popular with fans that they completely redesigned the comic book character. They made him far more aggressive and dangerous, and altered his powers (he never had the tongue before the movie). That doesn't happen very often, so the filmmakers obviously did something right. Sabretooth arguably works in the Wolverine movie (I'm not a fan of the character, so I can't really say) but he loses points for the first film and the bad continuity between that and the spin-off. Singer would've done the Phoenix story much better, but it's actually still very good, and Famke's performance was amazing.  Paul  730 04:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

I am an admin. Was there some particular case you had in mind?Geni 11:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The drop down box only works if the user has javascript turned on so I'm rather hesitant to rely on them.Geni 13:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Nightmare

First of all, it's seems a little over complicated that it be combined with the franchise page. Also, it would be best if Wikipedia editors would devote updates to the page's separate page. The section on the franchise page is going to grow very large in a month or 2. Pretty self-explanatory

Sought | Knock Knock | Who's There? 00:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Nightmareseries: Now that's ridiculous! The new movie (franchise page section or not) is a part of the series. NOTE: The movie link provide in the template would now lead to the the franchise page Sought | Knock Knock | Who's There? 00:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you see I was planning on adding infos for these episodes, I changed the color from white to seashell so white could be used as the color for the infos Sought | Knock Knock | Who's There? 11:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm used to saying info because that's what Comcast calls the plot summaries for programs! Yes, I am familiar with the template adjustment, I am the top editor on the List of King of Queens episodes article. I just wanted to clean up the edit page to be a little easier to access. I also will obviously keep the Freddy sweater pattern too! Infos (plot summaries) to come! Sought | Knock Knock | Who's There? 12:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, also... I will need to change white to seashell to contrast colors for easier separation & reading Sought | Knock Knock | Who's There? 12:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Duh! Sought | Knock Knock | Who's There? 12:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I know about copy & pasting, and I think I know which website you were talking about, but I assure you, all infos will have a much different summary, also I have seen many of these episodes Sought | Knock Knock | Who's There? 12:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Those photos included major details on the movie, what he'll look like, photos of the new set, this is an important update, and I think it should be worked into the future section, if not, it just makes the Wikipedia look outdated. No, the Wikipedia is not a news organization but let's say.... (totally random example) Angelina Jolie announces she's pregnant again, would that be printed on her Wikipedia page? Yes. Also, about it not being relevant? How is it not, and these are by far, the best updates we've gotten yet, but I'm not going to get into an edit war with you. I admit, my phrasing might have been not encyclopedic, but I think these references should somehow be worked into the future section. Thank You Sought | Knock Knock | Who's There? 23:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

New Nightmare Page 2010

Someone created a page, (I moved it to user space) User:TheGodAwfulTruth/A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010), is this enough content for a page or not? Please contact me back, Bye! Sought | Knock Knock | Who's There? 07:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Cinematography, Editor, External Links, Extra cast & characters, Other Extra Infobox information, (this may have been a copy & paste from the IMDb though). Well, at least it's a start, once the article begins creation, we'll go back to his article. Thank You, Oh by the way, I guess because you've done this symbol, : so often, my new message alert doesn't popup, I am going to archive the nightmare section. Feel free to start a new one! Thanks again! Sought | Knock Knock | Who's There? 20:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Season 9

Hey Bignole. I was wondering if we should start a Season 9 page for Smallville with official information. Or should we wait a bit later? ChaosMaster16 (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Re: Request

I don't mind doing the search, but I won't have Lexus access until Monday at the earliest. If you don't mind the wait I don't mind doing the search. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 23:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Freddy Krueger

Hi, just a little curious why you edit Jason Vorhees, Leatherface, A Nightmare on Elm Street etc. but you never edit Freddy Krueger just kinda funny! Also, I've noticed you've removed my new claw photo from the New Nightmare page. You are aware it is still available on Freddy Krueger right? Per:WP:FUC, did you mean me using the photo twice? or the fair use rationale? Thank You, Sought | Knock Knock | Who's There? 10:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Love your new Freddy Krueger page, it seems scarier and much more appropriate for a character type such as Freddy Krueger, I've always thought the page was overly focused on unrelevant topics. Kudos ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 00:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I have added to the fair use rationale of the new claw pic, is this good enough? New Freddy Page: I would have nowhere near the same patience! Your obsessed with Freddy, and I like it! ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 00:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll try and Google it! Also, there is a YouTube video with a little description of the old glove.Interviews with Robert Englund, Heather Langenkamp How they made it, what happened at first with it, funny stories about it, it's kind of short, but it's interesting. I'll give my history a quick scan and try to locate it. Bye! ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 00:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Found it! Much better than I remember, Almost 6 minutes long. Unveiling a Nightmare: Creating Freddy Krueger I'm sure you've already seen it though! ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 01:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't really intend the video to be any type of source, just for personal entertainment, also, can a YouTube video be used as a source as long as it contains to a TV show. Like let's say, Leave it to Beaver, and let's say there is a clip of Leave it To Beaver on YouTube, if I talk about something that happened on the clip can I reference the video? ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 02:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

A Nightmare on Elm Street encyclopedia DVD for some good info? KINDA!!!!!! :0 ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 02:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Per: Your new Freddy Krueger page. I think the in the media section maybe a little irrelevant. It could be useful if grouped into one big section and not divided with spaces. Just a thought! ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 03:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, if [1] is official, then the video is currently broadcast legally, if you click on the YouTube link on the website, it directs you to [2] where there is a massive library of Nightmare related videos, Just wanted to let you know so you don't report them or anything! ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 03:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see, very, very , very useful section then ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 03:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not illegal if it's being broadcast by the studio on YouTube though. That happens quite often with Sony, Universal Music Group + ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 03:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

A Nightmare On Elm Street (2010 Film)

I've replied on my talk page. Station1 (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of File:A nightmare on elm street remake.jpg

This is clearly fan-made. Also, it is against copyrights because it can only be found at one location on the web that is not New Line Cinema-related at all. Wikipedia also has that website on blacklist for spam. The website is www.aceshowbiz.com. It's on the deletion list at this location ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 19:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject

I've created a Freddy Krueger/Nightmare on Elm Street related WikiProject task force. How can I seek approval from the WikiProject Council? Thank You ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 02:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Could I contact some other users that have done serious editing jobs to Nightmare-related pages and see if they might want to back this up? ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 02:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I will ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 03:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, have you checked out Freddy Krueger's page lately? I changed the main pic, it's more encyclopedic! ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 03:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Scroll down..... the old image is still in the article, the previous pic almost appears milky colored, whereas this one is very rich ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 04:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, when you get a chance, please assist in Freddy's Wikiquote page. located here Thank You! ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 04:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, in the old pic, Freddy's sweater appears gray, maybe adding something like "..... in his iconic red and green sweater and handmade claw......." to the image caption of the main photo would help? ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 04:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Gorgeous Images, I picked this one, I'll upload now! Bye! ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 05:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

All set! Image uploaded, Fair Use Rationale in place, image on Freddy Krueger page changed ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 05:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

JL

Looks brilliant. I frankly love what you've done with the costume comparison, that really brightens up the article. :)  Paul  730 22:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds cool. You really think the "killer cut" is a better version of the movie? Caught I get really bored during the uncut version of the Halloween remake and I think it's because the extra scenes make it too long. I'm not sure what versions of Friday will be avaliable here and when, but I'll probably get the special edition. Should be soon though. I'm more excited about Sarah Connor season 2, feels like I've been waiting for that forever.  Paul  730 20:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Nice cover, not very original though, is that the same as yours? I'm pretty gutted about SCC, I loved it so much more than the films and I've only seen the first season. :( From what I've heard, season two was really good but lost a lot of momentum during a series of slow paced character-driven episodes. A few people are blaming that for it's cancellation. I've tried my best to avoid spoilers for the finale, I've heard bits and pieces. Apparently, the finale was really good, I'll need to see it myself to judge whether it was a fitting end to the series. Maybe they'll do a Joss Whedon-style comic follow-up? I think IDW has the license now, though that may only apply to film adaptations (urgh, legal crap).

Have you heard about the new Buffy film? What do you think about it?  Paul  730 22:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually pretty open-minded about the new film and have been arguing against the "it's blasphemy" claims over on SlayAlive. The way I see it is, almost all of my favourite characters exist in various forms... Michael Myers, X-Men, etc... remakes are just something that happens in franchises. If there can be mutiple versions of Batman and James Bond... why not Buffy? There's already two of her. I don't really care that much about it; if it's good, I'll like it, if it's not, I wont. I don't think it'll be detrimental to the show, in the same way Rob Zombie's Halloween wasn't detrimental to the original. There's a lot of fans who are worried it will taint the show's reputation or even replace it altogether, but I'm not worried. There's also some who think it's immoral to take the character out of Joss Whedon's hands, which is an interesting debate.  Paul  730 23:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I care in a way. But not that much. If it's bad, I wouldn't lose sleep over it. It might be interesting to see what they do with it, the same way I don't really agree with what RZ did to Michael Myers, but I still found it interesting. Lol, you just like the original film cause you're a sucker for crappy B-movies. I was watching it the other week... my god, what a piece of crap. Some of the performances are cool, I like Pike and Swanson's airhead Buffy, but it's so cheap looking and Lothos really kills it. The final act totally drags in.

I've heard they want to make the remake "darker". Whether that means proper horror or Twilight-style emo angst is up for debate. Most people think they're cashing in on Twilight, but I hope they don't model the film on that. A "horror" version of Buffy might be cool, since the show was never really scary. Joss doesn't seem too bothered by the film, all he's said is "I hope it's cool". Interpret that how you wish, some are reading it as passive aggressive. I would be upset if they were doing a follow-up to the show without Joss, but since it's a straight reboot, I don't think it matters.  Paul  730 00:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Dates

What are you talking about? Everytime you want to "talk" about something, you don't make any sense. Sounds like I'm talking to a dictionary, instead of a person. R7604 (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't used a dictionary or thesaurus since high school, even then it was rare. Why not just talk properly in the first place. As for the date, what's wrong with it? It still says "as of (current month/day/year), x many of episodes have aired". R7604 (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right I'm not "American", which you should have figured out by now. I'm your neighbour to the North and nope I don't get the "Wiki Lingo" and I don't have time to look up and write down all of it either. R7604 (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I checked the history and looked that accessdates and you know what? That's your personal choice to write them like that. I don't and neither do plenty of other users. Besides that's how I was told to write accessdates when I was first learning how to do references on this site. There was nothing wrong with the way they were. R7604 (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Well how about now? I've seen people do it the way I do it - without links - and so far, you're the only person to say anything. I'm reffering to current accessdates put up in, say, the past week. R7604 (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a yes/no answer. Depends on the article and where I'm reading it. Wikipedia, I wouldn't find it weird, a magazine, yes. R7604 (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Freddy Krueger Infobox

Fictional is needed under the location. Springwood, OH doesn't exist in real life ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 01:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, (2010) next to Jackie Earl Haley is also needed, he hasn't portrayed him yet ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 01:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Also German American is required. He is not just Caucasian ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 01:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the page begin Frederick Charles Krueger (a.k.a Freddy Krueger) ? ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 01:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As for german american, I'm not sure, I never really thought about it, I guess because he seems like it ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 01:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, maybe you can help me out with this I think it could be eventually useful ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 02:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Should Ash Williams's infobox but cut down? ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 02:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I found a couple articles on the claw,YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 02:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure on this, but it does appear almost all of the quotes on the A Nightmare on Elm Street WikiQuote pages are copied and pasted from the IMDb, like it'll say "Ya da ya da ya da" [he said to Tina]. How the parenthesizes are [ ] instead of the usual ( ) IMDb quotes always use the [ ]. It looks like they slightly changed it on a couple though like instead of [He shows off his glove] it's [He displays his knives], and it kind of has IMDb formatting to. Just a thought! Bye! ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 05:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure any Freddy fan would love your sandbox, Freddy's biography on his page now is a mess, it would be greatly appreciated if you would do a clean up and transfer your sandbox soon. Further inspection on your sandbox proves at least 30 % more content ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 22:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yay! Thank You Bignole! ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 23:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Nightmare 2010

Did you read the entire page? Wes Craven's Opinion, the statement about her parents, what they are focusing on, the statement on the plot? All crucial ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 04:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

People are going to keep re-creating this page and it will end up in senseless edit wars. Lets move it's content to A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film) ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 04:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you see the whole page or not? ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 05:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

See it's post on the Administrators' noticeboard here. We'll let other editors and sysops decide also. Sounds fair? ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 05:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The official poster

Hey, the official poster for Halloween II has been relased and can be found on Rob Zombie's Myspace here: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.viewcustom&friendId=28735418&blogId=495726532&swapped=true --Darkness2light (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I Seek To Help & Repair!

Hi, I just wanted to let you know, I am borderline insulted by a recent wave of negative messages I've been receiving from you lately. If you'll compare my recent messages to you and your recent messages to me...

Your's.....

• "Thanks for the GA review. You've been going hog wild on those things lately it appears. To me, it looks like you're showing a lot of initiative in trying to gain that experience for potential adminship"

Mine......

• "I'm sure any Freddy fan would love your sandbox, Freddy's biography on his page now is a mess, it would be greatly appreciated if you would do a clean up and transfer your sandbox soon. Further inspection on your sandbox proves at least 30 % more content'"

&

• "Yay! Thank You Bignole!"

Is this because of this?

If so, I'd hate to think you'd let personal things translate into the way you edit the Wikipedia. Also, I provided additional details on the Freddy Krueger infobox, and you undid them to match up with the Jason Vorhees infobox..... is it my fault the Jason Vorhees infobox is uninformative?

Also, If you'll see this message and this message, you can see I stay formal when being aggressive, that might be something you might want to work on. Happy Editing, ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 20:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

How do you reduce images/posters?

If you don't mind, I was wondering how you do that, so that I could do it next time. Do you use Photoshop or something? - Enter Movie (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiLove

Bignole, I Seek To Help & Repair! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 02:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Scrubs

Yeah, the outlook doesn't look too good...I'll finish up the discussion, and hopefully get more comments from the RfC. Thank you for your help, though; it was greatly appreciated. It's unfortunate that there is so much opposition, and I agree about an AfD. In any case, however the the merge discussion turns out, I'll continue to improve the list, and see what I can do. Thanks again, WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Hopefully people will agree with a merge later, or more editors will come. I'd like to get the article to GA status (I originally moved it to Characters of Scrubs, but someone changed it, and eventually I'll fix it). I never understood opposition, either. It's not like the list of Scrubs characters would be insanely long, and I personally think that the list would look much cleaner. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That's great! Thanks for the help on that, too. Hm, maybe I should start doing so as well. Another user has agreed on the merge (and, they aren't one associated with editing it regularly). Maybe the merges could happen soon, especially sense only one user seems set on defending their opinion against it. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That may be a good idea. Most of the comments opposing the idea weren't legitimate responses, and, as you mentioned, those the IP and user-wh-joined-to-simply-vote. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Currently, I don't. Do you think it'd be a good idea to make one? It would help keep things more organized, and it wouldn't fall victim to editing on the main page. If I did, though, I may name it User:WhiteArcticWolf/Character list, so I could recycle it later down the road when this problem is taken care of. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've created it as User:WhiteArcticWolf/Character list, and have only added sections for the main characters. There isn't much of a need for the rest, sense this is mainly to plan out merges for the main character and as proof that the merge won't hurt anything. Feel free to add J.D.'s profile, and thanks again for your help. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding both Turk and J.D.'s information! Do you mind if I go through and condense/source/etc it? I've cited as much as I can of Carla's section, and all information left is stuff that I know can be proven...I just can't remember the episode currently. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again! I understand you don't watch the show, and it's cool that you stuck around to help out, even up against some of the opposition. Eventually, someone who can remember those specific parts will show up, or I can just ask for help. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The Birds

We're going to add a 2010 section on the A Nightmare on Elm Street page? 'Kay? That's the problem we're going to have with The Birds (film). The new movie has a few details out, what do we do? Add an irrelevant future section? A Franchise page would be stupid. Start a new page right away? Any ideas? ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 23:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I just wrote that Nightmare 2010 thing just to put you in perspective, but now that you say it, it sounds right! ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 00:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Halloween II page move

Hi, you should not disambiguate pages in instances like this. The Halloween II article should be the 1981 film - there is no need to append "(1981 film)" on the end, and a "hatnote" can simply be added at the top stating "For the 2009 film, see Halloween II (2009 film)". I will raise a request soon to have Halloween II (2009 film) moved back to Halloween II. Ok? Thanks. Zzzzz (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned, there is no need to disambiguate in cases like this. As per Dawn of the Dead, a "hatnote" is sufficient. Creating a disambiguation page simply breaks hundreds of incoming links, and is never required when there are only two articles to disambiguate. Please note its not a "popularity contest", there is no "winner" of primary topic, so it doesnt matter that currently a new film is receiving a surge of popularity, wikipedia is not a news site. the original naming convention has now been restored. a single click, as clearly displayed in the hatnote at the top of the article, will take new film fans to the alternative article. cheers.Zzzzz (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The Captain Clegg Wikipedia page that I created got deleted and it was suggested I start a section on the H2 page. I understand the image not working but separate sources including an independent media outlet confirming this CD make it notable. May I try and upload it again?CannibalCheerleader (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've answered every concern of the editors and the photo's licensing is forthcoming. Until then it will remain off the page. CannibalCheerleader (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe I am engaged in an edit war though I disagree with my edits being taken away. I see now the invalidity of Myspace but the other links are now working and I disagree with dmbing down the section to include less information when Wikipedia is about adding more notable information. Surely there is a middle ground. CannibalCheerleader (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Fangoria and Dread Central are independent news blogs that I have gotten information from. They are not personal blogs. CannibalCheerleader (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the title is obvious and I believe it to be notable and something fans will want to read. I also disagree with changing the header but I'll compromise because it seems you are in a war with me and I would just like to contribute to the Wiki community.CannibalCheerleader (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that the band will want to take Rob Zombie's name off of their LP. Besides, I'm going with the official story and you're going off of speculation. I ask that we please put the title back.CannibalCheerleader (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree if only because the story is being carried by entertainment sites (Fangoria and many horror sites) and that the reported title includes the 'Rob Zombie' header. You're not reading the sources correctly and are deleting the title because of your own inferences, not fact. If the title were to be cleared up we could change it but as it stands it includes the header, probably in an effort to sell more records by including RZ in the title. I ask again that we put the actual title up.CannibalCheerleader (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You are simply reiterating your argument - just because you don't think it's relevant doesn't mean that other people don't want to know the title. It seems like a simple addition but you've made an issue out of it. Wikipedia rules do not denote that everything needs to be double-sourced, the one source is fine and the section should include the information. Please reinsert it. CannibalCheerleader (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Fangoria gets their information directly from the source. They have a long-standing relationship with Rob Zombie and undoubtedly as a reputable horror-news magazine they make sure that they have the correct information before they post it. I think the title is worth mentioning because it is unique and not simply self-titled. You are making inferences not only about the content but also in how news sources get their information. I am going off the hard and fast proof. Please reinsert the title. CannibalCheerleader (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Halloween II - Theatrical Trailer

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=59421536 --Darkness2light (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Nightmare

okay, I see. Didn't realize what I was doin', Thank You ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 11:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it's fixed. Also, try and keep future messages on the discussion page so other editors can see what we decided not to do, what we decided to do, what we're going for etc. ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 11:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I have left a couple topics for you to answer on the discussion page. ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 11:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's do this! ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 13:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Now we wait! ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 13:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Then shouldn't Freddy Krueger is a fictional be referenced, supernatural be referenced, serial killer be referenced, from the A Nightmare on Elm Street series franchise be referenced. He is the only character to have appeared in every film in the series be referenced?

Gosh Bignole, For future reference click here! I was merely putting things in perspective, like adding the future section to the old Nightmare page. I feel mass murderer isn't needed, like you said, and I quote "you can simply watch the film to verify that". Isn't that correct? ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 00:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess I can see what you mean, but he's not a fictional character, he's just a character. If he was real, and Nightmare on elm street was a documentary (wow, that would be scary!) you wouldn't call him a character then. Kind of confusing, I'll just leave it the way it is now. Also, if this were true, you'd think you wouldn't want to tell people! :) Bye! ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 20:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Per: List of A Nightmare on Elm Street films cast members. Is this sort of page allowed? I'm about to do major improvements to it, I'd like to know if it going to be kept or deleted before I devote time to it. Thank You! ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 23:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are there 85 references on that page? Why would a cast list require references? ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 23:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are some of the references IMDb. I thought that wasn't allowed? ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 23:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Season 9

Why wait? There's a season premiere date and two different sets of casting news, unless there's somewhere else to put that? R7604 (talk) 04:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

LOE?

First, thanks for correcting the info on Zod, you're right I was going by TV Guide. I've watched Smallville from the beginning but I didn't remember what season he appeared in.

Second, what's LOE? R7604 (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean "Characters of Smallville", because that's the only thing I can find about characters and I don't see Brian Austin Green listed there. R7604 (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I see this prose list or is just for you? R7604 (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Now I see it. May I suggest Season 3's or 5's colour for Season 9, since you seem to repeat past season colours? R7604 (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well how about a nice red? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jon_%26_Kate_Plus_8_episodes#Series_overview It's shown for the specials and after all Clark has become the "red blue blur" and you haven't used it yet. Actually there's two choices of red you could use, the specials or Season one. ;-) R7604 (talk) 04:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What do the DVDs have to do with anything? R7604 (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

For the Infoboxes!

Look, I tired to be polite but still that isn't enough for you. I really really respect your work, Its not good Its EXCELLENT, is Magnificent, I really admire you. But on the other hand I really don't see why we can't have that kind of Iboxes. I understand that you have your own standpoints and opinions for certain stuff what is understandable, but I really don't understand why you don't like them. OK Maybe is a little stupid like you said to have all the relationship things in the infobox, and the occupation things too, but they are fun, and sometimes useful.

Look, when I first got here, I worked on fictional characters pages and all I do was writing about their storyline. What was thing for a Fans Site not for an encyclopedia. And then I realized that I should do some research and write about more important stuff like you do. So because of that please believe me! I am up to good. I don't want to harm you, or underestimate your work. I value your work and respect your opinions. And I also know how is when someone will start working on an article you've build so hard and for so long. And I know when you saw the changes I made, you thought 'who the hell is this idiot to mess up with my articles'. You maybe don't react like that, but I know I would if they were "mine". So Please lets make some consensus, so both of us will be happy. ---Max^(talk) 10:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't POLITE enough. And you have very good arguments and I truly support your standpoints, but again - you said, quouting "despise" those templates, and you said that you act as you are not the "owner" of those articles, but you are. The thing is that its not my problem or anyone else's problem that you don't like the way wikipedia's templates are made, I don't like some them either, but I like the CHARACTER INFOBOX! And there is no argument or any rule that bans me or anyone on this wikipedia to put that infobox, or, oh, wait sorry YOU CAN BAN ME, because you DESPISE THEM. Well that's not my problem, OK? This was rude I know but I had to explain you the imoprtance of this situation. So you are maybe right when comes to putting relationships in the infoboxes, but you are not right about the use of the infobox. So let put the character's infobox there instead of the one its still there, but with the information YOU want, and think that are better. When I'll find something that proves that stuff like relationship does matter I'll tell you.

I didn't put Lana's ancestor as part of the relationship, but I put her mother and her father because they were prety important in the first couple of seasons. She was depresed because theirs death, and she started digging in her mother past. And as a result she find out that her REAL father is alive. And they begin a relationship until she let him go, another important thing. Than there is Chloe, her mother was meteor infected and a important storyline that resulted in season 6, and her father appeared a few times in the show (so he is not only mentioned and I put him). Lex's brothers were also very improtant for the show, maybe not Lucas but when I put the others it was stupid to don't put him too. And the love relationship were pretty important too. Clark and Lana mark the show, Lex married Helen, Chloe had a crush on Clark for hole 4 seasons, Lana married Lex, Clark dated Alicia for not a short time, Lana had an of-aagin relationship with etc. So they are important. Maybe I made a mistake with putting relationships like, Lex's relationship with Victoria, or Lionel's relationship with Genevie (what wasn't really a love one) etc.---Max^(talk) 11:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, sorry for everything. We had a rough start. I think we can be good friends. And I agree with everything you've just said, and OK you are right this is encyclopedia and we need to more "encyclopedical", I mean I should be, you already are. So I agree with everything you said and I would like if its possible we to become good "wiki-partners" at least when it comes to Smallville. So yes I won't do anything to revert your changes, but I would like if not adding something at least modernizing the infobox a little. So example those ":" after the parameters are so old-fashioned, and the width is so large, as so are the images, but everything else is good. I would really like to have the relationship things but I won't do anything to revert that because I understand that that is for Wikipedia's good. And I accept that. So I think that we have agreed about everything. Are we friends, or at least partners? ---Max^(talk) 14:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I do. Its definitely OK! I think that we finally got a solution. I am happy for that. And yes its good, and I think the "em" thing is also good, and the images too. Great! Finally some result. If I had some note or some idea that might help us I'll note you right away. And one more thing. I am working on improving some characters articles from other shows. And because you are so good at this I would really appreciate a help from you. I and few other users made a Grey's Anatomy project so If you want you can join it, if you of course watch the show. And I personally want to improve Ugly Betty articles too. So if you don't watch these show or if you can't help me, can you at least make me some kind of guide where I can find information that can help me imrprove a character article, information about the development, the concept, the creation and etc. about the character. I need sources but I can't find so many of them. And I don't know how to start improving an article, how to start, what to put etc. (I am talking about fictional character articles)! ---Max^(talk) 15:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Nightmare 2010

Found out Retro slashers took it from FEARnet (I corrected the citation). Yeah I see what you mean, didn't look right I guess ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 13:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm, that's odd, I didn't notice you had already corrected the format and I undid my revision myself and it went through, didn't show up in the article nor history, weird, never had that happen before! ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 13:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I see ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 13:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No, much like you can't change someone's quote, you can't change the title of the movie. "....the original Nightmare on Elm Street" does not sound right, "...the original A Nightmare on Elm Street" sounds smoother to me ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 02:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, whatever ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 03:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Are we considering nightmareonelmstreetmovie.com to be a reliable source? I'd say it is ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 22:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The website nightmareonelmstreet.com is just a redirect to the New Line promo division for Nightmare right? Besides plot summaries, no info can be obtained. ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 23:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless he's got a new name (unlikely), I just found out Clancy Brown isn't going to be Nancy's dad. Also, we need to find a reference for Connie Britton as her mom ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 23:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)