Truthpolice7

Re: Alien vs. Predator

Hi. I'm sorry we're having a disagreement over the wording in the Alien vs. Predator (film) article. I'm honestly having trouble figuring out what the difference is between the way you're wording it and what it already said in the article. It already discusses, in several places, who contributed to the writing of the story/screenplay and in what capacities. I've been frustrated by the fact that you haven't supplied any sources to back up your changes or taken up my invitation to start a discussion on the article's talk page. All information that is challenged must be backed up by references to reliable sources. This is one of Wikipedia's core policies (Verifiability). Calling yourself the "truth police" and continually declaring that you're right, without providing any reference or starting a discussion, is a pretty clear red flag for vandalism & reversion.
Anyway, since we've both already broken the 3 revert rule, I'm going to take a look at IMDB and my copy of the movie to see if I can verify the claims you're making. It would help, though, if you could explain exactly what you think is wrong with what the article currently says. Until I or someone else can verify your claims, please leave the article in its current state. It had a peer review and was rated as a Featured Article, so I'm inclined to leave it this way until we can sort out this disagreement. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I have no idea how to list the sources the way that you do. I'm not exactly Mr. Wiki. However, the credit box on this Wiki page (under the poster) is quite clear and verifies what I wrote as does IMDB. There were story credits by Ronald Shusett and Dan O'Bannon and Paul Anderson and therefore it is NOT an original screenplay by Anderson. Also, Salerno rewrote the script but did not receive screen credit -- though he is widely credited with making the film a success -- and therefore should receive some credit -- hence why I put that he rewrote it after I listed the proper story credits. I don't know how to link to things which is why I put on there to check IMDB which carries the final, WGA credits -- i.e. the legitimate credits. My way correctly credits everyone involved properly. Your way leaves out O'Bannon and Shusett entire and credits Salerno for an original screenplay that Anderson wrote and Salerno REWROTE (i.e. he was the rewriter/script doctor) so only Anderson was inspired by...etc...while Salerno rewrote the existing Anderson script. I hope this is clear now. I meant you no offense. But I am correct in everything I wrote and IMDB will verify this if you will just check. Thank you. Take care.

OK, I made some revisions to the article based on what you said. I reworded the opening a bit to make it clearer what Salerno's role was in writing the screenplay/script. Your change to the budget is going to require some kind of reliable source, because there's already a citation in the article to a source that says the film's budget was around $50 million. My biggest problem is with your change to the "origins" section. I changed that back to the previous version, because it explains in some detail Salerno's role in writing the film and it uses a reference to a reliable source to back up the statements. Your version of this paragraph actually removes the reference and the details about the writing process, which simply isn't acceptable. I took a look through the IMDb listing for the film, and it makes it difficult because the only place in which it says anything about Salerno is the "trivia" section, which isn't considered reliable by Wikipedia standards because the trivia is mostly user-submitted (I think). Anyway, there's already a much better reference supplied in the article, and a much more thorough explanation of Salerno's role, so I see no reason to change it to a wording that's less informative and doesn't have a reference. To be specific, here's what the article says now:

• "Co-writer Shane Salerno and Anderson started to work on the film after Anderson completed the script for Resident Evil: Apocalypse. Salerno spent six months writing the script, finished its development, and stayed on for revisions throughout the film's production." (see this reference: [1])

And here's your version of the same portion:

• "Anderson started to work on the film after he completed the script for Resident Evil: Apocalypse. Salerno was brought on by Twentieth Century Fox and producer John Davis for revisions throughout production." (no reference)

The first version gives much more detail about Salerno's role, including the fact that he co-wrote the script, no just that he made revisions. It's clearly more accurate and informative than the second version, so it should stay that way. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

One other note: The previous version of the opening paragraph wasn't technically wrong. As the credit listing says, O'Bannon & Shusset had co-writing credits on the story, but Anderson (and the uncredited Salerno) wrote the screenplay. The story & screenplay are 2 different things, and it's the screenplay that forms the basis for the film. For example, if the movie had been based on a novel, then the author would likely be credited as the writer of the story. The screenwriter, however, is often a different person and is writing an adaptation of the story which is the basis for the film. So saying that the film is based on an original screenplay by Anderson (& Salerno) is technically correct. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Since we still seem to be at odds over the wording, I'm opening a discussion on the article's talk page. Please continue the discussion there. That way other editors who are watching the article can be involved. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Please be careful

I'm not leaving you this message to take sides in the edit dispute above, but do be careful when you undo edits; I just reverted your recent edit[2] because it removed a tag that broke the entire reference. Using the "Show preview" and "Show changes" buttons can catch stuff like that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)