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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Here's something interesting, [1], 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)[reply]