Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey (film)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Booker, M. Keith (2006). "2001: A Space Odyssey". Alternate Americas: Science Fiction Film and American Culture. Praeger. pp. 75–90. ISBN 0275983951. 
• Redner, Gregg (2010). "Strauss, Kubrick and Nietzsche: Recurrence and Reactivity in the Dance of Becoming That Is 2001: A Space Odyssey". In Bartkowiak, Mathew J. Sounds of the Future: Essays on Music in Science Fiction Film. McFarland. pp. 177–193. ISBN 0786444800. 
• Stoehr, Kevin L. (2007). "2001: A Philosophical Odyssey". In Sanders, Steven M. The Philosophy of Science Fiction Film. The Philosophy of Popular Culture. pp. 119–134. ISBN 0813124727. 

TOC

I'm finding the Table of Contents a little long for an article about a movie. I would recommend that some of the subsections be merged or somehow reorganized. If this is not possible, I suggest someone look at how to limit the TOC depth for some code into how to hide sub-subsections. It just seems a little excessive to me. Other movies don't seem to have this issue. One thing that caught my eye is how some of the subsections have similar labels ("Depiction of _____" and "Influence on ____" are examples). I think fixing this would make the article much more organized and easier to read. Thanks. Jessemv (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

There actually is a WP template for hiding subsections which I only recently learned about. Will look it up and apply it. Thanks.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I linked to it. I would still recommend that those repetitive sections be merged somehow. The TOC limit thing will help though. Jessemv (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Orbiting satellite

The "Military nature of orbiting satellites" is excessively long, in relation to the film as a whole. 173.212.94.121 (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It should be probably split off into a separate article. It was the result of a long protracted argument.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

PS. New sections typically go at the bottom of the page. You should click "New Section" at the top instead of "edit".--WickerGuy (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

 !note in "Parodies and homages" section

I've noticed quite a few unsourced additions to the IPC section over time, and I think it might be a good idea to put a !note in there stating our intention to maintain a level of quality by keeping out any unsourced and obscure refs that don't meet that standard. Thoughts? Shirtwaist ☎ 09:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Add:And by "In popular culture" I meant "Parodies and homages"(section title changed) Shirtwaist ☎ 19:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't hurt.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Shirtwaist ☎ 19:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually the entry you reverted could go (with source) in the "Influence on Technology" section of the article. It's certainly one of the more promising attempts to add to this list I've seen in a long time, one I'm motivated to look for sources for (doesn't always happen).--WickerGuy (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't hurt!:) Shirtwaist ☎ 19:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Off topic

The recently reverted edit attempting to establish the satellite as a military weapon was made by the brother of film director Andrew Birkin and actress Jane Birkin, and brother-in-law of French musician Serge Gainsbourg. Sorta sorry it needed to be reverted.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

MW may have a point on film categories

UPDATE 2: OK, not all of these were deleted. One was renamed and you cannot link to the other categories from talk pages, or I'm doing it wrong.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE 3: Figured out how to link to category without categorizing--WickerGuy (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The film studio categories in WP are inconsistently defined. "Category:Warner Bros. films" includes films whose producer OR main distributor at ANY time was WB. Category:Universal Pictures films" is films that were produced or released (release is I believe a bit narrower than distribution- and would cover initial first-time distribution) by Universal. "Category:Paramount Pictures films" is defined the same way as WB. "Category:20th Century Fox films" is defined the same way as Universal.

Although invited nearly 2 years ago, I never joined Wikiproject film. Are those folks minding the store to see that all these categories are being consistently defined? Am I right or wrong about the distinction between release and distribution?

My personal opinion is that ALL the studio categories should be split into TWO categories, production and distribution. Space Odyssey would re production be listed only under MGM. Under distribution it could be listed under MGM, Warner, and Turner--WickerGuy (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean. The wording should be consistent across all such "Category:______ films" temps. It's up to Wikiproject film to create a consensus about this and fix it. Until then, MW doesn't have a good enough argument in this case because of the imprecise wording. I went through the list of "Category:Films by studio" and they're all over the map. Some say "released by", some "produced by", some add "distributed by" to "produced by", and some even say "associated with". What a mess.

BTW, you don't have to "join" WPF, just go there and speak your mind! That's what I do. (Hardly anybody listens to me, but that's another story) Shirtwaist ☎ 11:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)