Talk:Michael Jackson's Thriller (music video)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeMichael Jackson's Thriller (music video) was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 25, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 15 March 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jbdougherty1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus?[edit]

Is there any consensus for this edit? I disagree with mentioning all visual references to Thriller.-- Dewritech (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It should be avoided per WP:POPCULTURE. Popcornfud (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Um, Visual? Have you actually watched the video? Don't just pull random stuff from thin air. Apart from the visual, the storyline and the music is very similar to the original song.123.103.210.114 (talk) 09:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Werecat[edit]

Comment: The source states The look was created by Rick Baker, fresh from winning the first Oscar given out for Best Makeup for his work on Landis’s American Werewolf. “We made him into more of a werecat because I just didn’t want to do another werewolf,” Baker told Vulture in 2010. “At first I was thinking [it would be] almost like a black panther thing, but … I ended up putting a longer mane of hair on it and bigger ears.” I think "more" is an important word here which is key here which is left out here. Wikipedia just shortens without thinking. He didn't want it to look like the werewolf in the movue so he had to do some changes. The mane is longer and the ears are bigger. The Thriller 25 Book describes it as a monster. The monster behaves like a wserewolf. I think just describing it as a werecat is not correct. Quaffel (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Vox source given in the article says:
In the first scene, he transforms into what most people typically assume is a werewolf ... In fact, Jackson’s transformation isn’t into a werewolf, but into a were-cat.
Per Wikipedia:STICKTOTHESOURCE, we must reflect what reliable secondary sources say. Popcornfud (talk) 09:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read carefully. That's what the author made of the quote. You can find it in the text if you read it. The mae up artist doesn't clearly say it's a werecat. He said MORE of a werecat. Jackson was insired by American WEREWOLF, Thriller's intro features wolves not cats. The monster howls like a wolf and lay the head back like a wolf. You can saysay the mask has features from a cat because the make up artist didn't want to do another werewolf. Interesting fact! No doubt about it. But you can't say it's a werecat. You can't take information just from one sentence. Most people assume it's a werewolf and they have good reasons. I did and I'm pretty sure you did before it was mentioned. I only waste my time with this because I'm shocked that the IP has been blocked for saying it's a werewolf. That's a shame! Wikipedians offend others and nothing happens. But if you disagree on a fact you get blocked. The IP had good reasons to say it's a werewolf. Wikipedia is just too arrogant to notice.Quaffel (talk)

That's what the author made of the quote. Correct. So that's what we report. Because we report what sources say.
The IP editor was blocked (not by me - I am not an admin) because they repeatedly reinstated their preferred version of the article without explanation or discussion, in edit messages or talk pages, even after repeatedly being asked to do that. That's disruptive editing, regardless of the content of the edit. Popcornfud (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. We are talking about two different IP's editing here on May, 31. The first IP restored "werewolf" and was immediately warned by Popcornfud. Only once. Not repeatedly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2601:541:8200:1370:A915:E9D3:D24B:8262 Maybe the IP thought it's obvious and didn't explain. If you read the source in question carefully you dion't need an explanation. Then Popcornfud restored werecat. Then a second IP restored werewolf and later that IP restored werecat and was blocked by a user (not Popcornfud). That IP was blocked witout warning. In fact, the Talk Page is empty. But the "werecat" problem is still there. By the way, the "werecat" problem is not solved yet.Quaffel (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All the IP editors - they're probably the same editor - were removing cited information without explanation. There is even a note in the article explaining that the werecat information comes from a cited source; this was repeatedly ignored. (In fact, it was not just ignored but deleted.) These unexplained edits date back until at least January 2021, by the way. Popcornfud (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The author's conclusion that you are clinging to is far beyond what the man said said Obviously you are unable to understand the quote itself.I don't blame the IP for not explaining or commenting. Waste of time. I won't take part anymore in this fruitless conversation. Probalbly most people won't believe it anyway. If you wan to stick to YOUR preferred version, do so. Maybe you'll be topic banned sometine.Quaffel (talk) 08:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious thing to do, which you have not suggested yet, is to track down some other reliable sources that support your position instead. Why don't you try doing that? Popcornfud (talk) 08:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have one source that you missinterpreted. It's obviuos you can't just say it's a werecat. Why would I do your dirty work? You are just trying to continue this discussion.Quaffel (talk) 09:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misinterpreting me. I'm saying that if you can find some other high-quality reliable sources that say "werewolf", then we can amend the article with a note or something saying "according X source, it's a werewolf, but according to Y source, it's a werecat". Popcornfud (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox, gross/sales fields[edit]

What does "Sales: 900,000" in the gross field of the infobox represent? There is text in the Michael Jackson's Thriller (music video)#Development that reads "Landis and Jackson conceived a short film shot on 35mm film with the production values of a feature film, with a budget of $900,000, much larger than any previous music video." and a tagged reference to Griffin.

Is the 900k "Sales" referencing this budget? AldezD (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Werewolf films[edit]

This category needs removing likely, because a werewolf is a different creature to a werecat. Maybe a category for werecats instead.2A00:23C7:ED18:A301:15ED:C2A8:55CE:5636 (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]