User talk:Bignole

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

Want to learn how to properly archive? Year 2006 archive Year 2007 archive Year 2008 archive Year 2009 archive December archive January archive February archive March archive April archive May archive June archive July archive August archive September archive October archive November archive December archive

I reserve the right to archive talk discussions at my leisure, but will make sure the discussions are closed before I do (I determine when they are closed). Thank you. See also: Wikipedia:Talk_pages § Etiquette

H2 (title change)

I thought that Universal owned the title rights as well, but I found out that Universal only owns distribution rights for Halloween II (1981). So, Malek Akkad/Trancas must own the title rights then.

Cast List and Executive Producers

Why doesn't Smallville have a cast list in its info box? Every other major series has one, regardless of shake-ups in cast, like CSI, House, Bones, Desperate Housewives, One Tree Hill, etc.

It makes the wiki entry a bit stupid, as it's not easy to find out who's currently on the show. Instead, you're made to read stupid biogs of every main character, some of which are dead, arranged in a pathetic "of overall importance" order.

IMO SV's wiki should only become a "historic reference" page ONCE THE SHOW FINISHES, not during its run.

I also think it's disrespectful, especially the Executive Producers list.

Why aren't you keeping the information current and relevant?

Halloween 2 (2009) Director's Cut

I think it would be best just to let people put a section about the director's cut since most movies that has one has a section for it on here.

Chain Saw

It's odd because I usually spell it with "ize" as well, but I think I misinterpreted the FAC comment.--Tærkast (Communicate) 21:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, could you keep an eye over the article, I'm going away for the weekend. Thanks,--Tærkast (Communicate) 17:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

There might be a sizable review coming in tomorrow, judging by the reviewer's current comments at the FAC, but hopefully we'll be able to sort it out. I don't want to run into a sixth FAC, I don't think I have it in me.--Tærkast (Communicate) 17:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm slightly nervous about this FAC, and when the reviewer adds the rest of his comments tomorrow, I will be even more so, even though I probably shouldn't be. I just think that's it, then it won't be promoted. Maybe I'm being paranoid.--Tærkast (Communicate) 20:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, we got one oppose based on the lack of chainsaw mentions among other things, but it's not too bad.--Tærkast (Communicate) 13:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, fingers crossed for this FAC.--Tærkast (Communicate) 14:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

He's staying firm on his oppose, which, although I don't agree with, it's OK I guess, as long as it doesn't somehow drastically alter the FAC course. I don't even know when the FAC is/should be closing.--Tærkast (Communicate) 18:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Another person, an IP, raised issue with the wording. I don't understand though, the article has been copyedited several times. If this doesn't pass this time round, I'm thinking of just giving up all together, nothing that's done to this article seems good enough.--Tærkast (Communicate) 12:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

last FAC was sources, this one is prose. I can't win.--Tærkast (Communicate) 11:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I raised a suggestion on the FAC page, but now I think it sounds stupid. I'll retract it if you think it's not a good idea.--Tærkast (Communicate) 15:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

My faith in Wikipedia is dwindling, people seem to demand absolute perfection from the article, or they don't really know what they want. one person wants one thing, another wants something else. I don't know how much longer I can take it. Qutting this project seems almost like a good idea now.--Tærkast (Communicate) 09:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right, just got to take it in my stride I guess. 3 years of work shouldn't go to waste.--Tærkast (Communicate) 13:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, could you check out the proposals a user came up with at FAC about the post-release section? I don't think it's a bad idea, just don't know how to go about it.--Tærkast (Communicate) 16:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Might need help cutting down some of the post-release stuff, I'm removing the reviews of the sequels and remakes, not sure how to condense all the stuff really.--Tærkast (Communicate) 17:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure about some of the suggestions by a reviewer at the FAC, kinda seems like splitting hairs in a way, but still, let's keep going on this one.--Tærkast (Communicate) 15:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael Myers edit.

First of all, I am not being disruptive. I realise that you have been doing this longer than I have, so you feel you are more qualified than I to make decisions in editing.As for my Michael Myers /H3 edit: Yes, it is trivia. But trivia has a place in these matters. And I know this because after an exhaustive search through the Wiki pedia guidlines, I can find nothing that supports your theory that trivia is for IDMP not Wikipedia.And I quote"Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Rules on Wikipedia are not carved in stone, and the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. Be bold (but not reckless) in updating articles and do not worry about making mistakes. Your efforts do not need to be perfect; prior versions are saved, so no damage is irreparable." So the H3 connection is trivia. It doesn't hurt anything or anyone except,perhaps, you and your sensibilities.I will continue to add it in. I think(from what I have read in Rules & Guidlines) that if you should decide to report me for being disruptive, that Wikipedia will not side with you. I hope you will change your mind on this and see it as I do: a bit of trivia that creates a (possibly threadthin) connection in the Halloween series, and actually is one of the few reason that H3 should even be named a Halloween film. And even you would have to admit, having 3 in the title makes it part of the series, even if Michael is not the main focus of the film. Thank you, TheMitch1966 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMitch1966 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing photo from Midnight Cowboy

Hello, Bignole, I am Harry. I was just wondering: why did you remove the photo from Midnight Cowboy? While perhaps it did not contribute to the critical discussion of the film, it most certainly contributed to the layout of the page. Without graphic elements, so many of our pages become vast expanses of "gray" real estate, harder to read, and less likely to engage readers. What harm was there in having it there? As you can see, the grayness of our pages is an ongoing frustration for me. Cordially — HarringtonSmith (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Question about the Jason thing

Hey Bignole. I don't know if you remember, but we had a little disagreement about Jason Voorhees in 2009, particularly about Jason X with Jason's "unexplained resurrection from his death in Jason Goes to Hell", and his confirmed death at the end of Jason X. The film makers have said so, but I'm not here to argue with you again I'm here to ask you a question that's been bugging me.

As the creator of the Original Research policy here (I think), you should know better than anyone that includes unconfirmed theories stated as fact (ie: Saying "Kaepora Gaebora is Rauru the Sage transformed into an owl in Zelda: Ocarina of Time." It's a theory based off speculation and Nintendo has never confirmed it.) Well... Not trying to sound rude, especially to one of the chief admins of this wiki who could ban me with the raise of an eyebrow if you wanted to, but... um... couldn't other users fall under the impression that YOU committed original research by making statements contradictory to the film makers? I'm sure it wasn't your intention, but I don't want people to get the wrong impression of the unofficial ruler of "ErikBignolepedia", besides since you created the Original Research rule why would you disobey it? Ghostkaiba297 (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)