User talk:Bignole/Archive/2010/April
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Bignole. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Not transcluding episode lists?
Just saw your edit summary. What discussion do you refer to? The {{Episode list}} template says to transclude episode lists when split into multiple season articles, that's why {{Episode list/sublist}} was created. I guess the discussion was not to transclude because they weren't using the {{Episode list/sublist}} format, and that the plot would also show up, and creating a really long main page as you stated. Xeworlebi (t•c) 14:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- No, it was based on the fact that the average editor (typically the IP) would get lost if they tried to edit the LOE pages. When they click "edit" there's nothing there. It would discourage editors from editing articles if they didn't understand how HTML worked, and thus violate the spirit of Wikipedia where anyone and everyone is encouraged to edit. Secondly, if someone vandalizes the season page where those are listed, then it shows up on two pages. I mean, for me it's a Catch-22. It discourages editors and makes any vandalism to the table twice as visible, but at the same time I find more vandalism to the LOE page than to the season pages (so to me, it would actually eliminate some of the vandalism). Last time I checked, the discussion is archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 12, and apparently ended abruptly without true resolution, but people wanted some way for the coding to bring the editor directly to the actual table, no matter if they were on the season page or on the LOE page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. I've also never used them for the Smallville pages because those are true "articles" and not additional lists like most season pages. As such, my work on them generally makes them considerably larger (between 50 and 90kb of both readable prose and HTML code), the episode templates are bulkier than the hard code that I use - thus they make the whole page longer to download. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- The {{Episode list}} is a widely used template and used on nearly all FA-EL articles, the FA articles that don't use it were promoted before the {{Episode list}} format existed. It insures formatting consistency throughout different articles. Transclusion makes editing a lot easier, as you only have to edit in one place, and it insures that you don't create two pages witch should have the same info (excluding the ShortSummary) but have different info.
- I know that List of Stargate SG-1 episodes puts a note next to
{{:Stargate SG-1 (season 1)}}with<!--Dear editor: Please go to [[Stargate SG-1 (season 1)]] to edit the episode summaries.-->would adding that be better as information? - I've read part of that discussion, and what they wanted, having you edit the transcluding content on the page is basically impossible, which is why I think it kind off died out. Xeworlebi (t•c) 16:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- Could you better explain your reversion of my edits, please? There is no reason to have two columns for Episode number, when one will suffice. I don't understand the reasoning of "Anchor". From what I've just read about HTML anchors, you wouldn't need both of them to be an anchor. It's a needless column that is better represented by a single colum with both figures in it. What episodes aired earlier outside the US? The only ones that I'm aware of are the ones for season 7. The show is an American show, unless otherwise specified it's redundant to say "US Original Air Date" - especially when we automatically know it's the "original" air date and not a repeat. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- The ones from season 7, it's just for clarification and consistency throughout the series. The
|EpisodeNumber=parameter should only contain the series number, it also creates an automatic anchor to[[#ep_]]with_being the number filled inside|EpisodeNumber=, when combining these tow you 1) go against the templates guidelines, 2) create convoluted anchor links. Xeworlebi (t•c) 18:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- The ones from season 7, it's just for clarification and consistency throughout the series. The
- Ok, then "original" is still redundant. What template guidelines? There are guidelines for this template that say not to mix both the season number and the series number? How does it create convoluted anchor points? I tested the LOE page and it looked and worked just fine when I removed the extra column. Given that both columns are optional, it shouldn't make a difference, especially when the anchor can be whatever you want it to be. If the episode listings are "12 (1)" or "1" or "01", it's all a matter of what is searched. Most people don't search by typing "List of Smallville episodes#45" anyway- because it's an absurd way to look for one episode. The average reader isn't going to keep every episode number cataloged in their head. It would make much better sense to have "Title" be the anchor point, because that's not an optional parameter, and something the average reader is much more likely to search for (e.g., "List of Smallville episodes#Tempest"). Also, couldn't you use "Aux4" instead of "Aux2" or "Aux3" - as it makes better sense to have the Nielsen ratings come after the air date, given that they're the last thing to be identified for an episode. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
(←) |EpisodeNumber=: A number representing the episode's order in the series. It should be used for only the overall number, |EpisodeNumber2= is for different orders/season number. The Anchors have nothing to do what people search for but links towards a specific point on the episode list for wikilinking. If you want to make the title an anchor point you should ask for it on the templates talk page, as I have no control over that. I base the layouts on what is most used and preferred to keep consistency throughout episode lists.
Done: for column placement, most episode lists put them between writers and air dates though. Xeworlebi (t•c) 19:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to have an edit war here, but the "series overview" table is seriously redundant and unnecessary. It states everything the other tables state (i.e. when the show premiered and the finales for each season). We have tables that do that. We don't need to coddle the reader so much that we have to summarize our summaries. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- Series overviews are in frequent use especially for shows with more than four seasons. Additionally the series overview provides more info then currently on the page, and the premier and finale don't really belong in the ratings table. A series overview does what is says, it gives an overview, similar to what the infobox on the main article does. Xeworlebi (t•c) 11:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- But it doesn't give an overview. There's no prose information. It isn't even summarizing, it's just re-listing dates for no apparent reason. That's all it does. The main dates--when the show first premiered and when it started it's most recent season, or will start a new season--are in the lead. The lead is visible when looking at your "overview" table. The season tables are immediately following your "overview" table. It's redundant to just repeat information like that, when it doesn't actually help a reader. If all they cared about was basic dates of when a show premiered and ended each season, they wouldn't need us. IMDb has that for them. The page used to have an "overview" table, but it was removed because of the redundancy. The TOC lists the seasons and the years they were broadcast (they were added back in April to aid in such endeavors). Any average reader, needing to know when a particular season aired, can click on the TOC link and be taken directly there. We really don't need a table that just reiterates exactly what the other tables do. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- By that logic we could just remove Wikipedia in it's entirety, since everything is sourced all information is available elsewhere so users could just go there. An overview doesn't have to be in prose, in fact a table is better for overview then lengthy text. Just like an infobox, it presents basic information quickly an structured, like for example that season 9 has 21 episodes, which I couldn't find on either the main article, episode list or season 9 article. It summary is always an reiteration of the same info, and thats exactly what it's supposed to do. Xeworlebi (t•c) 13:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- But it doesn't give an overview. There's no prose information. It isn't even summarizing, it's just re-listing dates for no apparent reason. That's all it does. The main dates--when the show first premiered and when it started it's most recent season, or will start a new season--are in the lead. The lead is visible when looking at your "overview" table. The season tables are immediately following your "overview" table. It's redundant to just repeat information like that, when it doesn't actually help a reader. If all they cared about was basic dates of when a show premiered and ended each season, they wouldn't need us. IMDb has that for them. The page used to have an "overview" table, but it was removed because of the redundancy. The TOC lists the seasons and the years they were broadcast (they were added back in April to aid in such endeavors). Any average reader, needing to know when a particular season aired, can click on the TOC link and be taken directly there. We really don't need a table that just reiterates exactly what the other tables do. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Not really. All of the information is on this page. You have created a table that summarizes the lead (which is a summary of the whole article), the Table of Contents (which summarizes the sections of the page), and then each season table (which is itself a summary of the season pages). You've basically created a summary of the summaries. How can you not see that season 9 has 21 episodes? The LOE page and the season 9 page both list "21" as the finale episode count for the season. It isn't like the page takes a minute to scan. All your table does is say when a season began and ended, and how many episodes were in it. None of that is "different" than what the other tables say. None of that information is so important that it needs to be stated immediately so that the reader can get an idea of what the page is about. It doesn't even tell important information like what the title of the episodes were, who wrote and directed them....it's bare basic information that is stated twice already (sometimes three times for select dates). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- These series overviews are in frequent use for a reason. Of course it doesn't state what the episode titles are or who the writers are, of course is the information not different, thats why it is called an overview it is supposed to only give basic information. You can't see that season 9 has 21 episodes because it nowhere states that, the season could be 500 episodes for all I know but the info just not available yet, which would not be included in the table in that case. Until now you have objected every attempt to standardize these pages. Xeworlebi (t•c) 14:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that other articles are including redundant info, does not mean that every article should. It isn't stated at WP:MOSTV, which would be where it should be stated, that it is mandatory to have a table on an LOE page that summarizes the tables on the individual sections of the page. I have objected to every attempt to standarized? Really? I reverted myself when I realized you weren't including the plot summaries in the "standardization", and since MOSTV doesn't say you have to use a template for the episode tables, then it wasn't like I couldn't object to them. I also gave in to the inclusion of "US" in the air date section, even though I think it's needless given that the show is American and everything else is stated based on American figures. I believe that it is you who have objected more to my changes than I to yours. Every time I try and tweak something you come in and revert me flat out. BTW, production notes need reliable sourcing. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, you just blatantly reverted assuming that I transcluded the plot, without looking. And now again, just blatantly reverting assuming that the production codes were from IMDb, I don't actually think that the production codes are available on IMDb, or at least very well hidden as I can't find them. The production codes have the same source as the writers, directors, episode titles and air dates: the episode itself. There is no such thing as mandatory on wikipedia, WP:MOSTV is a guideline and as such just a guide for how to present info. It is in many cases outdated and poorly updated when WP:MOS and other guidelines changes. For example the guidline on bolding character and actor names was not changed untill at least a year after this was changed in editing consensus, on WP:BOLD and on WP:MOSFILM. Every episode list not using {{Episode list}} is converted to using it, none the other way. Articles including an episode list attempting to reach FA status will see converted to the template. It is general consensus between editors on episode lists to use the template for standardization. Nearly all newly created episode lists use it and the ones who don't use the template were either created before it was in use and never converted or created by a new user unfamilliar with the existence of the template. Not every preferred way is listed in the manual of style, which generally lags behind editing consensus. As something becomes widely used, it is included in the MOS only when it becomes popular and generally accepted. Xeworlebi (t•c) 19:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, but see that means you're going about it in reverse. You should be bringing it up at the MOS, and then this way the MOS can be updated. What happens is that people go behind the scenes and start their own discussions and then a year goes by and nothing gets updated because they never actually had a discussion. You know, you could also bring the changes to the attention of all the TV editors (i.e. by noting suggested changes at WP:TV and WP:MOSTV), so that pages can be updated in a timely manner. The "mandatory" (or standard use) of the episode table template was never brought up at WP:TV or WP:MOSTV. Hell, the sublist template wasn't even created until October 2008, which was about 2 1/2 months after MOSTV was officialized, and it wasn't a topic of conversation when the MOS was being created. Hell, the use of the basic episode template wasn't even in the conversation, and if it was so preferred and utilized back then why didn't someone mention it? What you'll find in the archives are topics on how to update and change the template, but none (at least not in recent years) to "standardize" its use...at least no discussion at the appropriate pages. It doesn't matter, because I didn't fight it (with exception being initially, when I thought you were including the plot section, given that I wasn't aware that the sublist page even existed to ignore that section of the episode table). As for the "overview" section, I've started a discussion (Since you haven't responded, I assume you don't watch the page, so here is the link) about it to see if the "precedent" is truly necessary anymore. Just because something is done by most articles doesn't actually mean it's good to do. Trivia sections and IMDb used to have precedence in articles years ago, but we stopped including trivia sections and IMDb as a source for a reason. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- That's not how the world or Wikipedia works, something becomes popular, widely used and generally accepted before it is put into a guideline, rule or law. Especially in this case, for WP:MOSTV regularly lags months behind the rest of the manual of style and general consensus. I saw your post, I often choose to wait and see what others think independent of my comment. I have also started a request for inclusion of the template in WP:MOSTV as it has become standard in episode lists. Xeworlebi (t•c) 17:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, but see that means you're going about it in reverse. You should be bringing it up at the MOS, and then this way the MOS can be updated. What happens is that people go behind the scenes and start their own discussions and then a year goes by and nothing gets updated because they never actually had a discussion. You know, you could also bring the changes to the attention of all the TV editors (i.e. by noting suggested changes at WP:TV and WP:MOSTV), so that pages can be updated in a timely manner. The "mandatory" (or standard use) of the episode table template was never brought up at WP:TV or WP:MOSTV. Hell, the sublist template wasn't even created until October 2008, which was about 2 1/2 months after MOSTV was officialized, and it wasn't a topic of conversation when the MOS was being created. Hell, the use of the basic episode template wasn't even in the conversation, and if it was so preferred and utilized back then why didn't someone mention it? What you'll find in the archives are topics on how to update and change the template, but none (at least not in recent years) to "standardize" its use...at least no discussion at the appropriate pages. It doesn't matter, because I didn't fight it (with exception being initially, when I thought you were including the plot section, given that I wasn't aware that the sublist page even existed to ignore that section of the episode table). As for the "overview" section, I've started a discussion (Since you haven't responded, I assume you don't watch the page, so here is the link) about it to see if the "precedent" is truly necessary anymore. Just because something is done by most articles doesn't actually mean it's good to do. Trivia sections and IMDb used to have precedence in articles years ago, but we stopped including trivia sections and IMDb as a source for a reason. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, you just blatantly reverted assuming that I transcluded the plot, without looking. And now again, just blatantly reverting assuming that the production codes were from IMDb, I don't actually think that the production codes are available on IMDb, or at least very well hidden as I can't find them. The production codes have the same source as the writers, directors, episode titles and air dates: the episode itself. There is no such thing as mandatory on wikipedia, WP:MOSTV is a guideline and as such just a guide for how to present info. It is in many cases outdated and poorly updated when WP:MOS and other guidelines changes. For example the guidline on bolding character and actor names was not changed untill at least a year after this was changed in editing consensus, on WP:BOLD and on WP:MOSFILM. Every episode list not using {{Episode list}} is converted to using it, none the other way. Articles including an episode list attempting to reach FA status will see converted to the template. It is general consensus between editors on episode lists to use the template for standardization. Nearly all newly created episode lists use it and the ones who don't use the template were either created before it was in use and never converted or created by a new user unfamilliar with the existence of the template. Not every preferred way is listed in the manual of style, which generally lags behind editing consensus. As something becomes widely used, it is included in the MOS only when it becomes popular and generally accepted. Xeworlebi (t•c) 19:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that other articles are including redundant info, does not mean that every article should. It isn't stated at WP:MOSTV, which would be where it should be stated, that it is mandatory to have a table on an LOE page that summarizes the tables on the individual sections of the page. I have objected to every attempt to standarized? Really? I reverted myself when I realized you weren't including the plot summaries in the "standardization", and since MOSTV doesn't say you have to use a template for the episode tables, then it wasn't like I couldn't object to them. I also gave in to the inclusion of "US" in the air date section, even though I think it's needless given that the show is American and everything else is stated based on American figures. I believe that it is you who have objected more to my changes than I to yours. Every time I try and tweak something you come in and revert me flat out. BTW, production notes need reliable sourcing. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Michael Myers images
My bad... shoulda seen ur message before i REuploaded it. Thank you. User:Thrashcanman16 —Preceding undated comment added 15:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC).
My bad... shoulda seen ur message before i RE-uploaded it. The User:Thrashcanman16 says thank/f*** you... :) —Preceding undated comment added 15:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC).
Smallville (season 1) bot attack
On March 13, I fixed a link which caused a whole sentence to be bolded. [1] Now on April 4 the bot User:FrescoBot has broken it again and caused a flood of bold to be released throughout the paragraph.[2] Is there something I am doing wrong, or has the bot gone bananas? —Mike Allen 21:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not to drop into this, but I fixed it using the {{'s}} template. Xeworlebi (t•c) 22:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well that solved that problem. Thanks. —Mike Allen 01:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Friday the 13th
All of the above linkage is within a paragraph. Can't there be one listing of all the films in the franchise that have links to the said article? It's easier for reference than reading through a paragraph. 98.221.124.80 (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Halloween II (2009 film) GA
Hi Bignole, just to let you know that I have started reviewing Halloween II (2009 film) for GA. I will let you know when I'm done. Regards, --BelovedFreak 18:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- I've finished my review and placed the article on hold.--BelovedFreak 21:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- You're probably going to experience some editing conflicts on it. Just a heads up. —Mike Allen 23:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Checklinks says that fangoria.com is blacklisted. When did that happen? —Mike Allen 01:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oh I see they have 404'd. Fangoria sucks. They're one of the sites you have to web cite as soon as you reference it, because they will mysteriously vanish later on. I've already made a habit of web citing all refs in articles I work on. May be time consuming but it saves time in the long run and prevents having to remove valid information. —Mike Allen 01:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, I think these two articles may be substituted for Fangoria: [3] [4] —Mike Allen 01:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I've commented further at the review page with regards to breadth & the reception section, hopefully clarifying what I mean. If you wildly disagree with me, I'd be happy to ask for a second opinion. By the way, I don't think that I mentioned that I haven't seen the film. That can be both an advantage and a disadvantage; in this case I think it's helped me pick out a few points that are slightly unclear to the uninitiated. Anyway, good luck and let me know if you have any other queries or concerns.--BelovedFreak 09:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, few last points to be addressed at Talk:Halloween II (2009 film)/GA1 - nearly there! --BelovedFreak 15:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations, it's passed!--BelovedFreak 16:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Freddy image
I was wondering when this image of Freddy was going to show up. If I remember correctly it's not a real image of Freddy. Some guy photoshop the available images of Freddy and posted it on a forum. All of a sudden it hits the horror sites as being real. The guy himself admitted to it. —Mike Allen 05:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- I just dug it up: See here and here. He posted it on March 20 and the metadata shows it was edited in Photoshop on March 20. Just a FYI if you didn't already know. :) —Mike Allen 05:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well.. I'm sure when the film is released (because it doesn't look like we are getting any official pictures of him) the critics will talk about his transformation. Then we can write about it. At least, I hope they talk about it. —Mike Allen 05:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've had a stab today at composing a parent article for the Jaws films. I've based it loosely on the article for the Halloween films. If you get the chance, could you possibly skim over it and offer any suggestions? I'm aiming to get it to GA so that it can become a GA topic. The JPStalk to me 22:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Again
For the reminder to chill a little and your attempt at helping with the Sherlock Holmes movie weirdness; it's not the first time I've been involved in edits that result in - how do I put this delicately - strange responses. However, it was the first time I've seen things go down quite that way in wikiland. I appreciate your attempts to clarify further, even if it didn't seem to help. I was extremely frustrated, in case you couldn't tell. So yeah, thanks, and as always, happy editing. =) Millahnna (mouse)talk 00:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Smallville
Hey, do you have the ratings for the season one through four premieres and finales? I am in the process of making a new table, and these numbers would be interesting. Let me know either way, thanks.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
- I think the 8.4 number is correct. User:ChaosMaster16/Eclipse has all of the ratings. The problem is: I found a forum that lists the ratings (in two decimal places) for seasons 1 through the last few episodes of season 8. I compared the numbers listed on here to the site and the site seems correct, so would we be able to use it? I mean, if the number was 5.67, it lists it as 5.7 or if the number was 3.41 it lists it as 3.4, but why not use it as it is the only reliable source that we have so far. Also, what do you think of the table? I think it is easer to compare the seasons.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
- How about if we remove the season 1, 2, and 3 finales, and the season 3 premiere number, putting "N/A" in it's place? Having 3 empty spaces out of 18 isn't that bad, imo.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
- The season dates should be kept though, it makes it easy to just look in that column and know that season three was aired in 2003-2004. And if any episodes do get aired in the summer, summer ratings differ from the usual broadcasting and (im pretty sure) their ratings are counted toward the next TV season. So if The CW were to move episodes from season nine off the schedule and air them in the summer, we would end up putting TV Season 2009-2011, even though the season did not air a single episode in 2011. Where as in the episode list, you would list it from 2009-2010 because you are presenting the format as "This is when the season started and literally finished broadcasting".ChaosMaster16 (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
Read before talking.
You went and told me that I need to do this and that. Claiming that I am trying to do something that was tried days before and when I was told that I couldn't do it I changed to the tactic that you wanted me to change to. Then, after over two days you then start attacking me telling me that I need to do what you are saying. Sorry, but when I start getting attacked because you don't know what was going on then it is time for you to stop talking. Don't tell other people what to do until you know what is going on. If you do, when they tell you you don't know what they are talking about, you can't go change history and act like you weren't aware of the situation when you sent comments on the situation before. Jlavigne5771 (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Broadcast Finals vs. TV Ratings
I am wondering if the "Broadcast finals" from TVbytheNumbers is really reliable. It comes from Travis Yanan's twitter. Who is this guy? How does he determine these finals? I believe the TV Ratings (that is first posted on TVBTN) is more reliable as it comes from The Nielsen Company. What do you think? —Mike Allen 01:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- I couldn't find that they come from Nielsen. I know the "estimates" have "Nielsen TV Ratings: ©2010 The Nielsen Company. All Rights Reserved." at the bottom. The finals do not, which is why I'm confused. It's not really a problem, but I'm seeing editors using the finals on Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 11) and I change it back to the other. Although I did add the estimates on the Smallville season 9 page (some forum was being used) and Chaosmaster changed it to the finals. I reverted back once but I sure wasn't going to edit war over it, lol. I mean if it really is coming from Nielsen, then I will start using the Finals. I will have to change all 20 refs on L&O:SVU. Sometimes it seems like most of my time spent here is cleaning up my mistakes... :P —Mike Allen 03:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- I wonder why The Nielsen Company doesn't post ratings on this website. Why do they have to go through a third party? Mike Allen 17:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Smallville closing credits music
You are correct I shouldn't have made an assumption about ow many people have never heard the closing credits music.
On the other hand, this is undisputed (just not written down anywhere that I'm aware of, but it should be, just apparently not on Wikipedia until someone else does it): anyone who only saw the network broadcasts never heard this music. That's probably millions, but yes, we don't know how many. I myself never heard the music until the episodes went to syndication and I saw a few I had missed. I checked the closing credits article and Wikipedia doesn't have anything on WB or CW doing this, but I'll look around sometime.
It seems significant to me. And yet no reliable source we know of has it.
I was commenting on the official CW message board how much I enjoyed Louis Febre's work wthin the episode.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, there is something in the article in Wikipedia about the standardized credits, but they only mention CBS, ABC and NBC, and some of the cable channels. I think people must have complained about Two and a Half Men getting cut off by my CW affiliate at the end because we now get to hear that great closing theme. I would sit down to watch a CW show and they'd just cut it off after a few notes or leave it out entirely.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Alien
I agree with you, especially since the "culturally influential" bit is explained in detail later in the lead. But I doubt our pedantic friend from the talk page is going to agree, or abandon his (now) 3-year campaign to adjective-up the lead sentence. Somehow the article wandered off my watchlist so I hadn't been noticing the changes to it over the last month. I'd recommend responding to Pedant17 at Talk:Alien (film)#The perils of bulk-reorganization as to your reasoning, because I'm certain he's not going to let go of the issue. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Jason Voorhees
Jason Voorhees is a fictional character from the Friday the 13th series of slasher films. He first appeared in Friday the 13th (1980), as the son of cook-turned-murderer Mrs. Voorhees, and was portrayed by Ari Lehman. Created by Victor Miller, with contributions by Ron Kurz, Sean S. Cunningham, and Tom Savini, Jason has primarily been an antagonist in the films, whether by stalking and killing the characters, or acting as a psychological threat to the lead character. Since Lehman's portrayal, the character has been represented by numerous actors and stuntmen, sometimes by more than one at a time. Kane Hodder (pictured) is the most well known of the stuntmen to portray Jason Voorhees, having played the character in four consecutive films. The character's physical appearance has gone through many transformations, with various special makeup effects artists making their mark on the character's design. Filmmakers have given Jason superhuman strength, regenerative powers, and near invulnerability. He has been seen as a sympathetic character, albeit one whose motivation for killing has been cited as driven by the immoral actions of his victims. Jason Voorhees is a highly referenced character in popular culture and his signature hockey mask is a widely recognized image. (more...)
Hey, there. I noticed that the 30th anniversary of the release of Friday the 13th will be on May 9. You may or may not want to put in a request for the Jason Voorhees article to be displayed to mark the occasion; the choice is yours. I believe the article would get a total of 4 points; 2 for being the 30th anniversary of the character's introduction and another 2 for being promoted over two years ago. I've added a blurb above if you want to use it. Alternatively, I could add the request to the page if you would find it easier. Regards, Pyrrhus16 15:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)