User talk:Darkwarriorblake/Archive 17

Precious anniversary

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as always Gerda Arendt Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plot section in articles

Hello, I have a question for you. Why is the Plot section in so many FA and Good articles unsourced? Doesn't this violate WP:OR? Pereoptic ^Talk✉️  13:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:FILMPLOT: "Since films are primary sources for their articles, basic descriptions of their plots do not need references to an outside source." It's also unlikely to find a reliable source that details an entire plot. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. best Pereoptic ^Talk✉️  16:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image sizes

Hi, I was just hoping for some clarification on a comment you made. After I put a new photo of George Lucas on the page for The Empire Strikes Back, you said "You don't specify image sizes." What does that mean? I scaled the image to what I thought was an appropriate size.

Thanks! Wafflewombat (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't specify image sizes. The images are viewed on different screen sizes and specifying the image size messes with that for people because it will always be 256px regardless of the size of the screen. There's no need to specify sizes, the image as it was and is, is no different in size to what you specified except it doesn't create issues for users. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it's 256px? On the Help:Pictures page it says, "By default, thumbnail images on Wikipedia have a width of 220 pixels (px)." Wafflewombat (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point is the standard size and your specified size are impercetibly different, but one allows for it to scale to the device and the other doesn't. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks for clarifying. Wafflewombat (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:TV series - Banshee Title Card.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TV series - Banshee Title Card.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Empire edits

Hi, I have a few questions about edits I made to The Empire Strikes Back, which you reverted. I hope you don't mind; I'm a new editor and I'm still learning a lot, so it's helpful for me to ask questions of more experienced editors.

1. When I moved the location of several images, you said, "messing with image locations messes with the entire formatting of the text." Are you saying that once an image is in an article, it can never be moved?
2. There was a sentence that I modified, which you reverted: "Anthony Daniels was reluctant to return as C-3PO because he had received little public acknowledgment for his previous performance as the filmmakers portrayed the droid as a real being." I removed the underlined portion because it didn't make sense to me. Since you restored it, can you please explain to me what it means? Why would an actor receive little acknowledgment for his performance as a droid if the droid was treated as a real being? Shouldn't it be the other way around, that he may have received little acknowledgment because the droid was not treated as a real being?

Thanks! Wafflewombat (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You moved images specifically adjacent to text where the subject is mentioned which either introduced large amounts of blank space, compressed text between images on the left and right, or just generally made the article look messier and difficult to read. They've been positioned as best as possible stay self-contained in their own sub sections so as to not interfere with the following subsection. It's not always perfect but the changes made were significantly worse off. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The studio treated C3PO as if he was a real being and deemphasized Daniels' involvement so he wasn't getting much recognition or credit for his role in the original film Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Regarding C-3PO, here is what Rinzler says:

On August 3, 1977, R2-D2, C-3PO, and Darth Vader had put their footprints in cement in front of Grauman’s Chinese Theatre, but Anthony Daniels was the only actor from the film present in costume—and even he was feeling a great disparity between the fame of his character and the trajectory of his career. "It’s like that poem ‘all for naught since no one ever knew,’ ” Daniels says. “Star Wars was such a hit, but the filmmakers seemed to want to deny that I existed. ‘See-Threepio is entirely mechanical,’ the publicists for the distributors once actually claimed, and I have to be honest and say it hurt."

The important part is that the filmmakers said, ‘See-Threepio is entirely mechanical'. They treated the droid as a machine, and not a living being, which meant they deemphazied Daniels' humanity and didn't give him credit for his performance. Does that make sense? Wafflewombat (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the current text says, yes. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I'm not explaining this well. The current text on the Empire page says the filmmakers treated C-3PO as a "real being." Rinzler says the opposite: the filmmakers treated him as "entirely mechanical." The Empire page and Rinzler have conflicting information at this time. Wafflewombat (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made another attempt at editing the segment to properly convey what Rinzler says. Wafflewombat (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing in general

Hi again. I noticed that you reverted more of my edits to Empire. I have made many edits to the page, but whenever I make one that is more than just a small grammar or syntax edit, you revert it. You claim I am removing "random info," but my edits are far from random. I care deeply about Wikipedia, and I only make edits I feel are important. Sometimes, my impression is that a sentence is unnecessary, superfluous, or doesn't make sense, so I delete it. This is an important aspect of editing: trimming material to ensure the article is easy and enjoyable to read. I understand you are a much more experienced editor than I am, and my impression is that you have put a massive amount of time and effort into the Empire article, which I appreciate. But Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and I feel frustrated that you won't let me make edits that include removing small amounts of information. I have a copy of the Rinzler text now, so my edits are coming from an informed place. I have found numerous small grammar and syntax mistakes in the article, so I feel my contributions have been valuable, but I am starting to feel unwelcome on the page. I feel you aren't taking my views seriously; when I claim that general readers will not know what background plates are, you reject my opinion without pausing to consider that my view may have merit. When I said the segment about Guinness needed work, you shared quotes from Rinzler, which was generous and helpful, but once I edited the segment, you reverted it without stating why. I hope you will take this feedback not as a personal attack. I respect all you have done, and are doing, for Wikipedia, and my feedback comes from a place of wanting to collaborate with you to make the Empire page the best it can be. I hope you will listen to what I have said, and reply at some point in the future. Thank you. Wafflewombat (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to edit on Wikipedia you have to accept that some edits will be undone, especially when you're removing content based on personal assessments. You've literally made dozens of edits, I'm not sure why restoring content that you removed arbitrarily is causing a great issue for you. This, {{including background plates for special effects shots that were uneven}} and this {{and everyone who viewed it was disappointed}} are not the same content. Your changes to the Daniels content used a number of quotes which we try to avoid and made the text twice as long to say the same thing. Edit summaries are nice but I don't have the time to explain each edit I make, particularly when I'm just putting back in content that was removed, in those cases I'm just restoring the WP:STATUSQUO. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. The pattern I have noticed is that most of the time, when I make an edit that is larger than a small grammar edit, you don't agree with it, and you revert it. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just noticing that we don't agree on a lot of edits. What I'm going to do is continue to make small grammar edits on the page, but if I want to make a larger edit I'm going to post it as a suggestion on the Talk page, for you and others to review. I'm hoping this will save you the hassle of combing through my edits, and going forward I will no longer get frustrated about my edits being reverted, because I'm not going to make them until there seems to be a level of consensus. Wafflewombat (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreements

I'm responding to a few of your edit summaries.

I'm not going to discuss the Daniels segment anymore. My feeling is that you are misreading or misunderstanding it, and your feeling is that I am misreading or misunderstanding it. Since it appears neither of us is going to be convinced otherwise, I'm going to drop it. I hope you understand that I was not intending to be disruptive with the edits. I made them because I thought you and I were finally on the same page about the meaning of the segment, and I thought you had made a small mistake in omitting a few words.

The only reason I moved the images was because you expressed the importance of eliminating white space around images (you mentioned this on this page, under "Empire edits"). If my moving the images made things worse, it's because my computer must be formatting the page differently than yours. When I moved them, the white space was reduced for me, and nothing else was impacted negatively. I say this so you understand I was not intending to be disruptive in this case either. It must be a device formatting issue. Wafflewombat (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not misreading it, this is a separate interview where he explicitly says they pretend C-3P0 was a real robot, and yet you've continued to modify the context o that text regarding this at least 3 times by this point. That's not a disagreement, it's you inserting factual inaccuracies, me correcting it, and you doing it again. As for the images, I don't know what resolution or device you're using but if you've previously moved the images to those same positions and I said it caused an issue, why would you then move the images again to the similar positions as before? Plus I reinserted the anecdote about the Stormtrooper stepping on Vader's cape and you've made an issue of that as well. You've made what must be a few dozen edits without issue but any edit you make that I challenge you on you're either here debating it or on the film's talk page debating it. Not every edit you make is going to be accepted and it probably seems more because you keep changing the Daniels and Guinness information so I have to keepundoing it, but those are small amounts of the high number of individual edits you've made to the article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of Wikipedia culture is that content is up for debate. I posted the segments I have issues with, or questions about, on the Talk page because I would like to hear the opinions of other editors. Is there something wrong with that?

The first time I moved the images, I did not take into account how it affected the white space and text formatting. You explained to me that these are considerations one must take into account when moving images. So when I noticed that there was extra white space, I moved them again and took into account all the variables you mentioned. If they ended up in the same spots as before, I can see why that would be frustrating and confusing, because it seemed to you that I wasn't listening. When I moved them the second time, I didn't check to see if they were in the same spots as when I moved them before, I just checked on the white space and text wrapping, and I figured that if those were improved (or at least not impacted), then you would welcome this change. But clearly if the page was negatively impacted on your device, then I'm glad you moved them back, and I'll take more care in the future to ensure that my device is displaying pages correctly so this doesn't happen again.

I've now done a copyedit of the entire article, and I'm going to move on to other pages. I invite you to consider that my work here has been in good faith, and if I have made mistakes or misunderstood sources, it's not because I'm trying to make your life difficult. My goal during the editing of this article has been to make it the best it can be. I hope you will consider that if I've inserted factual inaccuracies, it was because I didn't realize they were inaccurate, and I believed I was making the article better, not worse. I'm sorry if my mistakes have been irritating or frustrating. Wafflewombat (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Sjones23

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Tarzan (1999 film) § Plot rewrite. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CE request completed

Hello, Darkwarriorblake. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Mission: Impossible – Fallout at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SheriffIsInTown Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:The Lion King II: Simba's Pride § Changes to the plot and lead

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Lion King II: Simba's Pride § Changes to the plot and lead. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aliens (film)

It seems like I'm not writing in English or you are ignoring my comments because of WP:OWN. Either way I'm going to reply below...

About "along with those of Bill Paxton and Jenette Goldstein". Article only states: "Most of the cast was also praised, particularly Biehn, Goldstein, Henriksen, Henn and Reiser". As you can see, no point of highlighting Biehn and Goldstein when there are others mentioned.

As for the image: "Sigourney Weaver's performance as Ellen Ripley received critical acclaim (unsourced claim), earning her a nomination for the Academy Award for Best Actress. Her nomination was considered a milestone since the Academy paid little attention to science fiction films since its inception." This text is mentioned again in Accolades section, where it actually belongs: "Weaver's (pictured in 1989) Academy Award nomination for Best Actress was considered a milestone when the Academy paid little attention to science fiction." You insist on writing the same thing over and over again with different pictures.

And lastly, "mostly rave reviews" is DIRECTLY taken from the source, it's a verbatim quote. "generally positive reviews" is actually your own interpretation of it. ภץאคгöร 13:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

You are invited to make your case at this section of WP:Project Television about the issue with TV show seasons article titles. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that this is a violation of WP:CANVASS. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024

Hello Darkwarriorblake,

New Page Review queue January to March 2024

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'The Thing' revert

Hello - I was going to leave a comment here regarding your revert of my recent edit changing the filming location from "in Juneau" to "near Juneau" on The Thing (1982 film), but it got rather lengthy and may be of use to future editors so I put it on the talk page instead. Please give it a look and reply if you still object to reinstating the revised edit per my research. Thanks, Walkersam (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit request

Hey there. I hope you're doing well. Would you be open to proofreading the article I created last night for Ember Sword? BOTTO _(T•C) 12:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure no problem Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're a diamond, mate! BOTTO _(T•C) 15:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Devasted" -- I learned a new word today! Well done! BOTTO _(T•C) 23:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Sjones23

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:A Christmas Carol (2009 film) § Plot summary. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Green Goblin Comic Art by Luke Ross.webp

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Green Goblin Comic Art by Luke Ross.webp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NeoBatfreak (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RoboCop

For TFA, I'm looking for a summer blockbuster (ish) ... this one was just promoted to FA a couple of years ago and looks good. Would a July 8 appearance work for you? - Dank (push to talk) 05:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me, it will give me a reason to uplift it a bit. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TFA

story · music · places

Thank you today for Saving Private Ryan, "about the 1998 war film Saving Private Ryan, a highly influential film about a troop of soldiers tasked with recovering a single man and the last surviving son of the Ryan family, James Ryan, and getting him out of World War II alive."! - I have Alexander Lang on he same page. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as always Gerda Arendt! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pics of food and flowers come with the story of Noye's Fludde (premiered on 18 June), written by Brian Boulton. I nominated Éric Tappy because he died, and it needs support today! I nominated another women for GA in the Women in Green June run, - review welcome, and more noms planned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support for Tappy, on the Main page and my story today! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Mission: Impossible – Fallout

Congratulations, Darkwarriorblake! The article you nominated, Mission: Impossible – Fallout, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, and thank you today for RoboCop, about "the 1987 science fiction action film directed by Paul Verhoeven, known for its excessive violence, prescient themes and concepts, the catchphrase "Dead or alive, you're coming with me," and that time RoboCop shot a guy in the ****."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit revert in RoboCop

Hi, I saw you reverted my edits to RoboCop and I don't understand why, even after reading your edit summary. As a long-time editor, I don't think my edits deserved a revert, so I just want to inform you:

• Tobor Pictures is Jon Davison's production company that produced the film along with Orion Pictures. It's stated very clearly in the article body and is cited by two sources. Just because it's not mentioned on the BFI site or on the poster, doesn't exclude it from being mentioned in the infobox.
• For the UHD edit, I removed an unnecessary acronymn and just re-wrote the sentence to sound better. (Ok if you didn't like the mention of Dolby Atmos, fine... that's a matter of opinion.)
• You also deleted {{dead link}} tags I added to several citations because those links should be replaced if possible (or just removed entirely, since they are technically citing a print source).

I see it's going to be the TFA next month, so I'm just trying to make some small contributions to get it ready. Would much rather chat about it next time, then see an unnecessary revert. Thanks. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore the comment about the dead link tags, I see the links were already deleted. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I unfortunately don't have the time to start a discussion on each revert, I did my best to explain in the edit summary. I don't believe in crediting people on an assumption, Davison's input was apparently important for Verhoeven's work on the film but for whatever reason he received an executive producer credit, which usually relates to resource gathering, instead of producer credit which went to Arne Schmidt, but in exchange Davison got the "A Jon Davison Production" credit which is arguably the second biggest credit if not the top one. He may have used Tobor as a means of financial protection like George Lucas did for The Empire Strikes Back but it's very specific that the company did not receive a credit, perhaps because if it did Davison couldn't receive an individual credit? Film credits are often difficult to parse. If you feel strongly about it I'd recommend raising a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film where you will attract more eyes, or speak to Betty Logan who is generally more knowledgable about these areas than I am. WikiProject Film may deem it a more harmless addition, I'm unsure, but the only legit credit I can find for the company is RoboCop 2.

The Dolby thing, we used to have a lot more of "was released on Dolby 9.1 powermix supersample gigahertz, etc, etc" which I thought your addition was, I've removed the UHD thing as you're correct, it's not used again so it is unnecessary.

As you point our I've deleted the Starlog URLs, sadly they were deleted from the Internet Archive and they haven't been re-added yet, plus it's hard to archive an archive. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special effects of The Empire Strikes Back

Just to clarify a couple of things regarding the technology. From the Wikipedia article:

"It also had a specific stop motion mode that could hold on the current image and advance a frame while the shutter was open to create a blur effect. The majority of still shots or those with slight pans or tilts were performed with the Empireflex, while those with a lot of movement were done with a Dykstraflex because it had a mechanical arm that let the camera capture footage as if from the point-of-view of the Rebel spaceships."

In short: The camera is moving slightly through exposure, while the model is standing still. That's how the spaceships and X-wings were filmed. That's why the programmable Dykstraflex camera was so revolutionary in regard of effects.

Stop motion animator Phil Tippett, who as the article says had experience with the Dykstraflex camera, gave him the idea of doing the opposite: Don't move the camera, and take one picture at the time while the model is moving slightly, capturing the movement during exposure. If the camera itself was really standing still or if that too was moving is irrelevant, as the main point here is that it was the models' movements that were captured, which differs from traditional stop motion where the models are being completely still while being captured by the camera.

Quote from the article: "Animator Phil Tippett had to find new ways to improve on go-motion animation on the production of Irvin Kershner's sci-fi battle epic "The Empire Strikes Back." Tippet, having used Dykstraflex cameras, and familiar with go-motion, struck upon the idea to blend the techniques, explaining: "It was just like a light went on [...] Stop-motion animators had been trying to do blurs on their characters and nothing worked. And this was just a no brainer [...] It was just a huge leap forward that went on to being a much more sophisticated thing for 'Dragonslayer' and 'Return of the Jedi.'"

Meaning the technique got even more sophisticated after the first tests in Empire Strikes Back, and like the Dykstraflex camera, was controlled by a computer in later uses.

The Dykstraflex camera, which Tippet had experience with as the article points out, has the ability to create motion blur. And was used in the movie as the Wikipedia article mention. It is irrelevant that the cited article about the camera does not mention Empire Strikes Back, as it is simply a reference to how the Dystraflex camera works in regard of motion blur. Tippet makes a point out of mentioning how this gave him the idea of using the same concept when doing stop motion.

The article also explains how go-motion was first used hundred years ago: "In the 1920s, Russian animator Władysław Starewicz, a.k.a. Lasislas Starevich, began experimenting with stop-motion animation techniques that would make the process look a little bit more natural."

Which were more primitive methods, till Tippett came up with the updated and modern version of go-motion that was used in some movies before it was killed by Jurassic Park. As explained in the article about go motion. Silbad (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WT:Featured article candidates/Total Recall (1990 film)/archive1

Me again. Gog wants this one for August. Feel free to edit it, and could you check my work, please? - Dank (push to talk) 01:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Film distribution

Please review the film distribution guidelines. As stated in WP:FILMDIST, If there are only two distributors in total (a domestic and foreign) then include both of them. TPalkovitz (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does FilmDist say ignore hidden notes, previous discussions, insert qualifiers of countries in brackets or trace the distributor down from top level to bottom within the infobox? No? Then don't revert again. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Total Recall (1990 film) scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 22 August 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice#Simplifying "Release history" tables

Hi @Darkwarriorblake: Theknine2 suggest that not to use "Label" and "Region" columns via updated table. Your comments would be appreciated. However there's two other user objected over updated table, so I suggested that change "Label" to "Distributor" column via original table. Regards. 2001:D08:2911:70A0:2006:78C3:5515:D81 (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would give my input but I don't really know much about that side of Wikipedia and I'm not sure what information is important or not. I've read through the comments but I don't think I understand it enough that I'd be able to give any kind of meaningful input to say which way is better. Sorry! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandboxes

Hey, just a quick question. You mentioned that you do your FAC work in your sandbox. Is it possible for an account to have multiple sandboxes, so you can reserve different sandboxes for different projects? Wafflewombat (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wafflewombat/Darth_Vader, for example, it will give you the option to create a page of that name but it's in the user: subsection, this allows you to work on parts or, as I do, copy the whole thing over so I can work at my own pace. Don't copy non-free images/music/videos there though as you'll end up with someone coming to remove them for you as it's not allowed to have Non-Free content in the sandboxes. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you! Wafflewombat (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man

Hey, I've got a question for you! I'm working on the Box Office section of the Spider-Man page. It's very long, and I'm doing some trimming. Do you think sentences such as these are necessary?

"The film's three-day record was surpassed by Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest four years later."

"Spider-Man would hold the record for having the highest-three day gross until it was surpassed by Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith in 2005." Wafflewombat (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, these type of records were broke all the time from the 2000s as box offices exploded, making the most money in 3 days and holding that record for 4 or 3 years isn't super important nor is mentioning who replaced it. The three day record itself is notable but not the successor. I treat it the same when people say "the highest grossing film released by [insert studio] since that's a very specific trivia. If I open a studio tomorrow, release a film, and make $5, that's the highest-grossing film released by my studio. It's important to the studio but not to history. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Spider-Man set a lot of records, and I'm wondering if it's overkill to mention them all. The article states that it had the highest opening weekend gross, highest opening day gross, highest three-day gross, etc etc. It also states that it set records for highest non-holiday Monday, highest Friday, and highest Sunday. Are these last three facts notable enough to include? Would the average reader care about them? Wafflewombat (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit technical but for every reader who doesn't care there might be one who does. If it legit set records, there's no harm in briefly mentioning them. See The Dark Knight for example. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks for the insight. Wafflewombat (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've not looked at the Spider-Man BO in depth before but it is a mess. Stuff like "Spider-Man was the highest-grossing superhero origin film, a record it held for 15 years until it was surpassed by Wonder Woman (2017).[169][170] As of 2020, it is the 12th-highest-grossing superhero film, as well as the 12th-highest-grossing comic book adaptation in general." is just desperately reaching for an accomplishment. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'll continue cleaning up the mess, but since you have more experience with this stuff, I'll make sure to run things by you if I'm unsure. Wafflewombat (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since Spider-Man is swinging around and fighting in a spandex suit for hours at a time, his BO is almost certainly a mess. Sorry, couldn't resist 😁 Wafflewombat (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of A Touch of Frost episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Danny Webb.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]