This is an archive of past discussions with User:Paleface Jack. 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.
The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!
Greetings,
Thank you very much for participating in the Months of African Cinema global contest/edit-a-thon, and thank you for your contributions so far.
It is already the middle of the contest and a lot have been achieved already! We have been able to get over 1,500 articles created in over fifteen (15) languages! This would not have been possible without your support and we want to thank you. If you have not yet listed your name as a participant in the contest page please do so.
Please make sure to list the articles you have created or improved in the article achievements' section of the contest page, so that they can be easily tracked. To be able to claim prizes, please also ensure to list your articles on the users by articles page. We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:
Overall winner
1st - $500
2nd - $200
3rd - $100
Diversity winner - $100
Gender-gap filler - $100
Language Winners - up to $100*
We are very excited about what has been achieved so far, but your contributions are still needed to further exceed all expectations! Let’s create more articles before the end of this contest, which is this November!!!
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi Jack; I'm really pleased to see you've brought this back to FAC. I'm not sure I'll have the time for a full review, but I'll try. It's definitely a worthy topic. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I do encourage you to go through the references with a fine-toothed comb... I'm still seeing lots of bizarre formatting. I fixed a few very quickly, but, for example: "Anon. (September 25, 2016). "Begotten & Shadow of the Vampire Double Feature with Director E. Elias Merhige in Person!". DO312.com. DO312.com. Retrieved July 15, 2017." The repetition really isn't needed! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
J Milburn Thanks for the heads up. I did some looking over the sources and one of the websites I use as a source is down and was not archived and I do not know what to do about that.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
This is some of what I'm getting at. You may get some opposition based only on the source formatting, but I think you're going to get questions about the reliability of a lot of the sources you're citing. Just one example -- what is the Dennis Schwartz source? In fact, I think some of your formatting is going to lead people to question the reliability... Revolver is surely a perfectly reliable source when it comes to claims about Marilyn Manson's influences, but the formatting of the source -- Bennett, J (January 5, 2019). "Marilyn Manson's 'Antichrist Superstar': The Story Behind the Album Cover Art". RevolverMag.com. J. Bennett. Retrieved July 12, 2019. -- is a bit all over the place. I think it's going to be worth your while to sit down with this for an hour or two and try to tidy this all up. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
J Milburn I went over the sources and removed the ones that had the listed issue. in terms of Author/Publisher issue, are you saying I should not do "Author first and last name" and just list them as the publisher when appropriate?--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I am not. List the author as the author; the author is not (usually) the publisher. You don't need to include a publisher for periodicals (newspapers, magazines, academic journals, etc.) -- the periodical name is enough, especially if you can provide a wikilink. Meanwhile, there's no need to repeat the name of (say) a website as both the "work"/"website" and the "publisher". Josh Milburn (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello Paleface Jack, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, ★Trekker (talk) 16:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Billy (Black Christmas), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unsolved murder.
Welcome to the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!
Greetings!
The AfroCine Project core team is happy to inform you that the Months of African Cinema Contest is happening again this year in October and November. We invite Wikipedians all over the world to join in improving content related to African cinema on Wikipedia!
Please list your username under the participants’ section of the contest page to indicate your interest in participating in this contest. The term "African" in the context of this contest, includes people of African descent from all over the world, which includes the diaspora and the Caribbean.
The following prizes would be recognized at the end of the contest:
Overall winner
1st - $500
2nd - $200
3rd - $100
Diversity winner - $100
Gender-gap fillers - $100
Language Winners - up to $100*
Also look out for local prizes from affiliates in your countries or communities! For further information about the contest, the prizes and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. We look forward to your participation.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:20, 30th September 2021 (UTC)
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list
The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!
Greetings,
It is already past the middle of the contest and we are really excited about the Months of African Contest 2021 achievements so far! We want to extend our sincere gratitude for the time and energy you have invested. If you have not yet participated in the contest, it is not too late to do it. Please list your username as a participant on the contest’s main page.
Please remember to list the articles you have improved or created on the article achievements' section of the contest page so they can be tracked. In order to win prizes, be sure to also list your article in the users by articles. Please note that your articles must be present in both the article achievement section on the main contest page, as well as on the Users By Articles page for you to qualify for a prize.
We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Orphaned non-free image File:Billy, Black Christmas, 1974 film, screenshot.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Billy, Black Christmas, 1974 film, screenshot.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).
Hey there, just wondering if you're still able to respond to the review. I've purposefully left it on the non-prose so you can work it out bit by bit. GeraldWL01:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
The article Possum (2018 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Possum (2018 film) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gerald Waldo Luis -- Gerald Waldo Luis (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stephen Dee Richards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Newton.
@Volkan1881 I will take a look at it as soon as I can. I currently working on a massive expansion project on a major/influential horror character at the moment so that has been pretty much occupying my time. But i will look over this character you have been doing.---17:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)~ Paleface Jack (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Dear Paleface Jack I understand you like horror movies so much that's why I have a request for you for the article horror film on its history section can you split the 2010s to present content into two decade contents to restore the 2010s content and the 2020s content that why they can match other decades like this. 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s 2020s These are what the decades are supposed to be on there can you restore 2010s and 2020s? ScarfaceJohnny (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
@ScarfaceJohnny Hey mate, sorry for the late reply. Unfortunately I am currently swamped working on a massive expansion project on a horror character so I will most likely be unable to look over that article for you. I agree that the article really needs some attention but I think it will be a lot more in depth than anyone thinks. Paleface Jack (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Please be aware that user:ScarfaceJohnny is a sockpuppet of a banned user "Jinnifer" who haunts the horror film article and badgers other users into making her WP:OR vandalisms and otherwise edit-warring on her behalf.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
hello paleface jack ım doing tf2 soldier page ı learned making character pages on wiki but ı still not know how ı found not copyrighted
photo for pages can you give me a advice? Volkan1881 (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
@Volkan1881 usually with things like that they are always gonna be copyrighted. I would look at other images from either similar video game characters on Wikipiedia and see how they do theirs. there is something you can look up in our help search that shows how to properly use copyrighted images as long as their fair use. Paleface Jack (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry I haven't been as active as I should be. I'm stretched pretty thinned. However, I am going to have to force myself to make time pretty soon in order to finish the Hellraiser reboot draft, because Hulu just announced that it's coming out in October (which puts me on a times table). I'll try to put some more work into the Leatherface draft when I get to work on that. Darkknight214919:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
@Darkknight2149 thats fine mate. If memory serves me correctly you dont need to work on the reboot draft since there is an article already created. i have been working on the leatherface article a lot and have not gotten to the newer films just yet so take your time. I can try to pitch in on the hellraiser reboot if you like. Paleface Jack (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello Paleface Jack, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2023. Happy editing, ★Trekker (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
When you say "yet to get" do you mean you're waiting for the DVD that has this feature? Is that what you're wanting assistance with, or something else? I think you have enough to just move the information to the article and finish the article from there. BIGNOLE (Contact me)15:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
@Bignole There is a dvd that has that info. I have not found it in stores as of yet. It seems like it would be a big point of critique would be the missing info on the Leatherface film. Call me a completionist, my goal is to get this up to FA. Also I have ideas for alternate images that are gonna be used for the main infobox. Paleface Jack (talk) 15:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
that and I am just trying to figure out if there are any sources that I can use that tell who did the design of the character in that film. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
If I have time, I'll check my copy to see if they cover it. Is it under a specific feature? As for the article, you can move it without it going up for FA review. Here's the catch, if you completely revamp the article, you will be automatically denied at an FA review if you have just recently moved it into the mainspace. One of the things they are going to look at is public access for peer reviews. Jason Voorhees went through peer reviews and a GA review before ever seeing the FA review after I rewrote the page. It had other editors fine tuning in the mainspace for a bit of time. BIGNOLE (Contact me)17:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
@Bignole yeah I kinda figured. FA status is the end goal cause of the significance of the character. Did you know and GA status will be goals once stuff gets transfered but FA is final goal. As for the information i think its in the "Man Behind the Bloody mask" featurette, I have the exact name of the featurette that might have the info in the userspace draft I have in the design subsection ("crafting the mask" as its called). Anyways thanks for the help and advice man, really stoked to finally reveal all this hard work to the outside world. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Just to be sure, which film in question are you looking at for this featurette? There is technically more than one film with "Leatherface" as the title. BIGNOLE (Contact me)14:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
If I get a chance, I'll try to view the bluray featurette this weekend for you. In the meantime, is the "cancer" stuff from the most recent movie? I don't recall him ever having cancer? The same with superhuman strength. He's strong, but not any stronger than the average person his size. BIGNOLE (Contact me)21:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
@Bignole: The 2022 entry has no mention of cancer, as that was a part of the remake timeline. As for Superhuman strength, he does display this on several occasions from some entries in the franchise but I dont really explain or explore that cause it is irrelevant to the article atm. Anyways, rn I am not only fixing citations and whatnot but also trying to colorize a black and white image of the original character cause I cant seem to find a color version of the image and I really want it as the main image for the infobox. Thanks for the help mate!--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
He's shown to be strong, but not superhuman. If it isn't identified that way, then the category could not be appropriate. As for the other, I see Wikipedia mentions "tumors", but I only recall the films identifying it as a basic skin disease that ate away part of his face. BIGNOLE (Contact me)21:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
@Bignole If you are referring to the main article space then ye that wouldnt mention the cancer or the strength. The article I am referencing is my revision draft. Looking over some pieces of information there are a couple mentions of Leatherface having superhuman strength. I might include those in the draft then tranfer all the info to the main article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Who mentions this? It isn't stated in the films themselves. As for the cancer, I don't recall that and would have to watch the prequel again. I recall them mentioning a skin diseasae. Cancer would have killed him, as his family wouldn't have had money for treatment. BIGNOLE (Contact me)15:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
@Bignole they mention it in the first remake and ans is published in multiple sources, filmmakers also mention this in interviews. its skin cancer for starters, and its also a movie so... Paleface Jack (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
What are you referencing in the film itself? Someone's interpretation that because he's so strong it must be superhuman doesn't mean that it was superhuman. CBR says some stupid shit all the time. If you use a category for a film character that is based around characteristics, then they need to be things established in the official lore and not interpretations. BIGNOLE (Contact me)21:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Leatherface, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Michael Myers, Jigsaw and Comico.
Thanks for uploading File:The McPherson Tape (UFO Abduction) 1989 film poster.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).
Thanks for uploading File:Lake Michigan Monster, 2018, release poster.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).
I don't understand the "Quick Fail" and I've posted a note on the GA page to see what it's all about and for help in understanding how Leatherface meets criteria for it. I also still not sure why people suddenly dislike some of the section headers and how no one can actually provide direct guidelines on them having to be some basic title. BIGNOLE (Contact me)21:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
@Bignole same. i mean I get some of the criticism to the length which is why I removed some things. But because of how complex leatherface is, it needs to be that length Paleface Jack (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm about to go into a meeting, but I'll do a passover of the plot when I'm done. With the exception of the most recent film, I can go through the rest and trim them up. That should cut quite a bit of the length off. BIGNOLE (Contact me)21:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
I trimmed the plot outside of the new film. I'll try to go through it more when I have more time and look at the rest of the article. I was actually surprised that it has 3k more words than the Jason article. LOL. BIGNOLE (Contact me)23:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't think the complaint is that it isn't covering enough or that the character isn't complex, only that there's probably a lot of fluff within the writing. BIGNOLE (Contact me)15:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
The best advice I could give you is to go join GA and FA reviews of articles you haven't worked on. Pay attention to the feedback given and requests for changes. While not all 100% is good feedback (i.e. subjective), you can learn a lot viewing from a neutral eye (i.e., you didn't contribute to the article and thus have no stake in the game).
Next, go hang around the Guild of CopyEditors and the projects being worked on. You don't need to contribute, so much as you should see how they copyedit articles.
As far as Leatherface goes. Re-read the article and if you read something that has nothing to do with Leatherface directly (e.g., discussion about changes to Erin in the novelization) then it should probably be removed. BIGNOLE (Contact me)17:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
The article Troika (1969 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Troika (1969 film) for comments about the article, and Talk:Troika (1969 film)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vaticidalprophet -- Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Have read well? My request is to create those five pages related with that incident, translating them from Japanese to English, not a revision of the "Sankebetsu brown bear incident". I've already edit their red links there.
I am fully aware of that request. It would not make sense to leave the main article it is based on in such a poor state. But the one film article I will take a look at.--Paleface Jack (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Ok, but don't forget those five pages when you'll have time. Thank you very much.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
We wish you a Merry Christmas, We wish you a Merry Christmas, We wish you a Merry Christmas, And a Happy New Year!
May your holidays be filled with peace and joy. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! ★Trekker (talk) 13:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC) Adapted from {{Xmas6}}. Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:User:Altamel/Christmas}} to their talk page.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Varan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grungaloo -- Grungaloo (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I hope you wont be offended if I do a critique of your prose on the Troika talk, or else can do it here. You are a VERY skilled researcher, and from following your articles have learned a lot) and while you need a little help with prose, and I do think you are inches away from producing a series of FA standard articles. I'm not a great writer myself, but do know the common pitfalls...the most common being "too many words".[2]. which can be resolved by following this guide. Best. Ceoil (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
First and foremost, would go into edit mode in each article, CTL F for "the film" and delete as many instances as possible...most are redundant. Ceoil (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
As you are writing about art films, your going to be reviewed by many snooty people who dont like false titles...so "the" weird filmmaker Joe Bloggs, not weird film maker Joe Bloggs.
Avoid stubby paragraphs In 1979, Troika had brief airings on television in the UK and Canada, from May to December of that year.[26][27][28]. Also re redundancy should be "Troika was airied on UK and Canadaian television between May to December 1979." - less words Ceoil (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
The article is only 2,300 words long - reflecting the amount of sources - I think we can easily knock it into shape prose wise in around a week if we pinpoint the types of wording that should be copyedited. Ceoil (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Just to state again I also have the same problems, so hopefully am not seeming arrogant or patronizing; but getting this artice right might help you a lot with bigger projects like the Texas Chainsaw. ps, hoping you might also c/e one of my pre-FAC pages in the not so distant future. Ceoil (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
@Ceoil no apologies needed. One of Gog's complaints for the plot section was unavoidable. Since there is no way of watching the film to make my own synopsis I had to rely on existing synopsis' and those are kind of scattershot in how they give details so I had to condense and modify wording to make the most sense with as few words as possible.Paleface Jack (talk) Paleface Jack (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Havent gotten that far in depth, but in my experience, Gog is very perceptive and thorough, so once prose issues are sorted will look at coverage. Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Nothing against Gog, for the "Blue/Purple people" thing seems inconsistent to cap it then not if its the character names. Then again that's just me. Paleface Jack (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Will look. Just trowing out there, but the imagery seems very similar to Goya's The Disasters of War series; see the lead images on both articles...have you seen any mention in the sources? Ceoil (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
"Watch your profanity". Also just trimming superfluous fluff, yet gutted when it comes to the casting section. Character names and titles should be in quotations or no? Paleface Jack (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm guessing will support this on this candidacy but two more issues:
You often use the same word a few times in close succession, eg with succession here.
I see Gog's point re the plot; sometimes you capitalize character descriptors (eg "Chef). More importantly, you mention characters without explaining who/what they are.
Some of that has to do with how the existing plot synopsis is written and how vague that is. The caps I have been working on fixing.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
@Ceoil Have been doing some extensive copy editing and removal of fluffed words from the article. I feel like I have done all I can to get it as best as it can be now. Paleface Jack (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
After much mulling and procrastination, have reverted the page back to using his section titles. The article explains where that came from, and its a confused mess without them. Wot. Next concern is how it fits into the overall contemporary art film scene, which is currently not well done. Laters. Ceoil (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
ps, re "you mention characters without explaining who/what they are" - latitude is give on this within the plot summary, as the film itself is the source. IE you can state the obvious as to who characters are without out having a specific source saying that. Ceoil (talk) 06:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
@Ceoil Analyzing the most detailed of sources on Hobbs and Troika, which is frustratingly vague at times, I have noticed certain pieces that could be considered a connection to the art film scene. It would seem that Hobbs' "transition" from purely physical art to film he deliberately incorporates his style and art influence into them. He himself has stated that he never rewrites his scripts and has offered vague hints on potential themes and inspiration for the sections in the film (too vague for any reasonable conclusion). I think looking at the history of the art film genre and how Hobbs is connected to the avant-garde garde art form will be the best we can do for linking it all together without becoming tedious. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree with that aim, but to note !again!, the attempt in the current version of the page to tie in the film with the late 60s/early 70s art film movement is a mess. For one thing, we get no sense of his place in it all: a fly-by-night chancer or an unappreciated genius? Dunno. Anyways, you are getting there. Besties. Ceoil (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
One last thing as I can see you are frustrated by the lack of available sources; for FAC, concise is better than long. If the sources only allow a 2,000 odd word article, then padding it out is the last thing you should do. The best article have submitted is also the shortest, and nothing wrong with that. Ceoil (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
@Ceoil Agreed. For Troika, it's more about the vagueness of some of the sources that forces one to really decipher and extract the information into digestive tidbits. Length is not any issue with that particular article. On the opposite spectrum, with my TCM revision draft, I will be splitting that into separate articles because there is a literal flood of reliable sources so as to be overlong. Troika is manageable cause of the few sources that exist to make it easier (sorta) to push across the finish line. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
On that note, linking Hobbs and the art film movement is rather simple as connecting his work in fine arts and his adhering to that style fits if written correctly. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
@Ceoil I had to refrain from making an alzheimers joke when I edited that section. Those section titles for the segments were not placed properly (I.E. Chef and Blue People). Oddly, that beginning segment is never titled by Hobbs in his interview, it's just a beginning segment that starts everything. Though I hear ya, I felt like I was having a stroke when I read the plot details provided by Thrower. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Look at the first ref in Black Hours, Morgan MS 493, which is also from an institute database. But yes, webcite. PS, I found a reputable video essay during the week that mentioned that Hobb's earlier artworks were influenced by Goya; I haven't had a chance to dig into it yet, but I'm hopeful that the essayist wasn't making it up. Ceoil (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
also discovered more tidbits in the book that mentions connections to Hobbs fine arts, specifically the exploration of spiritualism. Paleface Jack (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
From that new source, I'd like to get the fact that the footage is "unavailable" anywhere earlier into the lead, and would switch from calling it a film with three tales/segments to "three-part". Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
"three stories or tales" implies that they are not connected, but I'm reading that they are, so to me at least "3 part" seems better." From that source also like (for lead): 16mm print, surrealistic comedy and reflective of the San Francisco psychedelic scene. Ceoil (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Also as the prints are now practically "lost", I wonder if we could use fair use claims to use more of the available stills. 22:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
I am a bit resistant to that as I feel there is enough images there already. Maybe have the publicity stills in a further reading section, a behind the scenes still or a photo of Hobbs at the time of production could be added to the development subsection, other than that I think its good as it is.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I disagree. It's (sort of) art film, and Hobbs was a painter & sculptor, and the film is regarded for its visual imagery rather than its plot. If you're worried about too many images, how important is the pic of the San Francisco Art Institute vs. one that shows what the film actually looks like? Ceoil (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
@Ceoil I prefer an image of Hobbs from around the time of the film and also have one from a behind the scenes if possible. I also found another source from the time they restored it. Paleface Jack (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Great, but re an image of Hobbs, the article is about the film not him! Behind the scenes is fine, but not really what the article should be focused on. My take, is that this is basically a visual arts page. ps, the new sources you've found are great....well done :) ps, hope I'm not coming across as too cranky here, you are doing great work, and wouldn't be engaging if I wasnt impressed. Ceoil (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
@Ceoil true. As for a picture of Hobbs, I am going off of other FA film articles that do this. it shows the people behind it. considering he has not explicitly stated his inspiration, I am going off of what can be done. I know there are images that I could possibly use and there are stills that exist that I can use as well. Paleface Jack (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
@Ceoil Oh I am. Looking back, I see a couple things I have been wanting to use. The promotional still of Thurmond fits nicely in the cast or development section. Goya has been mentioned here and there but never been taken from Hobbs himself so idk if I can use an image (It is always nice to have a specific piece highlighted cause it shows me what I can use). It's all more difficult to pin down, unlike Merhige who was very explicit in his influences. Something that inspired Hobbs is crucial (image wise) in the development section and fits well with the artistic nature of the article. Paleface Jack (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Hm. Turns out all his fine arts was inspired by Goya and not just one piece as far as I can tell. Not sure that helps, sadly. Paleface Jack (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Trojan Horse appears in the film, In the press book, the second slide shows it. That (might) be a good one for the development section as it ties to the film.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Troika (1969 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hollywood.
Morning. Suggest this goes up for a pre-FAC Peer Review. I'm very fond of the page, you have done really excellent work in pulling it all together, but would like to see more polish. I'll shamelessly ask people to weigh in. Ceoil (talk) 06:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
@Ceoil sounds good. I have been dividing my time working on this and also several other articles. TCM is the biggest one and you can check it out on my main page (its up to 330 citations, and I am gonna have to split it into separate articles. Is there any information on Troika that you would like to see? Paleface Jack (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi Jack, yes have been watching your work on the massacre; am very impressed indeed, you have a great perspective often missing from a lot of film articles. I no longer have demands on Troika (ie the issues I saw have been resolved) , IMO it is ready and would support on sight...not sure how you are feeling about it. What I really don't want is that the first FAC puts you off - Gog was trying to help, and he would know being a very experienced nominator and has helped countless articles get through. We can all be blunt, but that's not always a reflection of the work. One thing that's very much respected over there is a previously archived nomination where the main author fixes all the raised issues and comes back....because listens and it indicates care. Ceoil (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I might submit that later for FA. At the moment I am just thinking about any other additional information that might be out there on this film. As for TCM, I appreciate it, and it will definitely take me a LONG while to complete (The actual article is already GA so I am trying to tighten what I have as much as humanly possible), also considering what to split and how much will go into the split. I have also been contemplating what to do about my GA articles on the Lake Michigan Monster and Stephen D. Richards and what to do for them to pass muster for an FA nomination. The Richards article I am gonna probably submit for a round of copy editing so I can focus on other things, then put my own spin on those edits at a later date. Begotten, I plan on rewriting the Themes and Analysis portion at some point but not sure when.
As for FA nominations, I am notorious for being stubborn so I am not put off in the least. I often take my time to address issues with the nominations I have, such as trying to find the best words to support their inclusion. At the moment I am just doing small edits here and there and might look up more info on Troika cause I feel there might be something I missed. Paleface Jack (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I would strike while the iron is hot, so to speak. John is a heavyweight, but intermittently on wiki. He helped so much with the wording on Vincent van Gogh that he ended up a co-nom. Ceoil (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I am way out of it, I apologize. If you do wanna be co-nom I honestly don't mind, if you feel your contributions don't warrant it that's ok. Paleface Jack (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I definitely do not want to be a co-nom, but I do want to see the article one day on the main page, and for you work to be reckonised. I'm not saying it will be easy, but you will be backed. Ceoil (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
@Ceoil Well thanks for that. As for my other projects, Richards is a big one at least in terms of non film ones. He was one of the first to be recognized under changing attitudes on criminals. Lot of stuff I did with that was piece things together from the pamphlet, a small handful of books that mention him, and newspaper articles. It would be the first article le on a serial killer to get featured status when I eventually deem it top notch. Paleface Jack (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
To be clearer, I find Hobb's imagery really, really interesting, and I'm here because I want it to get exposure. As said before, he is like a camp Goya and infused with naive retro-futurism. Ceoil (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
I was hoping you might say something like that. Will keep an eye, but again as am mostly a visual person, would like to see more stills. Ceoil (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
@Ceoil a little bit. I am surprised you didn't notice that during the FA nomination. That one scene is when they are taking the Son of Earth through the desert. Paleface Jack (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Les Mains d'Orlac
Hi! I have done a re-write on the article Les Mains d'Orlac that you are one of the major contributors too. As it was a bold re-write, I figured I'd approach you to make sure we have not lost any key information that we could potentially recover with stronger sources. I look forward to your input if you have any.
Also, good work on the Lake Michigan Monster article, I've been meaning to take a look at that film on my own time. I've added it to WP:HORROR just because even if it isn't, the article seems to tangently refer to it in the genre so I've added it to the project. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I am honored and surprised you came to me for imput. I will take a look at it. Lake Michigan Monster being added to the Horror pool is a wise assessment as it parodies it. I have been working hard on my TCM revision page lately and will transfer the info once the actual article is converted into the sfn citing format I have in the revision page. That one will have to be split into separate articles to avoid over-length. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Looking over your edit, it looks good so far. Expanding it shall be tricky but doable considering there is a lot of info on the book. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind word! I figured I'd try to connect with more editors on articles as of late as I'm realizing making big bold changes does not always rub some users the wrong way, so I want them to know they are included and their edits are valuable, even if I've changed some stuff.
Yeah, novels don't really get a lot of backdrop about them. I think for a book that's relatively forgotten, I didn't think I was going too crazy, but it was a big enough re-do that I figured I'd get you to look into it. Thanks. Ping me if you want me to check out the TCM or Leatherface articles. I'd love to try to help if I can. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Some quick thoughts. First of all, you have done a ton of research and you should be proud of what you've gotten here. This film has tons and tons of documentation about it, so you've definitely gone through it top to bottom respectively. Now, on to some comments.
"The Texas Chain Saw Massacre[a] is a 1974 American independent horror film produced, co-composed, and directed by Tobe Hooper, who co-wrote it with Kim Henkel."
A bit of a word salad for what Hooper did. While the music and everything is cool, I think for the lead its okay to say he directed and produced it. Then introduce cast. Then maybe say It was written by Hooper and Kim Henkel, and then you can naturally flow into the plot from there.
We talk about Leatherface in the lead like we know who he is already. We could probably summarize "The film was marketed as being based on true events, its plot is largely fictional." as this lead is long! :D
This is a rule that WP:VG applies, and not WP:FILM, saying things like "Mixed-to-positive" and "mixed-to-negative" reception imprecisely describe the reception that skews slightly more positive or negative. "Mixed" means "scattered across the board", not "medium", so reviews cannot be both "mixed" and "positive".
Saying things like "While it got mixed reviews, it was high grossing" is a bit of a WP:HOWEVER term, as it sort of leans that saying "critics were wrong, audiences were right" about the film, or vice-versa, so while i'm equally guitly of this, we should probably try to avoid making comparisons with box office and critical reception
" Some critics have interpreted the film's antagonists" I see protagonist and antagonist showing up all the time more and more on wikipedia as of late. "Subjective interpretation using labels such as protagonist, antagonist, villain, or main character, should be avoided. The plot summary should convey such roles." Maybe just saw the Sawyer family, and that's a way you can introduce their name in the lead earlier. I, don't recall specifically if we know the hitchhiker is related, but my memory suggests he is?
Agreed and removed it. Note, the family is never really given a last name in this first film and should not be mentioned because of that.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:EGG, handicapped going to Paraplegia, might not be obvious for readers. why not just say that's what he is?
Ditto with hitchiker, i'd assume this would link me to a actual hitchhiker article, not the character. Probably the same with all the other characters. If we're reading the plot, the character summary on the list of characters page is not really useful.
Well, two points. Linking Hitchiker here like we linked "Slaughterhouse". Slaughterhouse takes us to the slaughterhouse article. Hitchhiker in theory would link to an article on Hitchhiking or something. But it jumps to the character so it's a bit jarring.
Also, you don't have to agree, but I think linking to a character doesn't really expand upon them. We sort of understand who the character is what they are about from the plot, just like how we don't say antagonist and protagonist because a good plot summary will make these points clear. We also already link to the characters page as a general thing in the cast, so this might just make it better. Up to you, its mostly your baby. :)Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Unless we plan on going into detail on in some readings of leatherface being dressed as a woman being some queer reading of the film, probably don't need to link dressed in women's clothing to transvestisim.
I wonder if there is a bit too much emphasis on the Ed Gein stuff. I know it's discussed a lot, but it's a single paragraph in the production. I don't think it needs to be removed as content, but maybe placed within production and development. Like, we wouldn't emphasize an entire section of Mad Love to say it was based on The Hands of Orlac. :D It's also a bit weird to read about it, and then cut back narratively as we read to Hooper's documentary work material. Maybe can toss it in with the material about Elmer Wayne Henley ?
I agree and will add Gien into the development. As for Henley, the main article features a prominant quote from Henkel that claims this was an inspiration. Reading Hansen's book, I found this to be false so it debunks that information.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Not sure why we are pointing out Gunnar is Icelandic-American. I mean, probably, but did he fly over from iceland to make the film or was he a local texas person like the rest?
I'll hold back for now as I think that's plenty. My only advice is you've collected a large and wide detailed information. Generally speaking, just like the Leatherface article. It might be seen as going into hyper amount of extensive detail. I would read through it once your satisfied with a section and says "what really can go?" to make it tighter. It's brutal to edit your own work, and I can offer to try and trim the fat for you after you are done, but I just hope we don't hate each over it! haha. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
No worries. I kinda planed to have that detail be extensive but to create/transfer a lot of it into articles that go into more detail to save it from overlength and tighten everything up. My only concern about that is, by doing that, I will need to sift through what to transfer/include and what stays in the article. Eventually I wanna get back to Leatherface as several FA horror character have been demoted.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Its still really impressive work! I think transferring it into other details might be good. I would maybe use the article on Jill Valentine as a good template to how to maybe focus and prioritize detail on characters. Try browsing the Wikipedia Library if you have access to it as well maybe for some more academic sources. Lately, it's been my godsend for finding very specific key information I struggle to find anyone saying anywhere. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
@Andrzejbanas Considering your work on Tetsuo was great. you should check out Evil Dead Trap, watched it on YouTube and it's so far, my favorite Japanese horror film and a rare slasher film from Japan that switches things up. Paleface Jack (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Haha. I know the notoriety of that one. Some of the more wild Japanese horror films I've been a bit disappointed in (Tetsuo and House being exceptions), but it would be interested in developing in some of these more cult-oriented pre-Ring japanese horror films into more detailed articles. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
@Andrzejbanas I agree. Onibaba, Jiguku, and the like are sorely needed. I have collaborated with Eiga on expanding A Page of Madness with a lot of work from me translating that stuff from the Japanese wikipiedia article. It's on the back burner while I work on other things. Paleface Jack (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I have the Criterion DVD of Jigoku. I believe it has something details on production and other content. From my experience, its hard to get really intricate detail about the development of genres in other countries than Anglo countries. Its just full of assumptions based on what we assume about another culture. I was excited that I managed to expand Horror_comics#Japan recently though. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
@Andrzejbanas Same. I have made it a habit of looking the version of the article in their native language, but also Eia has a knack for finding some of those sources. I have also noticed that someone it a commendable, if slightly flawed expansion of the Gamera character article. Editors like that are always pretty good. My best research is in English language articles, as you know. Paleface Jack (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Article seems a bit confused if its about the character or the series as a whole, but I really find writing about franchises of film series to be a pretty difficult task, its hard to know what should be included (content wise and material wise). Don'te ven get me started on the difficulty of writing about Characters of a series articles. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Troika, 1969 film, WWCC Film Festival poster.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Troika, 1969 film, WWCC Film Festival poster.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).
Congratulations, Paleface Jack! The article you nominated, Troika (1969 film), 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) 00:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Paleface Jack. 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.
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
_1989_film_poster.jpg){kind=link}
