Talk:300 (film)/Archive 2

message: I am not sure I understand..what was the reason people want/don't want it included in the article? Arcayne 12:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm missing how we can accurately compare the film's Xerxes to the wall carving. I could get it if there were paintings of him, but the detail of the wall art, compared to that of a film is kind of hard to compare. Are there any other images of Xerxes? I mean the real Xerxes not the film guy. Also, if you are going to compare Xerxes (film) to Xerxes (reality) you need to cover that in the text. I only saw one mentioning of Xerxes in the "depictions" section and it was 1 sentence about him being androgynous. It just concerns me that the images won't be accepted in a review for fair use because they aren't really talked about in the section that are sitting.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, reasonably, there isn't going to be one, as paintings aren't really going to survive both the passage of time and the erosion by the elements. As with the Greeks and other early cultures, we are left with bas reliefs or sculptures. However, I think the differences are moot, as there is adequate commentary that the visualizations of the movie and the book were - and I quote Snyder - "crazy." While the events that took place were somewhat accurate, the fashion sense and shape of those events is admittedly incorrect. Zerk prolly looked more like Leonidas, what with the beard that was all the rage at that time. Arcayne 21:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Xerxes Image

message: Do you guys think this should be included? http://300themovie.info/ 
It has been talked about here: http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=18730f4a-5275-41c0-8b2a-4203bfbb081e VanGuy85 21:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's basically an online petition, the same as petitiononline.com. As such it's a violation of NPOV because it's an entire site devoted to fighting the film. A source that discusses the website is fine, but an external link for the website itself wouldn't be appropriate. It wouldn't pass WP:EL and the Conflict of interest for campaigning as they are basically campaigning against the film, just in an unusual way. It's being included as an external link, and not as a source for anything.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The previous comment was about the link: http://300themovie.info/ (and not the petition. The link was discussed in the petition). I think inclusion of the website (i.e. http://300themovie.info/) is relevant and should be considered.
It has been considered. As a rule, films and television programs are limited in fan-site links. this is an anti-fan site, which begs the question: why would a non-fan visit the article in the first place? The answer is, of course, that they wouldn't. Therefore the link is just excess baggage. I hope that explains matters sufficiently. Arcayne 14:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Project 300 

message: Is there a reason why we are listing the user approval ratings at RottenTomatoes.com? Arcayne 15:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical Reaction Question

message: Hi.  Some sources have mentioned that this is being bootlegged in Iran, but this appears to have disappeared from the article.  It may be important to mention this.  While Azadeh for Time has claimed nobody has seen it, other sources have mentioned the bootlegging.  What happened to it?  The Behnam 17:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just came across this while trimming the article. Shahingohar removed the rest of the Time quote, stating that the Variety article had mentioned that pirated copied were all over Iran. I reverted it, suggesting that he write up a statement citing that claim. If you are saying that the info has disappeared (which would be kinda odd), then we should find out why (with a source, of course). Arcayne 17:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look in the archives for the post.  It may actually be in one of the sources used in the page.  I'll get back on this.  The Behnam 18:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The conclusion from this post was that mentions of the bootleg are definitely out there Talk:300 (film)/Archive 3#Please include this quote.  I'll look up the specific sources at some point.  The Behnam 18:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That there are I have no doubt. We just need citations, so we can add it in the approriate area of the article (likely to follow up the quote from Time). Arcayne 18:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is one .  The Behnam 18:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a very good reference, as it is to a subscriber site. We're supposed to avoid those if possible. Is there another one that is free to view? Arcayne 18:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are others out there; just search Google news for: the 300 bootleg .  It is subscriber? I don't see the problem if you don't have to register.  The Behnam 18:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the one that I was referring to. (Shahingohar 19:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Outstanding, Shahingohar. Since you found it, go ahead and put the statement in the article right after the Time reference - unless you want someone else to do it. Arcayne 19:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bootleg 

message: This talk page is currently at 43k, so I am thinking to archive the data above the Xerxes Image section. Arcayne 18:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Text archived to #4 Arcayne 19:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: The top notes linking to 300 (comic book) and 300:March to Glory are unnecessary and unintuitive. Top notes are for disambiguation, not for redirecting readers to related articles, which is the only reason to have them here. The article title 300 (film) is unambiguous, no one will mistake it for a comic book or video game. There is already a disambiguation page dedicated to things named 300: it's at 300 (disambiguation). Unless someone offers a real reason to keep them, I'll remove them again after a while.--Cúchullain t/c 20:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Hatnotes#Disambiguating_article_names_that_are_not_ambiguous.--Cúchullain t/c 20:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No, good reasons have been supplied as to why they don't need to be there. We'll keep them out. :) Arcayne 02:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: They should go, the removal citations of policy are right. All references to 300 no including the already disambiguated year are related to this story, be it paper, celluose, or digital. ThuranX 02:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the hatnotes page is a little unclear on exactly what you SHOULD do, but it seems that because "300" doesn't lead to a disambig page, but to an article, that it would be better to have a hatnote at the top for at least the graphic novel. I think the graphic novel should be hatnoted at the top, and the game should either (if based on the film) be in a section for adaptations, or (if a stand alone game with no connection other than being based on the GN) be placed in the "See also" section of the article.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 02:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I asked. two folks had thought it unimportant enough to remove, and they didn't seem to be wild-eyed English folk (a joke, for all of the non-western folk reading this). I was thinking that there were mentions of both within th article, and so therefore really didn't need mentioning. Arcayne 02:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point, at least for the GN, because it's kind of right there in the first line they just have to read it. But I don't know, or see, where the game is linked. I think if people are only interested in the game (btw, I just watched the trailer for and it looks crappy) then maybe we should just put that at the top, because there isn't mention of the game in plain site as soon as you entire the page. Someone shouldn't be required to read an entire article searching for a link to a game just because they don't know the actual article title.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 02:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For more on this, I suggest you look here 300. YOu'll see that a seriosu amount of disambig goes on there. All the 300 related stuff for the Miller story are already here; they're linked to in the article and thus not easily confused. ThuranX 03:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The hatnote page is perfectly clear. "300 (film)" is an unambiguous title. Readers will not come to this article by mistake looking for the game or the comic. They will come by either typing it in or clicking on link at another article or 300 (disambiguation). As for redirecting to only the game and comic (rather than the disambig page), hat notes are not for directing to related topics. The disambiguation page already lists all the other articles for anyone interested; those other articles will be found easily enough.--Cúchullain t/c 05:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know if the game merits a mention in the lead section, but a link in the "See also" section would seem fairly logical, and might be handy for someone reading this article (for some reason...), and wondering about the game (re-)adaptation.  Alai 15:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation

message: Recently, the Disambiguation links at the top of he article have been removed. Why should we have them? Why should we not? Arcayne 02:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They should go, the removal citations of policy are right. All references to 300 no including the already disambiguated year are related to this story, be it paper, celluose, or digital. ThuranX 02:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the hatnotes page is a little unclear on exactly what you SHOULD do, but it seems that because "300" doesn't lead to a disambig page, but to an article, that it would be better to have a hatnote at the top for at least the graphic novel. I think the graphic novel should be hatnoted at the top, and the game should either (if based on the film) be in a section for adaptations, or (if a stand alone game with no connection other than being based on the GN) be placed in the "See also" section of the article.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 02:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I asked. two folks had thought it unimportant enough to remove, and they didn't seem to be wild-eyed English folk (a joke, for all of the non-western folk reading this). I was thinking that there were mentions of both within th article, and so therefore really didn't need mentioning. Arcayne 02:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point, at least for the GN, because it's kind of right there in the first line they just have to read it. But I don't know, or see, where the game is linked. I think if people are only interested in the game (btw, I just watched the trailer for and it looks crappy) then maybe we should just put that at the top, because there isn't mention of the game in plain site as soon as you entire the page. Someone shouldn't be required to read an entire article searching for a link to a game just because they don't know the actual article title.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 02:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For more on this, I suggest you look here 300. YOu'll see that a seriosu amount of disambig goes on there. All the 300 related stuff for the Miller story are already here; they're linked to in the article and thus not easily confused. ThuranX 03:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The hatnote page is perfectly clear. "300 (film)" is an unambiguous title. Readers will not come to this article by mistake looking for the game or the comic. They will come by either typing it in or clicking on link at another article or 300 (disambiguation). As for redirecting to only the game and comic (rather than the disambig page), hat notes are not for directing to related topics. The disambiguation page already lists all the other articles for anyone interested; those other articles will be found easily enough.--Cúchullain t/c 05:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know if the game merits a mention in the lead section, but a link in the "See also" section would seem fairly logical, and might be handy for someone reading this article (for some reason...), and wondering about the game (re-)adaptation.  Alai 15:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: (merged from duped section)

message: Leonidas would have been titled the Warlord of Sparta if he conceded to Xerxes' rule, in contrast to the title of King of Sparta as mentioned in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samsoccer7 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I would have just split with the promise of a jelly donut, a cold beer and safe passage. To each their own. :P  Arcayne 21:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow...tough crowd. :)  Arcayne 14:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leonidas' title under Xerxes rule, should he choose to accept 

message: This article looks very good and has lots of citations. I think it should be upgraded to A. Mercenary2k 03:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are the grading criteria? While we are at it, wi might want to consider having someone give us a glimpse of what we need before applying for GA status.Arcayne 03:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here you go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Film_articles_by_quality Mercenary2k 05:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is definitely not well written, and good writing is one of the criteria. Cognita 06:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before it gets to A, it has to pass GA nomination.  We're not ready for that, however.  María: (habla conmigo) 14:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Article should be upgraded to A 

message: Could someone take a look at the historical accuracy section? The statements added about Touraj Daryaee seem kinda-long-winded, but I am more concerned about the ciation itself. Is it up to snuff, wiki-speaking? Arcayne 03:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked in to it. He did write the article himself and he is what he is claimed to be (Professor of Ancient History at California State University, Fullerton). I think it is up to snuff to be used as a citation since he is an expert on the subject. That review also gives the article a more balance perspective regarding the historical accuracy of 300.VanGuy85 04:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, he's a highly respected historian of ancient Persia. But that said, this section seems at present to be a two-paragraph direct quote: it should at the very least be put in "blockquote" format, and should also probably be trimmed down.--Javits2000 10:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick addendum: It is a direct quote, and I've formatted it as such. But having read through it once more I'm no longer sure it should be trimmed -- the whole thing strikes me as a useful addition, as per VanGuy85 above. --Javits2000 10:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Touraj Daryaee Statements and Citation

message: As I've not yet heard an opinion one way or the other on whether YourGeekNews.com's 300 video news piece and talk back area are of a quality and value that merits inclusion on the same policy that IMDB and Rotten Tomato are included, I am re-posting in the hope that there can be a definitive majority of opinion expressed one way or the other ~Zymaseman YourGeekNews.com 02:00 March 17 2007
:Sorry in taking so long to respond. The link looks good, but I am concerned that the video might not be there 2-3 years from now. Arcayne 20:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  YourGeekNews.com Video News Pieces  

message: It is stated that "Persian coins fall from Theron's purse exposing his treason, and the Council unites in support of the 300."
But in the movie it is clear that the council does not in fact unite in support of the 300. They rush to the floor, pick up the money, and shout "treasure". How on earth is this in any way supporting the 300??
I believe it should be changed to: "Persian coins fall from Theron's purse exposing his treason. The Council, however, remains indifferent, and instead rejoice in their newfound treasure."
Or something along those lines —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Americanuck (talk • contribs) 06:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, they definitely say "traitor." Whether they "unite in support of the 300" is perhaps another question, but is strongly implied by the final sequence, where the united Spartan force faces the Persians.--Javits2000 09:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Having seen the movie 3 times now (twice more than I think I needed to), after Theron's traitorous behavior is exposed, the entire council changts traitor. As he was the motivating force behind remaining out of the fray, so one was goingt to continue to support that position (and be labeled a traitor as well). Its common sense that they got off their asses and shuffled off to the fight.Arcayne 14:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Council's support 

message: I've asked for a peer review over at WP:films, in anticipation of hopefully nominating the article for GA status in the near future.  I'm looking forward to reading what a few outside sources have to say.  María: (habla conmigo) 16:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: --alidoostzadeh 23:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to incorporate this info as it is from published scholar in ancient Iranian studies. --alidoostzadeh 00:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  good read 

message: There is an error regarding the title of the Time's (magazine) article in this reference:
ref name=moaveni></ref> .
The correct title is "300 Sparks an Outcry in Iran."
There is also a brief quote in the current (printed) 
Time magazine, European edition, vol.169, No.11, column: Briefing, subsection: Verbatim,   p. 16, March 26, 2007. I (verbatim) quote the fifth row:
" --- 'Not only would no nation or government accept this...but it would also consider it as hostile behavior which is the result of cultural and psychological warfare.' GHOLAMHOSSEIN ELHAM, Iranian government spokesman, about the film 300, which depicts a battle in 480 B.C., when the massive Persian army was held off for three days by a small band of Spartan soldiers. Source: ABC News.   " -- 172.214.150.169 08:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Time magazine

message: Was it Arcane? --75.27.186.31 17:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably no one; Daryaee's remarks are still there. --Javits2000 17:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe he's referring to the converstion of block-texted quotations to a format more in keeping with a WP article. If that is what he meant, then that was me. Well, me, and several others who helped tweak it to make sure that what Prof. Daryaee had to impart was communicated more effectively. (now I get the bald comment below - he thought he was referring to me - lol! some people)  -Arcayne 18:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who deleted the Fullerton professor's well researched contributions

message: What does everyone think of depicting Xerxes as bald? I mean the man had hair didn't he? Isn't it racist to portray him as bald? Next they'll portray him as a Wikipedia censor who deletes the Cal State Fullerton's well researched contributions. What do you think Arcayne? --75.27.186.31 17:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, not knowing what deletions are being referred to or being bald (not that ther is anything wrong with that), I would have to say I am not sure what you are asking. Being portrayed as bald is racist? Pray, do tell. Captain Picard and Kojak and the late, great Yul Brynner are dying to know... Arcayne 18:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously this individual cannot read, because Javits2000 is correct: the Fullerton mention is still in the article.  My boyfriend shaves his head, and when questioned (about five seconds ago) if his baldness was due to racism, he said in response, "Uh, racism?  Am I being repressed because I hate my hair?"  Obviously, dear!  María: (habla conmigo) 18:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn you, Maria! You made me noseboot hot coffee! rotflmao!! thumbs up to the bf with all the Clevers! Arcayne 18:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Depicting Xerxes as bald

message: Most of the conversations appear to have lulled. What should remain here, and what should be archived? Arcayne 23:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to Archive