Talk:The Final Countdown (film)

message: Is this really a primary topic?  I'd never heard of this movie, and the Europe song is very well known.  Shouldn't this be moved to The Final Countdown (film), with The Final Countdown being a disambiguation page? john k 23:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, until it was linked from this page, I had never heard of the song.  But I've known about the movie for decades. We could look at number sold.  Val42 05:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just ran a Google search that returned well over a million hits, but other than the movie and the song, most usage was just as an expression. There was a product (an electronic timer) that uses the name Final Countdown, but that was about all. I think the articles are fine the way they are, co-linked at the top of the page. In the future, if someone feels that a full 'disambig' page is needed, more power to them... Hurrmic 14:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary topic?

message: Should this article be labelled a Stub?  It seems quite short and does not list any production details.  I found out more about the production timing on the page for the Nimitz itself about the movie than here.  Other sections that are common to articles about movies of the era are also missing. Nutster (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub? 

message: The section on the plot says it is set in 1980. The movie was released in 1980, but my memory is that the plot begins just before December 7, 1981, and they are transported back in time by exactly 40 years. Can someone check on this? Thanks.  Duoduoduo (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would happily watch this movie for the 1,000th time to be certain, but probably won't for a while. IMDB says 1980, although it isn't accurate 100% of the time. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I just watched it again carefully. The film contains no reference to the time the plot begins and ends. The only hint is that the container of rations says "Rations inspected July 1979". So 1979 is the most likely date of action.  Duoduoduo (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  About 40 minutes into the movie, the scene just before the Zeros: Owens says, their reconnaissance photos show "something that hasn't existed for _over_ 40 years" - so it would be set in 'the near future', 1982 or later. (Which also means I'd rather not have to eat those rations :) ) 92.77.139.191 (talk) 07:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Set in 1980?

message: I added the RA-5C to the list of aircraft appearing in the film. You can see an RA-5C on the ground at NAS Pearl Harbor for a few seconds at 2:01-2:07, and again at 3:36-3:44. The first time it is seen it is behind the SH-3 that Mr. Lasky is about to board, being towed by a tractor. The second time it's seen it is parked behind the SH-3 that Mr. Lasky is on as it takes off from NAS Pearl for the Nimiz. It is never seen in the air in this film. It's hard to tell from the few seconds that it's on-screen, but since this film was made in 1979 I'm assuming that that RA-5C is part of RVAH-7, which would have been completing its final deployment to the Western Pacific aboard USS Ranger (CV-61) in late 1979.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk • contribs) 21:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: RA-5C

message: I caught the end of The Evil Dead II on TV the other night & seen the scene with the temporal portal. Is the temporal portal the same one used (as in made using the same spacial effects/ CGIs) as the one used in the film The Final Countdown ? Also, how was the temporal portal effect made ? 80.254.146.140 (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporal Portal - The Final Countdown Vs. The Evil Dead II 

message: There were a few of the Carrier shots that were on or of the USS Kitty Hawk (CV63) instead of the Nimitz. The movie page does not mention it anywhere nor is it mentioned on the USS Nimitz page where it talks about it's part in the movie. Credits are Credits, especially in print. The movies run them so fast you can't read them.
Dave1224365 (talk) 07:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Credits left out 

message: Regarding your edit here, please note that "alternate history" is correct in American English. Per WP:ENGVAR, articles on US-related topics, as with The Final Countdown (film), are to be written in American English. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: @BilCat - My Websters (1960) does not recognise this usage, which is ambiguous and exclusive. I know it's policy for dictionaries to include popular usage nowadays, but that does not sanction it as correct for a scholarly context. The present online version of Websters seems to prefer the phrase "alternative history" too; if you type in "alternate history" you are referred to the "alternative" definition. The argument above that "alternate history" is established 'American English' is therefore not valid. The earliest instance for this usage was only in 1977. But it has to be demonstrated that it is valid scholarly English, given WP's aspirations, and I rather doubt that. Sweetpool50 (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As discussed umpteen times on Talk:Alternate history, this is the current, most prevalent term in the US at this time (the Common Name in Wikipedia terms), and hence what WP's Alternate history is named. Per WP:ENGVAR, that is the common term in American English, and what Wikipedia uses in American-related topics, which the film clearly is. Appeals to some ill-defined claim of Wikipedia's "scholarly" aspersions don't override clear Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Reverted again, and please be aware of WP:3RR. Further reverts will be treated as such. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "Scholarly aspersions", is that another example of your "alternate" English usage? The appeal is to usage of "alternative" in the standard American dictionary, not what is recorded there as a recent variant. Hiding you refusal to discuss the question rationally behind the (easily circumvented) 3RR is pathetic. Sweetpool50 (talk) 08:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll note that the main discussion forum for the subject is alternatehistory.com. This is a case of WP:ENGVAR, and as this is an American film, useage of American spelling - in this case, "alternate history", instead of the British English "alternative history", is the correct useage as required by the manual of style. We don't require 'scholary English', we require common useage. Also, I'll note 3RR is not "easily circumvented"; it's a bright-line rule. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

text:  No, it's a typo that my autocorrect "corrected", and I missed it. Thanks for so kindly pointing it out. Also, I'm not refusing to discuss anything, as I initiated the discussion on your talk,and am continuing the discussion here. Wikipedia doesn't strictly use dictionary definitions, but follows usage as described in reliable published sources, which in the United States overwhelming use "alternate history". Wikipedia's guidelines may not be quite what you'd like, or what you're used to, but it is what it is. - BilCat (talk) 08:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

text: The point I am trying to make is that ] Merriam-Webster carries the main meaning under the heading "alternative history", notes the first use of the term in 1903 and records an American usage in The Boston Globe from 2005. Since "alternative" is also acceptable in the US, therefore, it seems not only chauvinistic but exclusive to insist on "alternate", which was more or less the point being made in the 2015 discussions cited earlier. When I was over in Taiwan helping edit an encyclopaedia, we used the Chicago Manual of Style as our main guide to American usage. That's not freely on line but I think you'll find that the section "5.220 Good usage versus common usage" specifically cites the case of "alternative", which it prefers, to "alternate". This is not a simple case of WP:ENGVAR, therefore, but a subvariety of American English. Examples like "boondoggling" or "aint" are other examples of American usage but would not be sanctioned in the main body of a WP article. If you can prove from the CMOS, which is the sort of "reliable published source" that I respect, that "alternative" is not acceptable usage any more, then I'll concede the point. If it is, then, @The Bushranger, you will need to clarify the definition of common usage at the appropriate WP forum in the interests of all the users of WP. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative history 

message: The flow of the article in various sections is inconsistent and there are multiple grammar issues throughout.  I do not have the time to clean all of this up. Nutster (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy Edit template