Talk:300 (film)/Archive 11

message: It seems that 300 is very popular on the internet due to two famous lines "THIS IS SPARTA!" and "TONIGHT, WE DINE IN HELL!". Shouldn't it be listed under the Internet memes category and mention it's internet fame?--Hundred-Man 22:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Internet Memes

message: I was thinking we should put a small section in here on their (the actors, not the spartans) training for this film. After all, they went through 2 months of pre-production training and did some intense things at the gym they worked out in; and it was a huge part of the movie. DurotarLord 16:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Training

message: Since the beginning of this article (which was obviously written by 300 fan boys) the article has improved. Good job on making it neutral. --Arad 02:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. It's nice to have folk appreciate the hard work by lots of people. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, man... I don't recall this article ever being in terrible shape.  It was a stub to begin with, and Alientraveller and I came in and expanded the Production and Marketing sections.  Alien also started off the general Critical reaction section for us as well, I believe.  Credit is due to multiple other editors for the historical criticism, though, having long, long discussions about working out the content and sources' attributions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, it wasn't so much in terrible shape as it was a pretty nasty fight over the wording (some would even call it lame) of the various parts of the film. I actually learned quite a bit from the process. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good job 

message: :I removed this mention of an award for a spoof.  Maybe it could find a place elswhere in the article. 
United 300, a combined spoof of 300 and United 93, won the first MTV Movie Spoof Award.
:Mytwocents 23:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 300 spoof award

message: Just a note that there is vandalism in the article (end of HAcc). Could someone remove it?-Formerly Notthemanbehind...172.202.7.242 14:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: This has been raised multiple times -- everything is in working order & everyone is chilled out; time to apply for FA? --Javits2000 08:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I see why not. Alientraveller 11:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding the fair use images in Plot, we've discussed how they contribute to the article a lot. One shows the style of ass-kickery in the film (though it'd be better if we had one with the comic-booky blood) and the exotic depiction of Xerxes. Alientraveller 13:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, but outside editors don't have familiarity with these long discussions.  That's what happened with Ed g2s -- he didn't bother looking in the archives to see the discussions over why we picked the images that we did.  I'm just saying that it's a point that may be raised by a wikihound or two when the article gets nominated for FA status. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, but we have our reasons to type out once more if such issues are raised. Alientraveller 13:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FA again

message: Due to its recent DVD release in the US, keep track of DVD sales, although once obtained in the future, how should such information be listed? As its own section? Reception? Brainstorm! Stabby Joe 22:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just got my copy today (after midnight so technically yesterday, July 31). At first I'd just keep it under Promotion and release until enough attention is brought to where it warrants its on section. --Ted87 08:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD Release 

message: Congratulations guys for all the hard work. This article is now FA. Mercenary2k 20:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't: maybe in your eyes and mine, but not quite yet. Alientraveller 20:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it got promoted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log Mercenary2k 20:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. "Arru, arru!" Or however you write it. Alientraveller 20:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arru? whats that? Mercenary2k 21:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, either, but Tim Taylor came to mind. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When will the Bot update this? --Lenin and McCarthy  |  (Complain here) 04:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spoke too soon. (check history. comment made within one minute of bot updating.) --Lenin and McCarthy  |  (Complain here) 04:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The FA Star has also been added. Mercenary2k 05:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congrats guys. This article is now FA 

message: Should we add a spoiler warning in the plot section? Or at least we could add a  tag to show that the plot is going to be described in detail. Thoughts? Dariuspomaha 21:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the section is titled as the Plot, so it's obviously going to have details about the plot.  What else could it be?  Heavy discussion about this already took place at WP:SPOILER about this, and spoiler tags have been mass-removed as being redundant to such obvious section headings.  Also, the current fiction template really only applies to released items (books, films, etc.) in their first week, but not after that.  I personally disagree with the current fiction template myself; it's a pseudo-circumvention of WP:SPOILER. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, that's fine. I've just seen other articles where they put a spoiler warning halfway through the plot section, and just figured that a featured article like this might be better off not revealing important plot points too early. But you're right, this section doesn't really do that. So, is it commonplace for editors to remove unnecessary warnings like that when we see them? I have even seen too many current templates used in articles, but it makes sense to only use it when it's relevant, in their first week, haha. Thanks. Dariuspomaha 01:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, discussion at WP:SPOILER resulted in the removal of the spoiler templates from sections that obviously titled what kind of detail would be included. Since the result of the discussion is still fairly recent, there are still editors that are unfamiliar with the result and attempt to restore the spoiler templates in what they believe to be a looked-over vacancy.  It happens, and I usually try to inform frequent editors (as in not just someone who just edited that one instance) about the WP:SPOILER result.  As for the current fiction template, I'm not too big of a fan of its presence at all because I would imagine most readers go to articles about newly-released subjects because it's been newly released.  Furthermore, the template seems to imply that readers would not be expecting an article that covers the film well.  I mean, God forbid that an article on the newly released subject matter actually provides comprehensive detail about the subject! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it only makes sense that we write these articles to the best of our abilities, doesn't it? And people don't need warnings for that. Dariuspomaha 02:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot 

message: It crossed my mind that noone here seem to have read what Slavoj Zizek said about 300, therefore I'm providing a link to his article on lacan.com: http://www.lacan.com/zizhollywood.htm. It's been widely accapted that 300 is pro-american and anti-iranian, but Zizek says something bit different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V.Milanko (talk • contribs) 12:40, August 10, 2007
:No opinion on the piece, but the article on the writer can be seen at Slavoj Žižek, if anyone wants to know his background. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the guy is on Quaaludes (the guy gave an equally rambling piece on Children of Men's DVD release), but tell us what he said here before putting it in the article. His inclusion might opt out another commentator or not be needed. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was indeed paraphrased incorrectly, you were right to pull the statements. Why not write something that more aptly references the source and replace it? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavoj Zizek on 300 

message: Academic Hamid Dabashi has written a critical review of the film, contextualizing it historically and politically. Available here:
The '300' stroke, August, Al-Ahram Weekly (English)
--71.227.191.140 09:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Critical Article 

message: I have raised this question before, but perhaps it will attract a response if I set in under a new heading. My opinion is that the only way to proceed with the Daryaee discussion, which has long since ceased to be even vaguely productive, is to move to another stage of the dispute resolution process, rather than continuing to clog up the talk page. To me the most appropriate step seems to be to submit a request for mediation. What are the opinions of the other participants? --Javits2000 19:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I was simply implementing (and reinforcing) what I thought was the consensus, mediation sounds like a good idea. Let's see if the main 'combatants' agree o it. If they don't, then we know they aren't sure of their arguments, and can decide appropriately. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If I understand the request for mediation process correctly, it is not possible to handpick a mediator according to certain criteria, nor for an editor to select or suggest a mediator; rather, if the case is accepted for mediation, then a member of the mediation committee will agree to hear the case. If the other parties, having read the RFM page and understood the nature of the process, find this acceptable, then I will go ahead and file a request; alternatively, it would be possible to select another option from the dispute resolution process (e.g. informal mediation). --Javits2000 15:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Very good, my apologies, I've been out of town for a week or so & will be for another. Please feel free to go ahead & initiate proceedings without me, otherwise I'll deal with it when I'm back. --Javits2000 22:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps everyone could stop expecting someone else to do the heavy lifting and just file the darn request themselves? Yeesh. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You do still have a username; your talk page is here: User talk:Notthemanbehindthecurtain, where a message has been left by the mediation committee. If for some reason you're not able to log-in, best to leave an explanation at the RFM page, where indeed all discussion on this subject should now be directed. --Javits2000 11:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Daryaee: mediation?

message: I leanrned from a very accomplished editor that Wikipedia requires ciations for every blanket statement.  For instance, "broke box office records"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotcop2 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, to begin with, Lead statements are an overview of the article, and citations are quite infrequently added to them, as the information they give an overview to provide citations as they occur within the body of the article. 300 is fairly well cited - a lot of people have seen to that - and is a good article for that ery reason. As the accomplished editor you are currently engaged in a dispute with in a BLP article, it would seem that you are either trying to assess how citations actually work, or are attempting to disrupt those FA articles I have worked on to make a point. As you have misapplied the usage of cn tags here, I am guessing its the latter reason. Hopefully, this matter of your cn tag usage has been explained both in the edit summaries of this article as well as on your User Talk page sufficiently. You might wish to consult with an admin if you feel you still have a grievance, but I would caution you about stalking other users edits. The higher-ups tend to take a rather dim view of POINT-based attacks. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Hotcop2, please review WP:POINT.  You have been informed of your inappropriate conduct on your user talk page.  There is no need to add tags to the lead section, which is already a concise overview of what is referenced in the article.  If you have any issue with any information in the article being uncited, feel free to mark that as the case. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: How do I add the name of screenwriter Michael B. Gordon to the sidebar of the article. It currently lists Zack Snyder and Kurt Johnstad as the only writers of the screenplay, when they in fact shared credit with Michael B. Gordon. Also it should be noted that Zack Snyder and Kurt Johnstad are a writing team and not two individual writing entities. The Writers Guild uses an ampersand to denote a team and the word "and" to denote a separate writing entity...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelgordon99 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added it.  If you are interested in how it works, click the edit tab at the top of the page, and if you read the code that is used to produce that section it's not terribly difficult to reproduce. You can also go to the sandbox to make some test edits that won't hurt anything before you try adding information to an article. Hewinsj 20:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  adding omitted name of screenwriter Michael B. Gordon to the sidebar of the article 

message: Just watched the movie.  It occurs to me that the director of the movie tries to create the impression that the Spartans were monotheists.  They never assert this directly, of course, but by omission, I think they do.  The Spartans would certainly have been imprecating their pantheon of gods before a battle, yet this is entirely absent in the movie.  As the Athenians are leaving the battle, their leader says "Godspeed you, Leonidas" or somesuch thing that a polytheist would not say.  Given the other willful distortions to the end of "West good, East bad," I believe this was intentional.  Anyway... does anyone know of any sources that address this twisting of fact?--Hraefen Talk 04:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps your questions might be answered by visiting the archives for this Discussion page. This is a topic that has been discussed with all the vociferousness of a Talmudic soirée. Check it out, and if you have any questions, please feel free to either ask a specific question here or ask in my User talk page. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply put, no the movie never implies they are monothestic. While the solider (who is Arcadian, not Athenian) does say "Godspeed" about 2 mintues earlier Dilios says the that the Captain "curses the Gods) and that "the Gods saw fit to grace me with a spare." (reffering to his eye) After they see the city burned someone says "have the Gods no mercy". Wow, I damn near memorized this movie. :p --Ted87 22:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the creators of the movie ignored a lot of historical aspects to make the movie more appealing to modern American audiences  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.158.81 (talk) 05:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, its a big conspiracy to appeal only to the American audience. They only released it overseas so as to convert all other countries over to  Americanism (or do you prefer The Great Satan?), the gigantic plot that America's Founding Fathers hatched over 200 years ago. You're onto us. lol - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Does the movie try to paint the Spartans as monotheistic?

message: I think the article glosses over the actual post-production notes too much.  I would recommend that more indepth analysis be done to find out how the film was indeed made, using exactly what software, what studios, how long it took for them, what shots were ascribed to each studio. If people think this is "too much detail" be advised this is SUPPOSED to be an encyclopedia... ;-)  Anyway, wouldn't be more than 2 paragraphs, I think. Besides, you can't go wrong with having a few sentences devoted to a studio called "Screaming Death Monkey" 148.4.33.116 21:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production notes 

message: Since Variety indicated that Ahmadinejad did not mention the film by name back in March 2007, the Iranian president recently elaborated to TIME his thoughts of 300: "[Ahmadinejad] notes that Americans don't understand Iranian history, saying that the movie 300 — with which he seems intimately familiar — was a 'complete distortion of Iranian history.' Iran, he says, has never invaded anyone in its history."  Thought that might be worth a mention from a prominent public figure, despite lack of historical credentials. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gosh, its soooo easy when the little clowns make with All the Funny. I'm glad America isn't the only country with a moron for a President. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just about Everyone has made a comment about this movie. El Greco(talk) 13:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, but not that many of them have made such comments in the course of conducting press conferences and politics using them, wouldn't you agree? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and ''300'' 

message: 10 things the makers of '300' got right by Mary Beard, a professor in classics at Cambridge and classics editor of the TLS.  Not sure if the article needs any more exploration of historical accuracies, but there's a new resource for reading. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a very readable article (if also a bit flip) by a highly respected scholar. External link? --Javits2000 17:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resource about film's accuracy 

message: There has been some debate on whether the "This is Sparta!" meme should be included. Things like Internet memes are usually noted in trivia sections, but Wikipedia guidelines recommend against having trivia sections in articles. I briefly mentioned the meme in the plot section, but another editor reverted my edit, saying that Internet memes didn't belong in plot sections (either).
Does anyone have a solution? --Ixfd64 00:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Co-incidence! I came to suggest the same thing, not forgetting the "Tonight we dine in Hell" meme as well. I don't see why it shouldn't be in the Reception section, since it is a part of how the public reacted to the film. Meowy 01:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a reliable source that addresses the Internet memes for 300?  It's usually notoriously difficult to verify the usage of such memes in an overall capacity, rather than linking to multiple examples of the memes in action. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This is Sparta!" Internet meme 

message: I just noticed an edit that turned the reflist into a scroll box, but it was reverted. Is there some rule that states that this is an unacceptable choice? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, a refscroll template got deleted for the reason of difficulty in perceiving the references in a quick and overall manner -- you can't get an idea of the size of an article's references with a limited scrollbox.  I can dig up the TfD if you want... I've cited it a couple of times when someone tries to attach a scrollbox format to it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I could trouble you to do so, that would be appreciated. I have come across its uncontested presence elsewhere, and knowing the precedent is always helpful. Thanks Erik. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 11#Template:Scrollref. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: So it would appear that the problem was with slower computers not being able to use the scrolling feature, that the items int he scroll box were not quick-linked? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also the argument that there's not a need to hide the long list of references since they appear at the end of the article.  In a scrollbox, the scale of the article's references can't be realized, nor navigated as easily (like if you were looking at the references and wanted to know which item the reference covered).  Something that could be explored instead is a template where people could have the option to have the references collapsed or not when they visit an article.  Don't know if that's been implemented anywhere. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reflisting