Talk:300 (film)/Archive 9

message: *  What was archived - linked references from the prior archive for easy recall
*  Pick a Numbah, Any Numbah, Take 2 - Prev. archived vote (seeking consensus). After much ballyhoo and threats, choice #7 narrowly emerged as choice by siply 10-9 majority.
*  Voting will end - Disc. re. problems with the vote, incl. suspicions of meat-puppetry,canvassing and non-AGF annoyances - ne real resolution
*  "Hollywood declares war on Iran" - commentary regarding WB's press release, and arguments regarding which cite to use
*  Archiving Soon - partial archive achieved w/ dissenters claiming cover-up
*  Lead Statement - Yet further disc. regarding whther film was wholly fictional or semi-fictional
*  Archiving Performed - Disc. re. how all the prior votes should have been kept in the open, opposing views suggests links to actual votes good enough - another partial undo of an archiving
*  WB Statement - Yet more disc. regarding WB's press release
*  Persian Wikilink - Disc. regarding this Diff.
*  Pop Culture Effect - IP comment and response about inclusion of pop culture catch phrase fromthe film "this is madness."
*  Political aspects clean-up - a call for clean-up of the eponymous section.
*  Information missing regarding 'Historical accuracy' - Disc. about just how many Persians faced the Spartans & Co. at BoT.
*  Quotes - Someone asking about quotes fromt he movie, and beign directed to WikiQuote entry at bottom of page
*  Excuse me - Disc. regarding arbitrary ending to vote, one side declaring consensus, while others disputed it. 
*  historical accuracy - questions about hitorocity of Leonidas' actual background
*  Mistake - a report of messed up link and its repair
*  Internet Phenomenon - Queries as to inclusion of YouTube and related references.
*  Stroking? - grammar debate as to improper word use; resolved through conversion into prose the direct quote
*  NPOV - argument about neutrality of Lead statement, and a proposed alternative, which was instituted
*  Article stability - calls for renewing application for GA (as some of the edit-warring had simmered down); wait and see attitude appears to be consensus, awaiting DVD release
*  Hand to Hand - expanding the phalanx attack advantage of Spartans to include use of terrain and fighting skill
*  The Spartan Queen was not "raped." - Disc. regarding reviewer's incorrect application of the word rape, and disc. regarding removing the citation completely or reqording in prose to downplay the inaccuracy
*  Removal of soundtrack image - Disc. regardingthe soundtrack image as "decorative" (admin's description). Discussion continued  here at IfD. Discussion ongoing.
*  Problem with Derek Malcolm review: provocative misrepresentation of film - Discussion re. yet another reviewer inaccuracy, and whether to trim or remove (replace with another source)
:I would suggest the removal of the above; this is not commonplace methodology for archiving. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 07:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand; this method seems to allow for easy accessing of recurrent topics for discussion. This way affords the convenience of not having to wade through multiple archives. As it has been the practice to summarize the archive on 4 prior occasions without significant dissent as to the above format, I see no real issues with it. Perhaps the reason it isn't commonplace is the time involved in summarizing and linking the archived sections. I don't have a problem doing it, if it makes things easier to find. Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What was archived

message: There hasn't been many edits in regard to the wording in the lead paragraphs... has the issue been resolved? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 07:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a compromise was reached. The problems of the mass image deletions remain. I think the article is a lot less without them. Arcayne (cast a spell) 11:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record, I think that at least the "uber-immortal" one could safely stay, it seems eminently relevant to the passage in question, to my mind. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You might wish to also address the image removal of Leonidas fighting, as the Spartan way of fightin is actuially addressed within the article, as well. Please, feel free to reinsert the images right away. Arcayne (cast a spell) 12:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I am disgusted that the soundtrack image was deleted under an admin's justification that all cover images should have direct "critical commentary" (despite finding remarks to the contrary at the talk page of Wikipedia:Non-free content, that cover images are acceptable in identifying the subject of the article), I think that the rest of the images should obviously stay.  The Spartan fighting image describes the nature of the film (fighting throughout, really), and the Leonidas/Xerxes is a fine image for showing the protagonist and the antagonist.  The poster image under "Depiction of Persians"  is also appropriate for illustrating the issues that some critics had. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that disgust, and raise you a need for some serious oversight. We've got folk running around deleting whatnot and flashing a badge saying that they are following wiki policy. I almost wish this were some wickedly clever parody of the US Executive branch's activities, but I am pretty sure no one has the time for parody.Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I created an "Award nominations" section which could be expanded, as I don't know if 300 has been nominated for anything else at this point.  I also removed the other citation-needed sentence, as it seemed to be an OR-based blanket statement.  It seems that the lead paragraph wording has been accepted, though I'm not sure about the images.  From my perspective, their limited use meets the fair use rationale fine.  This article should be re-listed based on its excellent content, especially in regard to the controversy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to renominate it for now, and it is likely that it will sit there for a few weeks to a month anyways (as there is currently around seven or eight film articles that would be in front of it). That way, if there are still any problems, they should be dealt with by the time it is reviewed (unless some reviewer decides to review these articles out of order). --Nehrams2020 21:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I guess the edit warring died down and consensus was reached on most of the main points? Oops, maybe I'd better keep quiet lol. Quadzilla99 22:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisiting GA status

message: Now I SINCERELY doubt it, but I was wondering if mention of all the internet parodies were worth any sort of mention. The term "this is sparta" has spawned all sorts of internet memes (something I know Wikipedia's standards shouldn't normally care about) that are so widespread that they really can't be ignored. In all likelihood, it won't make the article, but someone had to bring it up.--Katana314 03:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, THIS IS WIKIPEDIA!!! Manic Hispanic 03:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the decision from older talk threads was to hold off and see which things become lasting pop culture references vs. short lived fads. Hewinsj 12:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I love how Erik feels that "NO THIS IS WIKIPEDIA!" and "where's the beef?" are both on topic, but saying "TONIGHT WE EDIT IN HELL!" is sooooooo far off topic that he has to delete it every time. DurotarLord 19:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is SPARTA!!! 

message: I rolled back an idiotic edit to the cast, you can see it on the history tab. can someone block/punish the moron who did it please? -- Cars 04:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  moronic edit 

message: See Good Article Criteria for further details.
:GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
The article is in exceptional shape, extraordinarily well sourced, and has an informative, well elaborated, prose. It certainly deserves GA, to say the least. I have nothing to add, other then continue to maintain the article's high quality! NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 16:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GAC|GA]] Review - Pass 

message: Can anyone tell me where you got the Captain's name from?  The official site does not list him as such.  Nor does IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes.  Quite frankly, if the Official site doesn't mention this - then it should not be in the cast list as such.  I welcome other opinions on this before I change it though.  Sources I have found were newspapers such as Las Vegas Review Journal.  For further explanation read the Production Notes from the official site •  master_sonTalk -  Edits 01:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captain's name - Artemis? 

message: *
:Information about the film's effects; may require registration.  Check out http://www.bugmenot.com/ to bypass. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visual effects