Talk:Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

message: Am I the only one who thinks we should add images of the posters for this film and the other films in the original series with the credits in it instead of the actual artwork? Tjdrum2000 (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not the only one. Jazzy Jazz Jr (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

text: The poster art is more common to various forms of the film (home video, promotion, etc) than the poster block itself, with text you cannot read at the resolution of a non-free image. There's no reason to change them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real poster for this film and other films instead of simply artwork 

message: To avoid edit warring, bringing to talk. In contrast to the Catmull source, we have the previously used Washington Post article and the book Special Effects: Still in Search of Wonder (Michele Pierson). A quick search shows more recent citations as well, but I'm not including them to avoid potential circular sourcing. Either way, it's inappropriate to assert that it's the second (and specifically referencing Futureworld is out-of-scope of this article), if it's inappropriate to assert it's the first. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: CGI 

message: Frankly I don't see Syfy as a high-quality reliable source, nor does the AFI database hold absolute sway for the figure for TMP versus the sources already in the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Budget figure 

message: * MOS:ALLCAPS need to be addressed in several places, samples:
*: "STAR TREK II - THE WRATH OF KHAN (A) (CUT)". British Board of Film Classification. June 16, 1982. Archived from the original on April 19, 2013. Retrieved February 26, 2013.
*: "NEW 'STAR TREK' PLAN REFLECTS SYMBIOSIS OF TV AND MOVIES". The New York Times. Archived from the original on November 12, 2017. Retrieved March 16, 2020.
* You can install this script to keep dates consistent.
* The noobist reliability ?  
* There are 20 uses of the word also; please review User:Tony1 writing exercises and consider whether they are all necessary.
* Awkward ...  Among the film's technical achievements is being the first feature film to contain a sequence created entirely with computer graphics. -->  The film was the first feature film to contain a sequence created entirely with computer graphics.
, some of this is nitpicking, but I thought I'd put it here so you can go through your others at WP:URFA/2020 for similar before I have a look at them.  Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk)  18:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , post arbcase, I need to get back to reviewing all of the Star Trek series at URFA; could you look at the comments above before I continue?  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  17:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Sandy, the above should be addressed already. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: One more note: Okuda is cited quite a few times, but it's unclear what this refers to. Probably, the full citation has been deleted somewhere along.  FemkeMilene (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the help, .   I can’t keep reviewing until my computer is back from repair— it didn’t like my donation of a full cup of morning coffee on the keyboard.  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  21:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020]] notes 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: User:David Fuchs, on August 28 I cleaned up and enhanced the information about the use of computer graphics in the film and added new sources to document the new information. On February 25 you reverted all of my changes.
I have significant understanding of the history of computer graphics, including in film, and think the place of Star Trek II in this history is important to describe properly in this article. My change to the structure puts the Evans & Sutherland CG details in a paragraph about computer graphics. I hope you'd agree that this is better than having them in the paragraph about matte painting.
Your edit summary on your deletion was, "cleanup; this is implying stuff that the AmCin source doesn't actually support". But why would the old source need to support the new information? That's what the new source is for. The only sentence I added without an explicit reference is, "A 210 second fully CG star field sequence was used before and during the opening credits." This is covered by the same source as the prior reference, the oral history from 1986. I'm willing to cite it again if you think it's best; I didn't because it seemed like bludgeoning the reader with footnotes. My source for the length of the shot was the movie itself. Does that need to be cited as a source? I could, but it would seem awkward to me.
In your same edit you also removed some fixes to broken page numbers in other references. What was your reason for removing these fixes? I can fix them differently if they were a problem.Davemc0 (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you're referring to for most of the above. Content added must be verifiable, and as this is a featured article it must be to high-quality sources (I frankly don't think the InPark source still in the article when the starfield bit is mentioned meets those criteria.) If you're adding content without having the citation directly there to verify it, that's a no-go. There's no indication Evans & Sutherland were somehow uniquely important to the production that they shouldn't be mentioned with the other contracted firms who handled additional optical effects. The Youtube link you used as a reference is inappropriate for use in this article, and the "boldly go" mention is a fun bit of trivia that isn't that important. Also, the page numbering was adjusted so it matches the treatment of other sources; again, consistent citation schemes is part of the featured article criteria. I get that you seem to have a personal vested interest in playing up Evans & Sutherland and the Digistar role, but star fields are not a huge effect in the film. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computer graphics special effects 

message: Why is there no mention of Joachim, either in the plot of the film or in the cast section? He was a fairly important character in the movie. Yes he was uncredited in the film but it seems weird to also leave him uncredited on the wikipedia article  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240F:32:315E:1:1C5:71F1:DA46:560A (talk) 04:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joachim played by Judson Scott 

message: Anyone think that this section is a bit unfocused? It should be the cast list and comments on the casting process (e.g. particular actors deciding whether to appear or being uncredited), not a coatrack for arbitrary trivia. Memory Alpha exists for that sort of thing. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 06:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast section 

message: Is this an encyclopedia?  Don't we want accurate information?  The first line of the plot is wrong.  The movie opens will Lt Saavik in command of the Enterprise. We don't find out it's a simulator until after the bridge crew are "killed."  134.167.1.1 (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not here to recreate the atmosphere of the film. The summary of the scene is fine. If you want a recreation, you can always read the novelisation. DonQuixote (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The plot is wrong