Talk:300 (film)/Archive 1

message: I would like to explain my reasoning for removing the Criticism section from this film article.  Wikipedia is about citing not only sources, but reliable sources.  The two links you provided, a Yahoo! Message Board thread and a World's Armed Forces Forum thread, are not published and/or authoriative sources.  Anyone can have dialogue on the Internet about a topic and draw controversy where there was none to be had before.  There can be Internet buzz about any topic imaginable, yet Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  This does not qualify as encyclopedic material unless such controversy enters the awareness of an independent news source, online or offline.  If this can be provided, then the controversy can be recognized as worthy of recording in an encyclopedic fashion.  However, having the Criticism section and its content violates the policy that article structures that imply a view should be avoided.  I am going to revert out the Criticism section once more, and I strongly suggest that you have dialogue here on this talk page before editing it back in. --Erik 22:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Erikster. I'd also add that Wiki isn't a crystal ball. Ascribing recent historical events as motive for a movie which has been in the pipes for a number of years is ridiculous conspiracy theory writing. IF a reliable source can be found not just dismissing the tinfoil hat wearing intarwebzzz, but actually examining the idea sa s seriosu and worthwhile topic, THEN it can be added. There are forums on which it has been posted that the movie sucks. Should we post the reviews of folks who haven't seen it? Of course not. Forums aren't WP:RS. ThuranX 22:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I wanted to follow this up with a direct link to the policy that says the message board threads are not valid sources: Bulletin boards, wikis, and posts to Usenet. --Erik 15:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Drawing a line in the sand for freedom, so that the Spartans and Athenians could go back to their cities and oppress their slaves and persecute others... Western ignorance. I hate this whole "Western supramacy" thing, it even makes the brutal savage spartans look like decent people, when infact they were more barbaric than the "barbaric" Persians are going to be portrayed in this movie.  Atleast in Alexander they made Alexander gay, and so even the Greeks were pissed off... This article definetly needs a criticism section.Khosrow II 15:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, we definetly need a criticism section. I'm pretty sure once we get closer to release date we'll see some crticisms that are not from online forums Klymen 20:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not a doco - anyone who watches the trailer will know it's fiction 
Danlibbo 09:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism section

message: Do forgive my ignorance (I live in the UK so maybe thing's are a bit different regarding merchandise) but 300 is getting action figures despite being a bloody R. Does this make the film notable in the appeal, similiar to Alien/Predator/Terminator? Wiki-newbie 20:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The film is based on a comic book, so there is an action figure market based on such literature.  I don't know what you mean by notable, though... seems like NECA is trying to cash in on the possible fan base that this film will generate.  I don't think 300 necessarily has the fan base like Alien, Predator, and Terminator, since from what I've read, this is one of Frank Miller's "lesser" comics.  This information could help track the growth of a 300 fan base, though, if it takes place. —Erik (talk/contrib) @ 20:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Definitely not.  I think the company McFarlane Toys has been notable for promoting the figures for more mature audiences.  Thus it wasn't a surprise to me that there were 300 action figures available.  You should see the figures they came up with regarding the Wizard of Oz... —Erik (talk/contrib) @ 20:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Action figures for an R rated film 

message: Didn't want to change this myself but wanted to state that the character of Dilios does exist in the comics and serves as the narrator, as is apparent at the end of the 5th issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.239.139.164 (talk • contribs) 23:07, December 12, 2006 (UTC)
:I fixed it.  Thanks for the heads-up.  In the future, sign your comments by typing four tildes (~) at the end of it.  It will insert your signature with the time and date. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dilios 

message: The trailer has become a 4chan meme. Include? FerventDove 02:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On 4chan the phrase, "THIS IS SPARTAAAAAA!" has become a meme recently. If you go visit 4chan for any period of time, there is a very good chance of seeing the phrase. FerventDove 05:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.  I guess it doesn't strike me as incredibly notable, as I haven't heard of this before among film articles.  Have any recent films included 4chan memes in their Wikipedia articles?  And where do you suggest inserting this information, if it's worthy of inclusion? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meme 

message: I think some more detail should be brought to the movies sponsoring myspace's number of photos per account increasing from 16 to 300 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Norton112200 (talk • contribs) 23:06, January 4, 2007 (UTC)
:Not sure if I understand the information.  Does this apply to everyone who uses Myspace? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 09:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: expansion upon myspace marketing

message: *
*
*
*
*
:Citations, mostly from set visits.  Might be information that the SHH.com citation doesn't have. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations for use 

message: *
:—Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look under Marketing.  You heard right -- it's the song by NIN. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I failed to look further than the soundtrack credit. Thanks!--Kjmoran 03:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soundtrack 

message: I haven't seen the movie but I've read the Comic and I've also read Herodotus, and I can tell you that it has much more historical precision than say, Braveheart or Troy (comparing the latter to the Iliad). Sure it has an artistic touch, but it doesn't mess the actual historical sequence of events, and I can assure you that at no point it uses magic. For example Spartans would carry some 35+ kg of armour and the film shows them half-naked. Ephialtes was not a deformed monster-like person and the Persians did not look like the Sex Pistols. Furthermore, unless "historical fiction" is added in films like Braveheart or Gladiator (currently described as "historical drama") then there's not even a case to open discussion here. I'm not telling you to describe it as "historical", I'm only suggesting to leave it simply as "motion picture". You on the other hand are trying to push a POV, unreferenced, and contradictory to wp practice in other articles. Hence I'm changing to "motion picture". Miskin 00:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Herodatus is the antithesis of historical inaccuracy.  It is amazing that so many people believe the supposed writings of one guy 2000 years ago (only source that the west uses for the greco-persian wars), while some people don't even believe the "truth" behind recent events such as 9/11.   —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.170.48.145 (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk page is not a forum for general discussion.  Please limit your discussion to improving the film article.  This discussion  was last week -- there's no need to make commentary on discussions that have concluded. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You're citing yourself as a reliable source in terms of your so-called knowledge of the graphic novel and Herodotus.  I think you're the pot calling the kettle black.  Please don't be so accusatory when you fail to reference an actual source for the graphic novel's historical accuracy besides yourself. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre 

message: Substituted at 20:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment