Talk:Friday the 13th Part 2

message: If anybody knows the real story, please share it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RFoglio (talk • contribs) 01:15, July 4, 2007
:Paul's fate was left unknown at the end of the film, and as far as I'm aware, was never covered in a subsequent film. Burbridge92 (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: However, it is highly probable that Paul is dead. In the store at the beginning of the third film where he murders the two owners, the woman is watching the news where it clearly states that "8 corpses have been discovered". Count the victims of the second film: Crazy Ralph, Officer Winslow, Scott, Terri, Mark, Sandra, Jeff, and Vickie. That adds up to eight. Of course, Alice's body was not recovered at the time of her murder five years previously and was seen as part of Jason's shrine to his mother, but still, there's eight fresh corpses are accounted for and there were eight kills in the present day during the second film. There would be at least nine if Paul was dead (as Alice seems to have been discounted anyway). Burbridge92 (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: What happened to Paul?

message: This article doesn't talk about the controversy between the to men who played Jason in the movie. It should be included. Bobisbob (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dash vs Warrington

message: NO WHERE in the movie was his name stated as "Winslow". Not even the credits. The books and the movies are written by totally different people, and therefore, Winslow is the name in the BOOK ONLY. And 'movie' is just as professional as 'film'.18:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an official book released by the copyright owners, but that's fair enough. I'm reworded it so that it isn't "the cop" every 10 words. Also, "movie" and "film" are not the same caliber when it comes to professional writing. "Film" is more more eloquent when it comes to what an encyclopedia should be using to describe the "movie".   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Police Officer/Winslow...film/movie

message: :Image:Friday2jasonmask.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Friday2jasonmask.jpg

message: The name of the main building in the movie is called "Packanack Lodge" (trust me, I own the first 8 movies and put this one in the DVD player just to make sure I was right before posting this); since Camp Crystal Lake is "permanently" closed down, does anyone know if the place they are actually at for the majority of the movie is a rival campground known (or perhaps only known as) Camp Packanack? Or might it not be a campground as such in the way that Camp Crystal Lake was (for children) and instead is just a neighboring campground with private lodges for adult groups or families to stay on the lake?  I think the article would benefit a little by making it clear, if it was ever made clear enough to know for certain.  - Somarinoa (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand your question, but the character of Paul (and the wiki plot summary) states clearly in the film that the location is a "counselor training center." Bodypuzzle (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Packanack Lodge 

message: Should this article continue to have a plot section written in excessively poor, POV, weasel-ly English, including phrases such as, "we are introduced to a lovely group of counselors," "obviously they have an interest for each other," "old hick [...] feisty [...] vivacious [...] handsomegirl-magnet," "the killer pops up and we see him," "a short cat-and-mouse game ensues," and, "" – ? 14:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no original research in the plot section. Plots are sourced to the films themselves and everything written (albeit poorly written) is in the film. If we removed all content that was poorly written from Wikipedia then we'd have a lot of bare articles. Where is the neutrality violated as well? POV wording is not a neutrality issue, because it isn't taking a stand for a particular side, it's just a POV description of characters. Easy to fix see here. They are not promoting anything, thus not a NPOV issue. Again, poorly written does not mean "original research" or "NPOV violation". If you don't like the way it reads, tag it or fix it. I've already done one of those.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 15:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Feisty"? "Vivacious"?  ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 17:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: PO (personal opinion, instead of POV, which could insinuate NPOV type of argument and it isn't) terms, don't need to be sourced because they shouldn't be there. They're easily removed.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 18:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tried that, and you replaced them multiple times – since you have just noted that they shouldn't be there, perhaps you could explain this? And also, which part of, "Please list your comments in your own section, and avoid threaded discussions within sections," did you find confusing? ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 09:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you blanket deleted the entire thing. You did not try to simply remove the problem words. If I comment to each of your new statements in my own section then the conversation wouldn't make sense, because no one would know what I was talking about each time. Regardless, this RfC is already clear in one thing, no one is for outright deletion of the entire plot section, which is what you were pushing for.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 15:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You three times restored content which you acknowledge has no place in an encyclopedia. That seems more or less disruptive to me. I also see some support for deletion and rewriting from scratch (my deletion was the first stage of this process), so you're clearly not altogether familiar with the content of other editors' comments.As it is, it seems that there is broad consensus for restoring the plot-summary from this revision and that is what I will do sometime tomorrow if there are no serious objections raised. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 17:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you miss the parts where I went in and deleted the inappropriate stuff? You must have. You also don't understand that when someone says "delete and rewrite" they don't mean "delete and hope someone comes along and rewrites". It's all one process. Don't confuse the two. Thanks.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 18:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I didn't miss it. But it still doesn't mean that the above diffs don't show you repeatedly – over a period of around twelve hours – restoring material which you admit is and was inappropriate. When you reverted me the first time, why on earth didn't you check that you weren't replacing any such content? ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 18:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there WAS NOT any original research, like you were claiming which is why I just reverted it. I didn't "clean up" anything until later because you were still making such a big deal out it and yet weren't bothering to do anything yourself but simply blanket delete it.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how you can possibly find this complicated, and suspect that you actually don't. But just for the record...Three times, you restored material which included content you admitted above should not have been in Wikipedia. My question is this: although you  ultimately removed that inappropriate content ("feisty" and the rest of it), why did you restore it three times before doing so? Is it because you didn't carefully check out the material you were replacing but merely blind-reverted? ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 21:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said in the beginning, it was horribly written, but that was not an excuse to blindly delete everything. I reverted it "3" times because you blindly deleted everything "3" times. I was only checking for original research and NPOV violations (which is what you were claiming was the issue) and when there were not any I reverted the initial time (the remaining times was me telling you that your claims were inaccurate). My "reverts" were simply because you kept blanket deleting instead of actually making changes yourself. It wouldn't take you more than 15 minutes to probably clean up that plot, but you had to turn this into some time of debate where the hope would be everyone would come in and say "yes, this is horrible lets just delete it and walk away". That isn't the case. The plot should be cleaned up, and the only reason I haven't done it myself is because I'm more annoyed by your own lack of interest in doing any real clean up duties yourself. I'm more offended that you'd rather delete it outright and hold some long discussion via RfC to see if others agree with you than just clean it youself. You appear to know enough about what is poor English that I would trust your ability to clean the section. I'm perfectly capable myself, but if you aren't going to throw a hand in and actually do something, then I don't have a vested interest in doing so either (At least, not at this particular time).   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 00:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So essentially, your answer to, "Is it because you didn't carefully check out the material you were replacing but merely blind-reverted?" is yes. Thought so. Don't do that sort of thing in future. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 09:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever you need to tell yourself to feel better about your own, misguided, self-rightious actions is fine with me. I'm not the one that cannot tell the difference between original research and NPOV violations and just shitty writing. Cheers.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I recommend this book for you? I suspect you may find it invaluable. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 14:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: (BTW, why do you keep removing outdents? They're used so we don't have conversations starting on the right side of the page) Just because you just finished that book doesn't mean that others have not surpassed you already, I actually have to read this for a living. Might I recommend you simply re-read WP:NOR and WP:NPOV to get a better understanding. I would also suggest this one as well because you seem to not know what weasel words are as well, as you claimed the plot section was riddled with them. Now, before we continue to personally attack each other I'll just say this will be my last response to you because my real point was made awhile ago and everyone else's point here has been made as well. Just in case you missed the general consensus, a plot section will remain. You have two choices, rewrite it outright, or use the one from 3 years ago. Whichever you decide is irrelevant to the fact that you don't have consensus to just delete it and run away. I hope you have a happy and prosperous new year, and maybe we'll meet on better terms in the future. Cheers.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, LASTWORD. How quaint. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 16:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:RFC|RfC]] on plot section 

message: No.More extended version—content which violates our core content policies on original research, verifiability and neutrality, plus material which flagrantly goes against the manual of style, should be removed at once – ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 14:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no original research in the plot section. Plots are sourced to the films themselves and everything written (albeit poorly written) is in the film. If we removed all content that was poorly written from Wikipedia then we'd have a lot of bare articles. Where is the neutrality violated as well? POV wording is not a neutrality issue, because it isn't taking a stand for a particular side, it's just a POV description of characters. Easy to fix see here. They are not promoting anything, thus not a NPOV issue. Again, poorly written does not mean "original research" or "NPOV violation". If you don't like the way it reads, tag it or fix it. I've already done one of those.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 15:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Feisty"? "Vivacious"?  ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 17:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: PO (personal opinion, instead of POV, which could insinuate NPOV type of argument and it isn't) terms, don't need to be sourced because they shouldn't be there. They're easily removed.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 18:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tried that, and you replaced them multiple times – since you have just noted that they shouldn't be there, perhaps you could explain this? And also, which part of, "Please list your comments in your own section, and avoid threaded discussions within sections," did you find confusing? ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 09:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you blanket deleted the entire thing. You did not try to simply remove the problem words. If I comment to each of your new statements in my own section then the conversation wouldn't make sense, because no one would know what I was talking about each time. Regardless, this RfC is already clear in one thing, no one is for outright deletion of the entire plot section, which is what you were pushing for.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 15:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You three times restored content which you acknowledge has no place in an encyclopedia. That seems more or less disruptive to me. I also see some support for deletion and rewriting from scratch (my deletion was the first stage of this process), so you're clearly not altogether familiar with the content of other editors' comments.As it is, it seems that there is broad consensus for restoring the plot-summary from this revision and that is what I will do sometime tomorrow if there are no serious objections raised. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 17:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you miss the parts where I went in and deleted the inappropriate stuff? You must have. You also don't understand that when someone says "delete and rewrite" they don't mean "delete and hope someone comes along and rewrites". It's all one process. Don't confuse the two. Thanks.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 18:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I didn't miss it. But it still doesn't mean that the above diffs don't show you repeatedly – over a period of around twelve hours – restoring material which you admit is and was inappropriate. When you reverted me the first time, why on earth didn't you check that you weren't replacing any such content? ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 18:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there WAS NOT any original research, like you were claiming which is why I just reverted it. I didn't "clean up" anything until later because you were still making such a big deal out it and yet weren't bothering to do anything yourself but simply blanket delete it.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how you can possibly find this complicated, and suspect that you actually don't. But just for the record...Three times, you restored material which included content you admitted above should not have been in Wikipedia. My question is this: although you  ultimately removed that inappropriate content ("feisty" and the rest of it), why did you restore it three times before doing so? Is it because you didn't carefully check out the material you were replacing but merely blind-reverted? ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 21:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said in the beginning, it was horribly written, but that was not an excuse to blindly delete everything. I reverted it "3" times because you blindly deleted everything "3" times. I was only checking for original research and NPOV violations (which is what you were claiming was the issue) and when there were not any I reverted the initial time (the remaining times was me telling you that your claims were inaccurate). My "reverts" were simply because you kept blanket deleting instead of actually making changes yourself. It wouldn't take you more than 15 minutes to probably clean up that plot, but you had to turn this into some time of debate where the hope would be everyone would come in and say "yes, this is horrible lets just delete it and walk away". That isn't the case. The plot should be cleaned up, and the only reason I haven't done it myself is because I'm more annoyed by your own lack of interest in doing any real clean up duties yourself. I'm more offended that you'd rather delete it outright and hold some long discussion via RfC to see if others agree with you than just clean it youself. You appear to know enough about what is poor English that I would trust your ability to clean the section. I'm perfectly capable myself, but if you aren't going to throw a hand in and actually do something, then I don't have a vested interest in doing so either (At least, not at this particular time).   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 00:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So essentially, your answer to, "Is it because you didn't carefully check out the material you were replacing but merely blind-reverted?" is yes. Thought so. Don't do that sort of thing in future. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 09:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever you need to tell yourself to feel better about your own, misguided, self-rightious actions is fine with me. I'm not the one that cannot tell the difference between original research and NPOV violations and just shitty writing. Cheers.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I recommend this book for you? I suspect you may find it invaluable. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 14:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: (BTW, why do you keep removing outdents? They're used so we don't have conversations starting on the right side of the page) Just because you just finished that book doesn't mean that others have not surpassed you already, I actually have to read this for a living. Might I recommend you simply re-read WP:NOR and WP:NPOV to get a better understanding. I would also suggest this one as well because you seem to not know what weasel words are as well, as you claimed the plot section was riddled with them. Now, before we continue to personally attack each other I'll just say this will be my last response to you because my real point was made awhile ago and everyone else's point here has been made as well. Just in case you missed the general consensus, a plot section will remain. You have two choices, rewrite it outright, or use the one from 3 years ago. Whichever you decide is irrelevant to the fact that you don't have consensus to just delete it and run away. I hope you have a happy and prosperous new year, and maybe we'll meet on better terms in the future. Cheers.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, LASTWORD. How quaint. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 16:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from [[User:TreasuryTag|TreasuryTag]]

message: Yes, this page should have a plot section. Should it be cleaned up, yes, but is there anything in that section that would force the entire section to be deleted? Absolutely not. There is no original research, as TreasuryTag states. Original research implies that you are jumping to a conclusion without sources to back it up. There are no conclusions in the plot summary, it's just a rehash of what happened in the film. Now, is the section poorly written, with tons of grammatical mistakes, extraneous details about the film, and probably some POV character identifies (which is not to be confused with a nonNPOV that Treasury is also claiming), yes. But none of that is grounds to delete a plot section. Plots are sources to the films. I've seen the film, and can verify everything written is exactly what happens. Whoever wrote the plot even steered clear of original research with things like, "We don't know what happened to Paul". This is very true, we don't know because he just isn't there anymore. My suggestion is tag it (which it is), fix it, or just don't read it until someone else has time to fix it.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 15:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from [[User:Bignole|Bignole]]

message: Should the article have an overly long plot section "written in excessively poor, POV, weasel-ly English"? No, of course not. The solution? Rewrite it. I found the plot to be not brilliantly written and a little confusing but it is easily fixable by someone who is familiar with the film. I see some of the words that bothered TreasuryTag have already been removed. It's a little too long, but I'm sure can easily be trimmed a bit. I'm surprised we need an RFC for this.--BelovedFreak 16:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from [[User:Belovedfreak|Belovedfreak]]

message: I think that the plot section, as it stands, is excessively long and has severe POV and style problems. I don't mind plot summaries in principle, but this one needs to be trimmed. With a chainsaw. :-) It might even be better to delete and rewrite from scratch, but that may not be acceptable to all. bobrayner (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from [[User:Bobrayner|bobrayner]]

message: There's a much shorter but better written version in the edit history: . If no-one is up for a re-write I suggest replacing it with the the older version. Betty Logan (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by Betty Logan

message: Plot sections often bloat out on WP, becoming infused with unneccesarily intricate descriptions of little bits of action. I've seen this recently with The Towering Inferno, Terror Train, Halloween III: Season of the Witch and Prom Night. In those cases I simply go back and copy an older, much shorter version of the plot and reinstate that. I usually then trim it further for good measure. It is not really something I see as needing much discussion: plot synopses should be short. Format (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by Format

message: "Scott has his throat slit with a machete while caught in a rope trap and kills Terry off-screen, Mark gets the machete slammed into his face and falls down a flight of stairs, impales Jeff and Sandra with a spear while they have sex, and stabs Vicky with a kitchen knife."  Scott kills Terry?  Mark kills Jeff, Sandra, and Vicky?  Granted, I've never seen the film, but I was under the impression that Jason did all the killing....  71.233.90.196 (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Killers 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Friday the 13th Part 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120115052539/http://www.lalalandrecords.com/F13.html to http://lalalandrecords.com/F13.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This poster is more official ?!? https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082418/mediaviewer/rm1225745152
:I believe that was the poster used in movie rental locations, not for theaters. Similar to how the Friday the 13th: The Finale Chapter theatrical poster was just the name, but the video rental places got the poster with a knife through Jason's mask.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poster change  ?!? 

message: The redirect Warrington Gillette has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Bearcat (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Warrington Gillette]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]