Talk:Jason Voorhees

message: Glen Ennis was hired to play Jason in the most dangerous stunt scenes for Freddy vs Jason. There have been reports that the Jason in the flashback at the beginning of Part 5 was John Hock. See here and here. I know these sources aren't the best but I feel like these people should be mentioned in the prose at least since it is relevant information to the portrayal of the character. Does anyone know if there have been any interviews or similar that mention these contributions?★Trekker (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't typically mention stunt people that filmed a couple of scenes. They are credited as "stunt man" for a reason in those films, because they did a stunt they didn't want the regular portrayer to do. We wouldn't mention every stunt person that subs in for Robert Englund in Freddy scenes, because they are doing stunt work.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 17:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well maybe I differ than most people on the topic but I'd feel like stunt people should be mentioned to. Without them many films wouldn't get made. And in the case of Jason most of what he does is stunts of different kinds, I mean it's not like any of the people who did the role were really known as actors before the role or after. Except maybe Mears.★Trekker (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: They aren't known as "actors" in most situations, but a random scene here and there that requires a separate stuntworker isn't relevant to the portrayal of the character. If there was something specific that they added to the character, maybe. But what you're talking about is really more relevant to specific films, not the character article.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 17:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel like "something specific that they added to the character" is a pretty vague description and by that logic why would we mention Tom Morga who was only in a flashbacks in a few scenes in Part 5 too? I mean in the end many people would say that it was only really Hodder who made a distinct personality for Jason in his performances. I think picking and choosing who gets mentioned is a little weird. I mean the article does actually mention Douglas Tait who did one single scene for Freddy vs Jason. If there is a reliable source why not include it. It's not like it would make the article overly long.★Trekker (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Tom Morga is literally credited as Jason. Tait was brought in to film a whole new ending because Kirzinger couldn't be on set at the time. The other people you are talking about are just filming dangerous stunts. That's a film thing, not a character thing.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 18:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Why eaxctly does Tait's situation make it ok for him to be mentioned? Most people wouldn't say Jason has much specific character from the performances alone anyway so why are we deciding which people deserve to be mentioned and which don't? Why would Wikipedia go only on who is credited or not? Are film companies even reliable sources?★Trekker (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You're specifically trying to mention some stuntwork that brought on stuntdoubles for more dangerous scenes. THat's hardly a portrayal. Tait filmed a completely new scene, that's borderline and only the reason it's mentioned. If we get into the habit of mentioning stunt people then we have to start mentioning everyone and it's just indiscriminate information. It doesn't add anything. It's more relevant to the actual film articles, not to Jason. Including them is like saying that their quick fall through a building is somehow of equal weight as the other people that perform the role. It isn't and most of the time it's so quick it's barely even seen on the screen. Those additions should be brought to the film pages, not relevant here.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's all just your opinion.★Trekker (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Jasons

message: I'm seeing a persistent level of low level vandalism on this article. Some obvious, and some not so. It seems to be mostly quickly reverted, and there appears in balance to be positive edits by IP editors who would be excluded if the article were semi-protected, so the need for protection is not obvious. Do those who edit this article regularly feel it warrants semi-protection, or can the vandalism be managed?  See Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection for guidance on assessing if an article needs protection. SilkTork (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we generally have it under control. I appreciate you fixing that last bit, as I hadn't checked the page yet from my watchlist of recent changes. Right now I don't think it's reached a problematic level.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 17:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. SilkTork (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi protection?

message: Bignole I read your comment on the removal of the image in the 'Appearances' section and I understand the rationale behind it. Do you agree that the section would benefit from something to break up the text, and if so what type of thing do you think could add value? Ta Vanteloop (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't. There does not need to be an image in ever section. It's a plot section, so there isn't a need for an image in a plot section anyway. See WP:IMAGERELEVANCE.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, thanks for the response. Vanteloop (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add image to 'Appearances' sectioin? 

message: As Andrzejbanas and Belbury noted, there is just some issue with the headline title, but aside from that, the article has a serious problem when it comes to sourcing and overreliance of the book of Bracke as a source, creating possibly WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY concerns. Most of the sources are poorly formatted or cited, with no authors, dates of publication, websites that aren't italicized, access dates, etc.; usage of DVD as a source for its appearance in films, with questionable sources for refs 25, 26,  37, ref 38, ref 39, ref 40, ref 41, refs 47–52, refs 62, 66, 69,  72, ref 87, ref 90, ref 99 (also dead sources), refs 102, and ref 106. 
At the reception section, this definitely needs to be organized properly. Another questionable sources, such as ref 121 to 125, ref 127, and ref 128, seems to be a low-quality source, as do ref 115, ref 131, ref 133, ref 135 (YouTube), ref 137, ref 138, ref 141 and 142, ref 144 to 148, and ref 150 to 153. Listing this to FAR notice.  🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: + We have a quote box in the reception section, and it is literally cited as a line from an Eminem song. This is not what we want from the FA article.  🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That is my issue too. It comes off as fancrufty, especially the quote box. So what? I'm sure a dozen metal bands have had some Jason songs, and not just one-off lines. Imagine a featured article on "Spam" that does that for the Weird Al song of the same name. Andrzejbanas (talk)` Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article issues to be FA?