![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
As I stated in my edit summary, "Removed the average rating mention. I never see why that is important to note; this part of the score is always "average" there, even when clearly above average."
It continued with:
Is this about me changing/updating the scores last night? I copied the format from Up in Air (which is the same for Changeling). Are you saying the RT scoring should be explained like the MC scoring is? So "rating average" is the best way to put it? Also, I didn't know that there was any particular order they went in? I know I usually see RT first (and that's why I usually write it, but I just copied it from FA), but does it really matter? I haven't read any guidelines that I know of about this. Is is just a personal style? -- Mike Allen 20:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Is it just my computer the dates in the infobox have vanished from? When I go into "Edit" the dates are there, but on the publsihed page there are just gaps. Betty Logan ( talk) 20:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
[1] should we add a talbe similar to this to the reception section? I know it is only one film, which is why I am asking on here, and not (trying) to make a big deal out of it. Collectitron said something about only two valid sources, and while I do see the "problem" with community reviews, stating them should not be considered unvaild. Maybe you could explain in more detail, Collectitron? ChaosMaster16 ( talk) 00:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
At least add something about the Great Leonopteryx....or the Toruk as the Na'vi call it.
Great Leonopteryx, Toruk. A close relative of the Banshee but significantly larger with a wingspan of over 25 metres. Striped scarlet, yellow, and black, with two midnight blue crests on the head and lower jaw. The crest on its head is razor sharp and can be used to injure or disembowel prey, or cut vegetation obstructing its flight. It has a distensible jaw, a large brain cavity and membranous wings that are stretched taut over its carbon fiber bone structure. It also has powerful talons for grasping prey and perching, twin tail for flight control, flow-through ventilation for high performance. The fierce beauty and nobility of the leonopteryx gave the species a central place in Na'vi lore and culture. It is celebrated in dance, song, and with elaborate totems that symbolize both the fear and respect accorded to the creature. Indeed, the leonopteryx is crucial to the Na'vi sense of destiny and interconnectedness. This creature's name in Na'vi translates roughly to 'Last Shadow' as its prefered method of attack is from above so therefore the last thing you see is its shadow.It is rare but ocassionaly a Navi warrior, called Toruk Makto can bond and ride a Leonopteryx though during the timeframe of the film no one has been successful for four generations and only five Na'vi warriors have ever managed to do it. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mini p18 ( talk • contribs) 23:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Pandora's Wildlife: More Unanswered Questions
Given that all animals seen on Pandora appear to be hexapods, how come the Na'vi have only four limbs ? Assuming, as it is plausible, that the Na'vi, being a relatively new species, share a common six-limb ancestor with other closely related species on the moon, where did the extra limbs go ? From a Darwinian evolution point of view, shouldn't the Na'vi exhibit at least anatomical traces of vestigial limbs as found e.g. under the fins and tails of ocean mammals like whales and dolphins on Earth ? 200.168.20.35 ( talk) 18:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Is there a standard for modern 3-D projection? Is there an article that could be linked to that describes how it works? If it is something that only works with this film, then could someone knowledgeable please include it in this article? (fotoguzzi) 69.64.235.42 ( talk) 06:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The 3-D effect works by projecting two images. The polarization on the glasses worn in the theater make each eye see a slightly different image. I think under the effects section of the article there ought to be a paragraph briefly explaining how the 3-D effect works in theaters. alach11 ( talk) 06:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
IP addresses keep removing the British/UK parts from the lead (intro) and infobox, when it comes to categorizing this film. One IP in particular, 98.235.192.45, keeps doing this. Thus...I ask, which is it? Is this film categorized as an American-British film or simply an American one? Flyer22 ( talk) 22:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
It is false to claim that the film is a joint American-British film. It is primarily an American film with the typical minor relationships with other countries. For example, the Lord of the Rings films used New Zealand production companies, but they are not considered New Zealand films. The driving studio for Avatar is American, so the film is American. Erik ( talk) 13:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
← Yeah, I've got to agree. This is primarily an American film. Though a British production company may have been involved in some way, labelling Avatar an American-British film is misleading the reader; presented without context, such a statement may lead people to assume equal weight between the two, when this is clearly not the case. Far better to present the information about which companies worked on the film later on, where the available space will allow for a more nuanced explanation. Steve T • C 16:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
How about we don't list either "American" or "British" in the lead? That'll solve that. :) -- Mike Allen 23:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't actually mind if the film is American or American-British, which is what this dicussion keeps being reduced to. I would just prefer it if there were some objective criteria which I can look up and say "this film is American" or this film is "American-British". If we are going to assign a nationality surely it can't be done on an arbitrary basis at the discretion of editors otherwise it will applied inconsistently across the film articles. Thinking about it I don't think we should have a criteria because it constitutes original research. Writing that a film has a particular nationality is a claim, and maybe the way to approach this is to just insist on verifiable reliable sources like we do for all claims. Some editors say above the Avatar is obviously an American film, so I think references should be applied to that effect. If the 'nationality' is notable then it should be relatively easy to track down references - I think I've even seen Avatar referred to as an "American" film. This would be consistent with Wikipedia's verifiability policy when it comes to making claims. What do other editors think about this approach? Betty Logan ( talk) 07:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
As I stated in my edit summary, "Removed the average rating mention. I never see why that is important to note; this part of the score is always "average" there, even when clearly above average."
It continued with:
Is this about me changing/updating the scores last night? I copied the format from Up in Air (which is the same for Changeling). Are you saying the RT scoring should be explained like the MC scoring is? So "rating average" is the best way to put it? Also, I didn't know that there was any particular order they went in? I know I usually see RT first (and that's why I usually write it, but I just copied it from FA), but does it really matter? I haven't read any guidelines that I know of about this. Is is just a personal style? -- Mike Allen 20:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Is it just my computer the dates in the infobox have vanished from? When I go into "Edit" the dates are there, but on the publsihed page there are just gaps. Betty Logan ( talk) 20:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
[1] should we add a talbe similar to this to the reception section? I know it is only one film, which is why I am asking on here, and not (trying) to make a big deal out of it. Collectitron said something about only two valid sources, and while I do see the "problem" with community reviews, stating them should not be considered unvaild. Maybe you could explain in more detail, Collectitron? ChaosMaster16 ( talk) 00:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
At least add something about the Great Leonopteryx....or the Toruk as the Na'vi call it.
Great Leonopteryx, Toruk. A close relative of the Banshee but significantly larger with a wingspan of over 25 metres. Striped scarlet, yellow, and black, with two midnight blue crests on the head and lower jaw. The crest on its head is razor sharp and can be used to injure or disembowel prey, or cut vegetation obstructing its flight. It has a distensible jaw, a large brain cavity and membranous wings that are stretched taut over its carbon fiber bone structure. It also has powerful talons for grasping prey and perching, twin tail for flight control, flow-through ventilation for high performance. The fierce beauty and nobility of the leonopteryx gave the species a central place in Na'vi lore and culture. It is celebrated in dance, song, and with elaborate totems that symbolize both the fear and respect accorded to the creature. Indeed, the leonopteryx is crucial to the Na'vi sense of destiny and interconnectedness. This creature's name in Na'vi translates roughly to 'Last Shadow' as its prefered method of attack is from above so therefore the last thing you see is its shadow.It is rare but ocassionaly a Navi warrior, called Toruk Makto can bond and ride a Leonopteryx though during the timeframe of the film no one has been successful for four generations and only five Na'vi warriors have ever managed to do it. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mini p18 ( talk • contribs) 23:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Pandora's Wildlife: More Unanswered Questions
Given that all animals seen on Pandora appear to be hexapods, how come the Na'vi have only four limbs ? Assuming, as it is plausible, that the Na'vi, being a relatively new species, share a common six-limb ancestor with other closely related species on the moon, where did the extra limbs go ? From a Darwinian evolution point of view, shouldn't the Na'vi exhibit at least anatomical traces of vestigial limbs as found e.g. under the fins and tails of ocean mammals like whales and dolphins on Earth ? 200.168.20.35 ( talk) 18:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Is there a standard for modern 3-D projection? Is there an article that could be linked to that describes how it works? If it is something that only works with this film, then could someone knowledgeable please include it in this article? (fotoguzzi) 69.64.235.42 ( talk) 06:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The 3-D effect works by projecting two images. The polarization on the glasses worn in the theater make each eye see a slightly different image. I think under the effects section of the article there ought to be a paragraph briefly explaining how the 3-D effect works in theaters. alach11 ( talk) 06:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
IP addresses keep removing the British/UK parts from the lead (intro) and infobox, when it comes to categorizing this film. One IP in particular, 98.235.192.45, keeps doing this. Thus...I ask, which is it? Is this film categorized as an American-British film or simply an American one? Flyer22 ( talk) 22:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
It is false to claim that the film is a joint American-British film. It is primarily an American film with the typical minor relationships with other countries. For example, the Lord of the Rings films used New Zealand production companies, but they are not considered New Zealand films. The driving studio for Avatar is American, so the film is American. Erik ( talk) 13:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
← Yeah, I've got to agree. This is primarily an American film. Though a British production company may have been involved in some way, labelling Avatar an American-British film is misleading the reader; presented without context, such a statement may lead people to assume equal weight between the two, when this is clearly not the case. Far better to present the information about which companies worked on the film later on, where the available space will allow for a more nuanced explanation. Steve T • C 16:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
How about we don't list either "American" or "British" in the lead? That'll solve that. :) -- Mike Allen 23:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't actually mind if the film is American or American-British, which is what this dicussion keeps being reduced to. I would just prefer it if there were some objective criteria which I can look up and say "this film is American" or this film is "American-British". If we are going to assign a nationality surely it can't be done on an arbitrary basis at the discretion of editors otherwise it will applied inconsistently across the film articles. Thinking about it I don't think we should have a criteria because it constitutes original research. Writing that a film has a particular nationality is a claim, and maybe the way to approach this is to just insist on verifiable reliable sources like we do for all claims. Some editors say above the Avatar is obviously an American film, so I think references should be applied to that effect. If the 'nationality' is notable then it should be relatively easy to track down references - I think I've even seen Avatar referred to as an "American" film. This would be consistent with Wikipedia's verifiability policy when it comes to making claims. What do other editors think about this approach? Betty Logan ( talk) 07:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)