![]() | 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 |
I'm not so sure that the last 3 points unde the tagline section are actually taglines. The last two sound more like quotes, and the third last one sounds like the plot of the film. trumad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.30.10 ( talk • contribs) 04:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Moved here for posterity, I guess. Doctor Sunshine talk 17:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Just like in the Pulp Fiction article (and all other Movie articles in Wikipedia for that matter), many of the "sources" here are from the movie itself. For example, in the Pulp fiction article we have:
" ... Jules ritually recites what he describes as a biblical passage, Ezekiel 25:17, before he executes someone. We hear the passage three times—in the introductory sequence in which Jules and Vincent reclaim Marsellus's briefcase from the doomed Brett; that same recitation a second time, at the beginning of "The Bonnie Situation", which overlaps the end of the earlier sequence; and in the epilogue at the diner. ... "
The source for that info is, yes.... from the movie. Original research, right? LOL
So, before you blank a huge part of this article again without consensus, be sure to go through and blank every part within the Pulp Fiction article that is sourced from the movie itself. I mean, after all... this is about "policy", right?... and, therefore... you challenge it, right? (Nevermind that they'll ban you if you start an edit war with them and you'll have to tuck tail and run)
BTW, if this content is so horrible and "against policy" then why on earth did you give your word to incorporate it into the article? You are not making sense. Are you just trying to aggravate the situation now by breaking your word?
Also, since we are on the subject of being a stickler on "policy", you do NOT have consensus for deleting this content; there is a very obvious dispute here. Like I've already said before, it's time for this to head to dispute resolution if you won't at least compromise with me.
The content will stay up as is since I already compromised with you and changed the title to "Notable Motifs" just as it is called in the "well done" (in your words) Pulp Fiction article. It will stay up until we go through the proper dispute resolution channels, otherwise you are blatantly breaking wikipedia policy yourself and knowingly stoking an edit war which is a disruptive, serious offense. The other choice, of course, is that you keep you word and we work on this together to better the article as you have already agreed upon.
Otherwise, let's get this dispute resolved properly with a disinterested third party. Observe. Remember, it was you who first threw insults alongside blanking a huge section of the article (that was built up over the course of years by many contributers) in one fell, insulting swoop. Despite your elitist feelings about the irrelevance of the other contributers, they are still people that spent their time trying to better wikipedia... are you? It just seems from the very start that it's been more of a chip on your shoulder than anything else.
If you came in here and voiced your opinions on the article within the article's talk page (without blanking and insults to boot) and tried to reach consensus before editing, don't you think this might have gone down a very different path for you? I hope you'll learn from this experience and next time you feel the urge to act such a way, you'll think twice. Wikipedia will be the better for it.
So, it's up to you... will making all these contributers feel like their time and effort spent at Wikipedia is worthless REALLY help the Wikipedia project as a whole? You weren't from the start, but now it's not too late to finally show them all some consideration (and maybe even some overdue respect) and incorporate the bests parts into the article as you, once again, already gave your word to do. Hopefully, the Wikipedia contributers (and your word) still means something to you. Cowicide ( talk) 19:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Uh, have you read anything I've said?
REPEAT:
" ... Jules ritually recites what he describes as a biblical passage, Ezekiel 25:17, before he executes someone. We hear the passage three times—in the introductory sequence in which Jules and Vincent reclaim Marsellus's briefcase from the doomed Brett; that same recitation a second time, at the beginning of "The Bonnie Situation", which overlaps the end of the earlier sequence; and in the epilogue at the diner. ... "
The source for that info is, yes.... from the Pulp Fiction movie. If you bother to look, you'll find many other examples of this in that article that do NOT come from outside publications. It was in the movie, yo. That's the source.
I really want to stay focused on the article... but, Ok, to shut you up about it, I'll talk about... "us"... LOL
Look at the diffs! Look at the diffs!! They still show that you said one thing and did another. Started off with a nice blanking and insult, then started flipping out and blanking it again. They also show that you gave your word that you would work with me (stop this blanking crap) to keep the content and intersperse it throughout the article, but then you turned around and blanked it (yet again)... all this after deleting it as soon as you marched in here and now here you are threaten to do so (yet again) ... That's a lot of blanking in such a short amount of time for someone who doesn't have a chip on their shoulder and claims to be civil from the get-go (which they weren't) and understands policy (hint: 3 revert rule, buddy). The diffs also show where you started screwing with me on my talk page and I warned you that it was confusing to break up the same conversation between this page and the talk page. And now look at the consequences... But did you read anything I said? No, and you continue to stalk and harass me on my talk page up to now.
Please, I ask you again... can we just focus on the article? If you have issues with "us" then now you have your nice RFC page you made on me to handle that. Just drop it here and let's focus on making this article better! Believe me, you aren't going to get anywhere stalking me on my talk page after the way you've acted. Cowicide ( talk) 22:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of the merits of including what's being called trivia, it's all original research, so far as I can tell. Before worrying about its inclusion, citations from reliable sources would need to be found to verify it. JeremyMcCracken ( talk) ( contribs) 12:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Seeing that the subject above is scattered all over the place with personal issues and breaks with guidelines. I want to start fresh with a focus on the article and the article ONLY in accordance with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines which state "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." If this section degenerates into personal issues against Talk page guidelines, I will contact administrators to come in and take care of the problem.
On that note, here is my proposal in accordance with Wikipedia:Trivia sections Guidelines where it specifically states:
Considering this guideline... The matter is not one of whether or not anyone can continue to violate the guidelines and continue blanking the entire section or move it all to the talk page again; it's a matter of going through and making the information more suitable for a better article.
Therefore, at this point I have copied the list to this sandbox and will ask you all to begin working with me on massaging the content to better conform to Wikipedia:Trivia sections guidelines. For one, I've found a source for much of the content HERE and will apply it accordingly. I've also found numerous other sources that can be applied throughout, very similar to how the Pulp Fiction article is structured which I believe we've reached some consensus is an example of a good article. Anyway, I'll now focus my attention on the Sandbox and it's talk page to improve Repo Man's "Notable Motifs" section. Please join me there if you would like to help. Everyone is welcome, including anyone I've had disputes with. Or, if you prefer, please copy the content to your own Sandbox and we can work independently and merge them together on a final Sandbox with proper consensus. Cowicide ( talk) 13:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
* Miller ( Tracey Walter), a scruffy, oddball mechanic working for Helping Hand, refuses to learn to drive, explaining that the "more you drive, the less intelligent you are."
- In the scene where Otto asks his parents if he can have his college money now, they are smoking pot while watching a televangelist.
- In the end credits, everyone is credited by their character name. Some of the characters are so obscure, it is impossible to tell who they are.
- When Otto and Bud race the Rodriguez Brothers in the river bed, there is one scene where the scientist, J. Frank Parnell, is actually driving the car.
- In the scene where Otto repossesses a car from Bruce Ipezen at the laundromat, a dead body can be seen on the floor in the background.
- As Bud and Otto pursue repossession opportunities throughout the seedier parts of Los Angeles their path seems to continually follow or intersect with that of Otto's punk friends. On more than one occasion, Bud and Otto visit a convenience store just after (or during) a robbery committed by Duke, Archie and Debbi.
I'm just going to out indent for a second here. I will help where I can, if I can. Otherwise, I suck at writing. I always have. Sure, multiple choice, sure, small paragraphs where I express my thought. Prompts kill me. I don't believe I would be able to contribute in a good way to this article besides offering my opinions, or cleaning up grammatical errors, that word that has to do with periods and commas that I can't remember the spelling of.. you get the idea.
I'll help if I can, but don't expect too much from me.— Dæ dαlus T@lk / Improve 07:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
It's hard to dispute that Repo Man the movie is by far the most prominent thing known by that name. So the current disambig structure seems wrong - Repo Man should be this page, and should use Template:otheruses. How come it is this way? — ciphergoth 19:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I found this article with a lot of info about the making of the film. http://io9.com/the-weirdest-things-you-never-knew-about-the-making-of-1673079559
I doubt we can use this actual article as a source, but if we can find other sources for what's in the article do you think maybe you guys can help me incorporate it into the article? BLAguyMONKEY! ( talk) 05:02, 2 July 2015 (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 |
I'm not so sure that the last 3 points unde the tagline section are actually taglines. The last two sound more like quotes, and the third last one sounds like the plot of the film. trumad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.30.10 ( talk • contribs) 04:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Moved here for posterity, I guess. Doctor Sunshine talk 17:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Just like in the Pulp Fiction article (and all other Movie articles in Wikipedia for that matter), many of the "sources" here are from the movie itself. For example, in the Pulp fiction article we have:
" ... Jules ritually recites what he describes as a biblical passage, Ezekiel 25:17, before he executes someone. We hear the passage three times—in the introductory sequence in which Jules and Vincent reclaim Marsellus's briefcase from the doomed Brett; that same recitation a second time, at the beginning of "The Bonnie Situation", which overlaps the end of the earlier sequence; and in the epilogue at the diner. ... "
The source for that info is, yes.... from the movie. Original research, right? LOL
So, before you blank a huge part of this article again without consensus, be sure to go through and blank every part within the Pulp Fiction article that is sourced from the movie itself. I mean, after all... this is about "policy", right?... and, therefore... you challenge it, right? (Nevermind that they'll ban you if you start an edit war with them and you'll have to tuck tail and run)
BTW, if this content is so horrible and "against policy" then why on earth did you give your word to incorporate it into the article? You are not making sense. Are you just trying to aggravate the situation now by breaking your word?
Also, since we are on the subject of being a stickler on "policy", you do NOT have consensus for deleting this content; there is a very obvious dispute here. Like I've already said before, it's time for this to head to dispute resolution if you won't at least compromise with me.
The content will stay up as is since I already compromised with you and changed the title to "Notable Motifs" just as it is called in the "well done" (in your words) Pulp Fiction article. It will stay up until we go through the proper dispute resolution channels, otherwise you are blatantly breaking wikipedia policy yourself and knowingly stoking an edit war which is a disruptive, serious offense. The other choice, of course, is that you keep you word and we work on this together to better the article as you have already agreed upon.
Otherwise, let's get this dispute resolved properly with a disinterested third party. Observe. Remember, it was you who first threw insults alongside blanking a huge section of the article (that was built up over the course of years by many contributers) in one fell, insulting swoop. Despite your elitist feelings about the irrelevance of the other contributers, they are still people that spent their time trying to better wikipedia... are you? It just seems from the very start that it's been more of a chip on your shoulder than anything else.
If you came in here and voiced your opinions on the article within the article's talk page (without blanking and insults to boot) and tried to reach consensus before editing, don't you think this might have gone down a very different path for you? I hope you'll learn from this experience and next time you feel the urge to act such a way, you'll think twice. Wikipedia will be the better for it.
So, it's up to you... will making all these contributers feel like their time and effort spent at Wikipedia is worthless REALLY help the Wikipedia project as a whole? You weren't from the start, but now it's not too late to finally show them all some consideration (and maybe even some overdue respect) and incorporate the bests parts into the article as you, once again, already gave your word to do. Hopefully, the Wikipedia contributers (and your word) still means something to you. Cowicide ( talk) 19:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Uh, have you read anything I've said?
REPEAT:
" ... Jules ritually recites what he describes as a biblical passage, Ezekiel 25:17, before he executes someone. We hear the passage three times—in the introductory sequence in which Jules and Vincent reclaim Marsellus's briefcase from the doomed Brett; that same recitation a second time, at the beginning of "The Bonnie Situation", which overlaps the end of the earlier sequence; and in the epilogue at the diner. ... "
The source for that info is, yes.... from the Pulp Fiction movie. If you bother to look, you'll find many other examples of this in that article that do NOT come from outside publications. It was in the movie, yo. That's the source.
I really want to stay focused on the article... but, Ok, to shut you up about it, I'll talk about... "us"... LOL
Look at the diffs! Look at the diffs!! They still show that you said one thing and did another. Started off with a nice blanking and insult, then started flipping out and blanking it again. They also show that you gave your word that you would work with me (stop this blanking crap) to keep the content and intersperse it throughout the article, but then you turned around and blanked it (yet again)... all this after deleting it as soon as you marched in here and now here you are threaten to do so (yet again) ... That's a lot of blanking in such a short amount of time for someone who doesn't have a chip on their shoulder and claims to be civil from the get-go (which they weren't) and understands policy (hint: 3 revert rule, buddy). The diffs also show where you started screwing with me on my talk page and I warned you that it was confusing to break up the same conversation between this page and the talk page. And now look at the consequences... But did you read anything I said? No, and you continue to stalk and harass me on my talk page up to now.
Please, I ask you again... can we just focus on the article? If you have issues with "us" then now you have your nice RFC page you made on me to handle that. Just drop it here and let's focus on making this article better! Believe me, you aren't going to get anywhere stalking me on my talk page after the way you've acted. Cowicide ( talk) 22:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of the merits of including what's being called trivia, it's all original research, so far as I can tell. Before worrying about its inclusion, citations from reliable sources would need to be found to verify it. JeremyMcCracken ( talk) ( contribs) 12:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Seeing that the subject above is scattered all over the place with personal issues and breaks with guidelines. I want to start fresh with a focus on the article and the article ONLY in accordance with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines which state "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." If this section degenerates into personal issues against Talk page guidelines, I will contact administrators to come in and take care of the problem.
On that note, here is my proposal in accordance with Wikipedia:Trivia sections Guidelines where it specifically states:
Considering this guideline... The matter is not one of whether or not anyone can continue to violate the guidelines and continue blanking the entire section or move it all to the talk page again; it's a matter of going through and making the information more suitable for a better article.
Therefore, at this point I have copied the list to this sandbox and will ask you all to begin working with me on massaging the content to better conform to Wikipedia:Trivia sections guidelines. For one, I've found a source for much of the content HERE and will apply it accordingly. I've also found numerous other sources that can be applied throughout, very similar to how the Pulp Fiction article is structured which I believe we've reached some consensus is an example of a good article. Anyway, I'll now focus my attention on the Sandbox and it's talk page to improve Repo Man's "Notable Motifs" section. Please join me there if you would like to help. Everyone is welcome, including anyone I've had disputes with. Or, if you prefer, please copy the content to your own Sandbox and we can work independently and merge them together on a final Sandbox with proper consensus. Cowicide ( talk) 13:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
* Miller ( Tracey Walter), a scruffy, oddball mechanic working for Helping Hand, refuses to learn to drive, explaining that the "more you drive, the less intelligent you are."
- In the scene where Otto asks his parents if he can have his college money now, they are smoking pot while watching a televangelist.
- In the end credits, everyone is credited by their character name. Some of the characters are so obscure, it is impossible to tell who they are.
- When Otto and Bud race the Rodriguez Brothers in the river bed, there is one scene where the scientist, J. Frank Parnell, is actually driving the car.
- In the scene where Otto repossesses a car from Bruce Ipezen at the laundromat, a dead body can be seen on the floor in the background.
- As Bud and Otto pursue repossession opportunities throughout the seedier parts of Los Angeles their path seems to continually follow or intersect with that of Otto's punk friends. On more than one occasion, Bud and Otto visit a convenience store just after (or during) a robbery committed by Duke, Archie and Debbi.
I'm just going to out indent for a second here. I will help where I can, if I can. Otherwise, I suck at writing. I always have. Sure, multiple choice, sure, small paragraphs where I express my thought. Prompts kill me. I don't believe I would be able to contribute in a good way to this article besides offering my opinions, or cleaning up grammatical errors, that word that has to do with periods and commas that I can't remember the spelling of.. you get the idea.
I'll help if I can, but don't expect too much from me.— Dæ dαlus T@lk / Improve 07:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
It's hard to dispute that Repo Man the movie is by far the most prominent thing known by that name. So the current disambig structure seems wrong - Repo Man should be this page, and should use Template:otheruses. How come it is this way? — ciphergoth 19:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I found this article with a lot of info about the making of the film. http://io9.com/the-weirdest-things-you-never-knew-about-the-making-of-1673079559
I doubt we can use this actual article as a source, but if we can find other sources for what's in the article do you think maybe you guys can help me incorporate it into the article? BLAguyMONKEY! ( talk) 05:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)