User talk:IllaZilla

Misfits members

Seriously, you think a load of unordered text is more intelligible than a clearly organised graphical table??? Without reading the entire text of all 18 members I had no idea who was in when, who took over from who, or who played what. If it was 3-5 members then maybe, but not with 18! One quick look at a coloured, organised table will tell people withing 30secs the progression of members went. But if you'd prefer to leave people reading text (did I offend you because it was your text??) then feel free to leave the table out. :) Smaunsell (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the article body, I'm talking about the very organized, intuitive, and clearly laid-out lineups table that runs down the right side of the article under the "Former members" section. If you read the whole article and didn't notice the big table that runs down about 1/3 of the whole thing, then I'm not sure what's wrong with you... That's a much more organized presentation of the same info. A color-bar graph is a poor way of representing non-numerical data. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Millencolin's new single Örebro

Please don't delete the new single because there's yet no news about it on the net except for their MySpace page. And by the way you can see the cover of the single on that page. The lyrics are here [1]. The single was released today at the football match with AIK. I will soon have it in my hand even. Närking (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That's nice. Find a reliable source and cite it in the article. The standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Just because a song is posted on Myspace doesn't make it a single. I will submit the news to punknews.org; if they choose to report it, then that gives us a good secondary source to cite from. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added the local newspapaper as a source. They wrote about it today, but they don't have all news on their online version though. Närking (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a good start, but you need to provide more information in the citation than just the name of the paper & the date. See WP:CITE: you need info like the article title, author, etc. The idea is that someone reading the WP article would be able look up that original source and verify the info. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course. But I don't have the newspaper at hand right now. And it was advertised in the newspaper. And as I said you can actually see the cover of the single on their MySpace page. Närking (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the little thumbnail image in the music player. Again, bands put songs up on myspace all the time, frequently with special little thumbnail images, but that doesn't mean that the songs are singles or that they have been "released" per se. It's not that I don't believe you, clearly they've released it physically at the soccer game. If that does turn out to be the same artwork used on the physical single, then fine, but just because there's a little thumbnail image in the myspace player doesn't verify that it's actually been released as a single. The newspaper report is fine as a source, just try to get your hands on it & add the necessary details to flesh out the citation. I recommend using Template:Citation for it. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You can also see news about it here [2] and in Swedish here [3]. There is even a video [4]. Närking (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Alien, EC Comics, and Weird Tales

Hi! We seem to be having a bit of back-and-forth on the Alien (film) page, so I thought maybe we should talk about it. The item under scrutiny is the sentence "He has also cited as influences Strange Relations by Philip José Farmer (1960), which covers alien reproduction, and EC Comics horror titles such as Weird Tales which carried stories in which monsters eat their way out of people" in the Origins section. The problem is that this statement contains a factual error; EC Comics never published a comic with the title Weird Tales. They did, as you suggested, publish Weird Science (comics) and Weird Fantasy. They also published Tales from the Crypt (comics), and it's possible that any one of these could be the comic for which the reference is meant. I have read a good number of all of these comics, and while I don't remember ever seeing a tale where monsters eat their way out of victims, it is quite possible that such was published; EC Comics were notoriously visceral and gory. On the other hand, Weird Tales, the text pulp in the link you are adding, was more cerebral, not to mention that it wasn't as comic at all, and it is far less likely that this is the magazine O'Bannon intended to reference. I am certain that the comics were the influence, rather than the pulp.

I can think of two ways to reconcile the facts and fix the error. The easiest is what I have been doing: removing the reference to Weird Tales and leaving the reference to EC Comics intact. Since the sentence is a paraphrase, no factual data is lost, but the error is removed. The other way is to turn the paraphrase into an actual quote, which would thereby place the blame for the error in the source's lap and leave Wikipedia guiltless. In order to go in this direction I need to turn to you, as you have done such excellent work on the article. I do not have the source to refer to, and so cannot pull a quote out of it. Do you have access to the source, "Beautiful Monsters: The Unofficial and Unauthorized Guide to the Alien and Predator Films"? If so, can you craft a quote that satisfies the claim of origin? Page 20 is what we're looking for. If you do not have the source or know a way to access it, I do request that option #1, that of removing "Weird Tales" from the paraphrase, be allowed to stand.

Cheers! --Captain Infinity (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do have the book on-hand (well, at my home...editing from work at the moment). I think you're right, there are ways we can re-word in order to resolve the factual error, which is probably on McIntee's end (there are a few other such errors here and there in the book; not enough to undermine its credibility as a source, but minor ones such as this). I think I'd prefer the option of just removing the reference to Weird Tales and leaving it as "various EC comics titles". I'd rather not have the factual error present, even if it is the source's error and not Wikipedia's. Also I can't think of a way to make a direct quote transition smoothly with the preceding text, so I think removing "Weird Tales" is the better option. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The direct quote from McIntee, on page 20, is "O'Bannon has also cited the way that Philip José Farmer covered alien reproduction in Strange Relations as an influence, as well as various EC horror comis, such as Weird Tales, which carried stories involving monsters eating their way out of people." As you can see, I didn't paraphrase very much. Again, he very well could have the incorrect title for the comic; it wouldn't be the only minor error in the book. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I see, thank you. A further problem with quoting would be that McIntee is paraphrasing O'Bannon. That is, it's not a direct quote from O'Bannon. So we'll never know who messed it up, O'Bannon or McIntee. I think the only solution is to remove the mention of Weird Tales altogether, and just leave it as EC Comics. If you agree I'll go ahead and make the change. Also, would it be OK with you to copy this discussion to the article's talk page, for future editors to see? --Captain Infinity (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Go for it. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Black Flag discography

I'm just inquiring you on the distinction you made between EPs and singles in the Black Flag discography. I'm not saying that you're incorrect, but I'm just wondering how you made the distinction between what's and EP and what's a single. Thanks. Tennis 52 (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

See extended play and single (music). Even though the band sometimes refers to them as EPs, "Louie Louie", "TV Party", and "Annihilate This Week" all fit the classic definitions of singles: they were 7" vinyl releases of standard length with only a few tracks (2 in the case of "Louie Louie", 3 for the others), featuring (and titled after) the lead track, which is on the A side while the remaining tracks are relegated to the B side. The longest of the 3, "Annihilate This Week", contains only 12 minutes of music and both of the B-side songs were previously released. "TV Party" is a single for Damaged, even though the recording used for the single is a different one from the album version. "Louie Louie" includes only the title track on the A side and one other song ("Damaged I") on the B side, fitting every definition of a single. An EP, on the other hand, is called that because the "extended play" format gives it a longer playing time than a single and it typically contains 4-6 tracks. Most EPs also have their own title, rather than being titled after the lead track. In fact, if you wanna get technical, then "Nervous Breakdown", "Jealous Again", "Six Pack", and "I Can See You" could all be considered singles depending on the criteria applied..."Six Pack" especially so because it consists of the title track on the A side and only 2 other tracks on the B side, for a total playing time of only 5:32. The Process of Weeding Out is really the only one that meets all the traditional definitions of an EP, though "Jealous Again" makes a stronger case than the others at it was pressed in the 12" format and is thus physically larger & longer than a standard single. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Need a third opinion

I need your opinion on my edits. If you check my contributions history, you'll find several "Tribes" and "Earthsiege"-related articles. I started cleaning this series of articles, and as a result a member of a community forum started a thread about this, and now anon IPs and sockpuppets are flooding the articles, reverting any edits that remove the bloat in the articles, like lists of weapons and descriptions of the community. I've given up trying to talk with them because they do not respond, and those who do have blatently stated that they don't care about whatever rules I cite, so I need your opinion, or help. Eik Corell (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

In topic Tribes 2 You had removed important information, like how the game can now be played free, games that were inspired by it, and what has happened to the game to this present day. But what you stated in the talk page that it was a bit too much on the mod information? Yes, there is a bit too much information about the mod section, and that can be removed. But gutting the whole article, i see no point in that. TheOniLink (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe any of it was clutter. People shouldn't delete anything unless it is inaccurate. For those who revert your edits, good for them. I'm glad there are people with enough time on their hands to replace the stuff you remove. That is my 2 Cents, and I want change back! Perrinoia (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You're silly!

I think you're silly, because you are very, very silly! You are kind of harsh on everyone you ever talk to on Wikipedia. I don't mean to sound rude, but you could have at least a little respect for those of us who aren't trolls, eh? Your talk page is evidence of your snarkiness. Try to cool it next time please? GoatFactory luurves WikiAnswers (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If you could be more specific about which comments of mine you found "snarky", then I might have a better understanding of what behavior of mine you find upsetting. I'm afraid that just calling me "silly" doesn't give me much clue as to what activity of mine you're miffed about. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Running time

All good faith edits. Template:Infobox film says "Insert an approximate time duration of the film in minutes." There's nothing there about excluding director's cut, unrated etc. running times. I also can't find anything in MOS:FILM that states that you can't include alternate running times in infobox, and if it's there, it's certainly gonna change. In fact, most FA film articles list alternate running times (Blade Runner lists four running times, isn't that wacky?). Also, lose the attitude and you'll make friends easier.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 15:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't good faith. However, as you know it's standard practice nowadays for films to be released in numerous different versions (special edition, director's cut, unrated version, extended version, etc.)... Trying to cram all of this into the infobox would just lead to clutter and is really superfluous. Plus, if you're putting in running times, then shouldn't you also put in all the different release dates (since of course the different versions are released in different years)...more and more clutter. The focus of the article is on the original film, and the infobox should reflect that. Details on later versions should go in the sections about those versions. It's simply not good presentation to try to cram details about all iterations of the film into a single infobox, nor does it reflect what is the main focus of the article. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And as for Blade Runner, there is a separate article on Versions of Blade Runner, as well as a section within the main article, which is where that info belongs. The bulk of the article focuses on the original, theatrical release (see the plot section), and the infobox should reflect that. Same for Alien 3. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I still can't find it anywhere in Template:Infobox film or MOS:FILM, though. Will you please show me? I disagree with everything you think about film articles, but that's neither here nor there. The article should represent the film in general, and as new and different versions of a film is released, that should be included. The theatrical release should of course be the only listed release date as that was the film's original release date, just like with albums. Many other featured film articles list alternate running times (Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, Zodiac - and all of those only have two versions). I'm sorry, but it seems like this is just your opinions.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 19:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not anywhere specific in either the template or MOS, I merely pointed to those as general guidelines. Irrespective of the rest of the article, I find that editors tend to overcrowd infoboxes with tons of extraneous details; running times of alternate versions are merely a prominent example. If there are various run times for alternate versions, a footnote can explain that (see Alien (film)—I was confused by your change there because your edit completely removed a reference that contained a useful explanation of why the run time varies between formats). There's no need to cram it all in the infobox. That, and the original (theatrical) film is the base work; subsequent iterations, while notable and worth encyclopedic coverage, do not supplant nor carry equal weight to the original, and the original is the main focus of the article. If the original release is all that we care about with respect to release dates, gross revenue, production staff, budget, distributor, etc. in the infobox, then why do we ignore that when it comes to runtimes? That doesn't seem to make sense. Ie. with the Star Wars example, the budget required to redo the special effects and add the additional scenes for the special editions in the '90s was rather substantial, yet we don't readjust the budget to account for the money spent on these later editions (which of course would also offset the gross revenue).

It's not something we do for albums, either: Check In Utero for an example—only the length of the 12-track album is listed, even though non-US pressings included a bonus track that would extend that length by 7½ minutes. Same with Thriller (album): The 2001 special edition includes 12 extra tracks that not only would extend the length significantly, but were also recorded at different times. Yet we don't factor any of the special edition details into the infobox. I mean, if we did that for 21st Century Breakdown we'd have to list at least 6 different lengths. And the various Ramones albums that were re-released several years back, not only with bonus tracks but on an entirely different label, yet we only list the lengths and record labels for the original releases. In fact Template:Infobox Album#Length and Template:Infobox Album#Label specify this. Why do we treat films any differently? --IllaZilla (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hall & Oates image

Hi, I noticed that you removed usage of the H2O CD reissue album cover as infobox image for the Hall & Oates article, referring to the (in)famous WP:NFCC. I am not sure I understand completely your reasoning. Obviously a free image of the duo could be used instead - except that I haven't been able to locate one (and apparently no-one else have either). The policy clearly states that "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available" so I thought this was okay. Furthermore, I did put a rationale on the image's page for use in the Hall & Oates article, and it even states the above: "There is no free alternative available at present time.". So where did I go wrong?. Cheers. – IbLeo (talk) 07:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NFCC criterion #1 clearly says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose" (emphasis added). Not only are Hall and Oates both still alive, but according to the Hall & Oates article they are currently still active as a performing act, so clearly it would be possible to create a free image of them (by going to a concert and taking a picture). Further elaboration of this is provided at Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable use: "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images." Basically, you can't use a non-free image of living persons (or in this case an active musical group) simply for identification (to show what they look like), such as in an infobox. Non-free images of living persons can only be used if the image itself is the subject of critical commentary, or if it illustrates an unrepeatable historical event. Not being able to find a free image isn't the deciding factor, the point is that it's totally possible (although maybe not convenient) to create one.

I apologize for not noticing the rationale on the image page. I only glanced quickly and saw the large template rationale for use in H2O (Hall & Oates album); I didn't notice the smaller rationale below for use in Hall & Oates. My mistake. --IllaZilla (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted; no offense taken. So I went wrong on the "or could be created" part. It was unclear to me what that was supposed to mean, but your explanation of the quote from Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable use clearly clarifies the matter. I previously noticed other cases where album covers are used in an artist infobox, and I now realize that those cases are acceptable only because the artists is dead. Now, because of my geographical location it will be extremely hard for me to "create one" for this particular artist – I don't think that Hall & Oates tour Europe very often these days. So I will have to leave that part for someone else. Thanks for your clarifications, it's really helpful. Cheers. – IbLeo (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, glad to clarify. Happy editing! --IllaZilla (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalizing IP

I've reported the band member-rearranging IP at WP:ANI. I don't think his edits were blatant enough vandalism to be reported to WP:AIV. Timmeh 18:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Good call. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Alternative text for images

Hello, I was wondering if you could add alternative text for images to Alien vs. Predator (film) before it appears on the front page? It seems to be a new guideline that's encouraged at the FAC pages these days. See Fight Club (film) and Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events for a couple of examples. I explain the situation more fully at WT:FILM#Alternative text for images. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing, I'll take a crack at it. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

AvP

I suggest you check this page. They are called Xenomorphs. And frankly, I thought people would be grateful for having actual information on the page instead of whining about curly quotes that Word puts in automatically. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Damn it. Sorry. I literally just woke up, I didn't sleep well and I'm tetchy because of that. I didn't mean that to be a personal attack or similar and I'm sorry. My tetchiness and my annoyance at having my edit altered in needless ways combined. Sorry. On a related note, why not put TBA in for the release date? It's on most of the pages I go to for unreleased games. Again, sorry for attacking you. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 09:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"TBA" is slang, which is unprofessional in an encyclopedia. Not everyone knows what it means, so it's also confusing. If no release date has been announced, then none should be listed. We don't have to put "TBA"; if no date is listed then the implication is that it's not yet known.

As for the Xenomorph thing, see Alien (Alien franchise) and its talk page: the only time they have been referred to as "xenomporph" in the canon is a single time in Aliens, in which it is used as a classification term (it's like saying "mammal" or "arachnid"), it's not a proper noun and has never been an "official" name for the creatures. Every single film in the franchise credits the actor who played it/them as "The Alien". Because of its use in Aliens, "xenomorph" was picked up by some writers & then used in some of the comics and even video games as a name for them, but the comics & games are not on the same level of canon as the films (there is no consistent canon between the various media for this franchise as there is for Star Wars). We don't yet know what the creatures will be referred to as in-game, so best to go with their official name which is Aliens. Note that the title of the game is "Aliens vs. Predator", not "Xenomorphs vs. Predator"; we don't go calling the Predators "Yautja" just because that's what they're called in some of the comics.

Don't worry about the quotes, I merely fixed them to match Wikipedia's formatting and it's nothing to get upset about. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought TBA was almost universally understood by English speakers. And are you sure about Xenomorphs? I was certain that I've read/heard it somewhere else that was Canon. As for the quotes, I don't have broadband, so I have to type up major additions like that on Word, which does stuff automatically. Once again, sorry for attacking you. I'd also just seen this edit which, though I hadn't even picked up your name at the time, annoyed me further as it was accurate and had basis in previous games to warrant a citation needed tag rather than outright deletion and I should shut up now. Sorry. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I get terse sometimes myself. I'm certain about the xenomorph thing, though. See Alien (Alien franchise)#Name as well as the archived conversations here and here for some of the relevant discussion. Your contributions are appreciated. I've done some editing in Word myself and had to fix the quotes later to match WP's format; I'm happy to fix them when I come across them while editing, so dno't worry about that at all. Thank you for expanding the article and especially for adding references. It is appreciated. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There may be some more coming up. I just have to recheck to see what parts aren't already up. As for the Xenomorph, no matter, I believe you. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

{{FilmUS}}

This template is supposed to be used for the country parameter in {{Infobox film}}. I understand that you see it as an Easter egg link, but you should really contest its use there. BOVINEBOY2008 22:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I realize that's what it was created for, but its use is neither endorsed nor discouraged by the films project. Just because it exists doesn't mean it's perfect nor that it has to be used 100% of the time. It creates an easter egg link and therefore shouldn't be used unless given clear context (and I'm not sure how one would accomplish that with the way this template is applied). --IllaZilla (talk) 01:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It does have context, though. When talking about a "country" about a film, it isn't intended to be the actually country but the film industry. That's just my opinion. But the template does have its use by creating a category for the article. Maybe it would be more beneficial to remove the Easter egg there. BOVINEBOY2008 01:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that providing a link to a "cinema of ____" somewhere in the article is useful, and so is the categorization, but I don't think that a template-created piped link is the way to do it. Perhaps a "see also" section is the place for the link, and of course categories can be easily added without use of a template. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would be appropriate for a "see also" section. Although related, "cinema of ___" often doesn't link directly back to the film. And templates are used for convenience. I would be willing to continue this at the template talk page for other opinions. BOVINEBOY2008 01:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

AVP budget/gross/inflation

Hi. I'm more than happy with the way you have just reworded the sentence about "most successful film in the franchises" etc, but the film's overall costs are more than just its production budget of $60m. There are the marketing and distribution costs to add on as well, which The Numbers (box office) website list as $35m (they also list the final production budget at $70m, but there will be no definitive way to prove which figure is correct). If you need a source for the info its at http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2004/AVSP.php - or alternatively you can hunt around the net for another source. Even with this figure added, AVP was still a commercial success, but Wikipedia is about presenting all the facts. 80.41.80.25 (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Terminator 2: Judgment Day

Why did you remove my fact? Clearly the fact that it is the highest-grossing film of 1991, as well as the highest grossing Terminator film is said on Wikipedia, and what you did was not necessary. It was just a simple edit. Why are you doing this? It DID NOT need a source. Things like that DON'T need a source. Why are you reverting simple non-harmful facts? I am getting VERY sick and tired of hearing things like "stuff like that need a source"! Stop reverting my edits! It DOES NOT need a source! If you wanna revert something, then don't revert my edits! Revert someone else's edits will ya, and not mine! Ryanbstevens (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. A statement that Terminator 2 is "currently the highest grossing Terminator film in worldwide box office sales" does in fact require a source. It also requires some explanation; for example, is this accounting for inflation or not? I did not remove the statement that it was the highest grossing film of 1991, as that statement is referenced. Yours was not. As for your last few statements, see the message at the bottom of the screen before you click "save": "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." You do not own your edits to Wikipedia; once you click save, they belong to Wikipedia and may be edited or even removed by others. I don't particularly care whether you think it needs a citation or not, the fact is that it does. If you don't like providing references to back up your claims, then Wikipedia probably isn't the place for you. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That is just bullcrap! I'm reporting you to the administrators! What you said is just complete nonsense! I suffer from migraines you twit! Feel free to report what i just said! I don't give a shit anyway! Ryanbstevens (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Go right ahead. I'm sure they'll be swayed by your civility and respect for Wikipedia's core policies. Suffering from migraines doesn't magically make your claim not need a reference. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy notice, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:IllaZilla. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

DID YOU KNOW?

DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE A MEASLING MOTHERFUCKER?! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! Ryanbstevens (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)