Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Saw media/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 15:15, 10 August 2010 [1].

List of Saw media

[edit]

List of Saw media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): GroundZ3R0 002 10:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have nominated twice before and have since addressed every issue that made the nomination fail before. Therefore this article should reach FLC with little to no problems. GroundZ3R0 002 10:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose Nowhere near ready. Multiple issues, fails WP:FL? 1, 3a, 5, and WP:V at least.

1: Fragmented sentences galore and odd phrasing in the Notes boxes for the films. Not limited to:
"The full film made from the script of the 2003 short film"
"The first film in the series to be directed by Darren Lynn Bousman."
"III holds the highest worldwide gross for any Saw film with just under $165 million." Is it Saw III or III?
"The only film in the series to be directed by David Hackl."
"Kevin Greutert returned to direct."
"Was re-released around the same time as Saw V with minor changes." be specific instead of "around the same time". What does "with minor changes" even mean? Minor changes to what? The date?
3a: Found a number oddities regarding release dates and non official stuff
For Saw, you give the Original release dates for the theatrical release, the original DVD, an uncut DVD version, and a rerelease. What market are these for? The film is American-Australian, so I'm assuming the date it's one of the two. However, the film did the rounds at film festivals throughout 2004 beginning with Tribeca in January, and it's theatrical release in the UK was 1 October 2004.
I also noticed that the Wikipedia practice of trying to get the entire world to forget about the VHS medium is alive and well here. this and this show it was available on VHS. It was also released on UMD,[2] and Blu Ray, and that hasn't been mentioned either.
'Saw II was also released on VHS.[3] And Blu Ray. But again, it's as if it didn't happen according to Wikipedia. If applicable, was it released on UMD? You should include all formats instead of showing bias towards one.
  • Changed to "Home media" instead to encompass all DVD, VHS, UMD, and other forms without an extensive list of all the forms the film is available. I also erased all the rereleases and special editions. Also using the initial release date for any medium as a standard. The festivals do not count as releases, nearly every film has prescreenings. I will go by the theatrical premier in the US for consistency, is that agreeable? GroundZ3R0 002 04:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Saw IV -- According to our own article, this movie was released in Australia on the 25th, and in the US and Canada on the 26th. So what's going on in this article? Sometimes it gives the premiere theatrical date, and other times it gives the US theatrical release date.. It's very inconsistent. Again, there's no mention of Blu Ray, and in a somewhat rather inconsistent move, no mention of the multitude of rereleases, extended and directors editions.
Saw V -- According to our own article, this move was released in Australia on the 23rd, and the US on the 24th. This article gives the US release date. Again, what gives with the inconsistent release dates? Sometimes it's the US date, whether or not it was released in the US first, other times it's a date for other countries. Again, there's no Blu Ray mention, and nothing about the directors version
Saw VI. Our article on the film says it was released in New Zealand on the 22nd. This article gives the original theatrical release date as the US's 23rd.
Saw: Spoofed -- Now we're including unofficial spoofs and parodies that aren't supported by Lions Gate or Twisted Pictures. Well why not add Scary Movie 4, then? Oh, and I've spotted a couple of videos on YouTube made by some kids. Let's add those too.
  • No need for sarcasm you point has been made. The unofficial media has been removed from the list, as well as the DVD extras, and things not considered "media" per se, like the roller coaster. Also removed all the non retail music albums which addressed other issues below. GroundZ3R0 002 04:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saw: Full Disclosure Report, Saw: Spoofed, and Scott Tibbs Documentary -- Now we're listing DVD extras. In that case I want a big box detailing the "Bits and Pieces: The Props of Saw II" and "Bits and Pieces: The Traps of Saw II", too.
Now we get to the video games. For the movies, it fails to list all the mediums it was released on, but the video games details every console in every region. What does "Released alongside Saw VI." and "To release alongside Saw 3D" mean? Consumers can only buy it at the movie theater when they buy their ticket? It's not even true because the dates don't match. We're told Saw VI was released on October 23, but Saw (the game) was released on October 6.
"Original release dates: 2003 – non-release/promotional pitch" This isn't a release date so don't mention it here
Then again, we've got a bunch of unsupported, unofficial games. Das Spiel, Trapped, Jigsaw's Game, etc. Why is it listing bogus stuff? If I make a game and call it Saw: Chop Off Your Legs and mention it on a BitReactor messageboard, can I list it here too?
Put "roller coaster" in the Notes section for Saw: The Ride, because "roller coaster" isn't a date. Same for "maze" "live action horror maze" (huh?).
By the way, can rollercoasters and mazes and dolls be considered "media" (wikt:media?
The music section gives the length of the releases, so why not give the length of the movies?
For Hello Zepp theme and the Video Game Soundtrack, you list the composers in the Label column. Did the composers release the material on their own labels? What does this mean?
October 26, 2007 (non-retail) -- what?
5: Fails this criteria in a number of ways.
Where in the MOS does it say that the names of roller coasters, mazes and "merchandise" should be in italics?
5a: The music albums.. What's with the Blue lines between each entry? There's blue links on top of grey-blue boxes, separated by blue lines. My eyes! My eyes!
5b: The image fails to meet WP:NFCC#8 as it fails to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Without the image, we still understand that the Saw media consists of DVDs, video games, comics, figurines, CDs, etc. It only partly shows the entire Saw media anyways as it's an image of one boxset of 5 of the 6 movies that have been released, rather than an image of all the media.
References
What makes http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/news/topnews.php?id=12772 a WP:RS?
Ref 2 needs correct attribution. It's a Reuters publication that tf.org has reused
What makes http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0818519/ a RS?
Be consistent in ref formatting. "^ a b "Saw: The Videogame (2009)". IGN. http://ps3.ign.com/objects/142/14231741.html. Retrieved November 26, 2009." vs "^ a b Anthony, Gallegos (April 9, 2010). "Saw II Hands-on Preview". ps3.ign.com. IGN. http://ps3.ign.com/articles/108/1082816p1.html. Retrieved April 9, 2010."
What makes http://www.amazon.com/Saw-Cary-Elwes/dp/B0006SSOHC a neutral RS? Why does it look like The Foundation is saying, "if you're going to buy this movie, get it from Amazon instead of WalMart?
You don't need to attribute website names in the publisher and work fields.
http://www.vh1.com/movies/dvd/192794/dvdmain.jhtml redirects to http://www.vh1.com/video/movies.jhtml
What makes http://www.horror-movies.ca/horror_17120.html a RS?
And http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/18838
And http://feartotread.com/2009/10/new-saw-online-game%E2%80%A6/
And http://www.ampgames.com/game/666/Saw-IV-:-Trapped.html
And http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://board.bitreactor.to/talk-hobbyforen/humor-r-tsel/45972-saw-das-spiel-angst-hab/&ei=8lntSZWQC4zCM4v5OQ&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=7&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DSaw%2BDas%2BSpiel%2Brelease%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dig%26sa%3DG
And http://www.moviestation.org/movie/287834/The_Scott_Tibbs_Documentary
Ref 44 isn't attributed correctly.

I'm done. There's more but I can't go on. This is nowhere near FL standard. Please don't substitute the Featured list process for WP:Peer review just because that project is backed up. Recommend you withdraw, sort out the issues I've mentioned, take it to PR and find out what else is wrong with it. Matthewedwards :  Chat  18:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew, Bloody Disgusting and ShockTilYouDrop (well, just about all of CraveOnline’s networks) are considered reliable sources for horror film articles and are used in many good articles. It was suggested in the last FLC to used Amazon.com for the release dates instead of About.com. If this blatantly fails FL criteria, you could have suggested he take it to peer review from the beginning instead of making a mockery out of the review. Thanks for your kind messages. Mike Allen 23:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an organizational tool, I hope you don't mind that I strike out every issue that has since been addressed.GroundZ3R0 002 03:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he wants to review it anyway, he recommended that you withdraw it. I would take it to peer review so it will be without a doubt ready for a FLC (and for more neutral criticism). Also, I don't understand why he says that you shouldn't use the "work" and "publisher" parameter in the citations for websites. IGN Entertainment is the work, while News Corporation is who owns and publishes that work. That is correct and more informative and professional referencing. Why else does the {{Cite web}} template have them. Mike Allen 05:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I left him a notice and if he still has issues I might withdraw. There was a few instances where the work and publisher was misrefed so I fixed those, I think that's what he meant. GroundZ3R0 002 06:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't strike out other editors' comments; the reviewers will determine when their comments have been addressed. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re the 'template' - Just because it was used in a list made featured a year ago doesn't mean it's quality. The addition of the fancy blank lines goes against accessibility and table design ideals. There should be a discussion on that front instead of just discarding it as, "another one did it". Standards change or are occasionally ignored. --Golbez (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Saw_media/archive3&oldid=1089913490"