User talk:Darkwarriorblake: Difference between revisions

Yes, you made a mistake. My sources are up to date. Another moderator approved it. He told me to write about it in the article, initially I only listed uncredited names. The changes remained for a month. I don’t mind if you delete the text of the article, but you should return the uncredited names in the infobox. Many articles use this type of credits even without sources. I proved to you that it is true. Camera slate is indicate director of photography, not camera operator or some another camera crew member. You can see Glennon’s credit in all takes of Murphy’s death sequence https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBLVVPpoLmQ 31.42.237.163 (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So the other person was an editor, not a moderator. You supplied a source, they obviously, despite being well-meaning, have not looked into it further than that. The changes remained for a month because I wasn’t here for a month, otherwise I would have removed them immediately. The cinematographer credit is for the head of that role, which is Jost Vacano. If Sol Negrini and James Glennon held official roles on the film, then it would be possible to find verifiable sources that say such. That sites like the BFI and AFI include minor roles but neither of these names is a huge red flag, as is my inability to find any sources attaching their names to the film either. The closest I can find is this and this which says he contributed additional cinematography, which is not the cinematographer or director of photography, therefore the credits would not belong in the infobox. Similarly, without additional information, it would be WP: UNDUE to just mention their names for the sake of it, when many other crew members are not given that treatment. Additionally, Featured Articles don’t include information that is not sourced, so other, lower quality articles doing so does not mean it’s acceptable on a Featured Article like RoboCop. If someone’s name is on a slate for an effects scene like that, it basically means they’re doing additional photography that the cinematographer is too busy or otherwise occupied to do. This does not mean we’d put under the cinematographer credit someone from an effects house filming a miniature, for instance, like Phil Tippett. While I can understand this means something to you and you are maybe linked to these people, they were not THE cinematographer on RoboCop, that was Jost Vacano. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. To be honest I wanted to credit only Glennon. But I decided it would be unfair to Negrin since I know about his contribution to the action sequences and car chase in the steel mill. You don’t have to credit Negrin, but I have proven to you that Glennon is solely responsible for the Murphy death sequence, and therefore for the rest of the steel mill interiors (the gangsters watching the Bixby Snyder show and everything), as I said before, it’s not a second unit or anything like that. You have confirmation. Bring Glennon back as an uncredited cinematographer. As for the lack of sources, yes, they hid it all these years, since it is not profitable for the press to reveal that Vacano is only responsible for 70% of the film. They probably replaced him for the simple reason that he was an expensive cinematographer, especially since he lived in Germany, I am not trying to say that he was not competent enough for those sequences. I loved Glennon’s work in Jedi and Navigator, so I decided to set the record straight. 31.42.237.163 (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional context, I appreciate that this matters to you. I’ve tried to verify the specific claims you’ve made (that Jost Vacano only shot “70%” of RoboCop and that James Glennon should be credited as an uncredited cinematographer for the Murphy death sequence and related interiors), but so far I can’t find reliable sources to support them, and screen grabs of his name on a clipboard wouldn’t be sufficient evidence for this. If you can produce reliable evidence for those assertions I’m happy to reconsider and update the article, but here’s what we need and why:

• On-screen credits (primary source). If Glennon’s name appears in the film’s own credits that’s a primary-source fact we can cite. I have just had a look but did not see either name. If we are citing a video we need a timestamp as well.
• Independent secondary sources. For claims such as “Vacano only shot 70% of the movie” or “Glennon was solely responsible for the Murphy death sequence”, we need independent, published sources that state that explicitly, e.g. Variety, Hollywood Reporter, reputable film histories or biographies, the AFI, BFI, ASC magazine, authorized production notes, or interviews with the filmmakers/cinematographers. These are the kinds of sources that establish who actually did what on a set and allow us to give the claim appropriate weight.

We can’t keep unsourced or poorly sourced claims in the lead/infobox or give them undue prominence. For Featured Articles the sourcing bar is especially high. If the evidence shows Glennon did “additional photography” on a discrete sequence, the correct approach would be to describe that in the article body with a citation, not to list him as the main cinematographer in the infobox (infoboxes should reflect the principal on-screen credit).

If you supply one of the above, I’ll gladly add a properly formatted citation and, where appropriate, restore or add wording in the article body describing Glennon’s role. If the on-screen credit says only “additional photography”, I’ll add that phrasing (with the source) rather than listing him in the infobox as the cinematographer.

To be clear, this is not personal, it’s just Wikipedia’s standard practice to avoid asserting unsourced production-credit claims, especially on Featured Articles. As I’ve said, I have done some independent research on the AFI, BFI, and just plain Google searches for the film alongside Glennon’s and Sol’s names, and all I’ve been able to find is that Sol provided additional cinematography, whereas I cannot find much, if anything, for Glennon.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your understanding. I won’t bother you anymore. But I just want to clarify about the 70%. They took a long break between finishing filming in Pennsylvania in mid-November 1986 and resuming filming in January 1987 in Los Angeles. This is written about in the article with a link to an authoritative source. Not only this sequence was filmed then, but a lot of additional principal shots with RoboCop: driving shots at night (not all, only the patrol before the supermarket robbery), close-ups of RoboCop at the steel mill when they shoot at him and when he turns around during the toxic waste release from the van, close-ups of Murphy’s eye in the helmet, RoboCop looking at the computer (when we see the computer itself and RoboCop from behind, the rest was filmed in Dallas), a news story in which RoboCop comes to school, a news story about the killed cops. And a huge number of non-principal shots, including all the shots with the robotic holster. It’s interesting that in Robodoc they showed documents that indicated that on those same days they were supposed to shoot scenes with Frank Frederickson encountering Clarence Boddicker’s gang and the scene in which Robocop visits Murphy’s grave. So all of this is Glennon’s work. I talked to Bart Mixon on Facebook a few years ago, he told me all these details. 31.42.237.163 (talk) 06:23, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing those details and the insights from Bart Mixon; that’s interesting context about the filming schedule and Glennon’s involvement. If you can ever find some verifiable sources for these it would be great information to add to the article, an interview with Mixon for instance. I assume this isn’t discussed in RoboDoc? There is a Making Of book of the film but it’s over £140 with no guarantee the information is in there so not something I can personally check. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That IP is some other editor. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Tigger Movie § Plot changes. Lord Sjones23 (talk – contributions) 06:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 September 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You’re receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have there been attempts to add notes on Saving Private Ryan about Paramount owning rights to this film and the other DreamWorks Pictures/Paramount Pictures (Deep Impact, Paycheck, The Stepford Wives, A Serious of Unfortunate Events, Collateral, War of the Worlds) as a result of its brief ownership of DreamWorks Pictures from 2006–2008?

I’ve seen people do that to the Miramax films Paramount made with them. How do you personally feel about people adding onto articles about the current ownership of a film? Hdog1996 (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The companies should be what they were at the time. If ownership changed it will be discussed in their articles (if they have one). No notes reflecting current ownership should be added, unless relevant, i.e. Terminator 2: Judgment Day discusses this because Carolco failed only a few years after and Terminator was sold to Canal +, but it’s probably owned by Skydance now and that is not mentioned in the article because it’s not relevant. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Skydance owns Paramount and by extension the pre-2011 live action DreamWorks films. Paramount also owns 49% of Miramax, ironic considering Shakespeare in Love beat Saving Private Ryan for Best Picture. films. Hdog1996 (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What does it matter if This Is Spinal Tap is not listed in the source? The link is not even being used to source that statement. The sentence merely begins with “1984 saw the release of several films that would later be considered iconic of the era”. That sentence in that section of the Wiki article for Ghostbusters merely lists iconic films from the year 1984. It’s not quoting an actual statement from the source itself. It’s just a GENERAL statement about iconic films released in that year. “This Is Spinal Tap” is indeed an iconic film from 1984 and from the era. A source is not needed to confirm that it’s an iconic film from that year. Ldavid1985 20:57, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know if you’re having an off day but you’ve been here long enough to know how sourcing works. The statement has a reference at the end of it, that’s the source. Spinal Tap isn’t mentioned in there, it’s a niche cult film that has no cultural cache outside of America, and I’m not sure why the statement on the Ghostbusters article is the place you feel really needs to mention a film not mentioned in the source. Mention it on the Spinal Tap article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I don’t know if you’re having an off-day as well, since you’ve certainly been here long enough to know how to read a source to assess whether it’s actually accurate or not. The statement begins with “Imagine a SUMMER when you could have seen Gremlins, Ghostbusters, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Beverly Hills Cop…” That statement right there shows that this is not accurate nor is it a “source” for the Wiki article, as Beverly Hills Cop wasn’t even released in the summer of ’84. It was a Christmas release in DECEMBER of 1984. So, the link is just opinion piece with incorrect information, not a real source. So, are you really gonna adhere to a “source” that doesn’t even put out accurate information? Also, This Is Spinal Tap is not a “niche cult film”. This is not Carnival of Souls or Brian De Palma‘s Sisters. Spinal Tap literally launched a new film genre (the mockumentary), as noted in the Wiki article. And it is very notable for the origin of the phrase “up to eleven”, which has become an ICONIC line in pop culture (both in and out of America). They even had a whole subplot in an iconic episode of The Simpsons about Spinal Tap. Cult films can begin as cult but then after enough time become actual staples of pop culture. You really think Fight Club and The Shawshank Redemption that both began as cult films haven’t become mainstream pop culture staples at this point? Not to mention, they just released the legacy sequel to Spinal Tap today. Niche films don’t get legacy sequels. They make sequels for films that have at least made some foothold in popular culture. Was Blade Runner 2049 niche with its blockbuster sized budget of $185 million? And no, Spinal Tap is not a niche cult film that has “no cultural cache outside of America” (Do you have a source for that statement by the way?). I watched several reaction videos to the film and several of them who live outside of America knew the “these go to eleven” quote before actually watching the film, including a reactor from Bangladesh. So, your assessment that Spinal Tap has “no cultural cache outside of America” is completely unfounded. Not to mention, you’ve certainly been making an awful lot of edits recently for a Wiki editor who is supposedly “semi-retired” and “no longer very active” on the site. Ldavid1985 20:56, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source is reliable, the person opens by listing off films and follows it up with them being iconic and exclusive to 1984. This is basic reading comprehension. I’m not interested in when Beverly Hills Cop made most of it’s money, and I don’t care at all about Spinal Tap, but what I do know is that each film mentioned there—reminding you that this is the article on Ghostbusters, not Spinal Tap—is mentioned in the source and Spinal Tap is not, and I’m not sure why that’s offensive to you that Spinal Tap is not mentioned on the page about Ghostbusters. The line also says “including” not “comprehensive list.” The content is sourced and what you are doing is disruptive and I will be referring it if you carry on. Take a breath, walk away, and have a think about what you are trying to accomplish here.

“Not to mention, you’ve certainly been making an awful lot of edits recently for a Wiki editor who is supposedly “semi-retired” and “no longer very active” on the site.” I don’t know what your point is? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source is reliable… but the information contained within it is NOT. And this is NOT about basic reading comprehension. It’s about assessing whether the information within a source is accurate or not. You’re doing nothing but twisting the issue. It’s not about “agreeing” with the article. Statements in the article are literally and demonstrably FALSE. It’s not a disagreement in opinion.

“I’m not interested in when Beverly Hills Cop made most of it’s money.”

It literally made NONE of its money in the summer of 1984. It wasn’t even released in the summer of ’84. It was released in WINTER. You literally quoted a FACTUALLY INCORRECT statement from the article to justify undoing my edit. Correct me if I’m wrong, but quoting inaccurate information is NOT the mantra of Wikipedia. And my edits on this matter is NOT disruptive. I literally have facts backing them, whereas you’re using misinformation from an op-ed piece that can be verified as misinformation right here on Wikipedia. The undoing of my edits is literally being done strictly out of ego at this point.

And again, where is your source that Spinal Tap is a niche cult film that has “no cultural cache outside of America”? I’m still waiting on that. Ldavid1985 22:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And again, where is your source that Spinal Tap is a niche cult film that has “no cultural cache outside of America”. I’m still waiting on that. Ldavid1985 22:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A source isn’t factually incorrect because it lists off iconic films of 1984 and groups them under Summer. If you take issue with that, take it to a higher power than me and have them laugh in your face that you’re trying to dismiss a reliable source over that. You’re trying to write off a source because it doesn’t mention Spinal Tap.

I didn’t quote anything factually incorrect to undo your edit, I undid your edit and said it was unsourced, which was the case. You responded by saying that it didn’t matter that it wasn’t sourced, you can add it just because. Then I undid it and quoted the article listing out the actual films included in the article, and you undid that again because it didn’t include Spinal Tap.

The content is from a reliable source and it’s in the “/culture/film/” section. I’m sorry it doesn’t mention Spinal Tap, but attempts to smear it as an “op ed” because it doesn’t mention Spinal Tap is making you come across as unreasonable.

The core disagreement here is that there are a list of films in the article that are sourced, while making a specific comment about the broad awesomeness of films released in 1984, and you were randomly adding Spinal Tap to the article. That isn’t acceptable. And to be clear before you go and do it, finding a separate reference that says Spinal Tap is iconic, and putting it in the Ghostbusters article wouldn’t be acceptable either.

Anything else you have to say, say it on the talk page or at WikiProject Film and see if you can amass support for the unsourced inclusion of Spinal Tap in an unrelated article. I’m not discussing the cache of Spinal Tap because it’s started you off on a tangent which I don’t want to get into and remains irrelevant to the point I’m making or the actions I’ve taken in regards to the misuse of sourced content in an article.

You’ve managed to waste an hour of our time over the unsourced inclusion of Spinal Tap, man. It’s Friday night. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]