Wikipedia:Changing username/Unfulfilled/2008/October and User talk:WesleyDodds: Difference between pages

; Archives
	December 2005 — June 2006; July 2006 — December 2006; January 2007 — April 2007; May 2007 — June 2007; July 2007 — August 2007; September 2007 — October 2007; November 2007 — December 2007; January 2008 — February 2008; 9; 10; 11;

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 09:23, 11 October 2008

Watchmen

Last time I read through W properly, I would absolutely say that Veidt's bullet-catching was shown as a superpower. Having built him up as little more than a hyper-intelligent clever-dick, he's suddenly revealed to not only be impossibly fast, but can catch a bullet - and not to one side, but in front of him. It's a surprise reveal and subversion of what the reader is expecting - Manhattan has been, as noted, the only visible "super," the others just "heroes," and suddely Veidt steps forward.

As noted above, Wylie's Gladiator gives a subtle prod towards a possible origin for Veidt, reminding the reader that his Batman-esque origin need not be the truth (and after all, Nite Owl could be said to be the Batman-stand-in). Hence the stress of "obvious" and "apparent" not of "only."

The link to registration acts (and I mildly agree that it's an odd idea, but it's also quite a good one, bringing them together like that) is a simple stand-in. Yes, a reader should find the salient points in the W article, so that means that the Keane Act should have a section/paragraph/deliberate mention. Until then, I linked it - considering the length, it seemed less controversial than writing about the fictional act, but if that's what's preferable.

I'm still not convinced that the alien invasion is required, and certainly not for 'context' - he has a plan, he puts it into effect. It doesn't need to be described - the reader who wants to know the plan reads the book! ;o) There are dozens of instances where someone might want more in-depth information about the plot (hence the bloated description in most articles), but that's frowned on. (Why did he go to Mars? What did Laurie learn? Why was the Comedian killed? Why did Rorschach investigate? Who tried to kill Veidt?, etc., etc.) Plus, any cases where something doesn't need to be revealed (and this doesn't) allows a new reader to still be shocked/surprised, etc. Also, that is a succinct summation - for someone who's read it. Otherwise it's not difficult to see someone more bemused about HOW that would get the US and USSR to stop fighting - something like "Veidt has a plan to bring peace." is much more succinct and simple.

I haven't looked at the most recent revisions as yet (I've been ill), but I will shortly, and no doubt comment/complain/congratulate..! I think quotes should take precedence in almost all cases over concise summations, bowever, simply because there can then be no accusation of misrepresentation; it's the best kind of primary-secondary source merging; it's interesting to read precisely rather than roughly what was written; it breaks up the page, etc.

Let me know if there's anything that needs sourcing from the Graphitti book, or if there's anything else I can try and hunt out. ntnon (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can't say Ozymandias' bullet-catching ability is a superpower unless another source says so, and the sources I've read so far single out Dr. Manhattan as the sole super-powered being. He's the game changer whose abilities are the catalyst formost of the develeopments in the Watchmen milieu. Yes, mentioning that Veidt's plan is to fake an alien invasion is important for context; oddly enough, most of the other things you mentioned ("Why did he go to Mars? What did Laurie learn? Why was the Comedian killed? Why did Rorschach investigate? Who tried to kill Veidt?, etc., etc.") are already mentioned in the plot summary. Saying "Veidt has a plan to bring peace" is too vague when the next paragraph mentions all this destruction with no context. It's just bad writing to exclude it. I'm not one for long plot synopsis, so I wouldn't be arguing for this detail's inclusion if I didn't think it was absolutely essential from a reading comprehension point of view. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm now looking for that quote (bullet-catching as superpower), but fruitlessly thus far..! Similarly, I saw you've finally weeded out the (bizarre) citation to Mr David's forum - for re-sourcing, I know I've seen recently a quote about this, but I don't whether there's specific mention of the badges, or if its just a strong implication. Would that matter? I think I remember that it was the badges/buttons, but it may be tough to source that - even though it's a pretty vital point, and must stay somehow.

Likewise, you're probably not wrong to weed out my wordy tangent on TPBs - however, that (currently) leaves it with Moore saying "I like this deal." That's not accurate - it's "I like this deal because there's no precedence for things to stay in print for the next twenty years," since there were no other (DC) TPBs before Dark Knight Returns and the Miller/Chaykin/Moore 'adult/intelligent' comics series was perceived to have started.

I assume "deconstruction" will return when someone can dig up some sources on that front..?

Also, what is the criteria for how cited allusory-pictures must be? Clearly the shadow of Rorschach walking through the snow, the (cover image) of Veidt's window through the snow, and the fade-to-white destruction-echo of human forms are all in the shape of the blood spatter. The symmetary/assonance of those images ought to be mentioned, even if the radar screen cover isn't (and I think it should - although the TCJ cover should get the point across, even if the point is not now covered in the text).

The Doomsday clock needs to be re-incorporated in some form - it's an integral part of the covers, and is echoed by the blood-spatter. Similarly, Veidt's plan echoing Reagan's speech is very notable. Plus Osterman-as-watchmaker and the Einstein quote should probably be worked in somewhere.

The Mayfair Games books absolutely need to be mentioned - the cross-over into another medium (RPGs) would be notable enough were it not also another element of the over-marketing of Watchmen. One of - I think the - first time there was such a marketing push. Plus, the Mayfair 'Heroes' books were all, I understand, DCU-proper - except the Watchmen one(s). That's enhanced notability! ;o) ntnon (talk) 23:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you might as well attack it in earnest. I might potter about, but I'll take it elsewhere and then see what results from you rewrite and offer opinions then. (Or do you want/mind comments as you work...?) ntnon (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

The Stewart quote is from an article, yes. It's really the first and last lines that are the useful ones. They could be incorporated elsewhere - the first could stick around as a critic's reception; the last can go into Tales. Or it could go, I suppose... ntnon (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. No rush..! What do you feel needs completely overhauling with 'themes' and 'structure'... or do you mean simply in light of the stuff I just piled in..?! ntnon (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional resources

This fansite has collected some useful links, including a Peter Sanderson essay. Hopefully you'll find something new. Alientraveller (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Were you able to get the information without any problem? Let me know if it will be useful! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is looking good so far, but I'm not sure about the state of the lead section. It seems like it is based on the original version, and I think that with the actual themes that have been explored with Watchmen, it could be revised. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, can you/anyone get hold of THIS: "Watchmen--The Nightmare and the Dream : a Literary Survey of Watchmen and Sandman" by (A.) David Lewis...? Apparantly it's 13pp, and was "[p]resented at San Diego Comic-Con 2000's Comic Arts Conferences; based on previous Brandeis University Senior Independent Project." ntnon (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also - sorry for jumping around a bit, trying to maintain some semblance of orderly commenting - do you have Reynolds' Super heroes to hand? Mine is AWOL, but my memory is that it's little more than an essay, and somewhat flawed in various parts, too (factually as well as theoretically). Geoff Klock, on the other hand, appears to be far more in the realm of high literary theory and criticism. But then, ultimately I've only dipped into both thus far, so I could be being very unfair. Plus my Reynolds has wandered off, so I can't refresh my opinions. ...hence the query. :o) ntnon (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was seeing it cited that made me track it down. When it resurfaces, I'll see what I think now... :o) ntnon (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Deconstruction"

Blurb from Squadron Supreme talks of it being 'deconstructionist' before Watchmen and Marvels
Geoff Klock talks about a "third movement" of superhero comic books, attempting to "avoid at all costs the temptation to refer to this movement as 'postmodern,' 'deconstructionist,' or something equally tedious."

Klock (How to read Superhero Comics (and why)) writes a lot about Watchmen: - where do want me to put quotes..?! I don't want to tread on your toes at the moment, so... ntnon (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly - and not deliberately! - most of the quotes I've pulled from a new book I've just got hold of fall neatly into three sections: 'deconstruction', nine-panel-grid and Moore's scripting (which was a minor section until reasonably recently, complimenting the art & color)... so I feel it would be as sensible to write about those three, drop them into "Misc." for you to revise, and then funnel off into "themes" (primary theme), and "composition" (with and before 'artwork').

Hence I mentioned some/most/all of those points at the review page as being highly relevant.

I've also got a bit of quotation about it being collected and getting into bookstores - which is one of the two 'piltdown man'-ish link between "we're very happy with our deal" and (Moore's) anger at DC. The other is the badge/buttons debacle... ntnon (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There you go. I filtered about 50 dense pages into a couple of dozen-or-so salient points. If "deconstruction" isn't liked for whatever reason, Klock suggests "revisionary superhero narrative." I've excerpted some quotes with the hidden-wikipedia-text, and elipsised some others where appropriate. I'll give you full citation information shortly, for all these.

The deconstruction, artistic information, TPB stuff and script quotes are vital. The third-party descriptions of the main characters underline (with source) the similarities between the cast and the icons; underpinning the fact that they were newly created resonant characterisations. There's also some extra stuff on the Freighter - and see below for another thought.

When do you think you'll be done, (to see what everyone else thinks of the revisions)..? ntnon (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freighter thought

Here's a thought: Can you do a fantastic summary of the very brief plot and purpose of Tales of the Black Freighter, and then section it off into its own page...? (I think you can sub-page pages, can't you?) It's possibly not 'notable' enough to stand on its own - although it probably is - and that way it would relieve a little of the length of the Watchmen article. There's clearly enough information to do a fair-to-decent job on Tales (and I'm just about to add more - prepare yourself for these bonus quotes..!) as its own discrete unit.

What do you think? It's clearly integral to Watchmen the book, but could also be swiftly summarised on the main page, but given the space and text it deserves on its own. ntnon (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The impossible is possible tonight

Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness charts updated and citations added. I've also updated the sales certs table. Don't ever worry about asking me to help out like this, I think it's fair to say you've probably done more for the alt-rock wikiproject than the rest of us put together. Cheers --JD554 (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Paranoid Android

Pretty close; I've been working on it all night (and not a bit of homework done... tsk tsk) and Giggy's been writing as well. Just need to finish up that covers section and I think it'll be ready. By the way, I noticed that the number of days you have Exit Music for is dwindling. If you can, it'd be great if you could put up anything the book mentions about "Karma Police" or "No Surprises". --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think OK Computer will be feature-ready by the end of the month. "Paranoid Android" probably will be too, for that matter. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Also, "Paranoid Android"'s now up at WP:GAN. And I need to get some sleep. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 10:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Findarticles

I don;t have access to findarticles, sorry. You might want to try Phil Sandifer though. I don't know what access he has, but he is connected. Hiding T 13:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Should Coco

Hi.

Do you think I Should Coco should be nominated for a Good article? I believe it meets the good article criteria but I just want to make sure it does. So if you have an opinion on this, please let me know.

Thanks, TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dookie

Look real close at the article infobox. Do you see a genre field there? The Real Libs-speak politely 00:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Female Bands List

There is a dispute and an editor has requested a third opinion.
If you would like to contribute to the discussion, please see the talk page.

Genre text removal from infoboxes

Hey man, I've been reading through WikiProject Music thoroughly, and I side with most of your views. In particular, your request for not removing the genre field text from artist/album infoboxes, as them not beind displayed is enough and that this whole damn thing is extremely controversal. Could you please give me a hand in doing that task if possible? Wiki Libs is on a massive spree of removing the text from many artists, and although he's reasonable in it, he's the only one doing so and doesn't realise that this genre thing isn't completey resolved yet. Take a look at his conrtibs- those probably account for over 80% of the artists that have the text removed. I REALLY appreciate it, as you are a well respected and experienced user here :). Many thanks! Angry Shoplifter (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm hello? Sorry to be bugging you, but you probably skipped over this as there are probably other new messages for you to see when I posted here. Anyways, to be clear, I know you support the keeping of the text in the infobox, but I'm asking for intervention help, esepcially against Libs, as he respects you much more than me and I don't want to be the only user taking action. Thanks! Angry Shoplifter (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Distraction

Was watching that; euff. This is uncensored; this is amazing , and this is hot. What more could a young man need? Ceoil ^sláinte 08:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Dude that's dad rock. Pfff. Ceoil ^sláinte 09:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much better thanks. Mojo ran a 3 page feature on The Killing Moon last month; I recommed that you track it down, if only for Macs bambast; funny. Ceoil ^sláinte

I'll watch the FAR. Ceoil ^sláinte 09:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]