Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

David Brooks quote

I suggest restoring the David Brooks quote - I think he lays out very clearly what several commentators have said; plus he's a notable reviewer from a notable newspaper. If what he says is repeated elsewhere, perhaps the other source could be removed. This is just my opinion as a reader of this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Help me out here. Which quote are you referring to and when and why was it removed? I can't seem to find it. DrNegative (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avatar_(2009_film)&diff=346823549&oldid=346822262 -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

His quote is not needed at all. Yes, he repeats what others have said. That is why his quote is not needed. One guy basically says the same thing in that section. For the sake of this article's size, we do not need trivial quotes. I will look for more trivial quotes to remove as well. Flyer22 (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Highest grossing in foreign

Shouldn't we also mention that Avatar is the highest grossing film of all time in foreign gross ALONE? That's pretty damn impressive, and is a major box office success for this movie. Definitely deserves to be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.190.157 (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It is actually in there among the box office chronology but is starting to get lost among all the weekend records. Ssilver also overlooked it earlier on, so I've moved all the all-time box office records to their own paragraph so that all the records are together. The infomration is hopefully easier to find now. Betty Logan (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I read it over and it's still not there. Do you mind telling me exactly where it is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.190.157 (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Betty. You mention the worldwide and domestic records, but not the "foreign" record. Also, there is no mention that it is even the record-holder for *adjusted* worldwide and foreign grosses (it set the foreign adjusted record long ago and the worldwide adjusted record during its 10th weekend - Box office mojo mentioned it). I don't know if you think each of these is notable enough to mention, but the information is not stated currently. Also, re: the above discussion on repeat business/bringing your friends, even though Flyer thinks that information is not too obvious to include, can't it be cut down to a sentence? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The foreign record is mentioned in the same sentence right after the worldwide record is mentioned. As far as I'm aware it has only set the domestic adjusted record, if it has set other adjusted records they can be added if we have the references. Betty Logan (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so it is, I beg your pardon. However, it certainly has set foreign and worldwide adjusted records. See, e.g., this. You can also add Ireland to the list of foreign market records [1]. But it has not set the domestic adjusted record, just the non-adjusted domestic record (It's still 15th on an adjusted basis). -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes you're right, it hasn't set the domestic adjusted record, I was getting confused but meant that's it domestic adjusted gross is accounted for. However, that reference you provide doesn't say it's the top film worldwide on an adjusted basis, just that it has beaten Titanic, which is already mentioned in the article. "Gone With the Wind" is the record holder having taken almost $6 billion worldwide on the adjusted scale, so Avatar isn't even halfway there yet. Betty Logan (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you are both talking at cross purposes. I understood from several locations that it has broken the inflation adjusted record for the rest of the world (excluding the USA and Canada), mega films from earlier time periods such as GWTW, Ben Hur etc did not score such huge figures in non-North America territories because the cinemas did not exist in vast numbers. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 01:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It possibly could have, but we need a reference to explictly say that. I still think GWTW rules all three charts though, because if it took $6 billion worldwide and earned only $1.5 billion from the US that means the other $4.5 billion must have been foreign gross. That may be the result of rapid inflation in some foreign markets and the exchange rates. If we have a reference that says it holds those records I'm more than happy for those to be incorporated into the article, but just because it beat Titanic on the adjusted chart we can't automatically assume it holds the top spot. Betty Logan (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Betty. Your math makes sense, but where did you get the 6 billion dollar figure? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Betty, the 6 billion dollar figure is what happens when you use the worldwide take 400 million and apply CPI inflation to it as opposed to odd measure of ticket prices. Mojo has a page on GWTW and it made 50% in the domestic market and 50% outside the domestic market. Case closed. Also the amount of theaters outside the US has nothing to do with GWTW's gross. It actually came out before the US was the world's top economy (hard as that world is to imagine).Dante2308 (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a little confused. If it's 50% outside the domestic market, and the adjusted domestic market is $1.5 billion on Mojo, then it should be a total of $3 billion worldwide. Nevertheless, that is still ahead of Avatar. Looking over the rest of the Mojo list here, it looks like Avatar would now be in the second position. Given that Avatar is losing many of its screens now, it seems unlikely that it will beat GWTW, but it appears to have reached 2nd place.... Putting down the calculator and going to bed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You are assuming that the inflation measure is the same for US and foreign adjustment and also that it grossed its foreign revenue at the same time as its US revenue, which almost certainly isn't true because it had multiple releases. There was also rapid inflation in European countries just after world war 2, much more than there was in the US. It also depends on the inflation measure itself too - Box Office mojo uses adjusted ticket price whereas many economists use CPI or the equivalent. There are plenty of sources out there saying that GWTW's worldwide adjusted gross is $6 billion so we can't do the Maths ourselves and come up with $3 billion since that violates WP:OR. GWTW's gross can be adjusted either using ticket price inflation or CPI, and by just US inflation or by inflation for each individual country, so if we are going to state that Avatar has earned more that GWTW adjusted for inflation we need a source to expliclty state that, hopefully along with the methodology it uses. Ultimately GWTW's gross is irrelevant here, I'm just using it as an example to illustrate that we can't conclude that Avatar is the highest grossing film of all time ajusted for inflation by virtue of it overtaking Titanic without the source first stating that Titanic was the highest grossing film of all time adjusted for inflation. The source states only that it has overtaken Titanic so that's what we've stated in the article. Betty Logan (talk) 06:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Inflation is separate from currency exchange rates. If you measure a value in US dollars, the exchange rate or the inflation abroad is irrelevant from the perspective of our currency because thats what exchange rates accommodate for in the first place. What matters more is the timing as you suggested but as I said the 6 billion calculation is easily replicated using this site here. If you put in 400(million) and the year 1939, it spits back 6,113 (million) or about 6 billion. It is quite inane for a calculation because it fails to consider multiple releases or common sense but it is an overquoted and overestimated figure nonetheless. Applying the same standard to Titanic gives you an adjusted gross of 2.45 billion and Star Wars an adjusted gross of 2.64 billion. Both of these overestimate the adjustment for not taking into account anything but the year of release. Avatar breaking 2.64 billion would indicate that it has exceeded Star Wars and Titanic due to this overestimation putting it in #2 behind the enigmatic GWTW.Dante2308 (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Just thought this article: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/30784/ could be somewhat relevant for the discussion. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 10:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a tidbit. If you use Box Office Mojo as a guide, then GWTW made 46.5 million dollars in 1939 US dollars domestically which inflation adjusts to 1.421 billion in 2009 dollars. However this number is one useless measure on top of another but it illustrates how awkward the 6 billion dollar figure is to begin with. The length of release MUST be factored in to GWTW! 6 billion is at least a multiple too high. GWTW's gross is evened out in 1965 dollars! Surely this makes no sense. In fact Avatar's Mojo rank doesn't make any sense at all when you factor in the 3-d surcharge. What is it measuring exactly? Hypothetically if Avatar was in 2-d this is how many tickets it would have sold if it made the same amount of money compared to other movies if they hypothetically sold the same amount of tickets as at hypothetical Avatar 2-d rates in 2010 but only domestically? Ok by that measure Avatar is #15 and has a long way to go before it does something more than GWTW somehow hypothetically somewhere.Dante2308 (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Followed by...

Someone has recently added the field Followed by to the movie infobox in this article. The title Avatar 2 has been listed. As previously discussed on this talk page, James Cameron has not yet confirmed a title for the next film; he is merely speculating at the moment. I propose Avatar 2 be replaced with Unnamed Avatar Sequel, as a sequel has been confirmed.--Forward Unto Dawn 08:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I propose we remove it altogether until Fox officially confirms it per WP:CRYSTALBALL. In my opinion it fails point #1 until Fox does so. DrNegative (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it should be removed until further notice (it's actually confirmed). —Mike Allen 09:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Even better, I too think it should go.--Forward Unto Dawn 09:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There should be no "followed by" until the film is greenlit. Betty Logan (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Done.--Forward Unto Dawn 10:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Fictional universe of Avatar link in Cast and characters section

Str1977 argues that this link does not belong there. He removed it because he says it is not a main article for the cast and characters; another editor compromised with him, and linked it as a See also link. He removed it again; I reverted him this time. I argue, "How does that link not belong there?" It is about the characters, humans and wildlife life, and the world of Avatar at large. It definitely belongs there.

As "longtime," attentive editors of this article know, the Fictional universe of Avatar article has gone through a few different names. It used to be called Characters in Avatar. Then it was needlessly moved to Characters and wildlife in Avatar. Then, because Erik felt that name was too restrictive, as though the article could only cover the characters and not the universe, the article was changed to Fictional universe in Avatar. And, of course, these days, we have "of" in place of "in." Bottomline? That article's title change has not changed the fact that it is about the characters and fictional universe. Just because it does not include casting information...does not mean that it should not be linked to as a See also section of the Cast and characters section. Really, there should be casting information in that article (in my view, though Erik also objected to that when an editor tried to add back casting information to that article). One of the reasons I did not want Erik's title change was because of inconsistency. For example, that title not having consistency with the Cast and characters section has seemed to make Str1977 believe that article should not be linked there even as a See also link. If that is not the reason Str1977 does not want it linked there, then I ask him to provide the reason or reasons why.

For more about what was decided for the Fictional universe of Avatar article and how we would link it here, just look at its talk page (those past discussions are still currently there on the front page). Flyer22 (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Case against Avatar dismissed

Does anyone think this court ruling on Avatar plagiarism charges notable for inclusion? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a more general note on plagiarism acccusations is appropriate, rather than describing every single accusation (and there have been many, and likely more to come).--Forward Unto Dawn 06:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and we already note in the Critical reception section that Cameron has been accused of plagiarism for this work (along with his response to the plagiarism accusations). Flyer22 (talk) 06:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can file a case, and it would surely only be notable if a judge allowed it to go to trial. Betty Logan (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

WebCite archived link needed

Did anyone happen to run WebCite on the article circa mid-February? I need to replace a now dead web citation in Themes in Avatar, which is incidentally used in the main article too. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If you've got a dead url just type it into the webcite search engine. Betty Logan (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip, Betty. The link was not archived there either, but I found a way around, through google cache which I then ran through WebCite to get a permanent archived page. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Science Fantasy

Wouldnt it be more correct to call Avatar a Science Fantasy film? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.123.67 (talk) 06:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

as opposed to science fiction? (209.23.140.60 (talk) 05:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC))

Removal of sourced information by Pankclaw

Pankclaw is persistently removing source information about Avatar spending 11 consecutive weekends at teh top of the foreign box office: [2] He says this is out of place and it is not clear what foreign refers to. This is clearly not out of place because the whole paragraph discusses the weekend performances in the US and the international thresholds it has passed. The source makes it clear that 'foreign' in this case refers to the non US market, and this is the format that BoxOfficeMojo consistently uses US/wordlwide/foreign. Does anyone else consider this information to be non notable/unclear and should be removed? It seems important to me in giving the overall picture of Avatar's domination and global success. Betty Logan (talk) 04:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Given he just blanked the page with a rather nasty edit summary, I'm not inclined to take him very seriously at all. Doniago (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the information in quite clear and not out of place. He should discuss it here it he feels otherwise. DrNegative (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"Foreign" is relative and not as declared as "domestic" was; I tweaked it to be more direct. Erik (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That is actually a great way of stating it, simple and defined. Perhaps a policy of "relative" statements for film articles and box office performance throughout the world should be proposed for the MOS:FILM based on this incident. Relativity seems to have been a hot topic from time to time for this article since the film's release. DrNegative (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, Pankclaw just edited his own Talk page with a Block template (i.e. presenting the impression he's blocked). I don't know whether that would merit a Warning or whether there's any point in bothering. No other recent contribs. Doniago (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying he blocked himself? I didn't know you could do that. How noble. DrNegative (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

External Sources

Shouldn't there be an external source for the James Cameron's Avatar Wiki? (http://james-camerons-avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Avatar_Wiki) I think it should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.159.32 (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'll do that right now. Iminrainbows (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Na'vi: Sentient or Sapient?

Reading the introduction to this article, I noticed that the Na'vi are described as "Sentient". However, after carefully reading the pages on both Sentience and Sapience, and having seen the film over a dozen times, it's clear that "sentient" is not the correct description of the Na'vi. "Sentience is the ability to feel or perceive subjectively," says the article on Sentience. The description of Sapience says that, "Sapience is often defined as wisdom, or the ability of an organism or entity to act with appropriate judgement." The Na'vi throughout the film demonstrate "judgement" through their actions time and again and so I present the case that the description of the Na'vi in this article should be changed from "Sentient" to "Sapient". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayrde.Kurt (talk • contribs) 04:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It was originally "sapient species", but was changed to "sentient species" as it is the more common term used in science fiction when describing other alien races. E.g. Star Trek.--Forward Unto Dawn 10:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. In the film, the Na'vi come across as a more philosophical race of beings than humans (or at the very least more so than the humans in the film), and yet science fiction calls them sentient. I just think that the definitions of sentient and sapient justify changing the description back to sapient... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayrde.Kurt (talk • contribs) 07:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

i agree (209.23.140.60 (talk) 05:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)) I should be "sapient." I'm irked by how sci-fi, particularly that which deals with artificial intelligence has seemingly branded everything as "sentient" when it really means "sapient." Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Amount of Versions

Pretty sure some have already seen this article but talks about how James Cameron wanted as many different versions of the film as possible so it could be optimized for different types of settings (language, format, subtitles, etc.)

Anyone who regularly edits the articles or has contributed significantly to it should try to incorporate it.

Here is the link. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i68c9747cd968ca8d5b27fcb8619d8b88

Allwham (talk) 02:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Opinions sought

Out of curiosity I was wondering what everyone thought about this article's chances at making featured article? From a standpoint of the FA criteria, what seems to be lacking and what could use improvement? DrNegative (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been wondering the same thing. When I get a chance, I'll take a look at the FA criteria and compare this article with it, then I'll get back to you. (Other editors who are familiar with this article should do the same).--Forward Unto Dawn 09:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} Please edit the film location where its made: "America and New Zealand" as most of it was made by weta digital in wellington new zealand

Pthebrown23 (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Hi! Are you referring to "Country United States" in the infobox? This is the home country of the film's production company, not where it was shot. Or are you referring to something else? --JokerXtreme (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This debate has been done to death and is in the archives somewhere. The consensus was that it's a U.S. film, I don't agree with the outcome of the consensus because it's not consistent with how nationality is treated on other film articles but it is the consensus for this particular article. Betty Logan (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed for the main article here and here. Current consensus notes it as an American film based on the distribution studio who also financed the majority of the film's budget, which in this case is 20th Century Fox, headquartered in Los Angeles, California. This is how most film articles treat nationality of films that I've noticed. Otherwise, Black Hawk Down (film) would be called an American-African film for example, considering it was almost entirely shot in Morocco. DrNegative (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Concur with DrNegative about Avatar being an American film. Erik (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Fox financed 40% of the film's budget and produced the film, and on that basis we label it solely "American". With the current Bond films they are produced by a British production company which puts up 50% of the budget and on that basis they are UK-US co-productions. Go figure... Betty Logan (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The Bond films are a unique case as even though the distribution studio may not have fronted the majority of the budget for the Bond series, the studio that owns the distribution/contractual rights to the film series is an American headquartered company, MGM. In the case of Avatar however, Fox financed the majority of the budget and owns all distribution/contractual rights to Avatar. Throw in the $150 million Fox poured into the marketing as well and you clearly have no contest. DrNegative (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

How is 40% the majority of the budget?? And how much of that is fronted by Fox's Australian owner, News Corp. If you want to say that Avatar is US because the company in charge of production is US based that's fine, I don't have a problem with that, but I have a problem with the lack of consistency across the film articles. If we go off who paid for the majority of the budget, then that isn't Fox in Avatar's case because they sold 60% of the equity. If we use the distribution budget as criteria, what about foreign films that cost peanuts to make, and then a US studio buys them up and distributes them with a marketing budget of $20 million? I don't think anyone would say these films were American. What about Superman: The Movie. Made in Britain by a UK production outfit, and the copyright owned by a British company, but partly funded by an advance from Warner for US distribution rights and somewhow that makes it a UK-US co-production. You can't really justify Superman being a UK-US co-production if Avatar isn't because it's excatly the same situation. Betty Logan (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Betty, News Corporation became an American company in 2004.[3] It is no longer Australian and headquartered in New York, New York.. And the remaining 60% of the budget were shared by multiple investors that make up an investment firm (Ingenious Media) which we do not have access to for the purpose of the discussion, and Lightstorm Entertainment, another American company. As for Dune Entertainment, it had already signed a contract with Fox Films three years ago.[4] The distribution studio takes precedence in this particular case and it is Fox.

I've made my points and I am not going to discuss or argue other film articles in relation to this one when it is a case by case basis using best judgment. I suggest you make a proposal with "Wikiproject Films" if you feel the policy as a whole needs to be applied to the MOS:FILM. Also if you can find reliable sources that say Fox did not finance the majority of the budget, I would like to see them. Otherwise this is WP:DEADHORSE. DrNegative (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The facts we know is that there were three investors: Fox, Ingenious, and Dune. We don't know the financial breakdown other than that Fox put up 40%, so to say that Fox put up the majority of the budget is false, and to say that they put up more money than the other companies is original reasearch that can't be substantiated. It's up to you to provide a verifiable reliable source for this claim. In fact, I think all nationality claims should be verifiably sourced now because Wikipedia shouldn't be denoting nationalities really. Can anyone actually defending calling this film Amercian, that film American-British without a source to substantiate it? Betty Logan (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I see you killed your Australian argument. To say they didn't put up more money than the other companies is original research as well. What we do know is they put up 40%, all the marketing cost, distribution costs, and they own all the contract rights to the film. Those are pure indisputable facts. You left "Lightstorm Entertainment" out of your list too who reportedly spent around $100 million to develop all the new cameras used during production.[5] Now that doesn't leave much to be shared by Dune and Ingenious to compete with Fox's share does it? Also, I would like to quote your previous statement within the archived discussion of this matter:

"Personally I would rather just go with the copyright country, at least it's concrete and indisputable. Betty Logan (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)"

Wow....that would make it Fox wouldn't it? So which one is it Betty? DrNegative (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you think that the nationality should be verifiably sourced like all other claims? Betty Logan (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

(<--) It doesn't take much common sense. One could simply cite Fox's logo at the opening title of the film or here is an article for example[6] we could cite. But your missing the point, we based the nationality on the distribution studio and other factors which are themselves cited. The main reason is the American copyright holder (Fox) and I will let you say it for me if you don't mind, makes it "concrete and indisputable." DrNegative (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well there's the giveaway: "We based". You can source the nationality of the various companies, but you are setting the criteria for nationality. To qualify for the New Zealand tax rebate Avatar qualifies as a New Zealand production under their laws, so why don't we use tax law as criteria? Or copyright? The nationality of the production company and some formula you have concocted for the finances is just one set of arbitrary criteria you can use. But we have a word for that on Wikipedia: SYNTHESIS. Betty Logan (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hardly. A+B=C clearly in this case and I even threw you a source just to prove the point even though its not even needed to do so. Synthesis only occurs if the sources where it is based off of do not add up and they state Fox is all of the above. You are becoming desperate now. Your points are moot and you backtrack or reconsider your own points. I even quoted you stating the opposite of what you are saying now and you still do not address your very own quoted statement. Considering you past thoughts and statements in contrast to this discussion, I honestly think you do it just for the sake of arguing without any real objective. This is WP:DEADHORSE and WP:CONSENSUS agrees with calling it "American" and unless other editors want to chime in for the discussion, I am finished discussing it. DrNegative (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a statement of fact about a film. It needs a reference so it's verifiable like any other fact: WP:V. If it's not a statement of fact then there's no need for it to be in the article. You are right it's a dead horse, because Wikipedia policy clearly indicates that as a factual claim it should be backed up by a reference. Betty Logan (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Bolding

Should the character's names be bolded, as in Corporal Jake Sully instead of just Corporal Jake Sully? I think they should, I would like to make it that way but here I'm just making sure that there isn't some reason not to. Iminrainbows (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Not according to the MOS, no. At least, not AFAIK. Actually, I believe bolding in general is frowned upon, though I'm less sure of that. Doniago (talk) 03:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

MOS:BOLD specifies a few special cases where to use bold formatting in the article body, and the cast list is not one of them. The definition list is not the same thing; a film-related example of a definition list would be Glossary of filmmaking terms. If desired, you could rework the "Cast" section so it just has the actors and their roles, then discuss everything in prose that flows. Kind of did that at Apt Pupil (film). Erik (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

Under "Themes and Inspirations" it states "production designers visited the Noble Clyde Boudreaux oil platform". The Noble CB is actually a semi-submersible drilling rig rather than a platform. See http://www.noblecorp.com/Fleet/RigDetail.asp?RigAbbrev_CH=NCB A semi-sub floats, a platform is fixed to the seabed and is generally much larger than a semi-sub, and hence the control room and other working areas are different. I suggest the article should say "production designers visited the semi-submersible drilling rig Noble Clyde Boudreaux in the Gulf of Mexico..."

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.204.147 (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

World-Wide Income Distribution

On http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=avatar.htm the Germany income is $1,367,577,882. Is this a typo? This is contributing half of the $ 2700 mi total income VGC USA (talk) 06:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

That looks like a big typo.--Forward Unto Dawn 07:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Match better

http://de.james-camerons-avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:82.109.84.114 82.109.84.114 (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from The eleventh doctor, 12 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} hello im justing asking could you change the budget to 317,000,000 as that is its true budget. it is the most expencive movie of all time thanks.

The eleventh doctor (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: The official budget $237 million is in the infobox with a source. The last paragraph of Avatar (2009 film)#Development already mentions there are higher estimates. You may have seen a source claiming its true budget is 317,000,000 but other sources make other claims. There have been earlier discussions. See Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 3#Budget. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

There have been lots of estimates ranging from $230m upwards. These are mentioned in the article, but we can't put every estimate in the infobox so we restricted it to just the official figure. It probably low-balls the true cost but there's no reason why an estimate should be taken over the officially reported figure. Betty Logan (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone want to add this?

I think although I could be wrong, on the Avatar page, it says this What is an avatar anyway?" James Cameron replied, "It's an incarnation of one of the Hindu gods taking a flesh form. In this film what that means is that the human technology in the future is capable of injecting a human's intelligence into a remotely located body, a biological body."[86 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.87.54 (talk) 06:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC) it's So true -.- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.47.51 (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Leg model for Jake Sully

The actor used for Jake Sully's parapalegic legs is actually a little known Canadian actor named Ricki Phifer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GGirl123 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Not even a Google search pulled up anything. Even if he is the actor in question, and even if he is an actor overall, he would probably have an IMDB page. Even that isn't a sufficient reference, so if you find an actual news article that states this, I or another editor will probably add it in. -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 22:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Refs

Please take care, refs like http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25985837-16947,00.html are no longer citing the current phrase as the link has moved and it is impossible to find the source. OboeCrack (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The dead link has been tagged. If someone can add an alternate reference (or try and find where the original has been moved to), that'd be good.--Forward Unto Dawn 04:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I tried to find it using the wayback machine, but no luck. Other links can be protected by archiving with, for example, Webcite. All one has to do is fill in the two top lines on that Webcite webpage, and a link to an archived version will be provided. Here is an example of how the link to the archived version can be put into a citation:

30. Cameron, James. "Avatar" (PDF). Avatar Screenings. Fox and its Related Entities. pp. 8 and 15. Retrieved February 9, 2010. Archived version February 9, 2010

And here is what it looks like on the edit page, with the added archive part in bold font for this discussion:

<ref name='Script8and15'>{{cite web|url=http://www.foxscreenings.com/media/pdf/JamesCameronAVATAR.pdf |title=Avatar |pages=8 and 15|accessdate=February 9, 2010 |last=Cameron |first=James |work=Avatar Screenings |publisher=Fox and its Related Entities }} [http://www.webcitation.org/5nQAunHrW Archived version February 9, 2010]</ref>

--Bob K31416 (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The best way to make sure refs aren't lost is to "comb" the article once a week: http://www.webcitation.org/comb Betty Logan (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I tried that and got 1326 links and was asked to select the ones to archive. So it's not clear to me what your idea is for using comb. Maybe you could try to implement your idea once and let me know what you did. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised it came up with 1326 links...I wonder where all those came from! It seems there is a bot that is supposed to archive the links automatically: User:WebCiteBOT. Betty Logan (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Fixed the dead link and archived external links in the article using WebCitation. Combing with WebCitation is indeed a bit tricky, as it lists and often reduplicates all links found in an article, including wikilinks, and then asks you to handpick the ones you want to have archived, which can be very tedious if the links are too many. However, after a few links went dead in Themes in Avatar, I routinely check it for defunct references and back up its links, archiving all the new ones as they get added. Another reliable option is replacing dead links with their google-cached copies. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Google cache isn't a safe archiving strategy because it is often cleared out or updated. If possible, if you find a page in Google cache it's best to archive it independently as soon as possible. Betty Logan (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The reference I used to fix the dead link here is not to google cache but to the article's different location at The Australian. They apparently just shifted the article to a different url. So it can be archived normally. Unfortunately, WebCitation often takes a few trials before it creates a workable archive. Looks like my first attempt to archive Avatar links failed. Will try again tomorrow. However, now that you mentioned User:WebCiteBOT, I wonder if it is supposed to do the same archiving job at the background. Is there any way to check if it does? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Pandora's oceans

I read some news on imdb about the sequel. It said that, according to James Cameron, the sequel will talk about Pandora's oceans. Should it be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.5.202.57 (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"Part of my focus in the second film is in creating a different environment – a different setting within Pandora. And I’m going to be focusing on the ocean on Pandora, which will be equally rich and diverse and crazy and imaginative, but it just won’t be a rain forest. I’m not saying we won’t see what we’ve already seen; we’ll see more of that as well."--James Cameron[7] --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I just added some info about it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Globalization?

I think this category must go, since it's inclusion is rather subjective.213.13.242.219 (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Cameron talks about the sequel

Please add this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8634216.stm

Cameron also said the Avatar sequel will be centered on the ocean on the planet Pandora.

The ocean would be as "equally rich and diverse and crazy and imaginative," he said.

 — [Unsigned comment added by 188.4.72.57 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC).]

Please see the above section Pandora's oceans. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 96.55.147.83, 25 April 2010

Misspelling of 'unobtainium' as 'unobtanium' in first paragraph.

96.55.147.83 (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, but the spelling "unobtanium" in the article is correct. You can verify this by performing a search in the script for "unobta". --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The plot section says "unobtainium" once so I guess that should be changed instead. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I just changed it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Already done Spitfire19 (Talk) 23:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Themes and inspirations - love story

There is this quote in the section,

"They both fall in love with each other, but they need to fight side-by-side, and so there's that kind of requirement to let the other person go in order to do what you need to do, which is kind of interesting," said Cameron.

I didn't understand the last part of it regarding "let the other person go". Could someone explain it here on this talk page? Otherwise, material that is not understandable should be deleted. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

One possibility is that Cameron meant let the other person go fight with him or her. It's not clear. I deleted it, WP:BRD. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I really didn't understand the context of what he is was saying either. I think he meant that after they fell in love with each other, and Jake told Neytiri the truth of his mission, she chose the welfare of her people over her feelings for him. DrNegative (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I am okay with that being left out, but I feel that the following info should stay in:

"So the physiological differences—the more alien we make them in the design phase, we just kept asking ourselves—basically, the crude version is: 'Well, would you wanna do it?'" stated Cameron. The all-male crew of artists were used to perfect the Na'vi attractiveness.

It goes into brief detail about just what went on in making the Na'vi attractive, which is why I added it back. Flyer22 (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with your tightening of this information, Bob. Good job. Flyer22 (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Some references' formats need work

Here's some references whose formats need work, if anyone feels like helping out on this.

242, 243, 246-249

These footnote numbers may change if other citations are added before them, but they should still be identifiable in the same area as the ones that are only a URL.

A useful tool for making references can be found at this location. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Blu-ray DRM

The Avatar Blu-ray disc apparently contains some DRM that doesn't allow it to work on all Blu-ray players(source). There should be a sentence that contains the specifics of the restriction. Does anyone know the specific type of DRM that is causing the problem? AACS? BD+? BD-ROM Mark? --Diafygi (talk • contribs) 14:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

According to doom9, the DRM that isn't supported by all players yet is called BD+ 5. Here is the proposed added sentence for the Home Media section (in bold): ...native 1.78:1 (16:9) format as Cameron felt that was the best format to watch the film. The Blu-ray disc contains DRM (BD+ 5) which some Blu-ray players might not support. --Diafygi (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Added sentence to article.--Diafygi (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the sentence because the reference used was in another language (Italian, I think). Feel free to re-add it, if you use an English reference. Thank you. -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 17:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Non-English sources are fine as long as they are reliable. If an English source of the same quality is available it should be used in preference - see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources - but the source given being in a non-English language is not a good reason to remove information. It is often necessary to use non-English sources in order to present a topic in its proper global context; many articles on subjects which are not covered in English speaking countries rely entirely on non-English sources. Guest9999 (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I've never really understood this view. Accepting non-English sources seems to be as bizarre as accepting foreign language articles on the English Wikipedia. The point of sources is to make the article verifiable, yet it isn't verifiable in the language it is written in or will be read in! Betty Logan (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who understands the language or has access to translation tools would be able confirm verification of the content. Do you think that we shouldn't use advanced physics or maths journals as sources because a lot of people reading the encyclopaedia won't understand a lot of their content? Guest9999 (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Obviously there are English-language sources regarding the Blu-Ray DRM, so your argument doesn't really work in this situation, since the link you provided clearly states except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material, and this is not the case. Blu-Ray DRM is a worldwide issue right now, so naturally, there will be English-language articles that can be used as sources. -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 19:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that English language sources can be found is a good reason to replace the sources, not remove the material. What you seem to be suggesting is that information should be removed because sources can be found - pretty much the opposite editing policy which states "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't" and "Instead of deleting text, consider... doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself". Guest9999 (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I reinserted the sentence with two English sources. The first one is a credible news source, and the second is a blog that goes into discussion on the specifics of the DRM. The main reason I chose the Italian source was because it was a credible news source that explained the specific DRM problem. --Diafygi (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's an article on the subject that just came out. http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/movie-talk-avatar-blu-ray-consumers-cant-watch-DVD.html --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Biggest Selling DVD Ever

When the DVD was released on Monday, the next day (Tuesday) it was revealed the Biggest Selling DVD ever! This is totally worth a mention!!!--213.83.125.225 (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

On April 22, the day it came out on Blu-Ray DVD and Avatar in France, 500 000, is the record number of DVDs of "Avatar" passed Wednesday, the day the French release of the film by James Cameron stores. This impressive figure, ever since the advent of the DVD by Fox Home Entertainment, includes more than 100,000 Blu-ray. The film looks set to match the 3 million cassettes of "Titanic."

Do you have a source? BOVINEBOY2008 :) 13:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone has added this but without a source or finished the sentence. Arkaska (talk) 2:17 pm, 03 May 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 12:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC).

I've added a seperation between North Hill comment and comment without IP adress. --77.99.231.37 (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Budget

There is a mistake on the page concerning the budget costs. In the main article it states that the movie's budget was $237million whereas in the side fact panel it states $237billion. -- RND  T  C  01:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The article was vandalized an hour ago. I have reverted it.[8] PrimeHunter (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

Looking through the history there have been dozens of reverts since the article came out of semi-protection. Looks to me like the article is still too unstable, so should we put it back under semi-protection? The anonymous IP editors have yet again proven themselves to be untrustworthy. Betty Logan (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I requested at WP:RFPP. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 02:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank goodness. I thought about requesting it, but I figured I'd only get my head bitten off for suggesting it. Over the last week since the semi-protection expired, IPs have been undoing all of the good work put into this article.--Forward Unto Dawn 06:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the number of vandals is proportional to the number of viewers. So this is a long term condition due to the popularity of Avatar and consequently the article? --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe so, Bob. And, Forward Unto Dawn, there was no reason to think you'd get your head bitten off. We are always for semi-protection of this article, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No Mention of "Dune" in the Article

How come there is no mention of the obvious "similarities" between this story and Dune by Frank Herbert? 14:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably because the similarities aren't really obvious. You can pick any two science fiction stories and find similarities (e.g. takes place in the future, on another world, with indigenous life hostile to humans, with a unique resource unavailable anywhere else, etc.). That doesn't mean the similarities were intentional. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There are no similarities between "Dune" and "Avatar" that link them in any meaningful way. For that, read, "The War For Eternity" (1983) and "The Black Ship" (1985) in Christopher Rowley's "Fenrille" series. On Fenrille, corporate-backed mercenaries from off-world attack primitive indigenous people and their human allies for a fantastically expensive material obtainable only on Fenrille. The natives live in an extremely hostile world forest of giant trees that are interconnected into one giant intelligence and which can and does protect itself in extremity. Other than Poul Anderson's 1957, "Call Me Joe", these books have the most themes similar to Avatar all in one place that I can find; they are actual ideas rather than archetypes and so perhaps worthy of consideration in assessing Avatar's possible literary ancestors. James May 41.232.46.26 (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.232.46.26 (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Need a reliable source that connects Avatar to these works. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which summarizes existing published information and is not meant to be a source of information that has not been published. The analysis of published works that you are suggesting needs to be from a published source. See WP:NOR. --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There are no published sources I know of that connect Christopher Rowley's 'Fenrille' series of books and the film "Avatar" other than my own essay titled, "Science Fiction: Film and Literature" which you can see here, http://www.jamesmaystock.com/essays/Pages/SFFilms.html and an article I wrote on my Wiki Science Fiction page called "Avatar's Ancestor's" I am surprised that no one has spotted this because SF fans tend to be rather nerdy and all-seeing when it comes to such things and also because the 'Fenrille' series has the most ideas all in one place that are similar to "Avatar" that I have been able to find in SF literature. I should stress that although archetypes are fair game, the presence of so many all together as regards the 'Fenrille' series is thought provoking. A specifically science fiction archetype of the earth man betraying his own military forces because he is disgusted with the murder of so many aliens can be found as far back as Edmond Hamilton's, "A Conquest of Two Worlds" (1932); this story also has rigid armour that can support the human body like an exo-skeleton. Every claim by people of an Avatar literary ancestor that I have seen on the web have seemed bogus to me other than io9's story about Poul Anderson's 1957, "Call Me Joe", originally published in that year's April issue of "Astounding Science Fiction" and of which I have a copy. In reading "Call Me Joe", for Cameron to not have used this story would be another amazing coincidence, especially in light of the fact that Anderson used the title, "Avatar" for another of his books. That information about Hamilton and the story itself I credit as getting from this site: http://thenostalgialeague.com/olmag/hamilton-con2worlds.html If James Cameron did not know of Rowley's 'Fenrille' series, it is a most extraordinary coincidence. Strangely, Christopher Rowley has been silent on the matter, a man who I'm sure is well aware of that which I speak. In Cameron's defense and considering the high level of production value of his films, I think he is a man whom ideas need more than he needs ideas. Also, I see Cameron very much as man who is a crusader in terms of wanting to share his specific experiences of reading SF as a young man. I was born 3 days apart from Cameron and felt very much like this when I was a teenager; Cameron himself has said as much about wanting to share what he loved as a young man. Cameron's self-stated reason of his use of ideas from 2 episodes of "The Outer Limits" for which he was sued by Harlan Ellison reflect this desire to share and not a desperation for ideas so exigent that he would steal; Cameron has said he wanted the imagery and tone of Edgar Rice Burrough's books about John Carter of Mars to be in Avatar. It is always possible that Cameron has an arrangement with Poul Anderson's estate and also with Christopher Rowley. Homage seems to be in the forefront of Cameron's thoughts and not theft. James May James E May (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Article suggestion...

Since there is a total of 17 total paragraphs between "Box office performance" and "critcal reception" of the article, I suggest we create a Critical reception and Box office performance of Avatar article to reduce the article a bit.Guy546^(Talk) 21:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Critical reception and box office performance tend to be treated seperately: Wikipedia:MOSFILM#Reception. Merging the two sections would probably reduce the article size by a few hundred bytes at best, and since the two sections cover different aspects of the film's release so the article doesn't really benefit from merging them. In view of its GA application it is probably bettre if it follows the established format. Betty Logan (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright lawsuit

My most vivid memories of this talk page have to do with all the discussions regarding what Avatar was a ripoff of. Well, now there's this:

http://gawker.com/5542239/the-insane-avatar-copyright-lawsuit-filed-against-james-cameron

This would appear to be the first actual legal action regarding copyright infringement in Avatar. However, the case appears to be extremely shaky. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Should image go?

In the current peer review, it is being said there are too many non-free content images. We are trying to trim down the number to 4 images, and it is down to 5 now, as I have removed one of them. It has already been suggested that File:Avatarjakeneytiri.jpg go, as it can be argued that File:Avatarmotioncapture.jpg negates the need of the former picture. Give opinions on this as much as you want. Guy546^(Talk) 20:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep-Its hard to say what should be done. While there are two images in the article that already show Na'vi (the movie poster and the avatar motion capture image), the image of Jake and Neytiri is the only image which shows Na'vi in detail, which makes it somewhat valuable. It also provides some understanding to Cameron's "dream" inspiration. I'll have to think about it.-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC))

Yeah, I agree with Bob K31416. This image should be kept.-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC))

Re the Jake and Neytiri image in the section Themes and inspirations, it should stay IMO. To the beginning of the caption, I added the line "Jake's avatar and Neytiri" which is informative for the reader and should help the reviewers see how well it fits in with the context. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There are currently 3 fair use images in the article; the other two are under a free license. We don't want to limit the number of images, only the number of non-free images. As long as each fair use image has a suitable rationale, 3 images is not excessive. mgiganteus1 (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hallelujah mountain image

While I understand that for this article to be FA some of the fair use images need to be removed, I don't agree with the removal of the Hallelujah mountain image in the "Themes and aspirations" section. To those readers who were unaware of the Huang Shang mountains of China, the image provided further understanding of Cameron's inspiration. Would the user responsible of this please reconsider.

Thanks- (Wikipedian1234 (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC))

Sorry. That must have accidently happened to the format, as you can see on the article history I didn't do anything to the image. Guy546^(Talk) 21:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh ok I understand. I'll post my opinion of the Jake and Neytiri image on the discussion above-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC))

Dr. Norm Spellman

Hi, I noticed that it says on the character list 'Norm Spellman' rather than 'Dr. Norm Spellman' as I am confident this is the correct title. I don't know the exact time when this is established but it is in the scene where Jake is introduced to his avatar for the first time, Norm introduces himself as 'Dr. Norm Spellman' 222.152.24.58 (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I searched the script using the keyword "Spellman" and in no case did I find "Dr." or "Doctor" associated with the name. Here's the part of the script on p. 10 that you may have remembered.

An eager young XENOANTHROPOLOGIST, staggering under an

overpacked duffel, runs to catch up to Jake.

NORM

Hey, you’re Jake right? Tom’s brother?

You look just like him.

(off Jake’s wary look)

Sorry, I’m Norm Spellman,

I went through avatar training with him.

It's not the scene that you mentioned but it is a scene where Norm Spellman introduces himself. Feel free to look through the script for the scene that you had in mind. Maybe someone who has the video of Avatar might check the actual scene in the film. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I checked the scene, and he introduces himself as "Norm Spellman." In fact, the scene is almost word-for-word with the excerpt above. -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 17:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

He introduces himself as Norm Spellman to Jake, but about 2 minutes later he introduces himself as Dr. Norm Spellman to Dr. Max Patel as the camera pans to follow Jake observing his new Avatar. DrNegative (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I added "Dr." to "Norm Spellman" in Cast and characters section. ...and the "Dr." dialogue is 0:59 into the video clip in this article.--Bob K31416 (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

He does say, "Dr. Norm Spellman" in shaking hands with the bearded guy when Jake is looking at his Avatar. It's at 9:07 in the version I have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.232.46.26 (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

the proper title would be his name without his title (as titles can change over time, even though it's not seen within the one film). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.232.38.248 (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Source for Budget

The linked source for the budget (Reference No. 2 at the moment) is broken. May please anyone who is allowed to edit the article change it to a real source? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.176.180.164 (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The link works fine. It's possible the site was down temporarily when you tried to load it. The source can be accessed at Webcite if you have any further problems with it. Betty Logan (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The site is not down but the article itself seems to be deleted. There is just the heading and the comments but no text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.176.180.164 (talk) 12:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I've just checked again and the full article is there. I really don't know what to suggest. Could someone else check the reference 2 please. Betty Logan (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Like 128.176.180.164, I only see the heading and comments at http://www.thewrap.com/article/true-cost-and-consequences-avatar-11206?page=1. There is a big white space where the article text was supposed to be. If you have a working version cached then try to bypass your cache. Google's cache [9] is currently from 23 May and shows a bunch of error messages in the space but no article. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be an Internet Explorer issue. It came up fine in Firefox, but I tried it in Explorer and got the same problem. I've added the archive address to the reference so people who can't access the article directly can still read it. Betty Logan (talk) 12:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that. Just tried it again in Explorer and it came up, but I'm now getting the problem in Firefox. It's obviously a server issue at there end. Betty Logan (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Just got a load of SQL error messages in Firefox so it's definitely server problems. Betty Logan (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

In any case, one should consider archiving as many references as possible because of link rot. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Also, when archiving links that are still good and haven't "rotted", using the following format would be consistent with the use in the references in the rest of this article and would still have the original as the main link, since it is better than the archived version if it hasn't rotted.

<ref name="Patten (2009)">{{cite news |author=Patten, D. |title='Avatar's' True Cost – and Consequences|url=http://www.thewrap.com/article/true-cost-and-consequences-avatar-11206?page=1 |date=December 3, 2009 |publisher=The Wrap |accessdate=December 12, 2009}} [http://www.webcitation.org/5m4EySibe Archived version December 16, 2009]. </ref>

which displays as

Patten, D. (December 3, 2009). "'Avatar's' True Cost – and Consequences". The Wrap. Retrieved December 12, 2009. Archived version December 16, 2009.

If the original has rotted, then the other format can be used.

<ref name="Patten (2009)">{{cite news |author=Patten, D. |title='Avatar's' True Cost – and Consequences|url=http://www.thewrap.com/article/true-cost-and-consequences-avatar-11206?page=1 |archiveurl= http://www.webcitation.org/5m4EySibe |archivedate=December 16, 2009 |date=December 3, 2009 |publisher=The Wrap |accessdate=December 12, 2009}}</ref>

which displays as

Patten, D. (December 3, 2009). "'Avatar's' True Cost – and Consequences". The Wrap. Archived from the original on December 16, 2009. Retrieved December 12, 2009.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize there were two separate protocols. I've run a Webcite comb on the article too so the majority of the links should be archived now. It never picks all of them up because some get blocked, but if people have problems with links not working/dead links then chances are you can access the article at Webcite now. Betty Logan (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Re "Sorry, I didn't realize there were two separate protocols." - Nothing to be sorry about. I'm not sure there is any formal protocol according WP:MOS or whatever, but I would have to check to be sure. The protocol you used is what is given by a template, and the one I used, for the reason I mentioned, I made up myself.

Re "combed" - I'm not sure what info that gives. It's my impression that most of the links in the references of the article are not archived. But I haven't checked recently or carefully. Sorry for being a bit lazy here. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Combing is just automatic archiving, and I ran it today on the article. I estimate that at least 70% of the references will be archived now. Betty Logan (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I did a manual check, as indicated below, and it appears that only 19 references are indicated in the citations as being archived. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand Bob. Combing doesn't add the archive addresses to the citations, that has to be done manually I think. But if the links die you can probably find copies on Webcite. It's not ideal I appreciate that, but it's better than losing the references for good. For instance, reference 1 can now be found at http://www.webcitation.org/5pAvXwfu8. It's probably not worth going through the article adding the archive address to all 200 citations but if editors come across dead links we can search Webcite and get the archived copy. Betty Logan (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Re "It's not ideal I appreciate that, but it's better than losing the references for good." - Yes. What you did was valuable. Although the archived versions resulting from the comb function don't appear in this Avatar article's citations, they may be available by searching Webcite with the broken links' urls.[10] --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So there are two formats for archived material being used in the article.

1) "Archived version..." with the main link as the original

2) "Archived from the original..." with the main link as the archived version.

I just checked the reference section and 8 references use format (1) and 11 use format (2). Of the 11 that use format (2), in 7 the original links have rotted. Of the remaining 4 references that use format 2 and have good original links, the archived links are as good a quality as the original links and so, having the archived link as the main link of the reference is fine. This is all according to the system that I've been using. I might be the only one that has been archiving, or doing almost all of the archiving, except for your recent action. Not sure. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Critical reception - See also

In the Critical reception section there is

See also: Thematic reviews of Avatar

Why isn't it

See also: Themes in Avatar

since that is the name of the article? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Erik (currently retired) did that, and I'm guessing he did it to be more specific, since that article also covers reviews of the film, and since we already link to that article with its exact title in the Themes and inspirations section. Flyer22 (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it is proper to link to the correct title of the article when there is a "See also". Would it be OK with you if I changed it? --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I changed it. Feel free to revert. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, this particular wording of the "See also" hat note in Critical reception was discussed and agreed upon here. Not a big deal, but you may want to look it up to see if the rationale for "Thematic reviews of Avatar" satisfies you as well. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 03:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the discussion where a part of it was where you and DrNegative discussed this particular matter.[11] I noticed in that discussion that there was a link to Layout manual. From the guidance at that link I had the impression that one should link to the actual title of the other article, although the particular topic of linking to the actual title wasn't explicitly addressed. I looked around some more and maybe there's a better way of having the effect that you and DrNegative would like. In the guideline section What generally should be linked, there is the following example,

• articles with relevant information, for example: "see Fourier series for relevant background".

Now this isn't for a "See also" type of message but it seems that the same idea could be applied. The only problem is the mechanics of implementing it since I didn't find a way of using the {{see also}} template. However, maybe doing it manually without a template may be OK. With this example in mind, perhaps what you are trying to do could be accomplished with

See also: Themes in Avatar for more reviews

Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Good wording. Please see if it looks all right in the article. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Cinosaur, so you were the one who originally added that link? Oops, I though it was Erik (as above shows). Maybe it was removed, and I saw Erik add it back or tweak it or something. Hmm. Flyer22 (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries, Flyer22. We were going back and forth on the link so many times that it has easily become confusing even to myself who the original author was. :) Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Cinosaur, I had considered having "thematic" in there too, but I decided it would be redundant since the title of the article is Themes in Avatar, so I left it out. Also, with "more thematic reviews" it might appear that the reviews in the section in Avatar are thematic reviews only. And it's not clear what a "thematic review" is. So that's why I prefer the above version without "thematic" to the version that is presently in the article, which includes "thematic". Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Point well taken, Bob. Changed. Cinosaur (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting section, but as is usual for the English language Wiki it's americo-centric. Some of my favourite reviews are not from american reviewers, but as far as this article is concerned they don't even exist. Disappointing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.84.21 (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Re "Some of my favourite reviews are not from american reviewers" - Could you give the links here? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok here you go, lets see if this works: http://www.heyuguys.co.uk/2009/12/18/review-avatar/ http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=133552&page=3 http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/first-night-avatar-odeon-leicester-square-1838275.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmreviews/6790286/Avatar-report-from-premiere.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.84.21 (talk) 09:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What specific information from these reviews would you like to see in the section Critical reception? Feel free to give excerpts here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete last paragraph of Critical reception section?

There's been some discussion at the Peer review of deleting the last paragraph of the critical reception section which starts, "The movie blog /Film accumulated a list of quotes ...". Any thoughts? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think some sort of coverage of peer reception is important. Maybe we can remove the "poster quotes" and rephrase the paragraph to read along the lines of "Avatar was well-received by Cameron's Hollywood contempories, with illuminaries such as Steven Spielberg, Frank Marshall and Richard Kelly among those who praised the film. Duncan Jones was an exception in criticising its predictability, but its doubtful that Cameron gives a shit about his opinion or has ever even heard of him." Betty Logan (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Re "gives a shit" - LOL, go for it Betty. (Or maybe I shouldn't encourage this??? So many decisions.)

Anyhow. Re "Avatar was well-received by Cameron's Hollywood contempories..." - I considered that, but we can't say that because the article didn't. We don't know how representative those quotes are of the feeling in the industry. And changing it to "some of Cameron's Hollywood contempories" doesn't seem worth mentioning. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Cinosaur's edit is a good change. Flyer22 (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I say keep it. When a director like Steven Spielberg says it is the best sci-fi film since Star Wars, it just screams notability and is worthy of inclusion in my humble opinion. He didn't really have to give it context as mentioned in the peer review, I'm sure he is assuming the average person knows what type of film Star Wars was to the industry for a comparison. I also like Cinosaur's copy-edit. DrNegative (talk) 09:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really for having that paragraph reduced to one lone sentence. Having "one-sentence paragraphs" is something that was criticized in the peer review. If we are only going to have a one sentence mention of Cameron's peers liking the film, then there has got to be a better place to place it, like near the beginning (somewhere in the "entertainment paragraphs"). Flyer22 (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I second Flyer22 on this one. The two sentences left by Bob's edit were too streamlined, with the second remaining a syntactic semi-orphan. I've merged them into one, but am not happy with the resultant one-liner. Why not keep at least the filmmaker unhappy with Avatar in, if for a semblance of balance? Cinosaur (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

See if it looks better now. Cinosaur (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Awesome work, Cinosaur. Flyer22 (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Addressing Bob's concern with the Critical reception section now tapering off into a lackluster quote by (sic:) a Duncan Jones, here is a possible rewrite for the last paragraph. See if you like it better, Bob:

While Duncan Jones felt that Avatar's plot lacked surprise and logical cohesion, the film was otherwise acclaimed by Cameron's fellow filmmakers—with Steven Spielberg praising it as "the most evocative and amazing science-fiction movie since Star Wars" and others calling it "audacious and awe inspiring", "master class", "stunning", and "brilliant".Cinosaur (talk) 06:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

First, I deleted the remark of mine before you put it in your message because, upon reflection, I thought it was unfair to Jones. However, I think we should be careful about giving him too much prominence in this context because he is not a prominent filmmaker AFAICT.

The problem with making comments like "the film was otherwise acclaimed by Cameron's fellow filmmakers" is that it is too general, considering the limitations of the reference: it wasn't a survey of the film industry, just some collected comments. This could be a criticism of the first sentence of what I had too. I think it's hard to use the information in the ref without encountering problems.

However, I thought Spielberg's remark was a significant comment from a highly prominent filmmaker. The other comments don't seem worthwhile, with little substance and not necessarily representative of the feeling of the film industry. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the exact mention of plagiarism stay?

This has been discussed before, and I am wondering if it is better left in. Plenty of editors have tried to insert information about the plagiarism claims before, and Bob eventually formatted it into the Critical reception section in a neat way. Bob has recently removed obvious mention of it, however. Is this best? I mean, considering the several plagiarism claims against Cameron for Avatar, so much so that Cameron felt the need to respond to them, shouldn't we leave exact mention of that in? It will also take care of people coming to this article and wanting or demanding that mention of the plagiarism claims be included in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of any legal action being undertaken I think the mentions of plagiarism should be kept to a minimum, but if Cameron has issued a response to the accusations I think that should be retained. Betty Logan (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Betty. That is why I feel that Bob's previous formatting of that information was best. Flyer22 (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Bob, how do you feel about this? Flyer22 (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the refs that were in the article at the time I deleted and they didn't have Cameron denying accusations of plagiarism, just a brief mention of "his team" denying accusations. I think in the article more attention was given to accusations of plagiarism of Noon Universe than it deserved, while the more significant and reasonable remark IMO about the Russian audiences noting similarities to Noon Universe was not mentioned. Also, I thought it was misleading because it implied that Avatar was substantially more like Noon Universe than it was like the other works that Avatar was similar to. Basically, Noon Universe was getting misleading attention and more attention than was appropriate, compared to other works, IMO. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for explaining. So you're not for any brief mention of plagiarism claims? I get why you wouldn't be. I was just worried about the removal, due to what I stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• In The Jesus Incident the world they are on is called Pandora, and the planet(or kelp covering it) is sentient, and this sentient planet controls the predators which are sent to attack the humans for causing destruction. That book came out in 1979, before others claim to have come up with some of the same concepts. This book was the inspiration for Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri which had humans going into sleep chambers and being sent to Alpha Centauri, the entire world a living sentient thing, controlling the various lifeforms sent to attack humans to stop them from causing destruction to it, and which also had people near the end of the game transferring their minds into a higher state of transcendence to become one with the planet, and control an avatar. This came out in 1999. Lot of similarities between that and Avatar movie... plus a few thousand other things. I find it ridiculous someone could claim to have come up with something which someone else ripped off, if the exact same theme was done decades before them even. Dream Focus 05:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Dream Focus. I feel that mention of plagiarism claims should be added back, but similar to the way Bob had it before...as not to give undue weight. I will eventually add back a bit of that information, if Bob or someone else does not. But as for the similarities to another work you cited above, of course we cannot add every book or film (or whatever) Avatar is similar to. If someone has claimed plagiarism in that case as well, though, that work can also be noted. Flyer22 (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"The Terminator" and "The Omega Code" Were Stolen, Why Not "Avatar"?

Okay, now that there's been a copyright lawsuit filed against Cameron for script theft, can we please get back to where "Avatar" actually came from? For me, this has been the most intriguing aspect of this movie, and it's 3D novelty has already become history with so many other 3D films now out. I personally think "Call Me Joe" by Poul Anderson was the primary script from which "Avatar" was made. And since script theft in Hollywood is rampant I don't see why the matter shouldn't be written about. The reason we don't hear more about script hijacking in Hollywood is that when a settlement is reached in copyright infringement cases in Hollywood, part of the settlement is that the ripped-off writer agrees NOT to talk about the script theft. Otherwise there'd be hundreds of writers on the lecture circuit talking about how Hollywood stole their script. I think over time the plagiarism issue will become the most noted thing about "Avatar", not the 3D. Would Wiki editors please explain why the plagiarism issue can't be fully noted? I think they're dodging the issue simply because they're fans of the movie but being a fan of the movie is not sufficient reason to ignore copyright matters, in my opinion. Thanks. 69.104.54.170 (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Sgt. Rock

Notability is the criteria for inclusion, and a case being filed simply isn't notable - I could file a suit against James Cameron too if I wanted. If a judge rules there are sufficient grounds for a case to be heard then the details of that particular case as it progresses can be documented in the article. Betty Logan (talk) 09:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

IP, the plagiarism claims against Avatar can be noted, as long as it is kept to a minimum. As stated above, we had mention of it in this article before. Since it appears best to at least mention it, similar to the way we did before, I will add mention of it back. You just have to be patient. I am also trying to give others a chance to weigh in on this before such an edit is made. Flyer22 (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sgt. Rock, The second to last paragraph of the "Critical reception" section begins with "Critics and audiences have cited similarities with other films, literature or media." Call Me Joe and other works are mentioned there. As far as I know, Cameron hasn't been sued for plagiarism of Call Me Joe or for plagiarism of the other works mentioned. Do you have a reliable source that says that Cameron has been sued for plagiarizing Call Me Joe or any of the other works that have ideas that are similar to those in Avatar? Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me try and understand what you are requesting, please correct me if I'm wrong. You "personally" feel that Avatar plagiarized from Call Me Joe, but you know however that the writer of the stolen work(s) wouldn't complain even if it were, simply because he agreed not to talk about it. In light of this you feel the editors here should note it anyway? DrNegative (talk) 04:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sgt. Rock has already been told twice on his talk page that he shouldn't use article's talk pages as an internet forum. On the same day he posted this message, Sgt. Rock also posted rather inflammatory and irrelevant comments on the talk page for Saving Private Ryan in these two edits- [12] [13]. While the mentioning of plagiarism in this article is an actual issue, I'm not sure if Sgt. Rock's comment should be taken seriously.- (Wikipedian1234 (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC))

Edit request from Mrjbond007, 19 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} i would like to update this page with correct infomation i will not vanedelise this page i want to put Sony pictures Entertainment with 20th century fox since they both c budget the film together i got this info from www.sony pictures.com .

Mrjbond007 (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC) thank you very much

Declined. Malformed request. Betty Logan (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the info you got from http://www.sonypictures.com/ , could you be more specific about where you got the info at that website? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DrNegative (talk) 02:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Simmer Down

Well now , folks, simmer down. There was some question about the Marder tank in Saving Private Ryan and I found some published data, so I included that to improve the article, there was no "opinionating" at all, just pure data. Then there were some questions asked me about "Avatar" so I tried to respond to those in as concise a way as possible, although the monograph was rather long, but there's so much history about script theft in Hollywood it's impossible to condense it into just a few sentences. By the way, I have two degrees in theatre and film and have been in the union and know all kinds of horrendous stuff about Hollywood "behind the scenes" but I'm not enunciating that since it hasn't been "published" for "verifiability". My dad was in the Marines in the Pacific in WWII and he never went to see "those silly war movies" as he put it. I'm just trying to put things in proper perspective. Most movie sites on the Internet just deal with facts but I've noticed "Avatar" and "Saving Private Ryan" seem to have a fanatical fan base, maybe folks could explain what they find so fascinating about these two films--that would be illuminating (it seems to override the "objectivity" factor). My favorite movie is "Citizen Kane" but I'm not in the least obsessive or defensive about it. I like Wikipedia but I just recently retired and I'm new to the Internet so bear with me. I'm just trying to help. 'Nuff said? Regards.66.122.183.249 (talk) 01:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Sgt. Rock

On Wikipedia, users and IPs alike are encouraged to only have discussions on topics which are relevant to the improvement of the article in question rather than their opinion of the topic of the article-in this case a movie. If you would like to express your opinion of Avatar on the internet, please use internet forums or discussion pages rather than on this talk page. However, if you would like to contribute positively to this article, I encourage you to use facts rather than opinions as sources, since they are usually more reliable, and to remember to keep your discussions relevant to the improvement of the article only.-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

Also, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I just noticed that you have already been informed of this a few days ago on your talk page when you used another IP address.[14] However, there is also the guideline Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, so your recent activity is forgivable if you make an effort to learn and use Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. If you need some help regarding this, you're welcome to discuss it on my talk page. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"Pending changes"

Should we put in a request to go back to traditional semi-protection? This "pending changes" system is disastrous. It seems the reviewers are allowing any old crap through and some are even contributing to vandalism such as in this edit: [15]. The whole article has been destabilised today, it seems to me this form of protection isn't productive on this article. Betty Logan (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Gve it one more days, if doesn't work, request protection like Bible, Selena Gomez, Cristiano Ronaldo and Taylor Swift. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 19:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's disastrous. I was somehow designated as a "reviewer" but whenever a pending change shows up in my watchlist, the diff page takes about 5X longer to load than normal. This isn't efficient, and seems to be putting an undue load on the server. If it also leads to reviewers approving vandal edits, the whole thing needs to be turned off! ~Amatulić (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It would help if reviewing was left to editors familiar with the article's content, familiar with what should be there and what shouldn't, the editing history, various disputes etc. Another editor has just permitted more vandalism through [16], and that was an edit that has been reverted several times already. Betty Logan (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the semi protection to this article, I agree that it doesn't work here, and have little hope that it would improve significantly.
That doesn't make it faster, however, the slow rendering of the page (20 seconds, for me) is not dependent on the protection level, I'm afraid. You won't have to click as many diffs now though. Amalthea 21:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The pending changes system doesn't work well with this article.--Forward Unto Dawn 03:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)