Talk:Scott Pilgrim

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bass: Rickenbacker (Fireglo colour)[edit]

I believe it should say somewhere that his bass is a Rickenbacker, it's an iconic and influential instrument. That LOOK (shape, etc) is licensed as well, so people who know instantly recognize it as such. The official color name is Fireglo. So instead of saying Red Bass Guitar, you would say Fireglo Rickenbacker.

Actually, just search Google Images for the term "fireglo" and you will find that 99% of results are pictures of red Rickenbacker guitars and basses.

--134.151.0.76 (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evil exes[edit]

I added a link to the article for .exe files since that seemed to make the most sense. However I also think that it might mean ex-significant other or even something else. Could someone more familiar with the topic please clarify?74.76.190.148 (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the internal link to "ex (relationship." When you do internal links, you need to find the correct definition to link it to. You previously linked it to ".exe," which is a file extension. Thanks in any case.Luminum (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knives Chau[edit]

Just added some more info on the character Knives. Don't know if it's completely necceJackorKnave (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)ssary, but it does seem to be a development in the overall stroy.[reply]

I'm actually going to remove it because it's technically speculative. I think others noticed it as well, but due to Wiki's policies against speculative "information," it shouldn't be on Knives' or Stills' character descriptions. If there's a summary of the events of issue 4, then the indicators can be described, but I don't think a written conclusion should be there. That way, it leaves readers of Wiki with as much indication as we have.Luminum (talk) 03:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fair enough to me. I wasn't sure if it belonged there.JackorKnave (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Locations[edit]

Can someone explain why the Locations section needs such a detailed list? I think the introductory two sentences of the section are totally valid, and could probably expanded into a full section with some references (I think there even was some article dealing especially with the fact that SP was set in Toronto), but I don't see the point of listing every place that appears in the series. Some examples would easily suffice. In its current state, the section seems somewhat off-topic and pointless. --Fritz S. (Talk) 08:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it takes up too much space. I will pare it down to the main information as it related to the books. Readers can go to the locations linked article to find extra info. 213.201.175.114 (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

vs. the Universe[edit]

I don't have time right now, but maybe we should talk about Vol. 5 and add a spoiler tag? Omgitsmonica (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can discuss reception/plot of Vol. 5, but no spoiler tag should be used. Wikipedia doesn't follow "spoiler" concepts. if it's out there, then it's information that belongs on the page.Luminum (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

85th is "in the company"?[edit]

"Scott Pilgrim was recently ranked 85th on Wizard magazine’s list of the '200 Greatest Comic Characters of All Time', effectively putting him in the company of such international comic book icons as Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, Wonder Woman, Iron Man, and the X-Men." Is 85th really "in the company" here? Surely at least Superman and Batman are in the single digits, and what about Spider-Man and Wonder Woman? If there were a Nobel Prize for comics one could imagine Superman there along with Donald Duck, but 85th? --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Summaries[edit]

In the summary for the 5th volume, a minor inaccuracy. It says Scott and Ramona have sex after getting drunk on tequila, but in fact, they don't. Scott falls asleep before anything happens. Someone else might want to doublecheck it. Neruka (talk) 09:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have your copy and if it's frankly stated, then by all means edit it as such. I just packed away all my issues for moving so I can't check. As an editor, you're free to fix the content if there's a mistake.  :)Luminum (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty ambiguous. We know for sure that they made out, and the last panel before Scott's passed out has Ramona on top of him. Who knows? 99.240.253.31 (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Article content[edit]

I came to this article wanting to know something about the comic. Background information, other info about the artist(s) and/or writer(s), references to other media or comparable works, adaptations, etc. A blow-by-blow summary of the plot is neither helpful nor useful; it is merely a spoiler. The article needs a complete rewrite and I suggest that the volume-by-volume summaries are removed and replaced with information about the books and their creators. Liam Proven (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) I'm moving your comment down to the bottom, which is how you should introduce new topics. 2) Wikipedia doesn't observe "spoilers" or the concept of "spoiler information". 3) You can nominate to be bold and add information that you can find about the background, but that does not mean that the issue summaries, which could be pared down to their most significant plot points, true, should be replaced by background information. One does not exist at the expense of the other.Luminum (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Length?[edit]

Isn't it a little... Loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong? 6/2/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.119.57 (talk) 05:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation of video game release?[edit]

I see that someone posted that the game would be for the PS3 and Xbox360 with no citation or source... I'd like to think that a series that literally references classic Nintendo games on a constant basis would at least pay its respects and be on Wiiware... 169.231.38.214 (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Volume Six[edit]

Okay, I understand Wikipedia's stance on spoilers, but the summary of Volume 6 is frankly ridiculous. Not only does it spoil EVERYTHING in the book, even the smallest details, it is far far far too long. Needs to be changed immediately. 85.189.227.173 (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It being too long is a fair criticism, but you're right that being concerned that it spoils "everything" isn't one.Luminum (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Scott Pilgrim-related program is coming to Adult Swim[edit]

from http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=27432

"You guys are wusses," joked Pill, whose character Kim Pine stole the show with every wry remark. "[She] was written very well by Bryan Lee O'Malley," she explained. While Kim's previous relationship with Scott is mentioned in the film, Pill says it will be explored in other media. "There will be a little something-something that will air on Adult Swim," she revealed. Of course, fans of the comics know that the story is told in the pages of "Scott Pilgrim."

Summaries Not Concise[edit]

It bothers me that the summaries listed here are much less summaries than a play-by-play of each book. They should be shortened to include the basic plot points, characters, who Scott fights, etc. But it goes so far into detail that if a reader was simply curious about the series this article would completely spoil everything in the series, including the smaller dialog points.

Its in definite need of a cleanup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.196.231 (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold.Luminum (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

copyright vio?[edit]

intro & synopsis of first book appears to be direct lift from Barnes and Noble: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/books/e/9781156991404 Their product descriptions are provided by the publisher and are likely protected by their copyright. Either way, the content is identical to the content on B&N which make a point of declaring their copyright in the lower right corner of the page... Vinithehat (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but look at the page history. The section starts out like this in 2005:
"The series is about 23-year-old Scott Pilgrim, who's living in Toronto, playing in a rock band and who falls in love with Amazon.ca delivery girl Ramona Flowers, but must fight her six or seven evil ex-boyfriends to date her." [1]
And eventually becomes this in 2006 with the description of cleaning up the lead and fixing its grammar:
"The series is about 23-year-old Canadian Scott Pilgrim, who is living in Toronto and playing in a rock band. He falls in love with visiting American delivery girl Ramona Flowers, but must defeat her seven evil ex-boyfriends in order to date her." [2]
The change looks organic, not one based out of copyright, given that the original text was not the same as the Barnes & Noble description, the changes appear to be completely coincidental to improving the sentence structure. And while I'm uncertain how long that description has been up on Barnes & Noble, it would have to precede this page by 5 years. I wouldn't rule out that it could be a lift if all Barnes & Noble descriptions are from publishers only and it's been there since before this page, but the description could have been lifted from Wikipedia. Looking at the page history, a direct copy doesn't seem to be the case. It could also be (although admittedly highly improbable) that both arrived at the same description independently of one another.Luminum (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, actually, looking at the description, it seems to be a complete lift from Wikipedia's lead. This is not the publisher description (see Barnes & Noble's descrip for the first volume here: [3]) and appears to be clearly taken fromt eh Wiki page around May (which is coincidentally when this ad on Barnes & Noble was created).
You can see the lead change gradually before the Barnes & Noble ad: [4] > [5]. I highly doubt it's an official description, since there's actually nothing to source the claim that "Pilgrim" is taken from the singer Phil Pilgrim. And if someone were attempting to lift from another source, it's highly doubtful that they would lift the sentences, but cut out different parts in the middle of them, such as "Halifax, Nova Scotia", or the end sentence about the Pilgrim name. As with the first volume description, I doubt someone would copy the full two sentences, then replace American with "Amazon.ca" then turn it into "visiting American" and then correct it to "American" months/years later.
The real publisher's description exists, but it's not the one on the ad that was pointed out. I'm pretty certain that the opposite occurred--the ad for "Canadian comics" that apparently includes Scott Pilgrim, was lifted from Wikipedia.Luminum (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oooh! i hate that rabbit!Vinithehat (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree that we should remove the tag? If you think it should stay, let me know why. Thanks for keeping vigilant, though.Luminum (talk) 03:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
taking it downVinithehat (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst[edit]

Is it just me, or is eight uses of the word "whilst" in the article a bit odd sounding? AriGold (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

aye, `tis a bit twee. Vinithehat (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Bassist[edit]

in the intro little bit you've got there. It says he's a bassist who plays bass guitar. a bit redundant. I mean, I guess there are other connotations of bassist, but then it's either not necessary, or misleading. Do as you will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.37.129 (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold.  ;)Luminum (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paring down synopses[edit]

Just a heads up - over the next few days I'll be working on paring down the book synopses to bring them more in line with other articles similar to this one. I request, while I'm doing so, that if snyone decides to revert what I've done that they leave a brief message on my talk page so we can discuss it. By all means - re-edit and reword my changes as you see fit! Cheers! --Kitfug (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go to it, it's getting a bit long... --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cera interview[edit]

Here's a source An NBC Universal Michael Cera interview about the movie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa18VaqSw6I&feature=channel WhisperToMe (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O'Malley interview on Volume 6[edit]

"'Scott Pilgrim's Finest Hour' Arrives for Bryan Lee O'Malley [Interview]." ComicsAlliance. July 20, 2010. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IPhone app[edit]

http://www.scottpilgrimtheapp.com/ is about an iphone app which allows one to read the comic on the iphone. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to iPhone scott pilgrim reading, should we add other apps that allow you to read scotty p on the go? I'm thinking of the Comixology app but yea. Up to you folks - or maybe I'll add it. Bjoeeojb (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Musician References[edit]

Stephen Stills and Young Neil are pretty obvious references to the former members of Buffalo Springfield. Is there a good place to note that? --72.221.67.18 (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Television series (vandalism?)[edit]

Someone at 174.26.38.22 (talk) has modified a bunch of pages regarding a television series... The grammar is basically unreadable and source most defintely needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.14.232 (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtracks[edit]

Should the soundtracks of the movie and video game be mentioned at the start of the article? Or perhaps given more emphasis in the film section? DrJimothyCatface (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interview with Omalley and two manga authors[edit]

I found:

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The annotated pilgrim[edit]

O'Malley mentions Toronto references in old Livejournal posts

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redraw of p. 158 of Volume 1[edit]

Has info on the redraw On the blog: 23 August 2012 WhisperToMe (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reception of Volume 3[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Scott Pilgrim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Language clean up[edit]

This article needs serious rewriting. 50% of the sentences start "O'Malley said." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.7.207.10 (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Scott Pilgrim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Scott Pilgrim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Scott Pilgrim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scott_Pilgrim&oldid=1205226001"