Jump to content

Talk:Eraserhead: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 114: Line 114:


In order to avoid breaching 3RR I'm stating this discussion now, although per [[WP:BRD]] the onus should be on {{U|UTILITY MESSIAH}} to defend their changes. This article passed several content review processes with a plot section noting its cast in asides as their characters were first mentioned, going through a Good Article nomination, a Peer Review, and a Featured Article candidacy with this convention--at no point was this formatting challenged, and its use was clearly established by long-standing practice and the approval of each of the review processes. As such, [[WP:STYLEVAR]] states {{tq|it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change [...] If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, discuss this at the article's talk page}}. No such discussion has been opened, and cavalierly disregarding long-standing style in a featured article without any discussion is bad practice. The addition of a bullet-pointed cast list adds nothing not already presented in the article; it falls afoul of [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]] (why do we need a listing for "Thomas Coulson as The Boy" when neither "The Boy" nor Thomas Coulson are even mentioned in the article; ditto for the actor Allen Joseph), and serves only to obsfuscate readers by removing names from the context they had in the established version. It is a shame that a comprehensive article can go through such vetting only to be held ransom by an editor who refuses to follow policy or engage but now is the chance to do so. [[User:Grapple X|ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ]] [[User talk:Grapple X|ꭗ]] 15:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
In order to avoid breaching 3RR I'm stating this discussion now, although per [[WP:BRD]] the onus should be on {{U|UTILITY MESSIAH}} to defend their changes. This article passed several content review processes with a plot section noting its cast in asides as their characters were first mentioned, going through a Good Article nomination, a Peer Review, and a Featured Article candidacy with this convention--at no point was this formatting challenged, and its use was clearly established by long-standing practice and the approval of each of the review processes. As such, [[WP:STYLEVAR]] states {{tq|it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change [...] If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, discuss this at the article's talk page}}. No such discussion has been opened, and cavalierly disregarding long-standing style in a featured article without any discussion is bad practice. The addition of a bullet-pointed cast list adds nothing not already presented in the article; it falls afoul of [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]] (why do we need a listing for "Thomas Coulson as The Boy" when neither "The Boy" nor Thomas Coulson are even mentioned in the article; ditto for the actor Allen Joseph), and serves only to obsfuscate readers by removing names from the context they had in the established version. It is a shame that a comprehensive article can go through such vetting only to be held ransom by an editor who refuses to follow policy or engage but now is the chance to do so. [[User:Grapple X|ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ]] [[User talk:Grapple X|ꭗ]] 15:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

: I've protected the article (stability is important for Featured articles) so you two can work this out on the Talk page. I expect the edit warring will not continue after protection is lifted. --[[User:Laser_brain|<span style="color: purple;">'''Laser brain'''</span>]] [[User_talk:Laser_brain|<span style="color: purple;">(talk)</span>]] 17:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:14, 7 November 2021

Template:Vital article

Featured articleEraserhead is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 19, 2016.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 1, 2012Good article nomineeListed
September 14, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
September 20, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Budget Information

So it seems the budget on this film has been somewhat contested. According to multiple sources including Lynch himself on special features the film was funded with a $10,000 grant from AFI. However this grant wasn't enough to complete the film and as a result Lynch had to work multiple jobs to finish it. So wouldn't it be safe to say the official budget to the film was $10,000 since the money raised by Lynch himself has not been officially accounted for? IMDB gives a budget of $20,000 and some sites say $100,000 but every one of these sources does not cite the origin of this information, so I feel as though the $10,000 figure is the only number we can reliably report as the budget. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dididiipro (talk • contribs) 22:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reliable source for this? Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 07:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or, what we could do, is not worry about sticking a simple figure into the article when it's not needed, as there is plenty of information about the long production and the various methods used to raise funds for it. We don't need to try to reduce that down to a clean figure if one doesn't exist. GRAPPLE X 09:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like the right move to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eraserhead. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eraserhead. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 04:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eraserhead. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eraserhead. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed and replaced - thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary cast section

In order to avoid breaching 3RR I'm stating this discussion now, although per WP:BRD the onus should be on UTILITY MESSIAH to defend their changes. This article passed several content review processes with a plot section noting its cast in asides as their characters were first mentioned, going through a Good Article nomination, a Peer Review, and a Featured Article candidacy with this convention--at no point was this formatting challenged, and its use was clearly established by long-standing practice and the approval of each of the review processes. As such, WP:STYLEVAR states it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change [...] If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, discuss this at the article's talk page. No such discussion has been opened, and cavalierly disregarding long-standing style in a featured article without any discussion is bad practice. The addition of a bullet-pointed cast list adds nothing not already presented in the article; it falls afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE (why do we need a listing for "Thomas Coulson as The Boy" when neither "The Boy" nor Thomas Coulson are even mentioned in the article; ditto for the actor Allen Joseph), and serves only to obsfuscate readers by removing names from the context they had in the established version. It is a shame that a comprehensive article can go through such vetting only to be held ransom by an editor who refuses to follow policy or engage but now is the chance to do so. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the article (stability is important for Featured articles) so you two can work this out on the Talk page. I expect the edit warring will not continue after protection is lifted. --Laser brain (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eraserhead&oldid=1054031707"