Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Technology Section

I have supplied three references for the previously unreferenced technology section and removed the tag, but it really needs seven. References are still required to establish
1) the advent of international phone dialing in the 70s,
2) the development of personal in-flight entertainment,
3) the advent of "glass cockpits" (found some stuff at aviation.edu, but they seem to be offline), and
4) the advent of voice-controlled computing (usually referred to these days as speech-activated computing). There's plenty of sites showing the last exists but they are mostly promotional of companies that make speech-recognition software which is not preferable--WickerGuy (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, got everything except the personal in-flight entertainment.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I've only found one source here that mentions the first seat-back screens, but that was on Virgin in the 90's - no mention of Airvision Company. The WP article on in-flight entertainment had one source for the first personal IFE, but the link [1] was dead so I replaced it with cite tags. Lots of other sources out there, but they all refer back to the WP IFE page. Good work on all the other sources BTW, WG.Shirtwaist (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I found that dead link too- almost copied it here, but tried to test it. Even though the sources from AT&T and NASA are self-promotional, I think they are sufficiently reputable firms as to satisfy WP:RELIABLE. The chances of AT&T fibbing about the year that international dialing was introduced (albeit by they themselves) is virtually nil, I think. Same for the NASA source. --WickerGuy (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Soliciting opinions.

I don't care a whole lot about this issue, but think this is worth asking. In the most recent edit here, Shirtwaist modified "2001: A Space Odyssey has also been referenced in several video games such as in SimEarth and Spore" to read "2001: A Space Odyssey has also been referenced in the video games SimEarth and Spore" with the edit-comment 'rm "such as"-only two games are sourced'.

This seems to raise the issue of whether the sources are there mainly to establish notability or are also there for verifiability, or if the latter is satisfied by examination of the games themselves even if notability fails.

From semi-reliable sources that fall short of WP's strictest standards but which I conditionally trust, one can easily ascertain the Space Odyssey has been referenced in over two dozen video games including four variants of Metal Gear Solid which includes a character whose favorite movie is Space Odyssey.

It seems to me wiki-safe (a word I just coined) to say SpOd has been referenced in "several video games, notably..." ["notably" perhaps better than 'such as'] without mentioning the others that have achieved less prominent mention, just to flag we at WP are aware of other games, but consider these two the ones worth mentioning by name.

Thoughts??--WickerGuy (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong(and I sometimes am--hard to believe, I know;}) but don't "notability" concerns only relate to articles as a whole, while "undue weight" refers to article content? It seems to me that the current entry about video games does not qualify as "undue weight". However, saying "several games" without providing either a single source that says "several games reference 2001", or providing multiple sources that each refer to one game that does that, would seem to be a clear violation of verifiability, and OR as well. I think the only reason the sources are there is to satisfy verifiability isn't it?Shirtwaist (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

WP is not consistent on this. I leave it to Bertrand Russell, commentator on the liar paradox, to decide if you both wrong and right or neither wrong nor right. You have however, avoided the wrath of physicist Wolfgang Pauli who coined the notorious phrase "Not even wrong"

On the one hand WP:NOTABLE states "On Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article.". On the other hand Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content states "When poorly written or poorly maintained, however, these sections can devolve into indiscriminate collections of trivia or cruft. They should be carefully maintained, as they may attract non-notable entries, especially if they are in list format." with their phrase "non-notable entries" (italics added-WG) containing a Wikilink to WP:NOTABLE!!!!!

At any rate, I am thinking mainly of the Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content section, which says "Exhaustive, indiscriminate lists are discouraged" and "passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources. For example, a brief reference in film dialogue may be notable [no wikilink here-WG] if..." and in particular I stress the statement "Although some references may be plainly verified by primary sources, this does not demonstrate the significance of the reference." (italics added-WG). They stress that in this instance, there is a danger of interpretation of the reference being WP:OR.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That reference to WP:NOTABLE in Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content is surprising, considering this entry in the former: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons."(emphasis is WP's) I think that ref to WP:NOTABLE in Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content should be questioned, actually.

Upon reading this entry that follows the one you're talking about: "If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment. Quoting a respected expert attesting to the importance of a subject as a cultural influence is encouraged", it seems to support the removal of "such as", wouldn't it? I'm thinking of a reader coming upon the statement "2001 is referenced in several games, such as ..." and saying "Several games? I only see two here!" I read the above WP statement as trying to avoid such occurences. Am I wrong here?Shirtwaist (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I would at the very least replace "such as..." (which I think I wrote to begin with) with "notably...". But I prefer to convey the impression we are being selective re what is worth mentioning, rather than convey the impression the scope of our knowledge is short-changed. (I have very little investment in this, but think it worth raising.)--WickerGuy (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Found the "missing link"

No, not the missing link between proto-apes and hominids, but the missing link "History of InFlight Entertainment" recently deleted from the "In-Flight Entertainment" article. And, yes, you're right- there's no reason to believe video games preceded movies on airplane flights.

The wayback machine archives most (though not all) pages deleted from the Internet. Here is the link [2]--WickerGuy (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice find. I wonder what happened to the "WAEA" website? Did they change names or what? What's the WP policy on using old archived websites? I'm guessing not good.Shirtwaist (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure WP doesn't have a policy. The "Internet Archive" aka "WayBack machine" archives a high percentage of what used to be online. I would presume it's entirely based on the reliability of the original source.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Walker quote in "Set design"

Walker's quote goes: "They (djinn chairs) resemble Rorschach "blots" against the pristine purity of the rest of the lobby. It's more than a fashion statement...Their designer's name, Morgue(sic), has a baleful ring, considering the living tomb that the spaceship will become—a coincidence not lost on Kubrick".

WG - isn't he confusing the space station with Discovery in that quote? The space station doesn't become a "living tomb" - Discovery does. It seems like we would be needlessly confusing the reader to have that in the section, wouldn't it? There must be a better quote we can use?Shirtwaist (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Walker is asserting that the sets in the space station foreshadow the subsequent fate of the space ship. I don't think he is confused- just assuming the reader is familiar with the plot, and assumes that the events on the ship are a further continuation of (generic) mankind's journey even though different personnel are involved. Perhaps some framing clarification or paraphrase would be good.--WickerGuy (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. Rather than me reading not enough into it, you might be reading too much into it. He's only talking about the lobby in the "space hotel" in relation to the chairs. If he meant to say Mourgue's name hinted at the fate of "Discovery", wouldn't he say "the other spaceship"? There are several "spaceships" in the film. After all, it was Walker who described the bone-to-satellite cut as a "bone-to-spacecraft" transition. I'm not sure he was very clear on the difference between a "spaceship" and a "space station" either. I'd be more comfortable with the quote ending at "...the rest of the lobby". The rest of the quote doesn't really have anything to do with "Imagining the future" anyway, and looks to me like speculation in his part. It may have a place in an article about the chairs, or Mourgue, but not here.Shirtwaist (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

In the film, there are at most three space ships as opposed to eight spacecraft- 11 if you count the EVA pods for voyaging outside Discovery. The space ships would be the two vehicles carrying Floyd and Discovery. Neither the space station nor the orbiting satellites are properly spaceships.

Spacecraft is the widest most generic category. It is manned or unmanned and may be either capable of travel or be orbiting the earth as a satellite. A spaceship is always manned (or personed especially if flown by Mae Jamison) and is generally capable of at-command guided travel in a way that a space station or satellite is not. A space station is usually used for refueling, or for servicing or assembling satellites.

Floyd's transit craft would be most commonly referred to as a space plane or [lunar lander/lunar carrier], but could be considered space ships as Arthur Clarke occasionally does. A space plane is an aircraft designed to fly up to extreme altitudes beyond the atmosphere and back to the Earth's surface, and a [lunar lander/lunar carrier] is designed for trips back and forth between the moon and a spacecraft and/or space station.

Arthur Clarke does actually refer to Aries 1B as a both a "lunar carrier" and spaceship (the latter on p. 64 in old Signet paperback from 1968 p. 73 of Roc paperback 2000.) and refers to the PanAm more than once as a "ship" (one instance is on p. 47 in Signet paperback from '68 p. 49 of Roc paperback 2000) (though he never specifies it is PanAm- that's movie only).

To the main point, if Walker claims that Kubrick himself saw a connection, it is certainly worth mentioning, and goes beyond "speculation on his part", though you may be right that it is misplaced. However, Walker would not at all say "the other spaceship" as the Space Station V is not in any standard usage a "spaceship". However, if he calls the match cut bone to spacecraft, that's perfectly correct.

I'm getting some of this info from my two (non-consecutive) years as an intern at NASA/Ames in Mountain View, some from friends in Aerospace, and some from looking it up.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, if Walker thought the "space hotel" (he never calls it a space station) was a kind of spaceship, he might very well say "the other spaceship", but that would be speculation on our part as well about what Walker knew. At any rate, if you insist on leaving the entire quote in place, I think that "[Discovery]" should be removed as being an interpretation of the quote. Since Walker made no clear distinction between the "space hotel" and any other spaceship in that quote, it's not at all clear that that's the "spaceship" he meant.Shirtwaist (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Walker says "space hotel" because in the space station there is a window into a cubicle that says "Hilton: Space Station 5" (26:58 on the DVD that includes the 3+ minute overture) right around the place that you first see the red Mourgue chairs (28:50 ) implying this is a kind of hotel lobby. I don't know if the hotel is just part of the space station, or the whole thing. (In Clarke's novel, the space station has a US section and a Soviet section.) Down the hall from the Hilton cubicle is a Howard Johnson's right after the picture phone (on Hilton property? Don't know). When you later see the Russian scientists, you again see the cubicle with the Hilton window (29:27) and the red Mourgue chairs in front of that cubicle.

But the only place that turns into a death trap (or "living tomb" as Walker puts it) in the movie is Discovery. This isn't The Shining. Hilton Space Station 5 has no winter caretaker with writer's block, and an ax to grind (pardon the expression). And there are no deaths on the PanAm space plane or lunar lander either. By the sheer process of elimination, the average reader can infer Walker means Discovery. The objection of yours I agree with is the second part of this quote might thematically be out of place in this section.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

How does this look? This discussion reminds me of the times my dad would talk about his work on the Apollo Command Module design team at North American. When I called it a 'spaceship', he always said "Nobody calls it a 'spaceship', it's called a spacecraft!"Shirtwaist (talk) 08:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine. Wonder if the entire Walker quote might eventually go into a section on usage of color in the film. (A couple of paragraphs later, he mentions that the Star Gate sequence is the only part which uses a full pallette, while the red of the Djinn chairs is echoed on Discovery in HAL's central control room where he gets disconnected). On terms, I am essentially a layman who has worked with the pros- Clarke moved to Sri Lanka in 1956- could even he be out of touch with terminology? I just checked Fred Ordway's essay on working on the film- he refers to only Discovery and nothing else as a space ship- everything else is craft.

My father Van A. Harvey was a religious studies professor (or entirely agnostic persuasion) who was a huge classical music buff, which may explain why I spend more time thinking about this movie's philosophical motifs- the musical references to Nietzsche, the possible references(??) to medieval astrology- than I do to the details of space travel, in spite of my 2 years at NASA.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Back to the terminology.

I would be myself reluctant to describe any space vehicle that is either very small, or made for specialized use (launch weapons or a space observatory with telescope), or carried by a larger one (such as the film's EVA pods or the Apollo Command Module) as a spaceship. I would also myself not so describe any space vehicle designed for an extremely limited region of space such as the lunar landar even though Clarke does actually call that a ship. I remain quite positive that space craft is the generic term that includes everything, exactly as is the term watercraft includes both small boats and large ships.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Heuristic vs. algorithm

The basic understanding of the difference between a heuristic and an algorithm (re HAL being Heuristic ALgorithmic computer) can be found not just in computer science dictionaries, but in general dictionaries such as World English Dictionary, Collins English Dictionary, and The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, see [3] for the latter. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary!! I have supplied a citation for the requested "citation needed" tag for the section of this article that explains the difference, but under protest.

Honestly, technical vocab that is easily referenced in standard dictionaries should not really require a citation. As I wrote in the edit-summary (using there a lot of CAPS), "WP is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary". This is the silliest request for a citation I have encountered since I was asked to cite that the masks in Eyes Wide Shut were Venetian masks, something known to everyone who has attended Mardi Gras, worked in theatre costume design, and the entire population of Italy and France!!--WickerGuy (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

See also The American Heritage® Science Dictionary--WickerGuy (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Where in WP:NOT or wp:not#dict does it say cites are not required or helpful in this case? I'm pretty sure WP:VERIFY doesn't exempt explanations of "heuristic" or "algorithmic" from cites when used this way in an article.Mytvc15 (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that a citation could be helpful as a place to look for a deeper and more thorough explanation of a topic (which actually the dictionaries would not provide, but the book I cited would). BTW, you could even have strengthened your case further by appealing to Wikipedia:DICTIONARY. However, relatively basic foundational material that can be accessed in standard wide-ranging reference works such as The American Heritage® Science Dictionary should not IMO actually require a citation. I wish there was a template one could put in such as "citation useful" such as requesting a cite for further information. I am venting a bit, since I saw two other cite requests in the past month that were far more ridiculous. Do you need a cite for the year a TV series was canceled? I think not. Nor should a cite be required for very basic biographical material on a fellow who is hyperlinked to the WP article on him. A hyperlink to the WP article on algorithm here would be useful, but WP does not have an article on "heuristic" only on "metaheuristic" which is a bit more specialized and narrow. "Heuristic" redirects to "metaheuristic" on WP but should not do so, since "heuristic" is a broader concept.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Kubrick's Cubicle (Not to confused with Rubik's Cube)

It is true as User:Shirtwaist states in his edit summary that 'http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-moral-life-of-cubicles says Herman Miller was first "cubicle"'.

And also states that Miller "sold the first office cubicle, the Action Office, in 1968 (sic)."

However, the book George Nelson: The Design of Modern Design. by Abercrombie (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-01142-5.) does indeed state that comparable prototypes (with paneled partitions) also designed by Miller appeared much earlier than 1968- 1964 for a Medical Clinic in Indiana (p. 216) and 1963 at the New York Federal Reserve Bank (p. 217)(Both have photoes). The Wikipedia article cubicle cites Abercrombie on both of these without(!!) page numbers. I submit them here.

I'm not sure what accounts for the the discrepancy except perhaps these earlier models were done on commission rather than sold on the open market. (That is of course entirely speculation.)

Workplaces in the 1960 Billy Wilder/Jack Lemmon film The Apartment certainly look like proto-cubicles to me and are described as cubicles in Tim Dirk's summary of the film [4].

An old medieval word for a rule to adhere to is "rubric", so let's thank User:Shirtwaist for following Wikipedia's rubrics on Kubrick and cubicles.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing like a "Kubrick cubicle rubric" to tie your tongue in knots;)

The "Herman Miller Office"(Pina) book talks about Robert Propst and George Nelson's "Action Office 1" series which was introduced in 1964. Apparently it had several problems, and was a bit of a flop, although Nelson (but not Propst?) won the Alcoa Award for it. Herman Miller tried again, but Nelson was dropped from the project and Propst alone came up with "Action Office 2" in 1968. This latter series is what I think New Atlantis is talking about when they say cubicles were introduced in 1968. It may be that some examples of Action Office 1 did make it into the marketplace after 1964, and might be where the examples in the book you mentioned (and those in "Play Time"[1967]) came from(not sure how long AO-1 products were sold for though). But even AO-1 couldn't be the source for what appears in "The Apartment". Do you have screenshots from the film that show them?

I should point out, though, that no cubicles appear in 2001, just the (modified) desk and chair. I also noticed that the moonbase conference room chairs, referenced in the article as being "Herman Miller products" - citing "1000 Chairs" by Fiell - are definitely NOT in Fiell or Pina, and I can't find them in any other online source either. And as I said, there is no mention at all of Kubrick or 2001 in Pina, and only very minor mention in Fiell( a tiny blurb). This is yet more fallout from Ken Keisel's clear misrepresentation of his sources, and will have to be corrected. I see another editor recently fixed (rightly) another improper use of Fiell. I guess KK picked books at random that looked like they might support his entries, hoping nobody would check them. He sure didn't. Why anyone would challenge a fact-finding Pitt Bull like me at this point is beyond me;}...jkShirtwaist (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Just some minor points. I would have said that the glass office of the Hilton Hotel in Space Station V is a tad proto-cubicle-like (though it has a glass wall) as might the briefly seen private areas of astronauts in the centrifuge on Discovery- more details to come. Unless, you are knowing conflating an identification with feisty dogs and Brad Pitt, it is actually pit bull.

Nope. Not really Cubicles proper in The Apartment- just a lot of desks. Memory plays tricks. See [5] and same photo at [6]. Jack Lemmon in work area at [7]. Well if Tim Dirk can make that mistake, so can I.

Good work.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

In case anyone reading this knows where the moonbase conference room chairs came from, here they are. Please let us know! Oh, and just for giggles, this is the "House Of Tomorrow" WG spoke of a while back. Shirtwaist (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone said "Nothing dates so quickly as people's ideas of the future".--WickerGuy (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Pic Of Kubrick-Clarke 1964

I think this pic of Kubrick and Clarke in Kubrick's NY apartment (where supposedly much of the original script was written) deserves a place in the "Writing" section. It's from Daniel Richter's book "Moonwatcher's Memoir", and not only serves to illustrate the two men's appearance at the time, but also the physical location referenced in the article(if it isn't, it will be) where a lot of the writing was done. I don't foresee any serious WP:NFC#UUI problems - it's encyclopedic, descriptive, low res, etc. Opinions?Shirtwaist (talk) 11:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree. A few notes.

Clarke gave a lot of advice to Peter Hyams on the screenplay of the sequel 2010 but they corresponded entirely by e-mail (in 1983, yep). Clarke never left Sri Lanka. No need to mention that here though.

The book "Artificial Gravity" by Gilles Clément has an actual diagram of the alleged interior design of Discovery (pod bay and centrifuge) on p. 64 that might be of interest.

Re your previous note- I'm personally just as interested in the furniture in Discovery as that on Clavius. In a wide shot (Poole's jogging), you can see all five astronauts have a personal area, which Gilles Clément oddly calls "cubicles" though I'm not sure how appropriate that is.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Pages to Page Change

User Delta aka User:Δ (presumably no relation to Clockwork Orange's Mr. Deltoid) is quite correct about the "page" parameter. You are supposed to use either pages or page, one or the other depending on your citation requiring just one page or more than one. This means I have misused the template for the past several months. Fortunately, if both parameters are filled in, the first one "page" overrides the second, so no harm done on public displays.

Very importantly, for a change Delta just wiped out the "pages" parameter instead of correcting it to "page=" with the total number of pages, which he previously did. His earlier strategy made things worse, because if their are two "page=" parameters, the second parameter (which still contained the total page count) is what is displayed onscreen. So his current strategy (just wipe out "pages=") keeps the public display correct while his earlier strategy (change "pages=" to a second "page=") made things worse as it caused the page citations to be displayed wrongly (as the total page-count.).

Why the template software goes for displaying the first param if there is "page=" and "pages=", but the second param if there are two "page=", I don't know. I'm not a template programmer. But the wrong stuff I was doing kept the public display of the footnote correct, while the first of Delta's two fixes actually messed it up for this reason.

And, of course, we want to keep the mdash's for good display purposes.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The real mdash character as in '—' may be acceptable, but the double hyphen '--' (ndash not mdash) is not.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Going through the ref section, I don't see anything amiss with the page numbers. You might want to check. I also misinterpreted the purpose of "page, pages"-ya learn something new everyday!

Don't know why he bothered to "correct" the m-dashes though. I think the various bots automatically correct plain '—'s with "—" anyway, don't they? I think "—" and other templates are needed for readability for certain browsers or something. And putting "978" in front of ISBN numbers is allowed, but hardly necessary.Shirtwaist (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of "Big Bang" in "Parodies and Homages"

Sorry, Nafnosseb, but the refs you provided don't establish significance by reliable secondary sources. As WP:IPC says -

"Although some references may be plainly verified by primary sources, this does not demonstrate the significance of the reference. Furthermore, when the primary source in question only presents the reference, interpretation of this may constitute original research where the reference itself is ambiguous. If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment. Quoting a respected expert attesting to the importance of a subject as a cultural influence is encouraged. Absence of these secondary sources should be seen as a sign of limited significance, not an invitation to draw inference from primary sources."

For one thing, I don't think IMDb is a reliable source for almost anything and should never be used for anything other than an external link, and the other two - the Big Bang fansite and wiki - hardly establish significance either; the Wiki-Big Bang page only mentions "Thus Spake Zarathustra", and the fansite doesn't mention anything about 2001 at all. But I'm open to arguments for re-inclusion of the entry with those particular refs.Shirtwaist (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. It's actually clear if you watch the video that it's a 2001 ref (and kinda funny), but again the idea is to supply a secondary source that establishes the (cultural) notability of the ref. This will probably be hard to find given how recent the episode is, and how many 2001 refs in pop culture there are by now. Hence we have here Earlier comic references by prominent film makers. The TV series "The Big Bang" is jammed with sci-fi references to everything from Space Odyssey to The Terminator. Is the public's perception of SpOd changed by this episode? A shorter quote from the WP:IPC

"However, passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources."

SW, I've taken the liberty of reformatting your longer quote. Happy Easter, post-Passover, or celebration of the goddess Ēostre, or whatever you celebrate.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, WG. Looks much better. I hate to give the impression of being a deletionist to people like Nafnosseb, but I don't think we want the article to fill up with what amounts to insignificant cruft either. And is it Festivus time again? Happy Festivus!!!Shirtwaist (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Well according to Festivus, that's around December 23rd. But maybe that's just the solar calendar version. You'll have to check meta:Deletionism and meta::Deletionist to see if you really fit the bill.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:NFCC

I removed an image failing, at least, WP:NFCC#10. --Damiens.rf 18:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You've been edit warring on this same image for years, please stop. Dreadstar ☥ 19:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You description of the situation is obviously failed. No consensus was reached to use this non-free image on this article. Bear in mind that duplicating text across the encyclopedia in order to justify the proliferation of non-free content is not in line the this project's ultimate goals. This file's use on this page requires additional reviews.

Editors are here warned to to add that non-free image back to this article without building a strong (site-wide) consensus beforehand. I'll not hesitate in enforcing or non-free content policy. --Damiens.rf 04:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm warning you to stop edit warring or risk a block. Dreadstar ☥ 04:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

@User:Damiens.rf- What exactly do you mean by "enforcing or non-free content policy"? So far, three editors agree that the image belongs in the article. You are aware that numerous WP articles, including many if not most Featured Articles have non-free images in them, aren't you?Shirtwaist (talk) 05:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Three ill-informed editors want to post this image in this article, but a site wide review concluded that this image could only be used in the other article (and just after the article was changed to justify the use of the image). Dreadstar's reversions and intimidations on my talk page are disruptions. He always tries to intimidate me but I following the direct conclusion of a long review. --Damiens.rf 06:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

All you've done here to justify your reverts is post a link to WP:NFCC. You still have not offered any argument whatsoever explaining exactly how the image fails any of the NFCC criteria, and in the process have violated WP:3RR. Please stop edit warring and explain your reverts clearly by telling us how the image violates NFCC. Considering how many times you've been blocked in the past for this kind of behavior, you must know that if you persist in unexplained reverts, the outcome will not be good for you. Also, please provide a link to this "long review" you speak of which you think supports your actions. Shirtwaist (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I've read the NFCC discussion on this topic. It is clear to me that Damiens.fr is a crank who there and above imagines a consensus in his favor which certainly does not exist, and to justify his view blatantly makes up rules and interpretations of rules. In particular, the "long review" that he claims justifies his opposition to Wikipedia's use of the image here did not actually do so.

That said, absence of a negative is not the same thing as a positive, and I agree with him in this particular case. NFCC #10 requires a justification for each separate use of non-free content. The Interpretations article already uses the image. Why does a summary section that points to that article also need it? (That brings up a related but non-Damiens.fr point; the "Interpretations" section is way too long. Either cut it down to a paragraph or two that succintly summarizes the main article *and no more*, or redirect/integrate the entire Interpretations article into this one. Anything else is 1) pointless and 2) inevitably leads to out-of-sync text.) Ylee (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The "Interpretations" article is a tad too long to incorporate easily into here- however, there is some material here that is not reflected in that article. Our section and that article have gone in slightly different directions. Some of the material in that article isn't as well cited as it could be. I think the extra material here needs to be incorporated there, and this section here needs to be rewritten so as to hit ALL the major points covered by the "Interpretations" section on a roughly 1.5 sentences per paragraph/section basis, so the two are in synchronization!!

That said, if everything we say about StarChild here simply duplicates material there, Demians may have a point, except he appealed to the wrong policy. He needs to appeal to WP:NFCC#3 (minimal usage) and not #10 (there was a separate rationale for the usage at SK, but Demians removed it, and then removed it here on the grounds that we didn't have such a rationale, which is the very definition of bad faith editing). If we say something separate and distinct about the StarChild here that is also usefully illustrated by the photo, then it is usable in both places.--WickerGuy (talk) 12:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

What you say is a big fat lie. It's nauseating to interact with you. --Damiens.rf 13:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Demians, you are either very confused or lying about this, and you are also lying on a 2nd point or having trouble distinguishing reality and fantasy!!! ;Point 1 Criterion NFCC#10 explicitly says an image is to be deleted if it the image home page lacks a rationale for this article. You firstt deleted the image use rationale on the image home page at 17:59, 10 May 2011 thus creating the condition that the image would fail #10, and then at 18:00 delete the image on the grounds that it would fail #10!!!!!!!!!!

Point 2

You said "but a site wide review concluded that this image could only be used in the other article". NO NO NO You on April 1st this year nominated the image for deletion from the other article without even mentioning this article and the verdict was to keep it there. Your usage of the term "only" re "only the other article" is a self-serving pile of meadow muffin (to put it politely). Demians, I have met editors at WP who were uncivil, arrogant, and/or stupid. Some of the uncivil and arrogant ones also turn out to be smart and eventually easy to work with once you sort things out with them. You however, are just lying through your teeth either on purpose or by sheer confusion. I have threatened other editors with filing complaints before (one of whom is now one of my best WP-buddies) but for the first time I will be recommending an editor (i.e. you) be banned from editing Wikipedia.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected

OK, the deletion on the home image page was for the FUR for "Space Odyssey" the story/novel, not the film. I retract point 1, but it would help if you were clearer in your replies here. Point 1 above retracted. --WickerGuy (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Correcting FUR on image

For 2 years the image had a mistaken FUR that pointed to the article on story/novel (after a review) that was always intended to point to this article on the film. I didn't catch that. I have restored and amended the FUR on that image to point to this article on the film withOUT actually putting the image back here (until we get more resolution)!!!--WickerGuy (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

WG - It's customary to strike through any text that you wish to retract, which I've done for you. As for User:Damiens.rf's rude responses and refusal to discuss the matter, he may now be reported for 3RR.Shirtwaist (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Much thanks. I was not aware of that policy. Can you direct to a page that says so?? I'm starting to get the impression that English may not be Damiens' primary language, in which case I'm a little more willing to cut him some slack (but not much). He leaves himself open to being construed badly.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Not policy AFAIK, but it cuts down on reader confusion, and is common practice. WP:REDACT talks about why its use is a good idea.Shirtwaist (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The full -History

There was an earlier discussion on this image back in 2009 (again nominated for deletion by Damiens) at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_August_16#File:2001child2.JPG. The decision then was to keep in BOTH articles.

On April 1st of this year (2011), Demiens tried to delete the fair use for "Interpretations" on the grounds that the 2009 has resolved that it could NOT be used in "Interpretations". He was reverted on the grounds that he was mistaken (and he was). He then tagged it as disputed, reopening the dispute.

So now Damiens has created a discussion for deletion in April of this year, which only discussed the "Interpretations" article, and did not even mention this article on the film. The resolution was to Keep. That discussion was on Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_11#File:2001child2.JPG

And now since the 2009 revision/fix of FUR (Free Use Rationale) for "Space Odyssey" was accidentally 2 years ago in the process of fixing changed to rationale for "Space Odyssey" the story rather than the film, Damiens has now deleted it from here as failing #10 (technically it does but due to a mistake).

I think we should go back to the 2009 discussion, and note in the image article commentary how the image is iconic for various reasons. I think we can easily find a rationale for its use in both articles that doesn't duplicate prose from one article in the other, which is a weakness of the current arrangement.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Honest question: Why would we want to go to any lengths to guarantee this image is used in as many article we can force it into? I'm sure if we really wanted, we could find some book out there that would justify using this image on Stanley Kubrick, MGM, Arthur C. Clarke, Blue Danube... (and the same is true for many other stills of this film), but, do we want to do that? --Damiens.rf 20:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I can think of some moderately convincing reasons to NOT use it in Stanley Kubrick, many more to NOT use it in Arthur C. Clarke and there is no conceivable reason AT ALL to use it in MGM or Blue Danube. It is simply not true that anyone wants to put it in "as many articles as possible".

The main goal is to respect the 2009 consensus if there has been NO substantial change in the use the image!! I am less concerned about the image's status as "lovely" (per your edit summary) as I am in its status as "iconic" and "historic" and as such I think there is a moderately strong case for its retention in both articles. But more important is that consensus on using it in both articles was achieved in 2009, and there does not seem to be any significant reason for RE-opening the case. You are committing the Wikipedia equivalent of double jeopardy.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

And again, if you are really concerned about the number of articles it is in, you should be focusing on NFCC#3 not #10.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The question is, can you think of some moderately convincing reasons to NOT use it in 2001: A Space Odyssey (film)? If you're going to be honest, you know the answer is yes.

My point, and you didn't get it, is that it's not because it's feasible to modify an article's text to fit a given non-free image that it means we must to do so. We know we can write a great article (maybe the best encyclopedic text out there) about the subject without this specific non-free image, so why do we do so much to use it? --Damiens.rf 21:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's see you actually write some content, Damiens, all I've seen you do is deletions, most of them without even a cursory attempt at finding sources. Taking the easy way out won't fly. Dreadstar ☥ 23:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I wonder what the relevance of this remark is. --Damiens.rf 15:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The point you don't seem to be getting, Damiens, is that there has been tacit approval of the image being there, since for a very long time nobody has tried to delete it until you came along. The way you went about it not only went against WP guidelines, but caused a lot of unnecessary disruption, which seems to be a pattern with you, judging by your history of blocks for edit warring and 3RR.

Your disingenuous twisting of the outcome of a previous consensus on the issue (which I'm sure you were well aware of) to force your POV on this article is ample evidence of your acting in bad faith, which destroys your credibility.

The image, as it is now used to illustrate text that deals directly with interpretation of that very iconic image, significantly enhances the reader's understanding of the topic, and therefore improves the article. Just because you think it doesn't belong there doesn't give you the right to keep reverting without discussion, and simply pointing vaguely at NFCC to make your point for you. You'll have to do like the rest of us and properly justify your reverts.

So unless you can come up with a convincing argument, backed up with supporting policy, guidelines, or consensus, I suggest we put the image back -- and if you revert again without consensus I WILL report you.

I also think YLEE's point about the section being too long has merit; it should probably be trimmed to a more "summary-like" form outlined by WickerGuy, but I also think adding a screenshot of the monolith (possibly the african one) to a paragraph where it is discussed wouldn't hurt either.Shirtwaist (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You conveniently ignore the fact that since I contested this image the articles had to have their text changed and sources added no to have the image deleted.

I still dislike who you guys duplicate text in two articles to justify the use of a nice image. I had never seen this situation, so I'll raise the issue for broader discussion, probably on WT:NFCC. --Damiens.rf 15:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

To my astonishment, I 50% agree with you, but Dreadstar believes in good faith that this is justified per policy WP:SUMMARY, so NO, he did NOT "ignore" this issue!! I think we should think more carefully about the text being used, and rework it. However, the articles did not strictly have to have their text changed- it was simply an attempt to strengthen the case for the image's presence which per prior discussions was already deemed moderately good. Trying to find a strategy for inclusion of the image is not necessarily self-serving rationalization or excuses. It can be based on a strong intuitive sense that the image really does have a place in the article, but requires some careful thinking to determine what that best place really is. I think this is what is going on here. You seem to think we are just seeking "bad faith" excuses for a mere decoration, a piece of eye-candy. I think our intentions partake of more WP:Good faith than that.

Dreadstar's hostility is based on the fact that you give the appearance of being on a vendetta against this particular image. There are at least 2 other editors on Wikipedia who spend most of their time removing fair use images, and while they are now and then difficult to deal with, you are the least articulate of them all.

As previously noted, you seriously misrepresented the history of the dispute, as well as coming up with rhetorical exaggerations questioning our intentions (honestly, no one is considering putting this image in the "Blue Danube" article), so this damages your credibility.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the text per WP:SUMMARY and the image because it is an iconic image that cannot be described by mere text, as has been shown by previous IFD's on the image. I agree that we can shorten that section, but we need to keep the key elements from the summary article to which it was originally spun out from this one. Dreadstar ☥ 00:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

As the image of the StarChild returns to the Space Odyssey article, Strauss's Zarathustra plays in the background (C–G–C B–F♯-B8va) [8] --WickerGuy (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL, perfect background music for the departing and returning image.. :) And very nice work, WickerGuy on the new text and location, I like it a lot! Dreadstar ☥ 17:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Herbivorous

In regard to this edit. If I recall it correctly, they where not herbivorous. They could not hunt by themselves, but they were shown eating animals killed by other animals. --Damiens.rf 16:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Onscreen they are only shown eating sparse vegetation before the encounter with the monolith. It has been too long since I read the book so I can't remember if any mention of feeding on carrion occurred. MarnetteD | Talk 16:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. They don't eat any meat at all in the film until after the encounter with the monolith gives them hunting power. This is in fact close to actual history. Biologists believe our ape-ancestors were herbivorous, and that we became omnivores by adaptation. The human digestive system is far better at digesting vegetables than meant.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This might of some interest Are Humans Carnivores or Herbivores?--WickerGuy (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there a scene where the a monkey is seen screaming to a boar (that wild pig) that tries to steal his lunch? For some reason I though the monkey was eating meat there.

In a side note, why would my ancestors need a tool to eat rabbits or chickens? "Hunting" is not always that challenging. --Damiens.rf 18:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The scene that you are describing is when a few tapirs (not boars) and the primates are both foraging for the scant vegetation that is available. Neither creature is eating meat. MarnetteD | Talk 19:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Kubrick and Clarke were intending to give a comprehensive outline of the full development of carnivore behavior. At any rate, there weren't any rabbits of chickens out there just some big critters that needed to be boned down. The fact that right after the discovery of the bone-as-tool, you see slow-motion slaughter of tapirs -still while "Zarathustra" is playing- immediately followed by the first scene of apes eating meat generally conveys the idea.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, when I mentioned rabbits and chicken I was not really asking about the movie, but really about my real ancestors. But that may run off topic quickly. --Damiens.rf 20:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

"Herbivorous" should stay.Shirtwaist (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You should go. --Damiens.rf 20:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Demiens, this exchange was quite civil until now. ShWa was being curt, but not rude.

There MIGHT be a rejected early script draft of the film where pre-monolith the apes raise and eat a rabbit named "Herbie". Much more likely, we MIGHT choose to keep this a civil exchange.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that was supposed to be taken humorously. Tell me more about Herbie. --Damiens.rf 22:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

"that was supposed to be taken humorously" - It was taken just as it sounded - like an insult. Are you always this disruptive?Shirtwaist (talk) 06:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Rumor has it there is an early draft in which the pre-monolith apes raise and eat a rabbit named "Herbie" which establishes them as "herbivores". This version also incorporates elements of the material deleted from Kubrick's earlier film Spartacus. Specifically, just as General Crassus asked Antoninus in the cut footage (see Spartacus_(1960_film)#Re-releases_and_restoration), HAL asks Dave if he has a preference for oysters or snails, and suggests it is just a matter of preference. Dave then has a talk with Frank in the pod where they mull over whether HAL might be gay. Due to the strict censorship of the 1960s, they don't spell it out. It's just vague lines like Frank saying "I've got a bad feeling about him", some of which survived into the final version. They decide if HAL asks any more inappropriate personal questions, they will have to disconnect him. However, just as Kubrick decided that having the Star Child detonate nuclear weapons would have too many overtones of Strangelove, this would have too many overtones of Spartacus, and Clarke was worried they were just perpetuating cinematic stereotypes of the murderous gay a la multiple Hitchcock films, and the material was rewritten. Scenes where a now 60-year-old Lolita Haze turns out Dr. Floyd's wife were cut for similar reasons. :) --WickerGuy (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I JUST Noticed.....

We've had issues with some miscreant or other repeatedly removing the word "epic" from the opening sentence, and by gum, by golly, the word "epic" is in the film poster! "An epic drama of adventure and exploration"!! If that's not vindication, I don't know what is.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The description on the poster is POVvy. Our leading is (supposed to be) neutral. --Damiens.rf 18:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

"Epic" is not necessarily a value judgment, but can be a descriptive word. It is a genre of literature. You can also make something sound appealing by calling it "epic". Compare "romance" and "romantic". The one is descriptive of a genre- the other is a value judgment to plug your movie/novel/play. The word "Epic" can go either way. It is the judgment of several editors here, the this film does indeed fall into the formal literary category of epic. The above post was meant to be slightly tongue-in-cheek. But I really did just notice it.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

"Epic" is a legitimate genre description, not a subjective evaluation. It's commonly used in movie lead sentences in WP. See Epic film, in which 2001 is mentioned as an example of an "epic science-fiction" film.Shirtwaist (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2011(UTC)

SW, sorry to be picky, but I think you mean ""Epic" is a legitimate genre description, not [used as] a subjective evaluation [here]". It can be a evaluative term comparable to "majestic". Unlike "romantic" vs. "romance", "epic" can be both a legit genre description, AND a evaluative judgment (implying majestic, of great magnitude, and/or heroic), depending on context!! Often when used the latter way, it is not in relationship to literature at all, such as talking about "the epic events of the World War" of Scott's epic trip to the North Pole. I suspect probably the person(s?) who keep deleting it are confusing the two senses of the word, rather than denying that the film belongs in the genre.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2011(UTC)

Of course, I meant "used in lead sentences to classify a film's genre, the word "epic" is not intended as a subjective description". Thanks for clearing that up. Shirtwaist chat 10:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Spartacus

In light of recent edits to the Spartacus link in THIS article, I suggest we have problem over there.

Given that the 2004 "film" of Spartacus is actually a TV miniseries, I would say that

a) the article Spartacus (2004 film) should be appropriately renamed to coincide with that of similar pages, such as for example The Winds of War (TV miniseries) or The Mists of Avalon (TV miniseries). Likewise,

b) the redirect Spartacus (film) should in fact go to the 1960 film, OR the article should be renamed to "Spartacus (film}", rather than the current system where Spartacus (film) redirects to a disambiguation page.

Indeed, even with two made-for-theatre versions of Psycho, after much wiki-discussion it was decided that Psycho (film) got you to the 1960 film, NOT less-acclaimed 1998 remake, simply because the former clearly fit the criterion of WP:PRIMARY. The same should really be done for "Spartacus (film)".

There is a process for initiating such a nomination. Either I or someone with more time than I have today can do such a nomination.--WickerGuy (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Nominated.

Editor's from this article are invited to chime in at Talk:Spartacus_(2004_film)#Requested_Move--WickerGuy (talk) 00:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Howard Johnson's

To expand on the last edit which said " although by 2001 Howard Johnson's had switched its business focus to hotels, rather than the restaurants shown in the film." This can probably stand as is in the article. What actually happened is that all the non-franchised restaurants (owned by the chain) were closed in 1985, while the reletively few franchised (independently owned but allowed to lease the company name under conditions) ones remained open but allowed to keep the HoJo name. The franchisees banded together in '86 in an attempt to expand the franchise but they failed. They have been slowly closing. In 2011, there are only 3 HoJo restaurants in the world.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I wonder why SK didn't use McDonald's instead of HoJo's? They were already everywhere in 1968, if any food chain could make it into space and be around in 2001, Mickey D's could. Shirtwaist chat 20:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the larger menu on HoJo (steak, salad bar etc.), and/or its link to a hotel chain. In 1968, McDonald's had just about exactly 1000 restaurants. HoJo had slightly fewer restaurants, and a bit under 100 hotels. This brings to mind the hilarious McDonald's scene in Woody Allen's Sleeper (film) (loosely based on HG Well's When the Sleeper Awakes) with the sign that says "Over 5,000.....[long string of zeroes]...000 served." You can see a still of it at [9]--WickerGuy (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Recently Deleted Image

Apparently, the deletion of the image of the school teaching scene never showed up in the history of this article. It was deleted May 18th, this year. The nominator of the image for deletion was User Damiens.rf, who writes "So far, the article's editors did not found [sic-WG] it necessary to discuss the visual aspects of the deleted scenes, but I do not doubt this will become a priority now the decorative image is nominated for deletion. Here comes the non-free-images-driven article writing." (Emphasis in original). The discussion is here Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_May_10#File:2001_school_class_deleted_scene.jpg.

He has a point, that the image is a "sample" image and as given did not significantly lead to greater critical understanding and was somewhat decorative, though the image is a rare and hard-to-find one. However, given Damians history of rude disruptive editing, misrepresentations of both WP's history and its rules, it still grates. This has all the earmarks of sour grapes over losing the Star Child debate. For the record, Damians is currently blocked from editing all BLPs (Biographies of Living Persons) for three months (starting April 2011, expires in July).--WickerGuy (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

How did I miss this? The image was there for the express purpose of illustrating an example of a deleted scene...in a section about deleted scenes!. What other justification is needed for its presence? I'm for putting it back. Shirtwaist chat 00:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There was a similar situation at Talk:Avatar (2009 film)#Deleted images. Same editor who put the files up for deletion, and nobody saw the FFD discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

That guy is a loose cannon. I guess he found a way to bypass all those pesky consensuses against his deletions - just FFD a file without telling anybody so they can't argue and vote against him, which makes it look to an admin like there's no opposition - so they delete it. How can he keep getting away with this disruptive, and anti-AGF, behavior? Shirtwaist chat 02:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It does seem as if he has taken advantage of the system (whereby images can get deleted without response to the nominator since Files-for-deletion does not attract the attention that Articles-for-deletion does - only the editor who uploaded the file is notified) to essentially mount a sneak/stealth attack on the image. Damiens goes for the high standard that the specific contents of the image have to be discussed in the text. But non-free images don't have to be crucial to understanding the text, they just need to enhance it in a definite way.
A few years ago Damiens deleted ALL the images from the Stanley Kubrick article, all of which were movie publicity posters. They were replaced by much better images. And when other image police challenged some of those, they were replaced by even better ones. But I think this image was reasonably well-justified even without any detailed discussion of the image contents. This can be officially submitted to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. I have a copy of the deleted image, but if this request goes through, I believe WP can restore it.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Your point is well taken that some good comes from FFDing some images, but stealth FFDing, which is what Damiens.rf seems to be now doing, is not editing in good faith. It's gaming the system, and somebody should do something about it.
I've contacted the admin who deleted it on May 18 (apparently it wasn't just a bot misreading the "deleted" in the notation like we thought) so we'll see how he responds first. Shirtwaist chat 07:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Folks, you need to wind back the personal commentary—play the ball not the man. The image was nominated in the usual way that all such nominations are made - a tag is placed on the image page, the uploader is notified, seven days at least are allowed for discussion, and someone closes the discussion. In this case the uploader, who was editing before and after the nomination, declined to participate. As many of these nominations do not attract further comments—for reasons I can only speculate on but I note that in general Ffd does not attract the participation of other deletion discussions—I look a bit further to make sure that obvious things are not missed. In this case I saw a non-free image in much the place doing much the thing that the nominator stated; nothing untoward in the nomination statement then. I then look at the image to make sure that it is non-free ( it is ) and look at the non-free use rationale. In this case there was no rationale, or rather the entire rationale can be stated as "Purpose=Show scene" with is a largely meaningless statement as all images by their nature show what they are images of. There was no indication in the rationale of how this met the Non-free content criteria under discussion (WP:NFCC#8). Seeing nothing untoward in the nomination and no response from the still editing uploader I press the delete button.

WickerGuy makes a telling statement above - "as given did not significantly lead to greater critical understanding and was somewhat decorative" - which ties in with the nomination. NFCC#8 states

Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Purely decorative images are not appropriate.

This is the basis on which the image was nominated for deletion, that it did not meet this criteria. Discussion of the image's contents with sourced text is often a great help in showing how an image significantly increases reader's understanding and its lack is often an indicator that the image is just decoration. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Peri has an especially good point that the free-use rationale on the image page counts for a lot, and that there wasn't any sourced text in the article discussing the image. I remain undecided if a "good faith" repair of the use of this image is possible.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It may or may not be appropriate to add that Demians has been civilly making some (mostly) sound challenges to various bits of material in the Stanley Kubrick article which has resulted in some improvements to the article.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the instructions at WP:FFD do include the following:

If the image is in use, also consider adding {{ifdc|File_name.ext|log=2011 June 8}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages.

-- which Damiens did not do.

If the folks here sincerely feel that this image is significantly informative, and that they could make a convincing case for the image to pass NFCC #8, and that they would have done so if the FFD had been flagged either on the article page or on this talk page, then there is a strong case for re-listing the image at WP:FFD to see whether they can persuade the community of that, re-instating the image here in the meantime, and leaving a note for Damiens strongly encouraging him to make such notifications in future.

However, as Peripitus has indicated, a rationale that simply says "to show scene" is not going to be sufficient. It at least needs to be sketched out why seeing a still of this deleted scene is significantly informative about the topic of the article (the movie as a whole) over and above what might be summarised in text about the scene. Jheald (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

WG - You may be right. I've noticed there are three other images in the article that seem to also be failing NFCC #8 similarly to that put forth about File:2001_school_class_deleted_scene.jpg: File:2001Satellite.jpg, File:Discovery1b.JPG, File:2001-centerfuge.jpg. Maybe we should get rid of those as well (before Damiens.rf does it for us - without notifying us)? Shirtwaist chat 21:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As it is very strictly forbidden to display non-free images on Talk Pages EVER, I have amended Shirtwaist's comment to put the file-names in single-brackets instead of double brackets, so they don't actually display here.
I happen to intuitively think these images are more justifiable (even if it requires a prose rewrite of the article to show why), but I am keeping my thinking wiki-hat on a little bit longer with reference to them. Contrary to some assertions by Damiens, rewriting the article prose to justify inclusion of an image can indeed be a "good faith" move, because they help establish the cultural significance of the image.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Better yet. Link to image description page with combo of double brackets, and precede word "File" with a colon(:). Should have amended SW's remarks that way originally.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The satellite image is clearly justifiable as it shows a close-up of a German flag decal which is discussed in the text.
The Discovery image is clearly justifiable because it illustrates the non-aerodynamic character of the spacecraft as discussed in the "scientific accuracy" section (contrast the spacecraft in outer space with wings in many other films).
I'm a tad less certain about the centrifuge photo. It corresponds to NO nearby text in the article, making it in even worse shape than the "Deleted Scene" photo, which was at least positioned near a generalized generic (even if not genius) discussion of deleted scenes. In fact, frankly, if I had been combing this article looking for images to delete, I would have targeted the centrifuge photo BEFORE the deleted scene photo!! Minimal relevance to the article text (the deleted scene photo) is better than NO relevance to the article text (the centrifuge photo.)
I personally like the deleted scene photo also because it is rare (the centrifuge shot is not), and illustrates that stills of deleted (& destroyed) footage do exist. Interesting elements of it (not discussed in our text) are that the room has the same general size and shape as Bowman's final bedroom, and Kubrick's other two daughters are in the photo.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

1) Restore the painting class scene with the following revised caption. "Although most of the footage cut from the film has been destroyed, production stills from it still exist, such as this scene of a children's painting class at the moonbase, featuring Kubrick's other two daughters, besides Vivian who was in the picturephone sequence." (Piers Bizony p. 70 verifies that SKs other two daughters are in this photo.)
2) Cut the centrifuge photo. This would be a sign that we are really trying to do a "good faith" following of the rules. There really isn't any good justification for it.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

OOPS! My bad. One extra set of brackets too many on the image names! Note to self: Preview!

Good points about the "satellite" and "discovery" images' justifiability. Let's hope Damiens sees it the same way.

1- I doubt a new caption will solve the problem as it merely acknowledges the existence of the image - adding the bit about SK's daughters wouldn't help, IMO. According to Peripitus, apparently the existing text in the section needs expansion beyond simply noting the scene's existence, or it might get zapped again. And if the original uploader doesn't seem to care if their image gets deleted, why should I?

2- I believe we should move the Centrifuge image to the section that goes into some detail about the production concerning the centrifuge set. The current image shows the outside, this image shows the inside. That way it couldn't get deleted because of lack of discussion about it in the article.

Suggestion - Would it be advisable for one of the regular editors to re-upload images we want to keep, so that if the "mad-FFDer" strikes again, WE will be aware of it, and NOT some uploader who might not give a crap if they get a FFD notice? Shirtwaist chat 09:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with all suggestions. BTW, the biz about SK's daughters wasn't meant to strengthen the case at all. It would just be icing on the cake, if it was a fait accompli we could get the image back at all, by acknowledging stills of lost footage.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to peacefully drop my opinions here, and noting that I haven't fully analyzed the use of images in this article, I wish to say that the German flag is on of those good examples of a justifiable use of non-free screenshots. The text discuss something visually worth noting in the movie and that may pass unnoticed. The still's presence makes a noticeable improvement on the understanding of that passage.

And since we're here, I tell you Stanley Kubrick contains one school-case example of perfect use of non-free content (in regards to NFCC#8): The tree pictures showing the Kubrick's stare in Trademark characteristics section. The section explains that critics noticed a specific recurring "stare" in Kubrick's characters. Once you read that, you think "I need to visualize these scenes".

This is all to point out that I'm not trying to remove all images on Wikipedia, not even all non-free images, as somewhat stated (not necessarily by anyone here).

That said, you humbly ask you to consider if you really want to keep the deleted scene image. Isn't this now just for the Honor or not having an image delete by evil Damians? That image was not uploaded by any of you and would probably never be. What do you really want is to use the image or to win a deletion argument?

You all know a lot more about the movie that I do, and if this image comes out to be necessary to explain something important about the movie, just use it. I can take a look later.

And about the talk page notification, I'm sorry. I use a script to nominate images for deletion and it never does that, and is very sensitive in regards to caption notices (sometimes he wants to do it, some times it doesn't). Consider adding the images on the pages you like to your watchlist. --damiens.rf 14:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

All good points Damiens. I myself happen to like the "deleted scene" image because it is an extremely rare glimpse of a little seen element of the film production. That photo is in very few books about 2001 (I believe it's in the very hard-to-find book on 2001 by Piers Bizoni), nor is the photo in many documentaries about the film. It's not ubiquitous. The photo does illustrate some elements of Kubrick's film-technique. Both the color scheme and size/shape of the painting classroom is similar to that of Bowman's bedroom at the end, but this is an original observation of my own, which I can't put it without violation of WP:OR. (Also trivial but interesting- Vivian Kubrick has cameos is four of her father's films- Katherina Kubrick in two others. Had the schoolroom scene survived into the film, it would be Anya Kubrick's one and only cameo in one of her father's films.) Once again, your recent challenges to the Kubrick article, and your removal of the promotional posters a couple of years ago have both resulted in the article's improvement (although I still dispute you really need a citation to say Lolita was one of the most controversial novels of the 20th century- everyone who has taken American Lit 101 at any reputable college knows that- however, it doesn't hurt to have a citation).--WickerGuy (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I would note that the point about the cameos would not justify the use of the image in my opinion, since this is not the kind of information that needs visual aid. When I read that Anya Kubrick had a cameo on such and such movie, I perfectly grasp the information. Confront that with when I read that "many Kubrick films have a facial closeup of an unraveling character in which the character's head is tilted down and his eyes are tilted up". In this second case, I'm filled with a need to see such facial closeups.

And the fact that the image is rare, almost never appearing in texts about 2001 or Kubrick, is a case for not using the image on an encyclopedia (a tertiary source). The available literary body tells us the image is really not that relevant for the subject matter. But this, obviously, is just a generic argument for rare images (in a very specific sense of rare) that may have exceptions.

About the Lolita source, we'll have to agree that the target public for Wikipedia is larger that the set of those people who can afford the opportunity to take an American Literature introductory course in a reputable college. I, for one, had not taken one, neither did most of my close friends. --damiens.rf 17:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, I never intended the cameos to justify the use of the image. I just think they're interesting. Other points well-taken. If the citation gives the reader a chance for followup, then I guess that's a good thing.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You mean "contrast" instead of "confront".--WickerGuy (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thesaurus says one of the meanings of confront is "examine in contrast". It puts both confront and contrast as synonyms of compare, while noting that "contrast emphasizes the differences". --damiens.rf 20:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If you look carefully, Thesaurus actually gives examine in contrast as a definition of "compare" which in turn is listed as a word for which "confront" might be a synonym in certain contexts- hence the listing under the "confront" page. However, while in certain contexts "confront" might be a synonym for compare, this would be when "confront" is used to mean "stand or meet facing", i.e. in the context of a visual comparison of two side-by-side objects (two people who look alike or not), and would rarely be used in comparing two sentences or pieces of writing. Your usage borders on being formally correct, but still not at all standard usage, much like almost all the English I encountered even among the most highly educated during the summer I spent in China.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the lesson. It's much appreciated. Never be shy to fix my talking. And thanks for the opportunity of a respectful cool minded conversation about the images. I wish those could be more common (and could last longer and with more users). --damiens.rf 02:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Note to Shirtwaist. Somewhere on WP in a editor-discussion about NFCC, a consensus is reached that some text in the article main-body needs to reflect the content/caption of the photo, although this agreement never made it into the main explanation of NFCC. I've seen it before- if I track it down I'll let you know where it is.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

@Damiens - Consider following this advice from the WP:FFD instructions: "3 - Give due notice. If the image is in use, also consider adding {{ifdc|File_name.ext|log=2011 June 9}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages." That is, if you want to appear to be editing in good faith, and care to work with other editors instead of against them. We wouldn't want you to add to your long list of blocks for disruptive editing, now, would we? Shirtwaist ^chat 23:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Parodies and Homages Redux

Steven Colbert's three part serious "2011: A Rock Odyssey"? This should be in there--67.182.208.196 (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I think there's really two or three issues in the Parodies and Homages section. There is the WP rule that we need a secondary source to establish cultural significance.

But also, is the reference to "Space Odyssey" (or whatever) an extended homage (a film sequence or scene) or just a "in passing" momentary allusion? In the latter case, it is almost always of marginal significance, and "Space Odyssey" in not a main focus of the reference. If a computer that is a main character of a film like WALL-E or Eagle Eye has HAL-like characteristics, we have an homage! The computer in Woody Allen's Sleeper is on screen for only about 10 minutes, but is voiced by 2001's HAL-voice Douglas Rain, and it's a crucial ten minutes. Allen is making a statement about the impact of 2001.

The recently deleted Big Bang Theory material is from a show cluttered with multiple jokey references to science-fiction, Space Odyssey, Terminator movies, Alien movies, etc., so I think doesn't count here.

The only passing allusion to 2001 I could imagine mentioning here is the appearance of the Space Odyssey soundtrack album in the front of the record rack in Stanley Kubrick's next film A Clockwork Orange, significant only because SK did it himself, and even that I'm not raring to add.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I would also point out that the IMDb source, besides being unreliable and therefore failing WP:RS, is incorrect when it says "As the stereo plays "Also Sprach Zarathustra", the guys act like the apes finding the monolith." - the actors appear to be reacting to the drum beats more than anything else, it's hard to say, and would require interpretation on the part of the viewer to determine "significance". This source also illustrates perfectly why this type of reference should be kept out of WP articles; the list includes HUNDREDS of similar trivial references to '2001', and is the very definition of insignificant "cruft". Lists like that one, which includes the BBT ref in question, are why WP would suffer if they were allowed to be included in its articles.

I've found this advice from WP:IPC to be especially helpful in deciding whether or not PC refs should be included in "In Popular Culture" sections:

"When trying to decide if a pop culture reference is appropriate to an article, ask yourself the following:

• Has the subject acknowledged the existence of the reference?
• Have reliable sources that don't generally cover the subject pointed out the reference?
• Did any real-world event occur because of the reference?
  
  If you can't answer "yes" to at least one of these, you're just adding trivia. Get all three and you're possibly adding valuable content."

Hopefully, Nafnosseb will tell us what they think.Shirtwaist (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Presumably "Did any real-world event occur because of the reference?" does not include someone trying to add it to Wikipedia. :) --WickerGuy (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Ha! - no. But does it include the audience laughing at it?;}Shirtwaist (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Futurama

We already have something in the "Legacy" section of the "Stanley Kubrick" article that Groening's The Simpsons contains literally dozens of references to multiple Stanley Kubrick movies, for which we have both a secondary source (you can actually find more than one secondary source) and the awareness that Kubrick knew that the Simpson's was referencing him a great deal, and that Kubrick is generally a huge fave of Simpsons creater Matt Groening, and the admiration was mutual (Kubrick liked Groening's work as well). Groening is also the creator of Futurama (which premiered about the time of Kubrick's death), so by one degree of separation that is a bit notable. However, Futurama has referenced Odyssey in at least 5 or 6 separate episodes so no one single ref really stands out. Also (as has Groening's The Simpsons) Futurama has also referenced other Kubrick films as well, including Strangelove and Clockwork Orange. I would be inclined to:

1) Definitely note in the "Stanley Kubrick" article that Groening continued his ongoing homage to SK in "Futurama" (just one sentence).

2) Maybe if can be sourced note here that Futurama has on multiple times parodied Space Odyssey (no details on any particular one- no one instance stands out) with the easily documented note that Kubrick and Groening admired each others work and that Groening generally does a lot of Kubrick homage (both easily documented).--WickerGuy (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Is "Kubrick was both a great fan of The Simpsons and in friendly contact with the show's producers" in "Leaving Springfield"? If so, where?Shirtwaist (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I lifted that from the article Stanley Kubrick but I suspect whoever put it in took too literally a toungue-in-cheek satirical piece from "The Guardian" Stanley and Bart... another Kubrick legend, so let's ditch it. Mucho Gracias--WickerGuy (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a shame. It would make an interesting detail, and I was hoping it was documented somewhere. I'll check sources on the Matt Groening page.Shirtwaist (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly plausible. Kubrick was a fan of both Woody Allen and Steve Martin and had some nominal contact with them. (SK was notably jealous of Allen's ability to make a film per year.) In fact, Steve Martin was an early choice for the role of Bill Harford, eventually played by Tom Cruise in Eyes Wide Shut. IMO in some ways, Martin may have been a better choice, although Cruise projects the right combination of cockiness and naivete required by the role.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Bingo

Apparently Kubrick's oldest daughter (actually his only stepdaughter), Katherina Kubrick, had an extensive presence on the online bulletin board alt.kubrick.net and confirmed her Dad's enjoyment of the Simpsons. SK ordered tapes of the show from the producers. Currently, I only have this from second-hand sources, but if we can find the original, that's fine. It's true that WP normally doesn't go with bulletin boards, but it's widely confirmed that this is the real KK, not some kind of Alan Conway figure masquerading as Katherina Kubrick. I suspect the material in the article Stanley Kubrick may have been placed on the basis of the KK interview at alt.kubrick.net but without citation.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that's alt.movies.kubrick NOT alt.kubrick.net. It's not online anymore, and I don't know if it's archived or not, so we only have second-hand accounts that KK talked there about SK's love of Simpsons. Hardly any of the second-hand sources really qualify as WP:Reliable although I'm inclined to believe them. Still searching.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently alt.movies.kubrick has since become a Google group and the old stuff (pre-Google) is archived there. According to one posting there, Michael Herr's published book memoir of working with Kubrick on Full Metal Jacket confirms he was a Simpson's fan, so that would be the best source, but need to confirm with the Herr book. Yes, it's on p. 47.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hate to be a killjoy, but that Google group posting only appears in another poster's post. The original post by "Katharina", whoever that is, can't even be accessed, let alone the poster's identity verified. An extremely tenuous claim to "reliability" don't you think? I think we should be consistent on where we set the bar on RS, and this falls far short, IMHO.Shirtwaist (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's really kind of 50/50- stretching the WP rules but not to breaking point. It's widely documented that the real Katharina Kubrick was quite active on the bulletin alt.movies.kubrick. In fact Christiane Kubrick (SK's wife/widow) has confirmed on HER website (the old one [10] not the new one [11]) that the bulletin board poster and amk is the real Katharina Kubrick. (Naturally, since there was that infamous case of Alan Conway impersonating Stanley K. in the '90s.) Hence, the likelihood that this is a post from the real KK is fairly high. On the other hand, if that stuff happened at the Director's Guild award dinner, it's likely that another (and better) source can verify it. (The claim that SK ordered tapes of the Simpson's to watch would be harder to verify, and might be verifiable from KK's posting on amk alone. It's been repeated on various Simpson's bulletin boards with attribution there to KK's posting on amk, but that's TWO bulletin boards- one bulletin board quoting another one, which is a real stretch, even more than a reposting/quote on the same bulletin board.) Alas, when Google groups took over alt.movies.kubrick they didn't transfer absolutely everything.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

In this case, not only do we have to assume "Katharina" is the Katharina Kubrick, we also have to assume "Teenage Runaway" isn't making up/editing/interpreting this supposedly "archived" post. When dealing with posters on message boards, I always assume everyone is lying about everything, including their true identity, unless I see irrefutable proof otherwise. From WP:USERG:

"self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated...Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.

How does this a.m.k post avoid the same scrutiny we give IMDb posts or any other public forum posting? WP:RS doesn't consider likelihoods of veracity of sources as far as I know.Shirtwaist (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Welll, you got a point there, unless I just try to appeal to WP:IGNORE. WP allows Imdb stuff generated by credentialed staff, but not by users, and blogs are only allowed by WP if they are hosted by professional news outlets (such as the New York Times) and even then reader replies are banned as a source. Finally "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" and as far as I know Katharina Kubrick may be an established expert on her father but unlike her uncle, Jan Harlan, she has not published anything about her Dad in a reliable 3rd-party publication. It should also be conceded that even if the post is authentic the reposter is reposting her post out of context, since the Director's Guild event honoring Kubrick was posthumous and therefore does NOT constitute evidence that SK saw the Simpsons, though we do have Michael Herr's testimony for that. I repeat, I still think that given that in light of the Alan Conway fiasco, Christiane Kubrick went to some length to publicly confirm her daughter really & truly was posting on alt.movies.kubrick, it's very likely this is real, but it may still fail WP's standards of credibility.

(BTW, I think you should say you PREsume everyone is lying, not ASsume). I haven't found any other source to confirm this. I could write Katharina Kubrick and ask her to post some message to this effect on her personal website (her e-mail is public), but beyond that or getting another source or getting you to agree to WP:IGNORE (can I convert the Pope to Islam?), this material may need to go.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I'll stick to being Pope -- less praying, snazzier headgear! I hate assuming - it usually makes an 'ASS' out of some guy named 'UME'.

WP:IGNORE is fine...if it results in improvements to WP, which using this kind of source clearly would not. But it would be fantastic to contact KK in any case. If you do, ask her if it's possible for her or her mother, whichever controls pics owned by the estate, to give permission to use that pic of SK and ACC I recently proposed for inclusion in the article. Having it in Wiki Commons would be great.Shirtwaist (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that the estate of Kubrick is largely controlled by Katharina's uncle and Christiane's brother Jan Harlan who was the executive producer of every Kubrick film from Barry Lyndon to the end, including Spielberg's completion of Kubrick's unfinished A. I.. Jan Harlan also produced several (though not all) of the special features on Kubrick DVDs that came out in 2007, and was both producer and director of the 2001 (the YEAR 2001) documentary Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures. It is possible that the estate is legally controlled by SK's widow Christiane, and she just has her brother do all this work, just as he was working for SK while alive. But let's see first what KK says about posting a verification of the bulletin post- it would have to be on her website, rather than in a personal communication to me or anyone- her website is mostly on her painting (both she and her mother are painters- the paintings in the Harford's apartment in Eyes Wide Shut are all either by Christiane of Katherina)- she may not want to put stuff about her Dad on it.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Does Jan Harlan post anywhere? If we could get hold of him and get him to contribute, I'd be in hog heaven!Shirtwaist (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Although both mother and daughter Christiane K & Katharina K (actually Katharina Kubrick Hobbs) each have their own personal website (mainly to promote their own paintings and services as painting teachers), CK's brother Jan Harlan has no personal website of his own. You could possibly get his contact info by joining Imdb Pro, but I think the best route is to contact KK(H), as she both has a posting history and had published her e-mail. Maybe I'll draft an e-mail in the next day or two. For the record SK's youngest daughter, Vivian Kubrick, has no official website [you'd think she would- she collaborated on 4 of her Dad's films as music composer ("Jacket"), making-of-documentary director ("Shining"), and as cameo actress (Odyssey, Lyndon, Shining, & Jacket)-she was going to do the score for "Eyes.." and a making-of documentary for "Jacket" but neither came to be.], and Vivian has been estranged from her family for the past 12 years (due to her Scientology involvement). SK's middle daughter, Anya, died a couple of years ago or so.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5724568065773873583#
  • In 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) on 2011-05-25 07:06:50, 404 Not Found
  • In 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) on 2011-06-10 06:49:30, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no longer a copy of this documentary at video.google.com, but there is now one (split into 5 parts) on YouTube. New link is to Part 1 out of 5.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_tidal_europa_021003.html
  • In Ganymede (moon) on 2011-03-19 18:09:34, 404 Not Found
  • In 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) on 2011-05-25 07:06:50, 404 Not Found
  • In 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) on 2011-06-10 06:49:56, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The new link appears to be a copy of the same article, however if you don't fully understand "orbital resonance" the article does not appear to directly support the point being made in the article (which is true- the moon Ganymede will never orbitally align with the four other moons of Jupiter as shown in the film.)--WickerGuy (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/24424059.html
  • In 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) on 2011-05-25 07:06:50, 400 Bad Request
  • In 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) on 2011-06-10 06:49:58, 400 Bad Request

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

URL had changed and now fixed.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.pshk.org.hk/Activity
  • In 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) on 2011-05-25 07:06:54, 404 Not Found
  • In 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) on 2011-06-10 06:50:08, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This link is fine. The presence of a literal space in the URL confuses the bot. Changed to '%20'--WickerGuy (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 5

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://imdb.com/title/tt0235153/}}
  • In 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) on 2011-05-25 07:06:54, 404 Not Found
  • In 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) on 2011-06-10 06:50:16, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Bot seems to be confused by lack of space between url and closing '}}'.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 6

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.filmfax.com/reviews/discflix/2001_a_space_odyssey.html
  • In 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) on 2011-05-25 07:06:55, 404 Not Found
  • In 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) on 2011-06-10 06:50:28, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Just in external links section. Removed for now.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 7

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.aiaa-houston.org/horizons.php
  • In 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) on 2011-05-25 07:06:55, 404 Object Not Found
  • In 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) on 2011-06-10 06:50:38, 404 Object Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

URL has changed (now in PDF format) and fixed.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 8

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.edge-online.com/magazine/spore-and-creativity-science
  • In 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) on 2011-06-10 06:50:28, 404 Not Found
  • In 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) on 2011-06-25 14:03:41, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

URL was moved and is now fixed.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Apple's "It Was A Bug, Dave" ad

In the "Parodies and homages" section, the source claims that "footage" was used from 2001, and after examining the ad closely, it seems plausible to me that the "footage" they refer to consists of the graphical readouts in the four small screens surrounding an obviously fake HAL nameplate that does not appear in the film(I checked). We still aren't sure if SK gave his permission to use it or not, which is why they say it is "thought to be" the first time SK did so.

Sailorlula - you seem sure that the footage is not from 2001 and the source is wrong, do you have any sources that say so? Shirtwaist ^chat 10:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Shirtwaist, but even the little screen images are reproduced. It's ALL faked. Watch the videos I link to in my entry on this page entitled "Article Claiming Apple had Kubrick Permission, Used Original Footage is Wrong". Better yet, compare the ad to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyvoM_WioVM

Jump to 6m10s (and ignore the soundtrack!). Telltale: compare the antenna array images VERY closely and you will see that the ad version is a very good recreation, but not a reuse of the original. Sailorlula (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

SailorLula here. I deleted this sentence under the "Parodies and Homages" section:

Thought to be the first time Kubrick gave permission for his work to be re-used, Apple Inc.'s 1999 website ad "It was a bug, Dave" was made using footage from the film.

This statement, while properly sourced from the original article by Charles Arthur--

(1999-01-25). "HAL confesses all and joins Apple". 25 January 1999 (London: The Independent). http://www.independent.co.uk/news/hal-confesses-all-and-joins-apple-1076172.html. Retrieved November 26, 2010

--is utterly false.

Subsequently, Shirtwaist undid my deletion, advising "text accurately reflects what the source says--SEE TALK". I can't discern what he/she wanted me to take notice of. Yes, the source material is accurately reflected in the wiki entry. Except Mr. Arthur is utterly wrong. Please, judge for yourselves:

Here is the 1968 original. Open it in a window and pause at 0m36s:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX4A-iSoDiU

Here is the 1999 Apple ad: Open it in a new window alongside the original for easy comparison, and pause at 0m04s:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHJkAYdT7qo

The smoking gun: the alignment of HAL's bezel with respect to the screens is totally different in the Apple ad. Other obvious differences: HAL's lens is far too red in the ad, and the ad's screens are not square as in the film.

Wiki protocol aside -- the deletion should stand, otherwise we're simply propagating bad information. The source material is, as they say in the film, in error.Sailorlula (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

First - Please don't make separate threads on the same topic. Placing this response in the thread I started would've been less confusing for others to follow and clutters up the talk page unnecessarily. (EDIT: Corrected by Shirtwaist ^chat 23:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)- and it doesn't "discomfit" me, it makes the talkpage look disorganized and disjointed for readers who might come across it)

Second - If you read my original post on this topic, you'd realize I said upfront that Hal's bezel, faceplate, whatever you call it, is obviously fake, was most likely created by the production team that created the ad, and has nothing to do with the "footage" on the four small screens around it. The writer of the article doesn't specifically say the "footage" used is limited to the four screens, but that is clearly what they meant. The sequence in the ad - a slow push toward the panel and Hal's faceplate - obviously (to me anyway) never occurred in the film. As far as the particular images in the ad compared with those in the film, you probably know that the displays that appear in 2001 were continuous filmstrips, rear-projected onto screens, that were long enough to provide enough different graphics so that they didn't repeat during long-duration shots of the panel. This means there might be images on those old filmstrips that never appeared in the movie, but did happen to appear in the ad.

Third - WP is about verifiability, not truth. It doesn't matter what we can "prove" by doing OR as you suggest, what matters is accurately quoting our sources. Again, if you have a reliable source that describes exactly how the ad was produced, I'd truly love to see it. And if it contradicts the first source, we can note that in the article, or disregard the first source if consensus demands it. Deleting a properly sourced entry based solely an editor's opinion is not an option. Shirtwaist ^chat 13:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

While I can find several articles about the ad, the sourced article from The Independent is the only one that claims it uses footage from the film (or perhaps back-projection footage used to make the film). Could we just say that this one source claims eg write "The Independent says". The ad BTW was produced for Apple by an agency called Chiat/Day.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This article seems to very indirectly imply that this is all new footage [12]--WickerGuy (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

IMO, the foreground footage of HAL's faceplate is all new. It is possible that they recycled rear-projection footage from the original film. IF they did they either (less likely) used SK's original rear-projection in new ways or (more likely) they split up original film footage into sections and reassembled it, essentially slicing and splicing various visuals from the film together in an new and original montage, for all the stuff going on on the two sides of HAL. Re-edited spacewise as well as timewise. If this is the case, the article from The Independent is still reasonably correct!!! It's rather like the way old film footage was blended in digitally with new footage in Forrest Gump, Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid, and the Deep Space Nine episode Trials and Tribble-lations. In the new footage, objects or people are together in the same frame that were not there before. In the case of DS9, the relative placement of objects is sometimes different in the reuse of footage than in the original footage due to digital editing. So, yes, this could be using Space Odyssey footage, just sliced and spliced.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

SailorLula responding to Shirtwaist: I noticed and read your original post just after writing mine -- sorry, slay me -- and then immediately responded to it. Feel free to rejigger the ordering if it discomfits you.

Do a thought experiment WRT your "long filmstrip" theory, which BTW, you posit without referencing a textual source. (And they're actually called film loops.) No image of the antenna array, for example, ever matches anything visible in the film exactly. The antennae are shaped differently! Are you suggesting that Kubrick used multiple schematics of an object yet those schematics didn't match? I really doubt it. Worse, you write:

"...there might be images on those old filmstrips that never appeared in the movie, but did happen to appear in the ad."

So, you're conjecturing, again without any source, that perhaps Apple was given access to original footage shot by Kubrick that didn't appear in 2001 itself? We all know there is no way that happened. Multiple sources say Kubrick guarded all unused footage closely. Even this very article states:

According to Kubrick biographer Jan Harlan, the director was adamant the trims were never to be seen, and that he "even burned the negatives"—which he had kept in his garage—shortly before his death.

Hard copy on the making of the Apple ad is scant, but there is this piece from WIRED: (same one Wicker refers to above):

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/1999/01/17519

It says the HAL ad was low-budget, "about US$100,000 for the low-tech visuals and the 'virtual' voice of HAL, which was done by a voice impersonator." Given how visually simple the ad is, it's doubtful they spent the better part of $100,000 on visuals simply lifted straight from the film. It seems much more likely the money was spent on recreating those visuals from scratch. As Wicker says, the implication is that this is all new footage.

Wicker, I hear your "sliced and spliced" theory, but I just don't think it's so. When you go back and compare ad to film, the images never ever match. Occam's Razor tells us to go with the simplest explanation -- that it's all recreated. --Sailorlula (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the evidence is scant and porous, so we'll never know for sure. Your Occam's razor point is well-taken. Just remember speculation and surmise is perfectly legit on talk pages, but never so in the article name-space.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify - when SK used long film loops consisting of graphic depictions of engineering readouts, it's reasonable to assume that any one shot of the panel appearing in the film wasn't so long that the entire loop passed through the projector and repeated the same image twice. Therefore, it's possible that on all those film loops, there are images that we never see in the film because they never happened to roll through the projectors at the exact moment the camera was rolling.

On the other hand, Sailorlula may be right, and the readouts were indeed created for the ad. The source we have says otherwise, so unless and until we find another source that satisfies WP:V and WP:RS, and doesn't violate WP:NOR, that explains exactly how the ad was created, the entry should stand. BTW, I'd be the first to welcome such a source, since I've always found it hard to believe SK would ever give his permission for such film loops, if they really exist, to be used in an advertisement. Shirtwaist ^chat 00:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd also be very interested to know where those film loops are now and who has them! Shirtwaist ^chat 04:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

There is also the possibility that Kubrick indeed gave permission for footage to be used, but that the ad firm, wanting a direct frontal view of HAL decided to do their own simulated version, possibly getting in contact with the same animation team that created the original loops.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It occurred to me that if SK did give permission for "footage" to be used, why wouldn't they have simply used a frame of the actual film showing the entire panel with, as you say, a direct frontal view of HAL(the Youtube clip above shows one such view at 00:41), then added the graphics footage later - either by using the actual film strips, or copying certain frames from them and compositing those into the existing "panel", then using a process camera to do the "push-in" to Hal's eye. That way they wouldn't have the expense of setting up and shooting the fabbed-up panel. Too bad Chiat-Day's website doesn't say anything about it. Shirtwaist ^chat 11:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I wrote Charles Arthur, and asked him directly what his sources were. Here's his reply. Unfortunately he doesn't remember.

Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:06:53 +0100

Subject: Re: Mr. Arthur please help settle Wiki dispute regarding 1999 Apple / HAL 9000 Advert

From: charles.arthur@gmail.com

To: [SAILORLULA]

Hi [SAILORLULA].

thanks for your email. I'm afraid that it's now so long ago that my notes from the period simply aren't available, and I don't recall specifically who I spoke to on the matter.

I know it breaks the Wikipedia rule on "original" work but I'd have thought you'd be justified in simply checking sources and dropping a line to the Kubrick estate and/or Apple (you're more likely to get an answer from the Kubrick estate) who could answer.

best

Charles

my blog: http://www.charlesarthur.com/blog/

on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/charlesarthur

writing a book: http://therivalsbook.wordpress.com

I Guess I'll write Mrs. Kubrick next. --Sailorlula (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Mrs. Kubrick's brother Jan Harlan may be a bit more likely to know than she. Stanley Kubrick's brother-in-law was the executive producer of all of SK's movies from Barry Lyndon to the end (and Spielberg's AI), and the director of the (year) 2001 documentary Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures (the film has no writing credits but the tie-in book is credited to Christianne Kubrick), and finally Jan Harlan produced several (though not all) of the special features on the 2007 DVD re-issues of five Kubrick films. He seems to be heavily involved with executing the estate. However, I would hope Mrs. Kubrick would forward any query onto him that he can answer.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Filming Location Query

Anyone have any idea of exactly what parts of Monument Valley the 3 shots from same in the StarGate sequence actually are. I found it very easy using Google Earth to find exact matching shots for material from the opening sequence of Kubrick's The Shining in Glacier National Monument, but am having no look finding matches for the 3 shots of Monument Valley in Space Odyssey's Star Gate sequence.

It certainly lends a new level of meaning to the phrase "purple mountain's majesty".--WickerGuy (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Sunlight hitting monolith?

Denimadept - First - Please observe the WP:BRD protocol instead of repeatedly reverting without discussion on the article talk page. Yes, consensus was achieved when editing on this issue stopped here on 7-31-10 as a result of the related discussion which took place here, which is what I pointed out to you on my talk page. Once a previously contentious edit remains after discussion ends, consensus on that point was assumed to have been reached, until another editor changed it, which occurred here on 8-22-10. That edit was reverted here, without any further discussion or reverting, thus again establishing a consensus on this point. I see no other such changes since then. If you wish to go against this established consensus, please explain your reasons here to try to establish a new consensus on this point before continuing to revert. We'll be glad to hear anything you have to say. Thanks. Shirtwaist ☎ 10:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I found one more addition of a "sunlight hitting monolith" edit on 1-3-11, and the revert of same, citing consensus in Talk one day later. As you can see, consensus was indeed established regarding this point in the plot summary. Shirtwaist ☎ 10:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a really really long discussion. In short, It is "interpretation" rather than bare plot description to assert that the sunlight is what triggers the signal, and as such saying so should be avoided in the plot section. However, in sections of the article devoted to interpretation of the film, discussion of this would be appropriate. That's the main point.

Furthermore, given the position of Clavius on the moon, and the position of the sun as the shuttle approaches the moon monolith, it's reasonably evident that the final shot of the sun directly over the monolith is impossible (though sunlight touching the monolith from another angle per se might be). So it could be something in someone's mind.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That's because the final shot is not of the sun directly over the monolith. It's of the sun clearing the horizon. I don't know how anyone could think they're showing the sun directly over the monolith. Enlighten me, please. And consensus can change. - Denimadept (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Denimadept - You're simply wrong. In this Youtube clip at 3:38 you will see the monolith from the very low perspective of someone looking directly up from below, with the sun peaking over the top edge of the rectangular monolith, not the lunar horizon (unless you're prepared to argue that the lunar horizon is made up of straight lines in a trapezoidal arrangement). That is what we're talking about, and that is the source of confusion of many who think the sound is triggered by the sun hitting the monolith. But as I said, nowhere in that sequence where the astronauts are present is sunlight shown to touch the monolith. The incongruous nature of that last shot, in which the impossibility of the sun normally being in that position (along with a crescent earth, btw!) is in sharp contrast to the scenes preceding it with the sun near the lunar horizon and the earth also near the horizon appearing in a gibbous phase, leads us to believe that the "sun-over-monolith" shot was meant by Kubrick to serve a metaphorical purpose, rather than a literal one. Indeed, that same shot arrangement is used earlier in the "Dawn of Man" sequence, with the difference that the moon and sun can be seen over the monolith on earth.

But if you can find a shot that shows sunlight hitting the monolith on the moon (other than the metaphorical one I mentioned), please present it. Shirtwaist ☎ 22:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I would also point out that taking into consideration the lighting of the entire sequence, including the moon shuttle flying over the moon's surface, it's quite obvious by the length of the shadows seen on the moon's surface that the sun has already "cleared the horizon" as you claim. I'm not sure what that has to do with your point about sunlight hitting the monolith though. Shirtwaist ☎ 04:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Different things happened at different locations. The shots we're given at the Monolith shows it in darkness at the beginning. - Denimadept (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

There's also the issue that the shot is clearly intended to parallel the shot of the sun straight over the monolith in the Dawn of Man sequence. If Kubrick meant this literally, it would have to be the biggest scientific gaffe in the film, even more than having all 5 moons of Jupiter line up in a straight line (which can't happen because of the synchronicity of their orbits.)--WickerGuy (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Assuming that shot was of the lunar horizon(which somehow looks suspiciously like a monolith lying flat on the surface, btw), how in the world can you explain the fact that earth, which was just seen in gibbous phase at about a 90 160 degree angle to the sun a few seconds ago...is now suddenly a crescent earth in perfect alignment with the sun on the lunar horizon?? That's some fancy astrophysical footwork, that is. I have to admit, this is the first time I've heard of anyone saying the "sun-and-earth-over-monolith" shot in this sequence was actually...the sun clearing the horizon?!? That's a new one! Shirtwaist ☎ 08:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

When I first saw the film as a 10-year-old, the shot being argued over here confused me. I could not understand why, in the middle of everything, a shot of the sun over a Mayan Pyramid was abruptly inserted. It confused me during the ape encounter with the Monolith. It confused me again on the moon. It took many more viewings for me to "correctly" perceive it as the sun over the Monolith. Today, if I watch the shot yet again, I plainly see a pyramid once more.

After reading all the over-analytic explanations here, I am beginning to think there was something valid to my original, immediate, visceral interpretation. The ancients took care to build pyramids such that their alignment with various celestial bodies signified events of great importance. I am beginning to think that was precisely Kubrick's intent both times he included this shot. By momentarily using the Monolith as a stand-in for a pyramid, perhaps he was communicating to his viewers in a visceral, non-verbal, meataphorical way that something of great importance was happening. -- Sailorlula (talk) 10:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Oh, and one more thing I just thought of: in "The Sentinel", the monolithic artifacts left behind by the extraterrestrials =ARE= pyramids. -- Sailorlula (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarke wrote that when the sun hit the monolith on the moon, it meant society was sufficiently advanced for space travel. It sent a signal to the aliens, who kept track of where we were in human advancement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roccowrite (talk • contribs) 07:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a long standing established assumption by editors of this article established on back talk page discussions that the movie should be treated entirely independently of the novel.--WickerGuy (talk) 11:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)