Talk:Night Skies

Suggest retaining

This article has been flagged as unencyclopedic by somebody, but it was of interest to me and I expect to many other people. Mark Foskey (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability and the question of being encyclopedic

I question whether the subject of this article is notable enough to have its own article. I mean, it's about a movie that was never made. The article asserts that the topic is notable for the fact that brainstorming this movie led to the ideas that became E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial. That makes the fact notable enough to mention in the article about E.T., but not necessarily notable enough to have its own separate article. The television series ER began as a movie that was never made. The ideas brainstormed from that never-made movie became a television series that has been on the air for 13 seasons and counting, and yet we don't have an article about it. Also, note that the several never-made Superman movies all have been discussed in the Superman (film series) article, but don't have their own articles, even though the ideas brainstormed during the pre-production of those never-made films were later used in Superman Returns. Sure, this article right here may be "interesting" to some, but I don't think that being "interesting" justifies keeping an entire article about a movie that was never made. --Hnsampat (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, so notability is the issue here. Let's keep that tag then. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess it could be merged into ET - question is how much detail there is and how notable it is. I have never heard of it before and I have some familiarity with Spielberg's work(s). It would be good to post a note at a film or Sci fi wikiproject and see if anyone knows any more. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• I placed a note here at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#Notability_of_Night_Skies so we can see what happens - good plan? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit from forum page:

Anyone heard of this and/or can reference it? Has Spielberg had a biography written about him (that would mention it surely...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen this article before, and it's bothered me somewhat in terms of being one about a project in mere development. There are supple results on Google Books about the project, so it can definitely be shaped up if an effort is made. My only concern is if there is much that needs to be said about the project. We might have a better idea if the content is shaped up. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Most never-made films fail the general notability guideline. I don't know about this one, but it would be a shame to lose this information. The best idea might be to merge the bulk of it into the ET article, with the rest of the useful stuff into Spielberg's. Steve ^{T • C} 14:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Normally, editors would recommend a merge in order to incorporate the information about a related film project, but in reading this article, it is clear that there is a large amount of detail that would be lost in merging the article. It may be that due to the nature of this project and the notoriety of its originator, that it may be the "exception to the rule." FWiW, I did find a reference to this film in Neil Sinyard's Films of Steven Spielberg (1986). Bzuk (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC).

Ok then. I personally believe it can stand as an article on its own lying on a nexus between several projects where it does, as well as its highly notable author. I do feel some references would be very prudent to avoid discussions of merging or deleting later. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I also believe the tags are now redundant and unless there is an objection, the tags will be removed shortly. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC).

Concur. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I also did not detect examples of "poor writing" and I would typify this writing style as dramatic prose and perfectly acceptable. One minor contention may be to limit the number of colloquialisms and rely on more straight forward declarative sentence structure, but again, this is a veeeery minor point. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC).

Yeah, that sums it up well - and it has been pretty easy to tweak. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I invented the use of the word "tweak" in Wikipedia and I only lease it out on occasions. LOL FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC). FWiW is mine as well. Bzuk (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC).

forsooth.....hark, yon article approaches..it is the light and WP:FAC is the sun....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Gadzooks, t'is more likely WP:LAME. IMHO (another copywrit appelation) Bzuk (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC).