Talk:The Human Centipede (First Sequence)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Speedy deletion: Hang on

hello, there is quite a buzz about this film within the horror film world and wider media, and when I am feeling less hungover I'll put in a bunch more stuff with references to justify the article. So hang on with the deletion! thanks Coolug (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I've declined the speedy deletion as there are numerous reviews in horror film magazines, and the film has been previewed at several major horror movie festivals. Saying that, you need to beef up the references to prove this. Papa November (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Assessment for C-class

Hello and Congratulations on moving up. You aren't quite ready for prime time, but you're a lot closer than before. Here's what I want you to do:

• Integrate Honours into Reception
• Find some main stream literature (not horror magazines or sites) with information about the film. I know there is some mainstream information about this film.
• Remove the mention of how many reviewers there are on RT, as this can change very quickly.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to drop me a message on my talk page.--nblschool (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, I've done the first and third suggestion, and am now looking for some mainstream stuff. So far I'm not having much luck :) Papa November where are you when I need you? Help! Anyway, if you don't mind I'll send you a message on your talk page when the references are appropriately beefed up and it's potentially B class. thanks Coolug (talk) 09:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, I've followed all of these suggestions and found some more mainstream sources to back up the article. Therefore I think it may well be worthy of B-class. Fingers crossed! :) Coolug (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

assessment for b-class

hello. I'm quite keen to put some work into this article to make it a decent article and will do so soon when I get a chance, however, being a bit of a wikipedia n00bie I'm not sure what exactly this assessment stuff above is all about. It says add stuff to the template call: what is this? :) help! Coolug (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about that message - it's for the person who assesses the article, not for the editors. Aim for C-class first: I'd suggest looking at some examples of C-class horror articles to see the kind of standard you need to aim for. You should try to include something for all the sections found in a featured horror article like Night of the Living Dead, but don't worry about making it perfectly polished just yet. Try looking for advice at WikiProject Horror too. Give me a shout if I can help with anything. Enjoy the film tomorrow ;) Papa November (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Finally seeing it this evening :) Then I'll go to work on making this a somewhat decent article :) Will be in arcadia afterwards if you fancy it. Cya Coolug (talk) 10:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, finally seen it (a horrible, horrible movie) and have started by writing out the plot bit before I forget the ins and outs. It's a bit long however, so I'm gonna edit it down as much as possible and get it all well written and grammatical and stuff. Then I'll move on to the other sections; production release reception etc etc. Told tom six about the wiki page last night at the showing (he was there) and he seemed like a nice guy. Said thank you to us for doing this :) Coolug (talk) 10:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to put the photo you showed me on Commons? It would be nice to have a photo of Tom Six in the article. Also, did you get his email address? It would be good to ask if he'll release some production photos and a couple of stills from the movie under a free license. There's some advice about how to ask for permission here. He could also point you in the direction of some reviews/articles which have been written about the film. Papa November (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to stick the picture up but I haven't got the right attachment for my nokia so no way of doing it right now. If I can find someone with a bluetooth enabled pc I'll do it via their computer. Might ask tom six for stuff later but not right now methinks. cya Coolug (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, maybe I'm being a little overenthusiastic, but I reckon this article is well worth at least a C-class now. It's got a bunch of information, its referenced to bits with decent formatting and theres even a nice little picture. How do we submit it for review? Coolug (talk) 10:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact, looking at the criteria, maybe even B class? Am I jumping the gun a bit here? Coolug (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Good work with the new image. It still needs alt text to it - I'll do it later if you don't get to it before me. Once that's done, you could give it a go at the assessment page. Go here and add an entry to the bottom of the assessment request list. Papa November (talk) 12:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

done and done. Feel like I've just handed in an exam paper and I'm waiting for the results :) - nervous! Coolug (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Good luck :) Papa November (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

plot section

I'm not sure what to do about the plot section, I originally wrote a piece that was frankly far too long and editing down was on my to-do list, however, it was removed by tomsix (presumably the Tom Six (which is quite cool)) and after a few more edits is now pretty short. What's the consensus on how the plot section should read? I'm thinking somewhere between the long one and the current one. I'm aware of WP:SPOILER and agree that anyone not wanting to know the plot should simply avoid wiki entries (I avoided anything to do with The Wire for a long time for that very reason. But I also don't want this article to just be a big plot description either. cya Coolug (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Plot sections can be reasonably detailed and can (and should) contain spoilers (see for example Bride of Frankenstein) and shouldn't be censored. There should also be no spoiler warnings in the article itself. However, the plot should not be the focus of the article, and almost certainly shouldn't be the longest section. To avoid any conflicts with Tomsix, you could focus on starting the sections on the production, casting and critical reception and then apply for a c-class assessment. Your original version of the plot section will stay in the article history, so you can come back to it later after there has been an opportunity for discussion. Papa November (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

jolly good. Coolug (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a suitable time now to update the plot section as theres a fair bit of other stuff in the article regarding casting, writing etc etc. I'm gonna add a bit more detail (but not every single event of the film) so it will stop reading like a promo synopsis and more like a wikipedia article on a piece of fiction. I'll do this in a bit, if anyone objects obviously just revert it back and we can try and work out a consensus. cya Coolug (talk) 10:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It should summarise the plot rather than "tease" the reader. Papa November (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Reason for Katsuro at front

Last week I went to a screening of 'The Human Centipede' where Tom Six answered a few questions at the end. One question from the audience being how he decided upon the order Heiter would place his victims in the centipede. He stated that he placed Katsuro at the front because with him unable to speak english, Lindsay and Jenny were unable to understand what he was saying and thus the centipede was even more restricted than it would have been with an english speaking front. This to me is quite an interesting point re: the creative process (and much more sophisticated than something I'd have expected from a film that is basically about people shitting in each others mouths :) I sneakily tried to stick this in the article. Unfortunately Papa November rumbled me and stuck a next to it. Obviously the fact that Tom Six told me this personally is original research and not something I can use. Can anyone anywhere find an interview or other usable source that states this? It's an interesting point about the creative process and something that if citable should go in the article. cya Coolug (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it counts as "rumbling" if you tell me on the phone! Good luck finding a source. Papa November (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I found a source! :D http://ictv-bd-ec.indieclicktv.com/player/swf/b51134344b4b64572c52606f9e8f148c/4bd9cca7c42ef/10/0/defaultPlayer%5Eplayer.swf 75.110.212.173 (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a great source! Thanks. cya Coolug (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

moment of light comic relief

hello. Spending all the time googling 'human centipede' in search of decent sources for this article can make life a bit of a chore, but I found a good result, well, it made me laugh anyway. http://community.guinnessworldrecords.com/_gwrcarl-has-updated-Largest-Human-Centipedea-blog/BLOG/415806/7691.html cya Coolug (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Reception

Did you see this list on IMDB? Might give you some extra leads. Papa November (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

poster image description

I don't know if I'm just being stupid, but the image description for the poster has disappeared. Am I doing something wrong or is it not there anymore? Coolug (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Human_Centipede_%28First_Sequence%29&action=historysubmit&diff=329822570&oldid=329543546 How did I not pick up on this at the time? I need to up my game a little bit :) Coolug (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

edit war?

Uh oh, someone whose IP address keeps changing is insisting on adding text to the plot section about how unrealistic they consider the human centipede and how Tom Six cannot possibly have really consulted a surgeon during the making of the film (amusingly they keep insisting that the victims would die of infection, which is exactly what happens to part three of the centipede in the final film so they are sort of right)......

Would the article benefit from any semi-protection for a short period to prevent this from turning into a full scale edit war? The film has started receiving a fair amount of mainstream attention of late so I would expect more and more people to be reading the article very soon. Coolug (talk) 07:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Not yet... semi-protection is a last resort. Hopefully they'll get the message that we need verifiability and find some sources. If not, then short-term semi-protection or a limited rangeblock might be necessary. In the meantime, be careful not to break the three revert rule. Papa November (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

it would be amazing if someone out in the world went and wrote an authoritative list of what exactly is medically inaccurate about the Human Centipede. That would be great. Coolug (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"Additionally, the actors themselves were not presented with a completed script prior to signing onto the film, instead only being given an outline of the film's storyboard."

This needs to be clarified. It makes it sound like he tricked the actors into joining, when he was very clear on what they were going to be doing in the film. --DrBat (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

How do they breathe?

the second & third parts of the centipede. It doesn't actually say. Did I mention? BLEH (talk) 11:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

the victims are only joined mouth-to-anus, so they can breath through their noses. I don't think this needs to be mentioned in the article as the article makes no mention of their noses being covered. I think most readers would have assumed this. Coolug (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean everyone knows how human centipedes work. Household knowledge, really.Artemisstrong (talk) 05:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I had asumed it was fairly standard......... Coolug (talk) 06:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how you guys are making your human centipedes on the East Coast, but we prefer to give ours proper breathing holes--usually some sort of modified snorkel with velcro straps. Hope this helps!Artemisstrong (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS B-class assessment request

A request was left at WP:FILMS assessment department to determine if the article should be assessed as B class. The article is well-developed but it just needs a few things to meet the criteria:

• The lead should be expanded to better summarize the article, and for an article of this length, it should be at least two or three paragraphs. See WP:LEAD for guidelines.
• The flags should be removed from the infobox.
• The screenshot does not meet WP:FILMNFI. If you want to include the image, it should be included in the production section with commentary stating how the scene was filmed. Just adding it to the plot section appears decorative. Including a caption stating how it was filmed will also help.
• In the reception section, instead of "awards", it should be "accolades" instead.
• In the sequel section, there's a single sentence. To improve the flow of the article, it should either be expanded or incorporated into another paragraph.

These should be easy to fix, and once they're completed, you can assess the article as B-class or let me know on my talk page and I'll take another look. Good job with the article so far and if you have questions about any of the above, let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review... I have removed the flags, renamed the "Awards" section and merged the short sentence at the end. I'll carry on this evening. Papa November (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I have expanded the lead. Just the screenshot to sort out, right? Coolug (talk) 08:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok I've moved the image and added a commentary that I think is relevant to the film-making. What do you think Papa November? Are we there? I'm not too keen on revising the class myself as I originally created the article and even if it's within the letter of the law, it feels outside the spirit. I think we should ask Nehrams2020 to do it for us. What's your feeling on this? Coolug (talk) 08:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I went through the article and made some minor corrections and fixes. Please look them over to help prevent them in the future. Make sure not to use IMDB as a source, as it has not been deemed reliable. Altogether, good job addressing the above issues, and I have now assessed the article as B class. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Hoooray! Hip Hip Hooray! Coolug (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sequel Chatter

The material referenced to support the idea that the sequel will have a centipede composed of 12 individuals seems to imply, instead, that the franchise will have 12 movies (parts/sequels). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolte (talk • contribs) 04:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

the game

I've taken off something about the human centipede flash game (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/537029) because at the moment I don't feel the game is really worth being included in a B-class quality wikipedia article. However, if the consensus is otherwise then we can always put it back. Bearing in mind my next target after finally reaching B-class is to go for GA in a few months, is the game something we should really be talking about? I don't want to end up doing one of those xkcd things where everything human centipede related ever ends up in this article! Coolug (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

based upon the backlash from various IP addresses ( :P ) I think I might let this game info stay. However, not as it is at present as it looks absoultely terrible. This is a B-Class article! We're supposed to be in the top 2% in terms of overall quality!

Therefore I don't think a separate 'Game' heading should be used, I think this should be mentioned within the reception section. With properly formatted referrences. I'm at work right now so shouldn't really be on wikipedia, will do it later. Papa november you have a fairly skivable job, can you help? Coolug (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't even think there should be a subsection. As far as I can see from the citations, there is no official endorsement from IFC or anyone connected to the film. Just merge a sentence about it into the reception section. Papa November (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've stuck in in the accolades bit. To be honest I don't think this is really all that significant. When I go for my GA drive in a few months (waiting for more source material to be created as the film gets released in more territories) this is probably going to have to go. I suspect the criteria at WP:Film probably backs me up on this one. Meh. Coolug (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

almost 1,000,000 page views!

Hello. I've counted up all the page views using that clever page view thing that you can access from the page history thing and The Human Centipede (First Sequence) has had (to midnight yesterday/today) 978,103 page views. Page views are down at the moment from a high of around 30k per day when the film was getting a lot of publicity, to around 5-10k a day at the moment, but this means the article may well receive it's millionth page view sometime this weekend or on Monday. I think this is very exciting and something we should celebrate somehow. Is there anything that happens on wikipedia to celebrate milestones? I am thinking of having a real world party round Papa November's house (if anyone who lives near Yorkshire wants to come, send me a message and I'll e-mail you the address!) but would like to do something on here too that everyone can be a part of. Hooray! Coolug (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahem. I hope that's a joke... :p Papa November (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems from User_talk:Henrik#Stats_drop-off_question that the stats tool is a bit knackered at the moment so in all likelihood we have actually had one million page views already. However, I'm holding off on any celebrations until we have official confirmation. Suffice to say I'm preparing something very very special :) Coolug (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The millionth (official) reader may be reading this right now!

Note to self- article had 848596 from creation to end of may 2010 (so I don't have to count them all up again)Coolug (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

One Million Page Views!

Hooray! Since the creation of this article to midnight last night, The Human centipede (First Sequence) can be confirmed as having been viewed 1,003,310 times! Hooray!

I have been planning a very special way of thanking you all! Hooray!

Coolug (talk) 10:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That's lovely. Now please stop being silly. Human.v2.0 (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

nme article

http://www.nme.com/movies/news/director-ignores-facebook-threats-over-the-human-c/179960 - I wonder where they got that 'my little pony' quote :) Coolug (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Has this been banned anywhere?=

Have any countries officially banned this movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.254.240 (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

2009 / 2010?

Hey. A lot of editors have been coming here of late and changing the opening line: "The Human Centipede (First Sequence) is a 2009 horror film...." to "The Human Centipede (First Sequence) is a 2010 horror film..." which is all in good spirit and stuff as the film received it's mainstream US release only last month (in 2010). However, we're calling it 2009 as the IMDB says so. What should it actually be? I know IMDB isn't considered the most reliable source on wikipedia, but what is the actual policy on this? Anyone know? Coolug (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna make it 2010 myself and just see what happens. Coolug (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have changed it back to 2009. It is is silly to make it a 2010 release when it was shown all over Europe in 2009, I saw it over a year ago. Just because it was only officially released in the US this year does not make it a 2010 film —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.173.167.133 (talk) 12:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw it in the UK in 2009 too, the thing is though, this wasn't because the film had been 'released' as such but simply because it was showing at the Leeds Film Festival. I believe all the other showings in the EU and the USA were at similar festivals. I'm therefore going to change it back to 2010. If you can find a source stating that the film was released anywhere in 2009 and not just shown as a one-off at a film festival or anything similar then by all means change it back. Cya Coolug (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

POV edits about medical accuracy

user:Scottperry made some changes last night which introduced several weighted statements about the medical reliability of the film.

• The word "anonymous" was added to describe the surgeon, but the cited Entertainment Weekly article doesn't say that (it just doesn't name him). In fact, he is not anonymous at all. Last month's Empire says that it was Tom Six's girlfriend's father. I'll try to find the article and add the information.
• "Six however, offers no verifiable proof of of these claims of consultation with and approval by an actual surgeon, other than his personal 'word' that such is the case.": This is just editorialising so I have removed it.
• "Dubious claim of '100% medical accuracy'": Adding a whole criticism section adds undue weight to this point of view. I'll merge it into the effects section.

Thanks,

Papa November (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Papa, Please find the name of the alleged girlfriend's father who can be verified with suitable documentation, as per Wikipedia verifiability standards, as a Dutch surgeon who certifies the movie as "100% medically accurate". Otherwise the movie creator's claims must be dismissed as mere promotional hearsay. For Wikipedia to support the unsubstantiated word of a movie promotion artist over the word of a licensed physician, particularly in a claim such as this, seems to me to be rather a weighted claim for a Wikipedia article.

You were correct that there is only one doctor, and not more. I was going to correct that today myself just now, but you beat me to it. If you cannot find verification documentation for Six's claim of supposed "100% medical accuracy" by tomorrow (Wednesday), then please re-edit the article to clarify the fact up-front that Six appears to have no verification to back up his claim that the movie is "100% medically accurate", and that much to the contrary, a licensed physician is "portraying the film's basic concept as laughable and "rubbish".

When I did a search for the history of medical attempts to "sew people together", I could find no listing, except for one of a very unsuccessful attempt by Nazi Dr. Josef Mengle, in which the individuals quickly developed gangrene at the suture site. Compound this with the near certainty that individuals 2 and 3 would reflexively gag on their first "meals" and suffocate in their own vomit, and it seems to me that you have a very unworkable premise for the movie, without any need to consider having to possibly use IV drips to supplement the nutrition of individuals 2 & 3.

Thanks,

Scott P. (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Scott,

The Empire article didn't include a name. However, it wouldn't help prove or disprove Tom Six's claims even if it did. To be honest, I think that the "100% medically accurate" claim is so ridiculous that we shouldn't give it excessive coverage. The only points we need to include are:

• Tom Six stated in numerous interviews that he aimed to make the film medically accurate
• He stated in numerous interviews that he asked a surgeon for guidance (we can't know whether he really did or not, but he still stated that he did.)
• A medical doctor told 3 News that the medical accuracy is "rubbish".

It's not appropriate for us to include cautionary text (e.g. "this claim has not been verified") about the reliability of references: the general disclaimer already does this for us. Our challenge is simply to reflect each of the three facts above, without misleading the reader, without introducing any disclaimers and without introducing our own personal analysis.

Papa November (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've just edited the lead exactly as you suggested. I feel that the New Zealand doctor's word of caution concerning the plausibility of the movie's premise belongs in the lead, otherwise many, as I myself was initially, might be mislead into the obvious misconception that the film's creator is telling the truth about the Dutch doctor et all. I've also inserted a "controversy" section, where I've elaborated a bit on the reliability of the film creator's "100% medically accurate" claim. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Six's unverified "claim" regarding assistance from Dutch surgeon now listed as a "claim" and not as a "statement" which implied that it was a fact.

I think that it can be a fine line, assuring that an unverified claim is not implied in an article to be a fact. OK, I agree that it is not necessary to point out specifically that Six's claim of assistance from a surgeon is "unverified", however, I do believe that his claim should be listed as a "claim", since describing his claim as a "statement" can imply that his statement is "accepted fact", while clearly it is not.

Thanks,

Scott P. (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"Claim" is far too weighted - it casts our own personal doubt on the reliability of his words. See this list of words to avoid. Also, none of the references state that the "100% medically accurate" claim was used promotionally. Papa November (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The first "official website" I visited, which was the Australian one, states at the top, "100% Medically Accurate". I would assume that the other "official websites" probably do as well. We've both seen Six in his interviews claiming without any hesitation that the film is "100% medically accurate". I'm not seeing why you object so much to listing Six's claim as a claim and not implying that it is a fact.

Scott P. (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, the many ways that words can be sliced and diced.... Thanks for toning down the word "stated" to "said". I can live with your last edit. Scott P. (talk) 12:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I simply want to avoid any editorialising. We can't imply that Six was the "medical accuracy" claim is either right or wrong. We can't speculate about it being just a marketing claim. All we can do is report exactly what is in the references. Something along the lines of the following would be fine:

Tom Six said the film is 100% medically accurate. However, <doctor x> dismissed its accuracy as "rubbish"[ref] while <critic y> said that he believes the claim to be no more than publicity.[ref]

Inserting our own speculation, or editorial comments is not an appropriate way of dealing with this as it is basically us creating the controversy rather than reporting it from the sources. Papa November (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've just edited the "Critical" section exactly as you suggested. Again, thanks for working together with me on this one. I think perhaps we can both be happy with the article as it is now, no? I know you've made some very valid points here, and I hope I might have too. Scott P. (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm pretty happy with it at the moment. Thanks for your work. I think it reads better now that it reflects the critical scepticism about the medical accuracy. Our next job is to look for more coverage of the film in mainstream film media and to improve the coverage of the production. Shouldn't be too far away from WP:GA after that. Papa November (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

interview with Human Centipede actors

Hello. I've found a source that might be pretty useful in the upcoming battle for GA status. It's an interview with the two girls from THC. Apparently it's quite good but I haven't had time to listen to it all yet (it's nearly an hour long!) Hopefully this will be full of some decent stuff with regard to the making of the film. I'm going to have a proper listen and get any good info out of it in a bit, but if anyone wants to have a listen and add anything to the article then please feel free to do so.

http://conduitcast.podomatic.com/entry/2010-09-14T18_08_13-07_00

cya Coolug (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

another good source I've come across is an interview with tom six regarding full sequence. http://www.ifc.com/news/2010/09/human-centipede-2.php Coolug (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

British English

why the insistence on British English? why the insistence on "tyre" and the hidden plea not to change it to tire? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.82.154 (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Because the article was started by a British editor (Coolug) and there is no reason to change it. See WP:ENGVAR for details. Papa November (talk) 09:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Excessively long plot

The plot is by far the longest section. This isn't a THC fansite, so it should be cut down dramatically. Save the long, laborious narratives for IMDB message boards! See WP:Plot summaries. Papa November (talk) 09:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

article title

hey, I've just noticed that the the title for this article appears as The Human Centipede (First Sequence) and not The Human Centipede (First Sequence) (with First sequence in italics). I realise this is probably because Wikipedia is used to film titles appearing as Hollywood remake (2010 film) but in this case the bit in brackets is still a part of the films title. Anyone know how to change this? cya Coolug (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Papa November (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, it's doing it again! Coolug (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done (again). Someone removed the formatting. Not sure why. Papa November (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

And again! What's going on? I have no idea how to fix this! Coolug (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Again, someone removed the formatting command from the infobox. @Coolug - If you want to repair the formatting in future, just add "italic title = force" to the infobox. I have added an explanatory note in the article, so that people may think twice before removing it in future. Papa November (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

903rd most viewed article on wikipedia!

oh how I laughed. There are currently only 902 articles on wikipedia that get more readers than this one. Think about that for a minute.

http://stats.grok.se/en/201101/The_Human_Centipede_(First_Sequence)

Anyway, soon I will begin my GA drive. Oh yes.

cya Coolug (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

2011 Good Article drive!

Hi there, I really think it's time to go for GA status for this article. Any other editors up for helping out with this? I've finally bought the DVD (yes believe it or not I'd only ever seen this film once, in november 2009, before this week) and the audio commentary has lots of interesting stuff from Tom Six. Hopefully with lots of good info about the film we can get to GA!

What sorts of things do editors think we should be adding or improving?

cya Coolug (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure if it's GA standard or not yet, but I'm quite tempted to put the article up for assessment to get a good idea of where it is and what will be needed to improve it. Hmmmm..... Coolug (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

right, done it! lets see what happens. Coolug (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Human Centipede (First Sequence)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –MuZemike 03:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead issues

• The Human Centipede received mixed reviews, but several accolades at various international film festivals. - I think there is a typo there, but I'm not sure how to correct it myself.  Done Coolug (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• I recommend that the lead be two full paragraphs of prose; that is, merge what you have now into two paragraphs and then expand them just a little.  Done Coolug (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Prose issues

• From the "Production" section downward, the paragraphing is quite choppy and short. Especially in the "Writing" subsection and in the "Reception" section, many of those paragraphs can be combined into longer, fuller paragraphs. Always try to aim for paragraphs that are somewhere between 4-9 sentences in length.  Done Coolug (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Image issue

• Per WP:CAPTION, File:10.1.10HumanCentipedeByLuigiNovi.jpg should not end with end-punctuation as it is not a complete sentence.  Done Coolug (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability issues

There are some URL problems, after looking at CheckLinks:

• Ref #47 [1] is not accessible.  Done Coolug (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• Ref #21 [2] is not accessible; it goes back to the main leedsfilm.com page.  Done Coolug (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• Ref #29 [3] is the same as #21, where the URL truncates. I've removed the claim this link backed up entirely as it wasn't verifiable.  Done Coolug (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• Ref #27 [4], albeit saying it's a deadlink, does not point to the article in question.  Done Coolug (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

There are also other portions of content which are not in the citations given (in which I have tagged with {{failed verification}} in the article):

• Ref #2 ([5], Dieter Laser as Dr. Heiter,... in the TV series Lexx,) → The facts that Heiter is retired or that casting for his role took place in Berlin with Six's intent to cast Laser are not in the citation given. Done Coolug (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• Ref #3 ([6], Casting for the roles of Jenny and Lindsay took place in New York City) → Nowhere in that source says about the casting that took place in New York City. However, I think you need to switch that reference out, as it does say [7] how auditioning in NYC.  Done Coolug (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• Ref #28 ([8], The film was distributed by Bounty Films, a company who in the past have only distributed gay-themed films) → The source doesn't say that the film was distributed by Bounty Films, nor does it mention its relation to producing only gay-themed films. There doesn't seem to be a source that Bounty only previously released gay themed films, so I've got rid of that statement. Found another source for the fact that Bounty distributed in the UK.  Done Coolug (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, a minor nitpick on the YouTube reference (#11, [9]), it's normally better to have a link from the website itself, more specifically http://www.screenjabber.com/node/1816 which provides more information behind the interview and makes the source a bit more reliable. Also, you might want to update the U.S. DVD sales, which is now about $1.8 million.  Done Coolug (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Conclusions

In progress - I have only completed the prose so far; I will get to verifiability sometime tomorrow. The prose itself (aside from the paragraphing issue) is fairly good, and it is broad in scope. –MuZemike 03:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

On hold – Overall, there are a few verifiability issues that need to be addressed as well as that the prose needs to be tightened up a little. Hence, I'll place on hold pending improvements to the issues listed above. Normally, I give about 7 days or so for those improvements to occur. –MuZemike 04:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for such a thorough and constructive review. I shall go about making these changes to the prose and fixing the references as soon as possible. Cya Coolug (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I've made all of your suggested changes and hope I have made the changes to the standard you would expect from a GA article. If there is anything I haven't done sufficiently or haven't done properly please let me know so I can sort them out. Thanks. Coolug (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

All the improvements look very good. Passed. Nice work. –MuZemike 23:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Hooray! Coolug (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The year of the film

When you're in the edit section, you see this:

"The Human Centipede was released in the United States on video on demand on 28 April 2010 and theatrically on 30 April 2010. This was the first mainstream release of the film anywhere in the world. Just because the film was shown at some film festivals in 2009, this does not mean the film was properly released in 2009. These 2009 screenings were previews. The IMDB is also wrong about this and it should be noted that the IMDB is not considered a reputable source on wikipedia. Thanks."

I'm questioning it. What makes a film festival unqualified if a film plays there first and in theatres and on demand the year after, especially if that festival is open to the public? And how is IMDb wrong?--EclecticEnnui (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, EclecticEnnui. I have changed the year to 2009 before, but it got changed back with the same reason that is mentioned above. I just checked in the credits on the DVD, and the movie was copyrighted in 2009, which does of course make it a 2009 movie. Movies are usually dated by production, not by first showing in the USA. YersiniaP (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

semi-protection

I've just noticed that this article is currently semi-protected. Is this really necessary? There didn't seem to be that much vandalism going on and when it did it was quickly reverted. I'm of the mindset that I'd prefer wikipedia articles to be open to edits by anyone unless there is some specific reason for protection (I'm thinking of the current edits made to the article on a certain British football players and Imogen Thomas).

I appreciate vandalism is a problem on wikipedia, but, to be completely frank it was by being a wikipedia vandal that I discovered how easy it is to actually use wikipedia, and now I like to think I'm quite a productive member who has helped make an article about something horrible (The Human Centipede) pretty good, GA in fact and hopefully soon FA.

Anyway, just my two cents. Coolug (talk) 10:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll unprotect it for now. Please keep a close eye on it. If the level of vandalism becomes unmanageable, then I will restore the protection. Papa November (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh oh, theres a lot of anonymous IP vandalism going on at the moment, no doubt related to the banning of the horrible, horrible sequel being in the news. Could you please stick the semi-protection back on? Coolug (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Only seem to have been a couple of incidents today, and there have been some helpful IP edits too. Let's keep an eye on it for a while. I'll reinstate semi-protection if it gets worse. Papa November (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Poster and image are copyright violations

There is no critical commentary on the poster or the image in the prose to justify their use. There is no such prose for either. Both the images also fails Wikipedia fair use criteria as they do not contain a full rationale with all ten points explained.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, regarding the poster, I'm not aware of any need for critical commentary on a film poster that is used in the infobox of a film article beyond "This is the film poster" or something to that effect. I note that pretty much every film article on wikipedia, including Featured Articles, have images of the film poster on the article. The other two images on the article have commentaries; the image of the actors that this is an image of the actors, and the still from the film notes that the image is of the makeup of the 'human centipede' and illustrates the use of bandages to imply a more graphic image that what is actually seen on screen.

I'm not sure how the images fail fair use, they have full explanations and the images have not been tagged as such either the GA review of FA reviews that have taken place in the last six months or so. If you could further elaborate on how these fail the fair-use I would very much appreciate it. cya Coolug (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

While there is a discussion here about film posters, I'm not understanding the issue with the rationale of the screenshot here. It seems to have contextual significance. Is it a matter of respecting commercial opportunities as well? Erik (talk | contribs) 14:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Amadscientist has written a follow up to this on my talk page, seeing as it is about this article I shall copy and paste it here:

"It is the consensus of Project film editors that critical commentary IS the article itself (per Rfc in January). Whether other member accept that or not is still not clear, but I have started a discussion on the MOS page of the project to attemtpt to get the MOS to be clearer and more precise about how to handle cover art by the project standards. So no.. the article does not need to discuss the poster in the eyes of consensus. I accept that. Hopefully the project can actualy state it in the MOS.

The other two image are not discussed in the prose and captioning does NOT count as prose. They are decorative, especialy the actor shot. Nowhere in that section does it discuss that image or what it is. Just being the actors is not enough. It must have prose about what the image is beyond just a portrait. Portraits can only be used in the infobox of biographies.

As for the poster it does not need any further prose per consensus but you have only provided the boilerplate for Fair use. That is simply the beginning of what is required (the boilerplate itself is not required, the information is) such as description author and source information. Wikipedia requires a ten point rationale for all fair use images. 4 of those points are Fair Use law, the most important being that it not take market value. It is the opinion of this editor that the poster does take market use away from the copyright holder to license the image to identify the film in reviews, blogs and media. You made a free copy and it henders the market value of the NEW film.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

--Amadscientist (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)You have a lot of work on that article and I did not delist it over two images but it can be de-listed over the issue alone if someone were to feel strongly or if more issues arise.

Hey, I hope you don't mind, but as this piece follows on from a discussion on the human centipede talk page, I'm going to paste it over there. Coolug (talk) 13:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)"

Coolug (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've just seen that Amadscientist is blocked from editing at the moment anyway, so for the time being I suppose this dies here. A question however for anyone reading, has he or she made any serious points that we should worry about? Or is the article (in terms of the images at least) currently ok? Baring in mind the article is currently a FAC (although with the lack of any comments I'm not especially hopeful of anything happening) I want to make sure the images on this article are absolutely perfect. cya Coolug (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Amadscientist takes issue with File:10.1.10HumanCentipedeByLuigiNovi cropped.jpg since it is released under a Creative Commons license. We are restricted in how we use images that are not freely licensed, such as the human centipede screenshot. The use of freely licensed images, in my experience, is only limited to how useful it is where it is placed. It is pretty common to use pictures of cast members in film articles. For example, articles about superhero films use images of cast members on a Comic-Con panel. As for the human centipede screenshot, Amadscientist didn't seem to make a specific case for it, and I think that the image is contextually significant especially regarding the controversy surrounding it. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! cya Coolug (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

← As Erik says, the photo of the actors is a free image. We have previously resolved the de minimis violation of copyright represented by the posters in the background, and the attribution requirement by the author. There is no other copyright issue that I am aware of. For the two genuinely non-free images (the poster and the centipede), we do discuss all ten of the non-free use criteria. Yes, some of it is in boilerplate text, but I don't see why that is a problem. The fair-use rationales already address the "market value" concerns: "The copy is of sufficient resolution for commentary and identification but lower resolution than the original image. Copies made from it will be of inferior quality, unsuitable as artwork on pirate versions or other uses that would compete with the commercial purpose of the original artwork." Of course, we could rewrite this statement in our own words a couple of times, but the boilerplate text is adequate, accurate, and applicable to the usage of these images. I also think that the "no commentary" concern about the screenshot, is invalid. The image of the centipede is placed right next to a paragraph that discusses the special effects used to create the centipede, along with a caption that explains the relevance of the image to the text. The caption text could, in principle, be moved into the paragraph... but then the relevance of the image to the text might be less obvious. I really don't think there's a problem here. Papa November (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Second attempt at FAC

Last month this article was nominated (by myself) for Featured Article. Unfortunately there were hardly any comments (although those that were received were very helpful) so the nomination was closed with the article not promoted. I've nominated the article again, so if anyone out there on wikipedia wants to contribute any constructive comments or criticism to help improve the article it would be really helpful. Apparently there are 50 watchers out there (48 if we exclude myself and Papa November) - what can we do to improve the article guys? btw - check out the page view statistics for this article, they've gone through the roof since the terrible sounding Full Sequence got banned! cya! Coolug (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Human Centipede watchers, there have been a few comments on the FA review and I have done my best to do what has been asked. Feel free to pop over to the review and see what you think yourself - and if you think I've not done something well enough then be bold and have a go, anything you can do to help us meet what is being asked of us will hopefully help the article get that lovely little star on the top right of the page. And of course if anyone out there has anything at all they think the article needs or a comment on how we can improve it, please do let me/us know on the review. cya Coolug (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Sequel Section

I don't wish to start messing around with what is already a great article without the OK from those that have put the work in....SO....is the entire text under "Sequel" now necessary? Especially since all of that text is now repeated (language intact) at the Full Sequence page? As a visitor to the page, I would think it enough just to leave the link to Full Sequence's page there, and leave the reader to click on that should they wish to find out more...just my two cents. Brilliant article, by the way. Greg1138 (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for your comments, it's great to know that the article is being enjoyed so much by the community.

I've written the sequel section the way it currently is based upon suggestions made by other editors during the recent FAC reviews, who felt that this article should contain as much information from the sources used as possible. During the promotion for first sequence Tom Six made frequent references to the upcoming sequel and how it extreme it was going to be and thus the sequel is mentioned all over many of the sources used. Since this all took place during promotion for the first film, I felt it important that this was mentioned in the article for first sequence.

Upon the plot for full sequence being revealed and being so terrible, and the subsequent banning of the film in the UK being significant, I felt that the second paragraph, which briefly summed this all up was also important. I think that overall for an article of this size, the two short paragraphs on the sequel are more or less justified, especially since a lot of traffic to this site is likely to be as a result of people reading about full sequence somewhere and wanting to know what on earth a human centipede is.

Anyway, thanks for saying you liked the article so much, it's genuinely appreciated. cya! Coolug (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Just want to pop in here and say that the article is really good Coolug;).--BabbaQ (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey - no worries - it was just an observation. No dramas - stays as it is then :) Here's looking forward to number 2, if you'll pardon the obvious parallel! Greg1138 (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks BabbaQ! Coolug (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

THIRD attempt at Featured Article!

Hi there everybody. I'm thinking it's time to have another go at getting this article to FA so that I can finally have my life back and my girlfriend will start talking to me again. At the last FA review there were a tonne of super constructive comments from Hunter Kahn and I think the article is much better due to his suggestions. I've tried to get everything possible from the existing sources and had a look around to make sure we haven't missed anything else which I don't think we have. I've also had a bit of a copy edit to make sure this reads as well as possible. However, there will no doubt be stuff that other editors will notice about the article that I've missed, and therefore before going back to FAC I'd love it if anyone who wants to help could jump in and make any changes that improve the article. I would suggest mentioning 'FAC' or something similar in the edit summary on these changes.

If anyone out there has found a great source that I've missed, but doesn't have the time to make big complex changes to the article, that's ok, just stick the url in here. Or if its a book or journal or something then the title, and I can try and find it.

Anyway, thanks for all the help with the article so far everyone. cya Coolug (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been on holiday for a week, which has meant I've spent a week with Mrs. Coolug away from wikipedia trying to not think about the human centipede. It was certainly very difficult, but probably quite good for my mental health.

Anyway, now I'm back I'm keen to get a move on with getting this article over to FAC. Some minor things have been done since July 26 when I wrote the above, but there haven't been a great deal of comments from any other editors so I don't really know if anyone out there has any ideas.

I've also noticed that this page rating thing is now live, and the article is averaging about 4 and a half from some 20 or so reviews. That's basically very good and on a similar level to lots of featured film articles, so very encouraging. Problem is this now makes me somewhat loathe to go on a big improving spree because the ratings get wiped after 30 edits to the page!

Anyway, anyone out there got any final suggestions for improvements before I take this off to FAC?

cya! Coolug (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

OK centipede fans, the article is up at FAC again! Hooray! Feel free to go over there and throw any comments at it, I shall endeavour to meet your demands and finally get this thing that lovely little star it needs. Cya! Coolug (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

time stamps for audio/video references

Hi there centipede fans. At the FAC they have asked for time stamps for all of the audio/video references. I've stuck them in for the DVD commentary, the DVD extras and the Guardian Film Weekly interview. This has taken me over 2 hours and I feel like I want to die at the moment. If anyone out there wants to add the times for one of the other interviews I would really appreciate it. They aren't too long so the job for each interview could probably be done in about 15 minutes. I think it's just the Joblo.com, Screenjabber, Tom Six answers your questions and New Zealand doctor interviews to do. I need to go and take a long shower. Coolug (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok I think I've got them all done now. What a day. Coolug (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The FAC continues......

This article has 55 watchers and I would love it if some of you guys went and put any comments on the featured article review. Come on! What can I do to improve this article? The featured article review is here! cya Coolug (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The FAC is still going on! Come on centipede fans, let's get this to featured article! It would be really cool if an article about something as terrible as the human centipede got to be an FA on wikipedia, but I can't get it there without people telling me what I need to do! Any comments on what needs to be improved would be very much appreciated. Hooray! Coolug (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

^Here is an example of purposeful intent. Coolug wanted this page to be featured so that many people could know about the "terrible" things in the human centipede. I think this article should not be featured for a long time because it violates

Anybody fancy making any comments at all? That review is looking a pretty desolate place of late. Coolug (talk) 09:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a lot to comment on. The only issue really mentioned is the formatting of the audio citations. Really something that could be banged out in a few minutes, it looks like. Are there greater issues beyond that? Human.v2.0 (talk) 10:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, if there's nothing much to comment on then surely it should be possible for editors to state whether they support or oppose the nomination? Nothing at all leads me to wonder if people feel it is not at FA level, but don't feel strongly enough as to give any comments as to why that is. Regarding the audio citations, as far as I can see the times have been put in in the right way. If there's something missing or done incorrectly please let me know so I can sort them out. What do you think? Coolug (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What a quiet and peaceful place the human centipede FAC review is. If anyone out there is looking for somewhere to go and relax, away from the hustle and bustle of wikipedia, then I fully recommend the FAC review. There is no activity whatsoever at the moment and would no doubt make a fine place to read a book in peace. Feel free to send a postcard. I'll be off writing my boring serious wikipedia article about some old dead russians and their crazy adventures. Coolug (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe I've finally fixed the last remaining issue with the article, which was to do with video references not appearing consistent with the other non-video references. It would be nice therefore if this FAC was not left to die with only my real life friend Qwertyface's kind support and no other comments beyond Nikkimarias source review. Come on centipede fans! Get on the review and write a comment! And if you have an opinion about whether or not the article meets the standard then support or oppose it. cya Coolug (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Still being ignored! Anyone every going to say anything about this? Coolug (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The article has had two supports! Hooray! However, I've heard that the featured article director is not keen on promoting an article with only a few supports, therefore some more comments or constructive criticisms would be much appreciated. Help! Coolug (talk) 07:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyone out there fancy a quick look? :) Coolug (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

page ratings on this article

What is going on with these? This article always seems to have about 30 ratings, which firstly were very high, then comparatively low, and now they are very high again. The article currently has a trustworthy score of 5.0 which means every single person rating it gave it 5 out of 5. Now much as I think this article is wonderful (FAC review hint hint!) I find it hard to believe that not a single person out there felt the desire to give the article a rubbish score. Hmmmm... Coolug (talk) 08:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

anybody out there fancy a look at the FAC?

The FAC is getting nearer and nearer the bottom of the list and soon enough the FA director will have to make a decision about this article. There are 2 supports, no opposes, and a bunch of comments that have been dealt with. I'm concerned however that 2 supports isn't going to be enough and the article will fail to be promoted. I would really love it if someone out there got onto the FAC and gave their two cents. There have been lots of positive comments about this article on this talk page before, and it seems that lots of people are watching it too, however, nobody wants to put their hand up and say what they think about the article. Come on watchers, get onto the review and say something! Then we can all just forget about this horrible film :) Coolug (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

on the off chance that anybody watching this article has some spare time........ the fac is still going on, go on! Coolug (talk) 09:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The Human Centipede (First Sequence) is a featured article!

Hello Centipede fans. I have delivered you a successful FAC and this article is now a Featured Article! This means that an article about people pooing in each others mouths is now officially in the top 0.1% of all articles on Wikipedia! Yeah! Coolug (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion ongoing about whether or not this article should be the main page featured article on Halloween this year. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests - all thoughts are welcomed. Coolug (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment

The last two cast members need a source. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the comments. Apparently there's not a requirement for cast members to be sourced in the same way a lot of other stuff is, basically because it's information that's not likely to be challenged. However, it's a legitimate concern, I think I'll have a look later and see if I can bash a source in for those two pieces of information. cya Coolug (talk) 08:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Main page article this Halloween?

Hi there. The Human Centipede (First Sequence) has been nominated to be on the Main Page this year for Halloween. Any supports or comments would be really helpful. You can do this at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Thanks! cya Coolug (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

So far the nomination has 11 supports to 2 opposes which is pretty cool. However, it would be great if as many people as possible could have their say on this. So get on down to the nomination page and have your say! The page is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests! Coolug (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hooray!

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am happy to present to you the Main Page Featured Article for Halloween 2011! The Human Centipede (First Sequence)! Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 31, 2011 My work is done. Coolug (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Congrats! I can't wait to see what the reaction will be. *evil grin*--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow. What a troll. How in the hell did this article become a Featured article? It's not exactly morally right and this doesn't make a good impression of Wikipedia to the masses who come here everyday. I hope the (old, resident) Wikipedians here are not becoming weird (if they aren't already). Please reconsider and remove the Featured article nomination... this has NOTHING to do with Halloween, it is NOT FITTING; the subject of the article isn't morally right and this kind of stuff shouldn't be known by young kids who might come here. Oh what have you guys done? :O - M0rphzone (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm expecting ridiculous levels of vandalism... probably worth keeping a finger on the page-protection button! Papa November (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I've got to go to bloody work tomorrow, stupid work. But from 4pm UTC onwards I'll be home and hitting F5 on my watchlist every 15 seconds or so. This is going to be brilliant! Coolug (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be cantando victoria (singing victory) just yet; I don't expect this to end well, but I've been wrong before. I hope ya'll don't overreact if we see the usual response; it is, to many, a children's holiday, and the material here is quite revolting. You might go into the day by trying to be sensitive to the matter rather than gloating. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say we're gloating about it, we're just excited. Both Papa November and I have spent two years on his damn article and this main page appearance is a bit of a big deal for us. Plus, it's only a silly film! So Hooray! Coolug (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried that the stats tool has been a bit temperamental recently. [10] It shows zero views for yesterday and the day before the day before yesterday. I'm genuinely anticipating a ludicrous number of page views, hopefully enough as to get in the all time top 10 for TFA. It would be rubbish if we don't get to see the figures. Coolug (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much - I think the server log will still hold the figures. It'll just be a case of the tool having a temporary strop. Papa November (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Congratulation guys, this is a great article and your time has really paid off. I am a big fan of this movie and the article has it allMeatsgains (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Coolug (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hiding discussion that does not relate to improving the article. If you are here to complain about The Human Centipede being today's featured article, please take it to the discussion on the main page. Nobody subscribed to this page can do anything to help. Papa November (talk) 08:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On What Planet Did Making This A Featured Article Seem Like A Good Idea? Great job making Wikipedia look like it's run by puerile weirdos. Abe Froman (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Oh man..SMH.... how in the hell did this article become a Featured article? It's not exactly morally right and this doesn't make a good impression of Wikipedia to the masses who come here everyday. I hope the (old, resident) Wikipedians here are not becoming weird (if they aren't already). Please reconsider and remove the Featured article nomination... this has NOTHING to do with Halloween, it is NOT FITTING; the subject of the article isn't morally right and this kind of stuff shouldn't be known by young kids who might come here. Oh what have you guys done? :O - M0rphzone (talk) 02:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC) It's only for Halloween. Seems fitting, doesn't it? Creation7689 (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC) The movie has no references to Halloween. Using your comparison, the movie is not 'fitting' to use as a Halloween article if it's supposed to be about the secular holiday but isn't. How many potential editors and readers will come to Wikipedia, see that Featured Article, and leave forever because it's disgusting to them? We'll never know. Again, great job guys. It isn't often that one can harm an organization from within and be praised for it. Abe Froman (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia is not censored. If you don't like reading about it, don't read it. What rules suggest we can't have certain things on the front page? We've had articles about actual deaths and real life killers there which is far more disturbing to me than a fictional film. 173.35.77.241 (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC) I see your point but The Human Centipede is a horror movie, and halloween is a holiday which horror fits into. The other editors are probably thinking that as well. The movie in fact does not have anything to do with halloween but still it is a horror movie. Creation7689 (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC) To: 173.35.77.241 I am not talking about censorship. Did I ask for the article to be deleted? No, I did not. Putting this up as a TFA or not is not a censorship issue, it's an issue of common-sense about how Wikipedia is perceived by a skeptical public. If enough editors can't see the common-sense in being careful about Wikipedia's image, then I'm afraid Wikipedia is in trouble. Abe Froman (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Morality, impressions, wierdness and obscurity are all irrelevant to FA. An FA is determined only by the quality of the article itself, not one's opinion of the subject matter. As for appearing as TFA, I would say the same arguments should apply. Resolute 03:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC) and ideas such as these lead to the decline of the morality of Wikipedia (it already is declining) and to another extent, the public community and morality of the English-speaking nations as a whole. Once ideas such as: "Morality, impressions, wierdness and obscurity are all irrelevant to FA" start becoming common, the increase of unappealing articles such as and related to Pedophilia and Necrophilia increase as more and more people decide that morality and common sense does not apply to "the encyclopedia" when they actually have a HUGE impact on how Wikipedia is perceived as a source -a reliable source, which I'm afraid will be one of the ever-distancing goals for Wikipedia to reach. If you Wikipedians EVER want this resource to become a valuable, important, honorable, globally "acceptable", "trustworthy", "all demographics-friendly", and reputable source, then such displays of these categories of articles should not be featured on the Main page itself, where it represents the Wikipedia image as a whole. You're going to see the ratings go down soon. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC) An FA is actually determined by enough editors getting together to promote it. That doesn't mean the promotion is a good idea. It just means it won a vote. Nobody is trying to censor the article or imply the article is not high-quality. The question is whether promoting something this weird to the Front Page, where people have no choice but to view something that the majority of them will find disgusting, is a good idea. I don't think it's a good idea, and that the promotion harms this project. Abe Froman (talk) 03:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC) FWIW, you seem to be confusing Featured Articles (FA) with Today's Featured Article (TFA). The latter is obviously your contention. And yes, there was considerable discussion about this article prior to its being posted. Including many of the objections you cite being raised. Consensus was to post the article. That said, the TFA blurb is pretty mild. I'm sure "mouth-to-anus" grosses a lot of people out, but I doubt it is any worse than numerous hypothetical TFAs. People aren't forced to read the article itself. Resolute 03:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC) "I doubt it is any worse.." - yea right..and according to You. Did you know that the text on the front page isn't exactly kid-friendly? I'm gonna guess that there will be many complaints in the next hours and days because of this article. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)