Talk:Calling All Engines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has been flagged as being within the scope of WikiProject Thomas. WikiProject Thomas aims to develop and expand Wikipedia's content relating to the TV Series Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends, as well as the original book series The Railway Series.

Planning and discussion for this project can be found on the Project page. Wikipedians are quite welcome to join us in improving the quality of this article, and others.
This article was provided with references by a volunteer or taskforce from WikiProject Unreferenced Article Cleanup on 2007-08-27. If you edit this page, please build on the good work by citing your sources.

Edit warring is getting us nowhere. Mr. anonymous contributor, why do you feel that the information under discussion (which is currently presented in a reasonably NPOV form, as far as I can tell) is inappropriate? I think it's relatively encyclopedic to mention where the movie got its name from. Why do you keep removing it? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 04:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason I think your claims are inappropriate is because there is NO PROOF as to where there they came from. It is also unfair of you to say that Hit Entertainment 'have no shame'. Have you even seen 'Calling All Engines'? They have been under-fire by a lot of 'true fans' recently who are uspet with the way that they have supposedly 'ruined' Thomas and Friends, and the sort of comments you were making do the company no favours. That is just pure ignorance. They simply want to provide quality children's entertainment, and yet they are slated as an evil, manipulative, money-snatching company who are supposedly hell-bent on world-domination. Your comments classify as speculation, and unless you can find solid proof to justify your haughty statement, it should remain deleted. And I could ask you the exact same thing - who are you to make such claims against Hit when you have no proof? You'll also find that I am not the only person who is growing tiered of your insistance that this is a well-known solid fact. Others have deleted your comments in the past too. ('Mr. Anonymous Contributor; as you put it)
I think you may be overreacting to this. Breathe in, breathe out ;). First off, whether you want to believe it or not, the title "Calling All Engines" has pretty much got to be a pun off of "Calling All Angels". The similarity is way too coincidental otherwise (come on, the band that made the song "Calling All Angels" is called Train, for heaven's sake!). As far as the "have no shame" part, that was not intended as a jab against the makers--anyone who makes a pun like that and then releases it to little children is liable to be labeled as "having no shame". It's not necessarily a bad thing. I don't see what your problem is, sir. I think you might be acting slightly paranoic about this, though I certainly do understand your trepidation about the "no shame" part--I guess I can see how that could be taken badly. I'd like to see you respond to this, because I think that you may have been misunderstanding me. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that it's a pun on "Calling All Angels". The song isn't well known enough to be recognisable to the typical viewer, particularly in the UK, where Train are virtually unheard of. The phrase "Calling all [insert name here]" is pretty generic in any case- it's probably most familiar from those movies where the police are summoned into action with the line, "Calling all cars!" - TGW

Well, there is the little phrase "appears to be". There's not a single bit in the phrase that is untrue. The title does appear to be a pun on the song "Calling All Angels" by Train. Right? So what's the problem? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Matt Yeager, but I'm going to have to disagree with you too. There is no proof whatsoever to back up your statement, and just because the two titles look similar doesn't mean that one was a pun on the other. Besides, HIT wouldn't base the title of their special off a song that none of their target audience is likely to have heard of. And additionally, Wikipedia is a place to post solid verifiable facts, NOT speculation. I'm sorry, but until you can find solid proof backing up your statement, it's liable to be deleted.
Then why do you not object to two phrases not added by me:
  • In the scene of Thomas heading for Diesel 10 to tell him about the meeting, what appears to be a fish is sitting on his boiler.
  • The engines and diesels seem to be moving around in front of the airport near the end, with no easy and quick way of doing so.
These are also speculations and "seems to be" statements. I'm not accusing, I'm just asking... why does only the "Train" statement get the harsh treatment? Awaiting your reply... Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't try and get me on a technicality. There is actually evidence to back those two statements up; you can plainly see a fish on Thomas's boiler, and the engines are indeed moving around 'ad nauseum'. Your statement, on the other hand, has no evidence whatsoever to back it up, therefore I don't see why it should stay on the page. And by the way, you have no right to try and lock the entire page just to keep your own contribution intact. That's just selfish, and shows that you can't bear to be told you're wrong. Carry on behaving like this, and I will be forced to take this matter up with an administrator.

I did not try to lock the entire page; what I did was make the page uneditable by sections. I did this so that you would see the note atop the page and then post on the talk page, since you have quite a history of blindly reverting without discussing.
In any case, this is a thoroughly ridiculous argument; you apparently care much, much, much more about it and Thomas in general than I do; and I have spent more than enough time on this. If you wanted to win so badly, well very well, you have. Congratulations, enjoy yourself, etc. The page will remain in its current state, pun-free, indefinitely, at least as long as my edits are concerned. Goodbye. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 19:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)