Talk:Fight Club (film)/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Featured Article nomination

Looks better now, might get through this time. Vranak

Definitely will not. Not even a Good Article status. Please review the film articles under WP:FA#Media. This article is nowhere near Wikipedia's standards. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

New addition to the page

This text has been added recently.

"In 1999, a brazilian med student with mental issues shot to death three people and hurt four other ones in a movie theater while Fight Club was being played. That meant the movie's reputation was severely harmed in Brazil, since part of the press said the excess of violence influenced the killer."

I feel that a). This isn't written in a good style. and b). needs to be referenced. Can the user who added this (200.142.58.19) please do this. Gringotsgoblin 22:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Gringotsgoblin

Sorry for the way I wrote it, mostly for the "mental issues" part, but my intention was only to put it there quickly for a real Wikipedian to better and expand it, but it is not a fake information. I was just impressed that this case didn't have any media coverage outside Brazil... I didn't put any reference because all those I had were in portuguese... let me give you one good source: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/cotidiano/ult95u95219.shtml It's from Folha de S. Paulo, brazil's most important newspaper. The killer's name is Mateus da Costa Meira, if it helps. Be free to search for english references, for other reliable sources and to rewrite the way you prefer.

Trivia

thumb|200px|right|Fictitious Warning

  • A fictitious warning appears when the DVD begins playing telling the viewer to stop the "excessive shopping and masturbation" and start living life.
  • The film makers originally intended Tyler Durden to recite working recipes for homemade explosives. They later decided against it for the interest of public safety, and fake recipes were used, including the recipe for "homemade napalm". In the DVD commentary with the Director, Norton, Pitt, and Carter; The director stated they showed the original scene with all the steps in it to the Los Angeles police squad in order to determine if it was really the directions on how to make napalm. It was.
  • Ed Kowalczyk of the band Live appears as a waiter serving the characters played by Edward Norton and Helena Bonham Carter in the movie.
  • In 2004, plans were made to create a Fight Club musical, developed by Palahniuk, Fincher, and Trent Reznor. Palahniuk said "We all verbally signed on to do it, but that was two years ago, and we haven't heard anything" in a 2006 interview with The Courier-Journal.[1]

Note: Per WP:AVTRIV, this section needs to be cited and integrated into the rest of the article. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Norton's boss eventually joins Fight Club
could someone please verify this, I thought it was the boss, just before the group gets together to watch the news regarding the vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phatinc (talk • contribs) 10:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Release dates

Is there anything that indicates the notability of any release date besides the first non-festival release date? For something like Casino Royale, I would understand the prominence of having both US and UK release dates. However, this doesn't seem to be the case with Fight Club. If a case can be made for the notability of British and Australian release dates, I would be fine with including them. However, Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, and the Infobox Film template's syntax guide indicates limiting the release date to the primary one if multi-country release dates are not necessary. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If that's the convention fair enough but I'd re-phrase your edit summery in future to 'Initial date only' or it sounds very US centric. --Nate1481 09:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll do that in the future. I apologize if you got the wrong impression about my edit. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 12:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Differences between novel and film

I would like to remove this section because I believe it is entirely consisted of original research, in this case, editors' own personal observations of the differences between the novel and the film. Any film adaptation will have its differences from the source, and I think if we were to explore the differences, only the most important ones should be mentioned, and these would need to be observed by a reviewer and published by a reliable source. If no one complains, I will import the section here like I did the Trivia section, and hopefully we can restore some content to the article down the road with valid citation. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a sensible option but would suggest leaving a note saying there are differences with a link to the book --Nate1481 17:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do about that. In the meantime, here's the diff so it can be referenced back for anything useful. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

New section?

Are you still writing the new section for the article? You now could perhaps include those references you have found from movie critics linking the movie to the Unabomber ideas.Maziotis 15:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

External links

I've removed a couple of external links, shown below:

Does anyone think that these are encyclopedic for inclusion? The first one is satirical, and the other one is just an unnecessary video clip. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review?

I am not a contributer to this article, but just reading it, I find that it might be worthy of some sort of promotion. Would the contributers be willing to submit it to Peer Review? Polymathematics 17:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind, not just yet. I have more to add to Themes (not character-specific), such as violence as a metaphor. I'd also like to rewrite the awards into prose and expand on reviews some more. Maybe by next week? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure! Feel free to nominate yourself whenever you're ready. Polymathematics 21:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

In case it was wondered why the film article has yet to undergo a peer review, I'm holding it off until I can get my hands on two books -- "What Just Happened?" and "Rebels on the Backlot", whose information you can see under "Further reading" in the film article. I got a glimpse of some pages of these two books on Google Books, and there is information about the development process, especially controversy over the violent nature of the film. Hopefully, I can retrieve that information soon, expand on Reception a little more, and then finally get some independent opinions on this article. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 07:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Cult film

It seems that Fight Club has been considered a cult film by previous editors (not to mention my peers), but we need to reference this categorization. Here's a citation to start it off:

Feel free to add more. Also, something to note: Entertainment Weekly did not list this film in its Top 50 list. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"Pitt's best films may be in the future. Fight Club has the makings of a perennial cult movie, fanatically revered by a select band."
  • David Ansen. "Is Anybody Making Movies We'll Actually Watch In 50 Years?", Newsweek, 2005-07-11. 
I'm not sure who the select band is -- Forgive Durden, maybe? This is just one author's perspective, though... —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Actual fight clubs

This Google News Archive Search seems to have instances of fight clubs starting up at Brigham Young University. I'd like to explore this phenomenon more to see where else such instances might have taken place. The information could be part of the Reception section. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to revisit this... I researched these incidents, and they weren't influenced by Fight Club. However, the media did give these groups the name of "fight clubs" based on the recent release of the film at the time. So it doesn't seem appropriate to incorporate this into the article. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Awards and nominations

The following awards were also nominated:

What is the best criteria to determine what specific nominations would belong in a film article? It's apparently that Fight Club was not recognized at all by the most prestigious awards (Golden Globe, BAFTA, etc), so it seems even more unnecessary to indicate "nods" from lesser awards. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ditch the awards with no articles. There's no shame listing the others since they're notable awards. –Pomte 01:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you think it'd be best to incorporate the awards that have articles as prose, or as a list? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Prose if there is enough content and it can be done without awkward/repetitive sentences, which is less likely. A list presents them in a neater and better readable way. Featured articles like Firefly (TV series) have lists, though it's harder to tell if the other ones had lists while they were nominated for FA status. Fight Club doesn't have enough to need a table like at The Office (US TV series). –Pomte 02:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Narrator name

Although the narrator is nameless in the film when you put closed caption subtitles on he is listed as "Jack:". I put this on the article but it was removed. Should we possibly create a triva section for this film and add it in there? Daveuk07 18:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, we should avoid trivia articles. They don't usually have encyclopedic content. I don't think that the closed captioning saying "Jack" is that important; as I recall, the screenplay for the film had the name "Jack" for the sake of simple identification, even though the narrator is never called that in the film. I think it's more relevant to mention that his lack of name shapes his everyman persona. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
...as well as prevent the audience from deciphering his twin-personality origins until the proper moment. —ScouterSig 18:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I am Jack's neglected presence in this article. The book article Fight Club has more mention of Jack from the Reader's Digest scene. I'll look for sources in due time. –Pomte 03:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Columbine

From the Christian Science Monitor: "One of the film's supporting actors said in an interview that If the kids at Columbine high School had a Fight Club to express their anger..."[1] Anyone know something about this quote? –Pomte 03:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. The keyword in that quote is if. From what I read, there wasn't any connection between Fight Club and the incident. I came across assumptions in some citations that Fight Club was delayed because of Columbine, but it wasn't proven. Maybe it's true, but the reason I found that Fight Club was delayed was for scheduling reasons. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

GA comment

Two of the images need fair use rationales. --Nehrams2020 23:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Rationales have been added. I cleaned up the rationales for the other two as well. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

GA review

I've been watching the article grow well and prosper for some time, but the lead has yet to summarise the article. Alientraveller 16:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do today. I was hoping to add more thematic material and detail about production in the coming month before writing the lead paragraphs, but I guess I'll go ahead and put something descriptive together. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I gave it a shot, though I don't think I summarized it as best as possible. I wanted to avoid any suggestions about the film's twist, so I couldn't detail too much of the process. Plus, I think the stuff that I hope to add soon about the controversial production behind the scenes would help add to it. If anyone thinks they can improve, feel free to do so. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

My recommendation with the lead is to seperate the plot description from production and reception, plus add a tinsy weensy bit on themes, just a little bit, like being a social commentary on whatever. Alientraveller 17:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll mess with the leads... and my subpage still has stuff to put into the article. Just should be on vacation right now :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

I've failed this for GA, as it's been on hold for more than 7 days. Please renominate if you think the issues are addressed. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. The issues still need to be addressed, mainly the thematic elements. I'll re-nominate it when I finally add it in, and address the recommended fix for the lead as well. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Issues should be addressed, but I've set up a couple of peer reviews to get more independent perspectives on this film article. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll chip in on the lead which was my first concern. I think the first paragraph is all about the plot and cast, and the second should explore the real world behind the fiction: we need to discuss themes. What is Fight Club all about when we come down to an answer if someone is twisting your arm? Therefore, Fincher's use of cinematography and special effects can sound less odd. Alientraveller 20:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Women

I'm moving the Women subsection be placed in the Reception section instead. The Themes section is based on what the director intended to represent, where the information in the Women subsection is being interpretative and possibly not the intent of the director and the cast. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the section, but I was wondering if more information could be provided about H. Giroux? All it says is the author and the university and the date -- is there a specific attributable source to visit? Also, I would recommend, if possible, that Giroux's criticism is summarized more succinctly so it is not given undue weight compared to the rest of the perspectives about the film. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I had assumed that Wikipedia would hold the University of California-Los Angeles Graduate School of Education & Information Studies website in the same high esteem as "Box Office Mojo." If a paper published on the UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies website by a guy with a Ph.D. who's been teaching this stuff at University for about 2 decades is not as attributable as that posted on a website named "Mr. Showbiz", then the content referencing the paper on the UCLA site should probably be removed. As a side note, it appears someone also referenced more of Dr. Giroux's works in the "Further Reading" section.
Here's more info on Dr. Giroux, Ph.D.. Apparently he's a "cultural critic" and "critical pedagogue" with a Ph.D. It looks like he spent 6 years teaching at Boston University, did a stint teaching at Miami University in Ohio (where he served as founding Director of the Center for Education and Cultural Studies), held the Waterbury Chair Professorship at Penn State Univerisity for 12 years (apparently also served as the Director of the Waterbury Forum in Education and Cultural Studies), and is apparently now the Global Television Network Chair in English and Cultural Studies at McMaster University in Ontario. He's no Ebert or Roeper, but he's probably considered somewhat of a subject matter expert on popular culture in some circles. It appears he's also written more than one article about Fight Club:
  • "IKEA Boy and the Politics of Male Bonding: Fight Club, Consumerism and Violence," (with Imre Szeman) New Art Examiner (December/January 2000/ 2001), pp. 32-37, 60-61.
  • "Brutalized Bodies and Emasculated Politics: Fight Club, Consumerism, and Masculine Violence," Third Text, N0. 53 (Winter 2000-2001), pp. 31-41.
  • "Private Satisfactions and Public Disorders: Fight Club, Patriarchy, and the Politics of Masculine Violence," JAC 21:1 (Winter 2001), pp. 1-31..
  • "Ikea Boy Fights Back: Fight Club, Consumerism, and the Political Limits of Nineties Cinema" (with Imre Szeman) in Jon Lewis, ed. The End of Cinema As We Know It (New York: NYU Press, 2001), pp. 95-104.
I hope Dr. Giroux's credentials meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and that the UCLA Graduate School programs meet Wikipedia's standards for attributability... SqlPac 02:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
No worries, I actually found out more about him after I posed the question. It's just a matter of providing more detail (like the link to his Fight Club paper) to ensure that his credentials are recognized. Box Office Mojo is something that's been used in a lot of film articles, so it's fairly accepted as a source. Giroux's work, though, is new, hence the closer scrutiny. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
MrShowbiz.com was an interview with the actors, so the actors were the ones that detailed the thematic elements of the film instead of the website. Also, a funny coincidence -- I've already included one of Giroux's works in "Further reading", the one titled "Ikea Boy Fights Back". I guess I should have spotted that from the get-go. :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you have a very good article here, and well-sourced, but I think it should be expanded a bit to mention the Discorian and Anarchist themes that run through it. I think the misogynistic aspect was a pretty big omission - there are only 6 women that speak in the whole movie - 3 of them get one line each, 2 of them are ridiculed by the narrator, and 1 of them is the narrator's primary antagonist and his alter ego's sex toy. That speaks volumes :) SqlPac 14:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
There's quite a few interesting critical papers for the film, but to be honest, it's a bit of a challenge to wrap my head around some of them. It would make an interesting Academic reaction subsection in Reception, if you're game for something like that. In the Themes section, I've gathered to the best of my ability what the director meant to present to the audience, and it's clear that he's not advocating anarchy or any specific message (at least, I thought that was obvious in what I wrote). The director himself is quoted to say that the film presents the problems of society, but it definitely does not advocate anarchy or any other approach as a solution. That's what the audience is supposed to decide. But in terms of the misogynistic aspect, I think that the existing paragraph that you wrote is of appropriate length (maybe just a wee long) on the topic. There could certainly be more critical reviews, but I think that the perspectives should be varied -- how the film addresses consumerism, homosexuality, anarchy (even though that wasn't the director's intent, someone might still see differently). —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The director might not have meant to address anarchy, but the movie (and the original book) have been embraced by Discordianism. I'll see what I can locate on it and post back when I find something. Most of the academic papers I've seen on it boil down to pretty much the same thing when you strip away all the pretty language, Tyler Durden-style: the movie is a testosterone-flooded, violent, misogynistic romp, with Discordian themes. Personally I say it's about time :) Hail Eris! :) SqlPac 17:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Special Edition VHS

I know it's a step back with VHS, but I have a special edition fight club VHS with additional footage etc, possibly worth a mention. - The case says "133 minutes plus special features: "On location" making of, Music clip, Behind the scenes footage, Deleted scenes. Peter 04:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Themes: Rebel Without a Cause

The theme section currently states: "Fight Club parallels Rebel Without a Cause by probing into the frustrations of the people that live in the system.[2] First of all, the source citation doesn't say that. It says, "Tyler is enigmatic, nihilistic, wildly unpredictable — a rebel with many causes, including pissing in the soup of the diners he serves while working part-time as a waiter." This statement should be removed from the theme section unless a better source is found. —Viriditas | Talk 09:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Erik informs me that the source is accurate, but the link only displays an excerpt. —Viriditas | Talk 14:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead

"The two men establish a club for men to express themselves through fist fights, eventually evolving into countercultural missions." I wouldn't call it "expressing themselves"; it's more like male bonding on the surface, and this was merely for initiation into the inner order. And they weren't engaged in "countercultural missions", the term isn't used that way; it's properly termed shenanigans at first, although that turns into outright, radical revolution by the end. In fact, it's interesting to note that the men were not part of a counterculture, but were members of the working class. —Viriditas | Talk 10:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Can't members of the working class form a counterculture by clashing with norms? A hybrid sort of work-for-the-man-by-day, vandalize-their-culture-by-night ordeal. The terms you mention do fit better though. If you can improve the lead any further, please do. –Pomte 15:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Correction

"The idea that he has to die is the view subscribed to by those with a morbid fascination with death- a condition that is in itself a mental disease for which they should get treatment"

This line seems odd could it be a missed piece of vandalism?

Where are you getting this from? –Pomte 14:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

GA pass

Sorry about forgetting to pass it over a week last time. Lead's fine now, in strong shape like the whole article. Alientraveller 13:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Plot setup

I would not contest more succinct wording in the Plot section, but by cutting out the discovery of phone calls being made, it's not clear to a reader that has not seen the film but wants to read the plot how the narrator is able to track Tyler Durden down. Also, it is a violation of WP:MOS to place images directly under section titles. It was fine being in the second paragraph, because it was right next to the paragraph of the scene that took place, so fair use rationale is tied as closely as possible. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(bah, edit conflict)
  1. I've always put images under headers. I'd appreciate it if I could be pointed to the place which says it's not acceptable.
  2. Spoilers might now be "acceptable" in the sense that they're not actively discouraged, but that doesn't mean plot reiteration is necessary. I can't see that I removed anything which make the section particularly less useful; the phone calls thing? It was barely a plot point in the film, but I don't mind it going back in minus all the other expansion. That the article is dwarfed by casting and filming minutae doesn't necessarily mean that the plot section is too short.
Chris Cunningham 15:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure; I was informed by someone that images directly under headings wasn't acceptable. Besides, even if it was acceptable, the current location of the image renders a narrow passage of text between the image itself and the Infobox Film template, which is aesthetically ugly. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I suppose that depends on your resolution; I'm cursed with a huuuuge monitor at work :) If it's really bad on normal resolutions then I'm fine with moving it, but I'm generally adverse to making semantice changes for the sake of UA problems unless it's seriously detrimental to readability. Chris Cunningham 15:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the plot detail, it seems necessary because the current version goes immediately from Tyler's explanation to the narrator to the narrator tracking Tyler down. Without explaining the falling asleep, it would be questionable to a reader about what happened after Tyler told the narrator. I've tried to minimize plot detail -- you can see that Marla's scenes aren't so detailed here -- but this seems like a transition that should exist for consistency's sake. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Shots applied

From the director in Film Comment: "We had tons of little rules about Tyler. Tyler is not seen in a two-shot within a group of people. We don't play it over the shoulder when Tyler gives him an idea about something that's very specific, that's going to lead him. It's never an over the shoulder shot, it's always Tyler by himself." Feel free to correct the wording to fit this. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Real world fight clubs

I've expanded a list at Fight Club in popular culture#Real world fight clubs. If the list gets deleted, could it be merged here? While most fight clubs are inspired in large part by the film, some of the inspiration is unverifiable and a reader interested in reading about them may look more so in the "in popular culture" article, as these fight clubs generally deviate from the film's portrayal of fights. The "in popular culture" article can also be renamed to Cultural impact of Fight Club or some better name. –Pomte 22:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Eek. Please no. This has WP:SYN written all over it. Chris Cunningham 22:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
While it is arbitrary how some groups are called fight club, they're verifiable and constitute a coherent topic of people (and flies) fighting each other unprofessionally. Perhaps Fight club (concept) or Underground boxing then. The paragraph currently in the article under the #Release section ought to be refined anyhow. –Pomte 22:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

What might be better is some kind of commentary about how such activities may not have been inspired by the film, but instead how the media has given these activities the label of "fight club" due to the perceived similarity. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That was touched upon, but personally I wouldn't elaborate on how the media makes presumptuous connections as it is in their nature to do so and it happens often.
I didn't have access to any of the non-free journals I cited as I found them with Google News/Scholar and kept searching with specific sentences to unveil more sentences, etc.
I have lost my revision of Fight Club in popular culture, though you can of course ask for temporary undeletion if you think those sources might be useful.
When I have time I'll see what I can find through my university. –Pomte 08:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

penis

Why is there no reference at all of the subliminal picture of a penis the second before the end credits come on? I think it's relative as a Tyler-lives-on kind of thing. Would it be appropriate to make mention of the shirt Tyler wears at the end with all the porno all over it? It's probably not right for the article, but I don't know the director mentions it in the commentary, and how Fox said they're going to have to do something with it like blur it for the trailer. At least the penis thing should be mentioned in the article. It's almost as important as the other 4 subliminal flashes during the feature. ChesterG 08:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Any attributable sources about the subliminal image are welcome. I haven't really found anything beyond the occasional reviewer's comment on the scene; it's seemed more like an Easter egg, from what I can tell. If you can provide any coverage, please do. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
He is right. There is a penis just before end. --89.142.133.195 22:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
To revisit this, I swear I came across something that mentioned this. I don't know if it was from the director or an academic study. I'll have to track it down, but with the real-world context, this could be included. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

someone should submit this page to that "featured article" thing.

if this is considered a "good" page. Chegis 09:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I contributed a lot of the content in the article, but I am looking to add academic studies to the article. There's actually been quite a few ranging across different subjects, and it would be good to have that critical analysis section in the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I repaired the mangled articlehistory, removed the malformed FAC from the WP:FAC page, and archived the old fac. Editors building articlehistories might want to download Dr pda's articlehistory script and review the instructions at {{ArticleHistory}}. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Weird, not sure what happened. Thanks for the fix, though! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)