Talk:Friday the 13th (franchise)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

--Closed as merge.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that Friday the 13th (2009 film) be merged to this location, along with any information that is reliably sourced. Per WP:NOTFILM, since production has not started, and no one knows when it will start, let alone when the film will be released, the information does not warrant a separate article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with this. The movie has only been announced and basicly all the official information about the film is virtually non-existing. Besides the article is full of rumors and wrong information (e.g. link to an "official website" which I now have changed. UPDATE: I have contacted the webmasters to get a confirmation of this information). -- Kirjapan 06:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support - as per WP:NF. EDIT: Notability guidelines for films state it shouldn't have an article, and while exceptions can be (and have been) made as per WP:IAR, this particular case seems pretty clear-cut to me; nothing is really known, and outstanding notability has not been asserted (i.e. not enough to release it from the shackles of WP:NF). Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 09:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NF and similar precedent found with projects like Spider-Man 4 and Jurassic Park IV. The future film information belongs perfectly at Friday the 13th (franchise), and if the project enters production, the film article can be recreated. The content can then be moved from the franchise article to the film article and then fleshed out as a proper film article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Sure. — Enter Movie 21:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The website fridaythe13thfilms.com is no way official. I got a reply from the owners: "Not really, no. It was official for production company Crystal Lake Entertainment for a time in for a few years back in the late 90's/early 00's, but they dropped the tag when the company disappeared." -- Kirjapan 22:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support - WP:NF is clear and unambiguous. Girolamo Savonarola 00:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

--Closed as merge.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm proposing a merger of Friday the 13th (comics) to this article. The literature section here already takes care of the comics, and the current comics article is only about 7kb large--which wouldn't be a significant impact in size on this article. I think there are a few comics not mentioned here, but that is easily corrected...we just need sources. The only thing that will truly be lost will be images, and they probably didn't meet WP:FU in the first place.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've put in the 4 Avatar Press comics that were missing--with sources. So there really isn't anything different, except for a little less plot and no unnecessary images.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I can't see the Friday the 13th (comics) article serving much purpose if the information exists here. It makes sense to merge it rather than have a redundant article. Paul730 22:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support as there is adequate coverage in the literature section. The article is redundant, and redirecting here sans non-free images is the best approach. If there can be some fair use rationale attached to any of them, I'd suggest that if possible. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'm proposing the merging of Friday the 13th (video game) to this location. There is nothing there but unsourced information, and a game walkthrough. Wikipedia is not a walkthrough for one thing, and everything relevant in the page is already listed on this page. The user that reverted the merge appears to only have done so because the image they uploaded wouldn't cut it on this page, as they immediately placed that image here when they first realized the merge had taken place. When it was removed, they opted to undo the merge.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Merge - No relevant information on the video game page which can't be included more tidily on the franchise page, except the images, which are no big loss. Paul730 21:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, but try not to lose valid information. // Liftarn
  • Again, what are you claiming is "valid" information. Wiki isn't a walkthrough guide. Telling people the missions they will have in the game has no encyclopedic value. Everything I pulled is what was cited.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and performed the merge, since there are no opposes and nobody else has joined the discussion. Paul730 06:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Consensus was to leave for now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

There currently a debate as to include an image of the Friday the 13th video game cover or not. I think it's better we discuss it here to avoid an edit war. Paul730 15:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no critical commentary. The only excuse for its existence seems to be "other sections have an image". First, the other sections are far more expansive in their discussions. Second, the other images all have critical commentary. A caption of "video game cover" is not critical commentary in anyway way. It clearly states at WP:FU that cover art must have critical commentary. This page is trying to work its way up the status ladder, so please provide a good reason as to why we need to see the cover of the computer game in that section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The civer show how the video game was packaged, as far a alenght goes there was a rather lenght article about the video game over at Friday the 13th (video game). // Liftarn

EDIT CONFLICT: Personally, I'm not that bothered about the image. It doesn't really help or hinder the page, IMO. I agree with Bignole that we need much better critical commentary to justify it's inclusion in the article. My question is, can't we come up with some critical commentary? If we included critical commentary, would you be fine with including it Bignole? Or is it just completely unnecessary? Paul730 16:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it hinders the page's ability to ever by GA or FA, because there's no critical commentary. Simply saying "here's the packaging" is nothing. There needs to be a reason. As for the length of the article that was redirected, all the length was in a walkthrough, which shouldn't have been there in the first place. I think the image is completely unnecessary because the games themselves were not that special to begin with. There have been what, 3 games, 1 of them seems to just be an updated version of the first one. None appear to have anything notable about them. I mean, at least Michael Avallone's book had something notable about it, being that it chose to deviate quite a bit in the beginning and ending of the book, compared to the other novels that were shot-for-shot adaptations. We cannot make-up critical commentary for the image, it has to be there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh right, I thought you meant the caption didn't contain critical commentary. :/ I see your point, the video games are one of the least notable aspects of the franchise. I'm not going to agree with the inclusion of this image in the article, it's just kind of window dressing. Paul730 17:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the video game cover for the Commodore 64 game based off the original poster for Friday the 13: The Final Chapter? Lord Crayak 17:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, why? Paul730 17:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't that be used as the caption or is it notable enough? Lord Crayak 17:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think its notable as the first video game cover, it adds to the article and illustrates the whole line of computer games. And FYI, No critical commentary exists to support inclusion of Image:Fridaythe13thseries.jpg. The Ultimate edition DVD version is not even mentioned in this article. --Dual Freq 17:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

First bit, stating what it is is not "critical commentary". That means about nothing. We don't need an image of the "first video game" when there's nothing about the first video in the section besides that very fact. As for the DVD image, it's the only image ath technically encompasses the vast majority of the article, which is the films. A movie poster generally never has "critical commentary" for a film article, but it's accepted because the entire article is devoted to film. The majority of this article is devoted to the films, as they play the most significant role in establishing this franchise. You said in your edit summary "as much as the comic image". No it isn't. The reason being, the "comic image" is used to show where New Line first excercised their right to use the "Friday the 13th" title, which had previously been the property of Paramount for over a decade. New Line didn't use it for Jason Goes to Hell or Jason X, they used it years afterward for a special issue comic. So, what is so special about the video game cover art?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It complies with fair use in just as many ways as the other images here. If adds to the video game section representing the first release of a computer version for the franchise. This is no different than the comic book art representing the first use by New Line. The DVD image does not represent the computer versions since no games are included on it, as far as I know. And at least the C64 version is mentioned here, the article doesn't even say an ultimate version was released yet it uses its art to illustrate the whole article. If the computer game box art fails this than so does the DVD art and I suggest it be removed as well. --Dual Freq 18:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No critical commentary. Simple as that. The DVD image encompass all of Paramounts films, which were the whole reason that game even existed. You might as well petition to have all movie posters removed, because they aren't talked about in film articles, yet the articles are about the film. The section itself cannot even support the image in question. But fine, I'm game for removing the DVD cover art if the game cover art goes. I think the Variety ad, and novel and the comic are much more solid in their meeting of criteria than any other image anyway.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the article with both removed, doesn't seem to be that much the worse for wear.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the images are all fine. It is okay per fair use law, and there is a longstanding and broad consensus, though some opposition, that is okay per guidelines and policy (WP:NONFREE), to use cover art for a book, album, game, etc., to identify the product in the context of commentary about the product, without necessarily having commentary about the cover art. There is a longish paragraph of discussion about the video game, so there's your commentary. If you're going for FA, there may be stylistic and editorial concerns about the images, heading, organization, etc., that go well beyond the scope of the policy. This looks like several articles in one - some discussion of the franchise as an entertainment product, and several mini articles about the various media lines. Some of those mini-articles have their own images, which begins to push the limit for use of non-free images people feel comfortable about including in a single article. Beyond the question of whether any given image is acceptable in isolation, there's a more general issue about reducing the overall number in each article. Wikidemo 18:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

But there isn't critical commentary on the game in that section. Saying the game was released in 1986 and this is what you did is not critical commentary. There's nothing but a brief description of what the game is, not about the notability of the game.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As for the comic book, I can't even tell from the text which cover it represents, issue / date, etc. There are about two sentences about the comic, which is similar to the amount dedicated to the computer game the image represents. The comic being a first for new line and the game being a first franchise game. I see no difference here in the amount or significance of commentary for the two. If the comic is justifiable then so is the computer game art. All three images have adequate rationale's and I don't see a problem keeping them, but if you want to over analyze it and want to play it safe, then remove all three. --Dual Freq 18:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What part of "special issue" was hard? There's only one issue, that one. It clearly states on the cover "special 1". Look above where it says "AVATAR". There is also commentary in the caption which details why the comic is special. There is no reason to repeat ourselves in the text verbatim. That's just it, there were no "fanchise games". There was one game, and it was readapted for NES some 2 or 3 years later. There wasn't a sequel to the game created, there wasn't anything that continued the gaming series. They tried the game with the computer, they tried with NES, then 15 years later they tried on the mobile phone. That's hardly continuing a franchise. You are the one trying to nitpick and say "well this isn't enough". Well, it's more than the game. The game says "it's a game". Wow, I was blown away by the caption. The comic explains its importance, again, something the game does not do. Being the first game isn't that special. The comic wasn't the first comic, the first comic was a Jason Goes to Hell comic. What makes it special is the fact that New Line did not use the F13 title until 10 years after they acquired the rights to the franchise, and they used it for a special issue comic book. Can your game say that?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down Bignole, your comment is coming across rather accusatory and sarcastic. Paul730 18:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not "my" video game, and frankly the comic book is just as much cruft as the video game. I don't understand what the problem is with the box art and I still see no more significance in the few sentences describing the comic, vs the paragraph talking about the computer games for the movie franchise. There's even have an outside party saying that they can all be kept. If you want to nitpick the FU rules then you should remove all three. Otherwise just keep them and move on, this is not a big problem. --Dual Freq 18:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the difference, the comic image has text describing what you see in relation to why that is relevant. In other words, it explains when New Line first used the title they had owned for a decade. The game image does not do that. In fact, the game image has no text discussing it period. There's nothing special about the image in question, The Final Chapter had just come out a couple years prior, and at the time was the last film to actually feature Jason, as Jason Lives had not yet been released. So, currently, there isn't a reason to have any image in a section that discusses the release of 3 games, none of which have anything notable about them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.