Talk:The Rocky Horror Picture Show

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Rocky Horror Picture Show has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

	Article milestones

Date

Process

Result

August 5, 2007

WikiProject peer review

Reviewed

August 31, 2007

Good article nominee

Listed

Current Status: Good article

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Films (Rated GA-Class) (Rated High importance)

Film Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the priority scale.

Editing Guidelines

Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article:

If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film)
- For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)
When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references.
Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

Additional Information:

	This article has had a peer review which is now archived.
Related task forces (nations and regions):
	Australian cinema task force

WikiProject Horror (Rated GA-Class)
	This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.

WikiProject Science Fiction
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article. Feel free to add your name to the participants list and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated GA-Class)

LGBT Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.

This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.

Comedy WikiProject (Rated GA-Class)

Comedy Portal

This article is within the scope of the Comedy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to comedy, comics, comedians, comedy movies, and the like. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.

This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

WikiProject Echo has identified The Rocky Horror Picture Show as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Hebrew language Wikipedia.

Archives
/Tagline inclusion discussion /Days of Yore - June 2007

[edit] Songs

Isn't the correct name for "Touch-a, Touch-a, Touch-a Touch Me" "Creature of the Night"? Paulytlws 09:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That's correct. Barno 01:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cast List "Clean up"

According to style guidlines, cast list are not within Wikipedia policy. It is in the info box. There seems no reason to double it. The former consensus was to remove them. Wiki asks us to incorporate them into the plot section. Since this was done as well, I edited out the cast "laundry List".--Amadscientist 17:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Really they are not even needed in the info box at all if we have incorporated them into the plot section. Any thoughts on that?--Amadscientist 20:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of an infobox is to provide a standardized "at-a-glance" place to get the summary information. I wouldn't worry about duplication. Nearly every article with an infobox duplicates some or all of the infobox in the article text. Kww 00:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

At first I thought perhaps the info box looked to long....then I saw info boxes for other films. This is nothing compared to some...like Star Wars. And they don't even list a cast. Is it July 1st already? But the Laundry List of the Cast should stay out, right, as per Wikiguidlines? We don't need a seperate list section, do we?--Amadscientist 01:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, a list of cast members isn't appropriate for an article. That's why we have good external links, like to IMDb. --Gimme danger 02:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually both Amadscientist and Gimme danger are wrong. Cast lists are completely standard, almost universally so. The infobox should only have the lead cast, while more minor characters go in a main cast list. If you will look at some featured articles about films, such as Star Wars, V for Vendetta, Lord of the Rings, Halloween, and Casablanca, all of them have cast lists. I'm sure that you'll diligently find Jaws and point out that it lacks a cast list. That is true, but it is an exception and I am sure that no one would remove a cast list if I added it. You'll also notice that even its infobox cast list is like the others and not like the one currently on RHPS, having only the actors names. I'll change this back. Atropos 18:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, done that, though I would definitely agree with any of you who think that the casting section I made most definitely needs to be improved. Atropos 18:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No, goes against current consensus and documented Wikipolicy. The consensus on those pages does not effect the one on this page. Besides you are incorrect, Halloween does not have a cast list. Just because there are other articles that have done something is just a lousy excuse and may well be someone making trouble for the fun of it. See Atropos edit summery.--Amadscientist 00:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean the consensus that says that it should be included and makes no mention of putting it in the infobox? Those few other articles that are the vast majority of articles and almost every featured article about a film? I don't know where you "policy" from because I've never heard of it and its literally not followed anywhere. Halloween does have a section for cast, called Casting.

As I said, the cast section I made is far from optimal, but its better than making the infobox ugly and long, and says more than the infobox did. I'm sure you can expand and improve the cast section.

Please do not attack me. I came here to try to be civil to you; I would appreciate if you tried to be civil to me. Atropos 00:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I was civil. Stop trying so hard to put words in my mouth. No one attacked you. Simply stating such does not make it true. Your last attempt to do the very same thing was not successful and will not be so now. You are being uncivil by returning to this page with the purpose of creating problems and stirring up a new mess. Your edit was not accepted and was returned. Wiki states that you work with the editors "Most interested" in the article. I have no reason to believe that you will from your past behavior on this page but will remind you that past consensus on this page has determined that a cast list is not necessary and that the infobox is fine for this page.--Amadscientist 01:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus can change

We should be working on the "Find a reasonable compromise" step. Reverting my edits and refering to previous consensus is completely wrong, because consensus can change. I made a valid edit which I have supported the change with previous policy. You told me that you already have consensus because gimme danger agreed with you (even though before you incorrectly stated that "To reach a consensus you need more time and many more people," [link] when three people agreed). Why do you disagree with my edit? Are you sure it isn't because of our history?

You were not civil. You accused me of "causing trouble for fun." So it's clear, I said that this will be fun because I had a feeling you would revert my edit and then refuse to discuss it. As to you never having attacked me before, do I have to go back and quote you? Atropos 01:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify my earlier comment, I generally dislike lists in articles, since they tend to be uncited and to clutter the article. However, in the case of films, following the guidelines posted below, I think a cast list is appropriate. --Gimme danger 18:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Amadscientist, the cast list obviously does not belong in plot summary, as it is not a summary of the plot. The guidelines clearly suggest including it under production or in its own section. Also, please use bolding and italics with hesitation. Atropos 21:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That is fine , however do not stick it in the middle of the design section cuting off related sections.--Amadscientist 21:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal from Project Musical theatre

I have removed myself from the Wikiproject Musical Theatre and removed the article from that projects scope. Their style guidelines conflict greatly with Wikipedia policy on lists and with Project Films style guide lines as well. I didn't want to see members of the two projects at odds with each other and confusing meaning and intent. Films are rarely listed under that project. It is not completely incorrect but could be causing some confusion. Should someone feel strongly about this article being apart of that project I will not object if it is re-added. I mean no disrepect to that project, but I do feel that their guidlines could be used on this article and watching a cast list get re-added against the consensus here could be bad.--Amadscientist 22:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel that this article, though technically about a film, belongs under that wikiproject, as well as the film one. Not just because the movie sprang from the stageshow, but because the film's midnight showings with fans performing are a noteworthy development in the history of musical theatre. The whole Category:Rocky Horror is of interest to both projects. People from both groups need to cooperate, but should remember that core policies like verifiability trump any small group's self-consensus about style. Where the cast list is notable through third-party reliable sources, and significant to describing the film's significance and impact, it belongs in the text with context. Listing actors and roles just for fansite competeness does not belong in an infobox nor in text. In this case, I think there are enough independent sources to make the cast list worth including in both the stage-show and movie articles, despite the large overlap. Barno 02:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

I have added a bunch of citations to the article again. There are about 6 that still need to be added....I'm tired....will finish later unless someone else takes up the cause.--Amadscientist 00:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extra Song on 25th Anniversary Soundtrack Album

HI, On the 25th Anniversery Album an extra s0ong is included - "Once in a while" Track 10. This is performed by the Rocky Horror Picture Show Cast. Just wondering if this should be included as it's on the soundtrack, but not in the film 84.67.18.50 08:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the article refers only to relevant material to released versions of the UK and US film versions.

After thinking about this, I wonder if perhaps it shouldn't be mentioned as a well written prose beneath the track section.--Amadscientist 04:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If that's the other song besides "Superheroes" that was cut from the film, then it should be mentioned in text, as I'm sure it's noted in a couple of sources. I assume there are magazine mentions of the anniversary album? Barno 02:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicting Project style guidlines

The article was recently re-added to Project Musical Theatre. The Style Guidlines conflict greatly to the style guidelines of Project Film. Which project takes precidence here, the Film or the Theatre project?

Are we willing to see lists re-added? Cast lists re-added and the template changed? Or is it the consensus of the editors here to stay with the Project film style and template.--Amadscientist 10:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, i never realised there was so much history to this article! I have just joined the music theatre project and didn't know of all the disagreements, although i still dont fully understand what the disagreement was about.

I see it as this, the article should remain part of both projects, but fit with the Project Film guidelines. The reason I feel it is important the article is included in the Musical Theatre project is that the film is based on the stage show, and it also falls into our scope of topics as it is a musical film.Mark E 10:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There are some really great dedicated editors here! They just want whats best for the article.--Amadscientist 22:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Film project guidelines should govern musical film articles. The Musicals project tag is just to help us get a count of articles that concern musicals and to assist people who are interested in musical films to find articles that they might wish to work on. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 17:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Then unless there are other objections, I have no problem at this time. It should stay apart of the project.--Amadscientist 22:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fans with more passion than facts

People are changing referenced material with no new references to back up there information. It looks like fans with passion but little facts are getting back to work on this article.--69.62.180.166 07:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to revert uncited changes when they appear. I'll look through the recent changes and see if anything's particularly suspect. --Gimme danger 18:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I did, but....darn it I think I may have reverted other things since the change of the referenced material. I looked but I think it was nothing of great importance...I believe.

Looks like were back to adding the cast list again. I have removed it...again. Are we ready to change consensus or do we just have one stubburn "Fan".--Amadscientist 04:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks to whoever archived this page

I couldn't figure out how to do it.--Amadscientist 04:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. --Gimme danger 18:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Form new consensus for including cast list and limiting information in Info box

An editor has attempted to re-add the cast list, and edit down the info box. I have only one objection to this.....it was previously agreed not to add lists of any kind to the article and that a cast list goes against wikipolicy. There was consensus. However for the benefit of this editor and any other editor who may wish the change let us resume the conversation here and see.

Let us take a poll. Who believes that the cast list should be returned and the info box edited down as shown here [[1]] or as it was here [[2]]? While this may not form a consensus. It is suggested in Wikipedia guidelines as part of the discussion to do so. --Amadscientist 02:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep as is. = I believe there is no reason to change now, but if the consensus changes in a real way I can accept it.--Amadscientist 01:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Move this discussion back to the old section. Your practice of disjointing discussion into multiple sections does nothing but confuse me. Also, Consensus is not a supermajority or a vote. For the convenience of our discussion, I've notified Gimme danger and Kww of its taking place. Atropos 02:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

We are moving forward with this in this section to keep the discussion linear. I welcome all to change or keep consensus.--Amadscientist 02:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

In the tagline discussion, there were 21 sections, 15 of them after I asked that we keep it in one section, and 14 of them started by you. You did not need to make a new section, all it does is move the attention away from all the discussion that has previously occurred. If someone were to jump in now, it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to miss the discussion in the original section, and all the arguments made therein. Please return there now. Atropos 02:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Both of you know that you are at (or over) 3RR on the article on this issue. Having seen the two versions, this is clearly one of the silliest edit-wars ever, and certainly not one to risk getting blocked over, so I urge you both to desist. Newyorkbrad 02:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This is my best effort to end this new situation. If an editor makes a change and it is not agreed upon then a discussion should begin. I am working with the editor in good faith to attempt to establish what the consensus is. Should you not wish to participate in the discussion, I certainly understand.--Amadscientist 02:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

First, you should know that I have reported you at the 3RR noticeboard.

We do not take a poll before we make an edit. I have provided the flow chart further up this page, my edit was completely within process; it was, in fact, specified on that chart as the way to change consensus. Your only objection seems to be that you previously had consensus (though two weeks before you were telling us that three people weren't enough to make a consensus). This is not a valid objection.

But I've already made these arguments which you conveniently ignored by starting a new section. Newyorkbrad is right. This is beyond silly. Atropos 02:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia suggestions for dispute resolution is not what I believe Newyorkbrad was talking about. The poll is an effort to gauge other editors opinion as part of the discussion. There are other editors to consider.--Amadscientist 02:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand this comment. I reported you because you broke the rule. Checking your contributions, this isn't the first time you've done so. Please provide an actual reason a cast section shouldn't be included. Atropos 03:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the first time I've had this happen ... all my comments are gone, and not even a trace in the history. Anyway, I'm in favor of having the cast list repeated ... names only in the infobox, names with role descriptions in the text. And yes, I agree ... we are all doomed to hit WP:LAME one of these days. Additionally, amadscientist, you have gone over 3RR again. Hopefully, you won't get rewarded by having the article protected while you throw a hissy fit this time, and you will get the several day block that you deserve. Kww 03:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Responce to comment = Thank you for your....opinion. At least you are weighing in on the consensus even if in the most uncivil manner. I was not rewarded with the protection. I requested it and it was granted. I have not requested it this time as I see no reason to do so but you are welcome to. If you read 3RR, admin can block someone even if they did not violate the 3RR rule if they feel the editing is disruptive. You may feel one way but I feel differently. As for the cast list, if it is the consensus to re-add them (where in the previous discussion Atropos stated that the Article was too "Listy"...I do wish he'd make up his mind} then I could care less. I am only looking out for other interested parties, you being one of them, regardless of your personal opinion of me.--Amadscientist 03:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you go look at the history for June 13 and count your reverts before you claim that you didn't violate the 3RR rule at that time. Kww 04:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to. I can ony repeat what the 3RR page says, and that is this...;

(E)ditors who may have technically violated the 3RR may not be blocked, depending on circumstances.

No action was taken on that report.--Amadscientist 04:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I also hear that you violated 3RR at straight pride. You have a consistent history of violating WP:OWN, WP:3RR, WP:CIV, and WP:NPA. Though you seem to be a positive force in the article space, you make dispute resolution impossible and dispute everything. Please reconsider your behavior. Atropos 04:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you meant you read the history of that article and the discussion as you took time to add to the vote to delete the article. Which I nominated after all attempts at following wikipolicy there failed very much like what is happening here. But I do appreciate your vote there.--Amadscientist 04:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually you just voted, Krimpet nominated it. You also voted for a completely different (and also completely non-credible) reason than most delete votes. Atropos 05:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Uhm......no. I added the speedy deletion tag. Krimpet then deleted it, but returned it for a vote. I did add my reason for putting up the tag as being due to Ad spam which was the reason it was initially deleted, and the same reason that many believe it should go. They feel (as I did) that it was improperly sourced at the time. An editor has since made many changes to the article and added a great deal of references without having to use the same Ad link over and over but it may still be deleted. But that is neither here nor there. I still appreciate the time you took to add your vote there.--Amadscientist 05:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm basing what I said on what I was told by another involved party who's hopefully less biased than you. Let's get back on topic. Can you think of an actually good reason not to have a cast section? So its clear, I would prefer a better cast section than the one I added. This isn't, the cast section provided or no cast section; its any cast section or no cast section. Atropos 05:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure I would agree with your definition of biased....but, as for the cast section I have already said (although there is so much now in the talk section it could easily been overlooked) that I don't really care if there is a Cast section as long as it is the consensus of editors. Now I know you want it, Kww wants it, also Ashford wants it (he was attempting to put it back a while ago). When I talk of consensus I speak of the consensus as was reached at the end of the last dispute where we all had agreed that lists made the article look un-encyclopedic. You have now changed your position on that for this section. There is simply no reason you cannot. I am just not sure if there is a consensus to keep the list with other editors which only means that it may well disappear again, if we are all of different opinions. The casting section as seen in the Star Wars article is actually not bad. It gives an opportunity to speak directly about each actor and each character. That can also be a bad thing however, as I am sure there will be differing opinion about each. So for the record I am not opposed to it, if it is what the consensus determines. Kww has placed the list back and has left the information in the info box. Would that satisfy you? If so we can simply begin building on this until such time that there is an objection. I don't know if we can call this consensus, but compromise is always the best way to move forward and avoid what happened last time.--Amadscientist 07:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to take a closer look at that flowchart I posted above that clearly explains how consensus is determined. You disrupted this article for no reason. Atropos 07:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Man you just don't get it. Perhaps you should look closer at that chart yourself. There is no reason to remove information from the info box. Information needed for at a glance info. I object to adding a list, but if it is the consensus, fine. I am willing to compromise right now to avoid furthering a situation. Now you say I disrupted this article. WHAT EVER!.--Amadscientist 07:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project Film Style Guidlines for "Cast Lists"

(A) cast list inserted into the body of the article may be appropriate, though some editors frown on lists inside articles. It should be longer than the list in the infobox, and, depending on the number of minor characters in the film, can be furnished with a dozen or more credits. Credits should be written in the "ACTOR as CHARACTER" format, but for credits where the character has not been mentioned in the plot section, a short summary of the importance and role of the character in the film would be necessary, e.g, an example from Witchfinder General (film):

Robert Russell as John Stearne. Playing Hopkins’s thuggish assistant, Russell certainly looked the part. However, as filming progressed, Reeves found the actor’s high pitched voice unsuitable for such a rough character, and after production was completed he had all of his dialogue dubbed by another actor, Jack Lynn (who also appeared in a small role as an innkeeper). Pertinent casting information might also be included in this section (or in production), and only then should bolding be used to make the credits stand out from the additional information. Try to avoid using the section as a repository for further "in-universe" that really belongs in the plot summary.--Amadscientist 21:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Man, this talk page has just gotten sillier and sillier since I left. It's an archivists nightmare. --Gimme danger 18:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It's everbody's nightmare.--Amadscientist 21:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

But I suppose this is what a talk page is for. Getting everyone to decide what is wanted for the article. Discussion may get heated, but as long as it does not get carried away and something productive comes out of it then it is working the way it should. I wouldn't worry about being added to WP:LAME, none of this comes close to what I found there when I looked last night. Wow! People really can go bonkers over this stuff!--Amadscientist 21:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article protected

I've protected the article for 48 hours after being made aware of one of the silliest edit wars I've seen in a while. Some folks here have taken something fun and turned it into a war zone. The history shows immature behavior across the range, with people gloating over provoking others into using up all their reverts. Sort it out on the talk page, please. If this continues after protection expires there will be blocks given out all round. Remember, 3RR is a hard limit, not a right. Raymond Arritt 01:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I have begun editing the "List" as closely to Atropos' suggestion as possible, while sticking to the film credits and factual information. I extend an apology to all for whatever has been taken as my part in this situation. I wish to move forward and work together with editors as I always have attempted (though obviously not in the opinion of some). There has been some great misunderstandings here and I believe it is time to drop the anger and move forward.--Amadscientist 02:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive response. If you guys get it sorted out you can ask to unprotect the page early (WP:RFPP works in both directions). Raymond Arritt 02:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. Amadscientist made a mountain out of a molehill, that's all. Atropos 03:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think that joke I made in the edit comments was taken a bit too seriously by some. I don't really know any way that I could provoke the two of you into getting to the 3RR limit. Kww 03:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously. Atropos 03:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

So where do we go from here? There is no reason, regardless of how we may feel personally about each other and our individual contributions or lack there of, that we can't just cool down and edit the article. Should we perhaps agree on a way to object to work that is posted with out reverts or edits. We could just post an "Objection" section per subject on the talk page. Explain in detail what is the argument for or against an addition or deletion and then seek an adopted admin or even random admin as third party to look at each "objection" and help to build to consensus.--Amadscientist 04:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Except no one makes half a big a deal about other peoples' edits as you. You're the one who starts conflicts. Your the one who owns the article and breaks the three revert rule. You've contributed to the article, but your ability to work with other contributors needs a lot of work. We don't need a big discussion, consensus finding, permanent protection deal. We need you to act better. Atropos 04:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I would beg to differ as your constant warring and even reversal of opinion contribute in a purposeful manner to this situation. If you are simply digging in your heels hoping that I get blocked even if it means you get blocked as well, so be it. I can wait for protection and any block to end to start editing again. We see things so differently and I had hoped that the things we share in common, including our mutual interest in this film could get us past this situation. If you are willing, I am willing to to work in good faith. I can't change your attitude nor would I try but this really has to stop.--Amadscientist 04:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The question, amadscientist, is are you willing to work smoothly with other people? Right now, if someone makes a change you disagree with, it gets reverted, and you take an opinion poll while you beat us over the head with style manuals. More normally, if someone makes a change you disagree with, you should leave it in unless it is factually wrong, misspelled, or the like. Then you go to the talk page and voice an objection. If other people chime in, it goes. If no one chimes in, you let it slide. Kww 12:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem quite prejudice against me right now and have broadened this single situation into supposed action I take every single time. It is nonsense and the history of the article bares that out. You have made edits I have not changed as well as many editors. The edit war of June was Atropos doing what you just stated with your support then as well. Get over it and stop harping please, because right now in this situation I certainly could say you were beating me over the head with with incorrect citing of policy. As for edits not being reverted...that simply is wrong. If an edit is made and it is reverted you are supposed to leave it unless it is the consensus. Consensus has been the problem all along. First both you and Atropos' definition and now misinterpretation of a flow chart. Edits do get changed. It is up to the consensus as to whether it stays and even another Editor has said as much to you in this dispute, and he was for the list. Atropos picked a fight he knew would draw me out then contacted all the parties involved in the last edit war even after he had stated he was taking this article off his watch list. Not everyone returned however to pick up this fight. Just you. Anger, resentment and a vendetta is all I see from the two of you, I certainly have changed past edits, like when someone changed information about props being based on a British Frankenstein movie when the reference I added clearly stated they were re-used. The change was made with no new reference so I reverted it. At the end of the last dispute the one clear thing was that lists were not encyclopedic now it is different and nearly all interested parties have weighed in on the subject (not the fight). That is all we needed and all Atropos had to wait for, but instead stood up on a soapbox and screamed "I'm being reverted! Look he has a history of it! He did it on the Straight Pride article", without even knowing the facts about it. He was just listening to gossip. For the record I was reverted on that article about 5 or 6 times and my reverts started when the same editor kept removing tags I added, one of which was a speedy deletion tag that did get the article deleted until admin put it up for a vote on AfD (which still ended with it's deletion). When this was thrown in my face and I mentioned that I was the one that got it nominated for deletion Atropos accused me of lying! Good grief! Will you two give it a rest PLEASE! And for the record, working smoothly is not a wiki policy, but working in good faith with civility is and neither of you have been doing so. You are right about one thing, this is destined to WP:LAME. I wonder why?

One last thing. What was supposed to be a compromise of allowing the list yet leaving the information in place in the info box, that even Kww agreed with....Atropos reverted anyway. So much for compromise. He just wanted his way, with no attempt to adhere to consensus..--Amadscientist 13:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Get off your soapbox. I have bent over backwards to be civil towards you; if I don't seem so civil now it might be because my patience is waning. Atropos 19:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Can't we all just get along??? Nathansummers 21:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page discussion, building a consensus and Wikipedia sources

A major part of Wikipedia is discussion and debate. The "Talk" page was added so that editors could get together and debate the subject of the article. While sometimes these debates do get out of hand, it is necessary to have an open exchange of ideas. There are many different ideas as to what should be included and what direction an article should take. What references to use and what external links to add. There are many pages of Wikipedia policy to guide us as editors but that does not mean that they are completely understood. Let us all take time to read Wikiguidlines and policy for a better article and for an easier time discussing it. This is not to suggest that any editors are wrong in any way but that future editors or even past editors may wish to learn more about proper wikipedia procedure to avoid deletions and reverts as well as including factual information and how to properly source such.

[edit] Peer Review

In case no one saw this, the article was peer reviewed. Here is the result, should anyone wishes to make these changes suggested here.--Amadscientist 23:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Credits

Should all the Transylvanians be listed in the "Casting" section. If not, who do we include and who do we exclude. Should they be listed at all? Is the "Casting" section OK they way it is, or should we write it as prose?--Amadscientist 01:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update

Using the article on Wikipedia for "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope", I have updated the page and added images. Both films are from the 1970s and produced by Twentieth Century Fox and both very high grossing films. I did not copy the articles format exactly but did base the number of Fair Use rational images from that page as well as section titles along with using the Project Film Style Guide Lines. I also used nearly all suggestions from the recent peer review. I deleted a good deal of inaccurate information while doing so in another general clean up of the article.--Amadscientist 03:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of August 20, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

The article mostly follows the manual of style, but the transylvanians section of the cast list is too large. These being tertiary cast members, only the ones notable for the film, or who had obviously notable outside achievements (a good test is that their listed appearances not be red links) should stay.

2. Factually accurate?:

A few aspects need fixing here.

While I pretty much agree with the statement, the Time Warp is "the film's signature song" according to what source? That's a potentially controversial statement, and thus needs to be directly sourced.
The first sentence of "Locations, sets..." reads like OR to me, and needs sourcing. Any interpretation or other meta-style discussion of the film that is based on subjective assessment needs sourcing.
The first sentence of Costumes, which is an extremely broad statement, needs desperate sourcing. Qualifying it by saying, "for its time" or something might be in order, as today the costumes don't seem particularly ingenious or racy.
The opinions of Sue Blane in the costumes section need attribution to a reliable source. Any time you make assertions about the perspective of an individual it is potentially controversial.

3. Broad in coverage?:

Covers all points, but the reaction section needs to have a sub-section or at least a paragraph solely on the published critical reaction. The criticisms from the intro need to be included there.

4. Neutral point of view?:

For a film that has so many die-hard fans and few vocal detractors, the article does a good job of staying neutral. But the statements of published criticism need to be in the Reaction section.

5. Article stability?

Seems to be adequately stable.

6. Images?:

Good use and properly attributed.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — VanTucky ^(talk) 21:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks to all that contributed

Well it looks like a number of people stepped up to the plate to help make the needed changes for the article to pass to GA rating. Congratulations to all and a big thank you as well!--Amadscientist 09:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rocky Horror Category

I wanted to wait untill the article had a GA rating to ask about a "Rocky Horror" Category. This would include this article the article on the stage show and Shock Treatment as well as the any article related, such as the articles about the cult following, the sequels and other media and the actor and crew and character articles. What do you guys think?--Amadscientist 09:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As of just before Halloween, this cat has been created and some of the category/subcategory organizing has been done. I did a bit more: I made "Songs from films" a parent category for "Songs from Rocky Horror", and proposed the rename of the songs category to "Rocky Horror songs", like most other subcats in "Songs from films". Barno 02:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improved plot summary

I was pleased to see people contribute to the plot summary, and liked the result. Of course, it only took a couple of days for all of that work to be erased. I'd like to see a few comments on the two different versions of the summary.Kww 12:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did Eddie die in the stage version?

Dr. Frank-N-Furter murders Eddie in the film version. In the stage version, Eddie merely pops out of a Coke machine and then jumps back in at the end of the scene...

In the original stage production, Eddie was killed by Frank N Furter - he pretended to stab him with a mike stand. Has this been changed in recent versions? Apepper (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The Current version Of The Rocky Horror Show is a revival that changed much of the script and dialogue to match the film. In it's original version (1973)(which can still be obtained to perform) Eddie was not murdered.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, again. Eddie is killed by Frank in all versions of The Rocky Horror Show that Richard wrote, I put a scan from the original 1973 script up for all to see: http://www.rockyradioonline.com/scan.jpg Additionally the 1973 version cannot still be obtained for performance rights.74.138.5.74 (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How to spell the planet Transexual?

Does anyone have an authoritative source for the spelling of the name of the planet Transexual or Transsexual? This article seems to use Transsexual. I don't think that's correct. That is the correct spelling for the word, but this is a proper name of a fictional planet, not the word for a person who changes sex. (BTW it is spelled transexual in the description of Frank-N-Furter under Casting where it probably should be transsexual, unless he is being called that because he's from that planet)

The back of my video box spells it with one s. Most scripts I've found on-line also spell with one s, but some do use two.

All these scripts I found online have one s:
http://www.godamongdirectors.com/scripts/rhps.shtml
http://www.cosmosfactory.org/script_rhs.shtml
http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~doke/rocky/
http://alwaysontherun.net/rocky.htm#12

These have two:
http://www.cosmosfactory.org/script_rhps.shtml
http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~doke/rocky/

I suggest it should be changed to Transexual, unless someone has a more authoritative source that says otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lchittenden (talk • contribs) 02:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I also found the lyrics to the song "Sweet Transvestite" on many pages and they also use one s. I'm sure it must be one s, because I don't think the majority of sources would have the wrong spelling. I'm changing it on the page. Lchittenden (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You certainly can and should make these changes.....they probably wont stick. People will change to the webster dictionary or a Spelling bot will change them. I suggest making sure that it matches the original script and then making it linkable to avoid the spelling bots. --Amadscientist (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Magenta: Riff-Raff's girlfriend??

Isn't Magenta Riff Raff's sister? Could someone verify this? Saturn orfeo (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That is correct, but someone keeps changing it. It appears to be correct at this time.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ballroom Blitz

I have seen that many sites say that "Ballroom Blitz" was in The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Infact I even have a "Ballroom Blitz" MP3 that claims that it came from the movie. I dont recall this song in the moive, then again its been a while since I seen it. Lord Vipes (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ballroom Blitz is definitely not in this movie. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)