Talk:Warcraft (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 16 June 2006. The result of the discussion was delete.

[edit] Future Film

As the {{future film}} template says, this is a film thais still being developed. Therefore, the information on the article might eventually change, but that doesn't mean the article should be deleted since the movie was already officially announced at blizzard.com --Wesborland 19:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Key phrase: scheduled or expected. This is neither. --Calton | Talk 19:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Why not? --Wesborland 19:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean, why not? When, exactly, is this scheduled? Answer: it's not. Why is this "expected"? Answer: it's not, since a script hasn't even been written. There's nothing here. Read for this for further enlightenment. --Calton | Talk 19:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The movie was officially announced, they already have a director and the script is unfinished, which is no reason to delete the article, since it is pretty clear that the movie is happening.--Wesborland 19:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)"
You don't understand how Hollywood works, do you? And, again, what parts of "scheduled" or "expected" are giving you trouble? Nonetheless, since no one has shoot a single foot of film, cast a single actor, built a single set, drawn up a single production design, sewn a single costume, booked a single soundstage, or even written the script, every detail -- INCLUDING whether it will be made at all -- is complete and utter speculation. Wikipedia doesn't do complete and utter speculation. --Calton | Talk 19:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
What about Mortal Kombat: Devastation? --Wesborland 19:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, the difference between Devastation and WarCraft is that the former has at least had a script written (possibly), while the latter has not. Given Blizzard's size, I think it would be fair that this movie will move forward, but I can understand the concern. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

I support the presence of this article on WP and the {{hangon}} tag. I couldn't care less about the film, nd I flat-out hate Peter Jackson, but I think there's more than enough on the web- and from reliable sources- to maintain an article. At worse, it should go to AfD, but I think the consensus !vote would be to keep the page. -- Kicking222 15:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It was originally deleted via G4, a recreation of deleted content. I double-checked the deleted version [1], and the two are completely different, so I restored it (and let the deleting admin know). It quite frankly cannot be deleted under G4; if it is to be deleted, it must pass through a second AfD (I don't think it should be deleted, but I'd follow consensus if it was !voted "delete"). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Peter Jackson directing?

This was a false rumour, there is no evidence to support this other then a fake webpage that is owned by someone who is trying to fool the Warcraft supporters.

[edit] Adding information that doesn't adhere to WP:V and WP:RS

User:Wesborland has re-added one piece of information a few times that as far as I can tell is not accurate, and can't legitimately be added when taking WP:V and WP:RS into account. Based on this source, a random blog, the article first stated it was confirmed that Peter Jackson would be directing. Last version I reverted had a weasel wording version stating that it "is rumoured that Peter Jackson has been hired to direct it", which is still too strong a wording if the rumour doesn't originate from a reliable source, as everything on the WP should, per WP:V. --Codemonkey 07:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

While the source is not reliable enough to consider the information confirmed according to Wikipedia's policies, sourced rumors do belong to the articles as long as it is clear that they haven't been officially confirmed. --Wesborland 17:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I would agree that sourcing a rumor is different from sourcing a fact, though I suppose it'd be nice if we could get another source for it (multiple sources would be good, as it establishes a rumor as a bit more than just someone running a website who wants something). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, let me put it this way. I'm 99% certain that the blog cited is wrong, and that it is wrong with the intention of spreading misinformation. And the verifiability policy gives me the tool to remove such misinformation from Wikipedia. And yes, "sourced rumours" can be part of a wikipedia article, but the point is that a blog such as this is not a valid source. Hence, it isn't a "sourced rumour", since the source being used is one that doesn't count as a source. Not for a statement that something is confirmed, not for a statement that something is rumoured. Per WP:V#SELF, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources". And without a proper reliable source backing up a statement about a rumour, it is just a weasel wording sentence, something that needs to be avoided. --Codemonkey 09:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
In fact, make that 100%. If you plug some of the quotes from that blog from the supposed interview with Peter Jackson into google, you'll see that the quotes are taken from an interview regarding the Lord of the Rings movies, with a few key words and the context change. See here for example. It's 100% provably a fake.
And as a slight aside, the article does state that it is confirmed from an interview. There is absolutely no way you can use it as a source to support the claim of something being rumoured anyway. Either it is reliable, in which case there really was an interview, or it isn't, in which case you can't use an unreliable claim of interview to support a statement of something being rumoured. You can only do that if (1) the source is reliable, and (2) if it actually states there is a rumour. You can't go creatively reinterpreting sources based on what you think its reliability level may support.--Codemonkey 09:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I just checked the IMDb boards on this movie and found they were also arguing about this over there. That supposed interview is about six months old and it's taken from here (July 2006)---Wesborland 05:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Please, stop adding this to the article Wesborland. Did you just ignore everything I said? The interview is a fake. That it is now a personal homepage you link instead of a hosted blog doesn't make this any less a fake, and personal homepages are just as little a reliable source as a blog. Please, read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If you don't get anything, read it again and feel free to ask questions, either here or on the WP:RS talkpage.
And just to drive home why both the blog and the cjb.net page you linked aren't just unreliable, but false: pretty much every story or review on there is either stolen whole cloth from other reviews or news stories without giving credit (e.g. first cjb story from here, 2nd from here, 3rd from here), or stolen without giving credit and with changing a few key facts to spread some deliberately false information (like the Warcraft story). And they're so much alike that it's probably the same person who is running both the blog and the cjb page. We shouldn't link plagiarists and liars on wikipedia. I ask you to not add this back again unless there is a consensus on this talk page first about it being appropriate. --Codemonkey 18:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I still think it's a rumor that has yet to be confirmed by an official source. --Wesborland 17:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a source for it being rumoured, that is reliable, so that we can verify this? If not, you should not use weaselwording statements like 'unconfirmed rumour' to force a statement about a rumour in anyway. And why do you keep ignoring (or at very least, not addressing) the fact that I showed the story to be a fake, an interview about LotR with the mentions of LotR replaced by the word Warcraft?
Anyway, at this point it seems to me that either you haven't read the policies I keep linking you to and imploring you to read, or you're wilfully ignoring them. If there is any confusion or unclarity, again, people are more than willing to help you out by answering questions. But please, read the things, and make an effort to understand them.--Codemonkey 23:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If I could add my $0.02 here... as I work with upcoming film articles, I've dealt with a lot of rumors. We treat them as unencyclopedic per Wikipedia's verifiability standards. I've seen a lot of edits that cite an "anonymous scooper" as the source, and even if a legitimate site reports this, this is still at its core an unreliable source. Rumors could become encyclopedic only if they become persistent in the public scope; this means newspapers and such, not IMDb and movie blogs. An example would be all the hype about the next 007, which received public coverage. Here, though, it doesn't seem like this particular rumor meets that level of criteria. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Erik, didn't you say one of the producers mentions something about hiring Peter Jackson in an interview? --Wesborland 16:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Read the interview:
“ GS: Do you think Peter Jackson could do justice for the Warcraft Universe?

PS: Absolutely. Peter Jackson would be great. I mean, he's a busy guy, and he's a very sought-after director, but, you know, would Peter Jackson be a great solution? Absolutely.

 ”
It doesn't validate your rumor at all. The interviewer asked Sams about the possibility of Jackson directing, since Jackson's now known for epic films, especially LOTR, which is same as Warcraft in the fantasy genre. Nothing new under the sun. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)