Talk:Avatar (2009 film)

I'm removing "epic" from the opening statement. I know this movie is mentioned in the article "epic film" and, in my opinion, it is a great film meets many of the criteria described as "epic". However, that same article suggests that the definition of the term is pretty much entirely subjective, thus a rather unencyclopedic way to open an article. There are also no citations for Avatar's epicness in that article. I think a factual statement along the lines of "Avatar has been described as an epic film (citations), either in the introduction or worked into discussion of the production or reception by reviewers would be far more appropriate if someone wishes to find the citations. -- Bdentremont (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

"When Cameron was asked if he got the idea for the floating mountains from an album cover of the rock band Yes, he replied with a laugh, "It might have been ... Back in my pot-smoking days." Roger Dean was responsible for the science fiction art on many album covers of the time." An editor feels that the bold section is superfluous because "....Dean is mentioned elsewhere in the article" viz. "Some sources noted similarities to the artwork of Roger Dean, which featured fantastic images of floating rock formations and dragons". I find this puzzling as the first comment relates purely to album covers, while the second touches on possible plagiarism. Also, is there some limit on the number of times that an individual can be mentioned in an article? Androstachys (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is there a source for the bolded statement, or is it original research? If the latter then it's inappropriate for inclusion in any case. Doniago (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

If you read the WP article on Roger Dean you'll see that designing album covers was one of his main activities - so no, it's not OR. Androstachys (talk) 08:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia articles are -not- reliable sources. Doniago (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

No, but the references that they cite are - so choose one. Androstachys (talk) 07:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

If the WP article has reliable sources, copy them here, don't just link to the article. Articles themselves can be deleted or have the current sourcing altered or removed. Doniago (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is already covered in the "critical reception" section area, and done much better too since it is sourced. Unless it is acknowledged as an inspiration, or there is a successful plagiarism claim, then it doesn't belong in the "inspirations" section since it is impossible to know whether it influenced Cameron or the production in any way. It is best to document it in the reception section with all other noted similarities to other works, as it currently is. Betty Logan (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

No, the "critical reception" section area doesn't mention cover art - so I can't see the relevance.... Androstachys (talk) 08:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is there some reason why it would not be appropriate to add it to the Critical Reception section rather than the Inspirations section, especially given that the former does provide sourcing? Doniago (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Until evidence is provided that Cameron was talking about the specific album cover created by Roger Dean, and so far there is no sourcing where he states this, you're making assumptions. If you have a source where the specific album is mentioned, please cite it. Doniago (talk) 07:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I concur with Donagio, you need a source that explicitly backs up the assertion that Cameron drew upon Roger Dean's artwork, if you want to document it as an "inspiration". The fact that some of the album covers might have been a source of inspiration and Dean created some of the covers is WP:SYNTHESIS because you are combining two sources to draw to a conclusion not stated by either source. Betty Logan (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

"When Cameron was asked if he got the idea for the floating mountains from an album cover of the rock band Yes, he replied with a laugh, "It might have been ... Back in my pot-smoking days." The only artist who created floating mountains on Yes covers was Roger Dean - we don't need to know which particular cover it was - there were many with floating mountains. Androstachys (talk) 07:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

We don't know that actually because it's not included in the source. Betty Logan (talk) 07:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Can you be more specific about what it is "we don't know"? Androstachys (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Frankly I'm also not sure that interview can be taken at face-value, since Cameron sounds like he may not be being entirely serious, but that's a separate issue. The more pressing issue is that Cameron doesn't reference a particular album. Doniago (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

That's exactly the point - Cameron doesn't refer to a specific album and neither do I. Androstachys (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have removed --"When Cameron was asked if he got the idea for the floating mountains from a Roger Dean album cover of the rock band Yes, he replied with a laugh, "It might have been ... Back in my pot-smoking days.[1](See question 10" - no mention of any of this in the links provided (we should not have to search all over ...Seem there is more concern on adding Roger Dean name then there is making the article better with proper refs .Moxy (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

{{Edit semi-protected}} A story with similar theme of a planet with life-forms with a "central mind" is "Balanced Ecology" by James Schmitz. Its lifeforms, including silverbells, greenwebs, diamondwood trees, and mossbacks, coexist peacefully with humans who farm the diamondwood in a beneficial manner. All the connected lifeforms communicate to fight off a new human threat to the planet's life and ecology.

Alakshak (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I recommend reading the above discussion. Is there any reliable sourcing linking the Schmitz work to Avatar, or is this original research? If the latter it is inappropriate for inclusion. The goal of the section is not simply to list any work with similar themes. Doniago (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Roger Dean has said this was true copywrite infrengement. Look on his website and see the art he's done for close to forty years. Namasaya (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sigh. Is there a source for this claim? A Wikipedia editor simply looking at Dean's artwork and saying there's a similarity is original research and inappropriate for inclusion. Doniago (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

What Roger Dean says is irrelevant; if Cameron has plagiarised his work he should sue, and then we can cite the published sources on the legal action. As for visiting his website and checking the artwork ourselves, that would be a blatant infringement of WP:NOR. Betty Logan (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

There are four adjectives in a row that are not separated by commas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.234.125 (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I realize this is probably a bit of a nit-pick, but editors have been adding that Trudy is a Captain. As far as I'm aware the only evidence being presented is that one of her gunners refers to her as such, but it is my understanding that the commanding officer of a vessel is traditionally called Captain regardless of their actual rank. Is stronger evidence available, or do other editors feel that this is sufficient? Thanks. Doniago (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Agree it should be accurate - She is just a pilot or as James put it the Hot lady pilot [2] - as see by her toy she is not called Captain (were others have a rank or title) . Profession: Pilot of SA-2 RDA transport vehicle. - Dr. Grace Augustine 15:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I just saw these deletions: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 17#File:Avatarvirtualcamera.jpg and Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 17#File:Avatarmotioncapture.jpg.

I'm not surprised by who nominated them for deletion, since he nominates almost every image for deletion, but I very much disagree with his assessment that the image showing Zoe Saldana as herself and as Neytiri, side by side, is not crucial for understanding the text. It is specifically showing what she looks like before and after the visuals effects. After information about the camera's abilities, the caption stated, "The left image shows the blue cat-like alien Neyitiri shouting. The right image shows the actress who portrays her, Zoe Saldana, with motion-capture dots across her face and a small camera in front of her eyes." I'm thinking of taking this to WP:Deletion review. Flyer22 (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I asked the editor who deleted the images to weigh in, as that should be done before taking something like this to deletion review. And to be very clear, I only object to the deletion of that one image. Flyer22 (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

It would have been nice to have some notification here. His argument is flawed anyway, images don't have to be "crucial", they just have to enhance our understanding, which was a purpose this image served. There was no discussion, so I believe this action should be reveresed immediately so we can have one. Betty Logan (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Exactly what I was thinking about the notification bit; it's always like a sneak attack, except in regards to the editor who uploaded the image (they are notified on their talk page, or at least they usually are). Also correct about the "crucial" bit, Betty. Flyer22 (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

If the deleter does not weigh in, I'm not sure if I should take this to Deletion review or to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Since the image was deleted without any discussion, it could be considered "uncontroversially deleted," which fits with the latter project. Flyer22 (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Folks, images are often deleted as such without response to the nominator as Files-for-deletion does not attract the traffic that Articles-for-deletion does. I'm happy to undelete the one image you all alude to (can someone drop me a note with the specific name) and relist at files-for-deletion for a wider discussion. There was discussion, or perhaps even resolution, about having a bot drop messages on article's talk pages when the related images are nominated for deletion but I can't remember what happened with this. Can someone drop me the note on my talk page... or this page... as to the image that Betty Logan is discussing ? - Peripitus (Talk) 01:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

The image is right there, Peripitus, where I specifically linked to it above -- File:Avatarmotioncapture.jpg. Does there really need to be a discussion about it, though? It seems pretty clear cut to me that it shouldn't have been deleted. It was not there to simply decorate the text. It was showing the difference between a face with and without the special effects mentioned. If you do decide to relist the image instead of simply undeleting it and leaving it at that, please let us know here on the talk page that you have done so with a link to the discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Better to have the discussion in the correct place Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_May_9#File:Avatarmotioncapture.jpg - for obvious reasons I will not participate except for this notice and the same on the nominators talk page - Peripitus (Talk) 10:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

hi i would like to edit and update avatar 2009 article and make sure it not vandelised. mrRKelly

The article is semi-protected. You will be able to edit it when your account is autoconfirmed. This usually means it must make at least 10 edits and be at least 4 days old. Until then you can post suggestions here. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

The sequel article is a complete copy of the Avatar Wiki. Someone just copy pasted the information, and didn't even take the time to reword it. Please, either delete the article or add the Wiki as a source. --201.230.217.86 (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

That section has been in the article since last year, so it's entirely possible the wikia copied it from here. Can you please be more precise at what point the "copyvio" occurred so we can compare the edit histories and determine which wiki comitted the copyright violation. Betty Logan (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's definitely a copyvio. In Wikipedia, it started here (7 May 2011), not last year. Someone copy pasted the information directly from the article, didn't even take the work to grab the code. In the Wikipedia article please check the history from TuneyLoon to Martarius. The last edit made to the Avatar Wiki was on May 6, 2011, exactly one day before a user started to copy our content. --201.230.217.86 (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh, you had me confused, I thought you were referring to the sequels section of this article. I've removed the violation. Sorry about nicking your stuff. Betty Logan (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

That's ok, don't worry. I only felt that if they were going to use our information they should at least put us as a source. Thanks for your help. And, by the way, it's not "my" stuff, it's the hard work of a user base :) --201.230.217.86 (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply