Talk:Jennifer's Body/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Jennifer's Body. 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.

Archive 1

Hole

Does this movie have any connection to the song by Hole? I used to love that album..... --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Diablo Cody, the writer, was a fan of Hole and named it as a sort of reference, but other than that, I don't think there is any other relevance. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 06:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. Cody and I grew up around the same time and were rocking the same CDs. If you find a reference to her being a Hole fan, I'll add it to the article. And wash that blood off your hands! What's the matter with you kids....--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I searched for some time, but couldn't find an actual source other than people speculating as so. People around the forums seem to think there's a relation because Diablo liked Hole, but again, nothing concrete. And well, ahem, I am the devil, and I am here to do the devil's work... -

I just saw this movie at a free showing here in lovely Portland Oregon and I wanna tell everyone this movie is really really funny. The whole audience was laughing (with, not at) and I'm bummed that all the reviews are so negative. Maybe they don't get the satire. Maybe the reviewers really are out of touch . . . I really enjoyed this sexy funny little horror flick. 98.246.178.234 (talk) 07:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah and that bit about the devil a few lines up did not originate with Rob Zombie but one of the Manson killers. To give credit where it's due. 98.246.178.234 (talk) 07:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Lindsey8417 (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCnrxgHKlGA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.224.195 (talk) 09:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Reception

I didn't realize a 41% and 47/100 was "average"?

Hmm. Is not 41% almost 50%? And is not 47 most definitely almost 50? And we all know 50/50 is something that is evenly divided. I did not add that part of the Reception section, but I am just saying. Besides that, Rotten Tomatoes categorizes the 41% rating as average, and Metacritic categorizes the 47/100 score as mixed. Either way, the film did not receive generally negative reviews as you changed it to. Film critics have been divided on the film, as the reviews in the Reception section make clear. The same goes for regular movie viewers. Flyer22 (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Rottentomatoes considers a "ROTTEN" video, average? How do you round 41% to 50? Do you also round 11% to 20? How about the number 1, do you round that to 10?

We go by sources here. Reliable sources. Your opinion that the film is rotten is your opinion. Reliable sources show that the film received mixed and average reviews; this includes Rotten Tomatoes, which now gives the film a 42% rating out of 100 while categorizing this as a 5/10 mixed score. Your changing that to say "negative" is vandalism, and Wikipedia has no tolerance for vandalism. You have a problem with these sources? Take it up with them. I did not round 41% to 50%. I asked is 41% not almost 50%. I also basically asked you how do you get that a film with a 47/100 score is a negative score when 47% is very much close to 50%, which means evenly divided. The reviews for this film have clearly been about evenly divided. I am certainly not the one whose math is off here out of the two of us. Flyer22 (talk) 09:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Because metacritic labels JB as receiving "mixed or average reviews" I would support the use of saying it received average reviews. However, RT's top critics rate the films at 36% which is generally negative in my view. So I think a good compromise would be saying the film "received mixed to negative reviews". BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 10:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, Bovineboy2008. Do we usually go by "top critics" to relay what type of reviews a film has generally received? Yes, I know that some articles relay what the percentage was for "top critics" in addition to "general critics" at Rotten Tomatoes, but I have not seen "top critics" used to relay the general consensus. We could do it like the Transformers (film) article, and relay the percentage the film received from "top critics" at Rotten Tomatoes as a generally negative 36%; but even that still says average. But then again, it seems that all low scores there say average. I suppose, as a compromise, I will relay the score from "top critics" at that site as generally negative. But judging by all the scores and reviews of the film, I am reluctant to put "mixed to negative" at the start of the section. The consensus appears more mixed than anything, at least from what I have observed. Flyer22 (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see that. I usually look at both numbers when finding how a film was received, the top critics being how it was critically received. I understand the reasoning behind avoiding "mixed to negative" in the introduction sentence. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 12:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't threaten me with this "vandalism" crap. I'm stating a fact: 42% is NOT close to 50%, and it is certified ROTTEN by Rottentomatoes.com. Let me say that again, 42% means it is ROTTEN, according to Rottentomatoes.com. Are you going to report me to Wikipedia for writing that the film recieved a ROTTEN rating of 42%? Don't you understand? You can't report people for vandalism, just because you take exception to a fact they've stated.

What you were doing was/is vandalism. You are not stating fact. 42% is close to 50%, just as 47% is very close to 50%, but that is beside the point. You were stating that the film received generally negative reviews; that is a lie, as shown above. Saying that the film received a 42% Rotten rating is one thing, which is something the article already states (though it currently leaves the word Rotten out). Saying that the film received generally negative reviews is another. Flyer22 (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but can we agree to include the word "rotten" in the sentence?

Unless RT explicitly states the film was rated "rotten" than no. A "rotten" rating is not a universally form of reviews, only rottentomatoes does it. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 12:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

IP, I tweaked that section by also stating that it received generally negative reviews from "top" critics at Rotten Tomatoes (specified the exact percentage in the article, of course). Are you satisfied with this? Flyer22 (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That section that you added is fine. But Rottentomatoes.com does classify it as rotten, even if the rating is now at 44%. Just move your cursor over to the green blob, next to the Tomatometer. Also, can we include the "Consensus" - which states Jennifer's Body features occasionally clever dialogue but the horror/comic premise fails to be either funny or scary enough to satisfy"?

IP, even films which are considered to have an average or good approval rating from Rotten Tomatoes have that "Rotten" patch beside them. One example is Transformers (linked above). Bovineboy's point seems to be that it is not "Certified Rotten" (as stated in his edit summary when he reverted you on that earlier). The site scores the film as 5.1 out of 10; that sure seems average to me. Right now, it is currently at 43% out of 102 reviews, and I would not call that a generally negative consensus. Either way, I added the line you requested about the site's general consensus of the film. Also, IP, will you sign your comments when replying? To sign your comments, all you have to do is type four tildes (~~~~) beside it. Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad we've come to a compromise 76.89.146.209 (talk) 00:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. And thank you for taking the time to work with us, instead of continually changing the article to your versions without discussion. Feel free to contact me any time about any problems you have with this article. I also have no problem with you editing this article, except for in cases where words are changed in a way that are not honest. Think about signing up for an account here at Wikipedia; it has more benefits. From what I can tell, it does not seem that you have one or are at least not too familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and it is always good to have more help around this site. Flyer22 (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me but according to this, [1] its rating is rotten. Is not even close to 60%.From that page "In order for a movie to receive an overall rating of FRESH, the reading on the Tomatometer for that movie must be at least 60%. Otherwise, it is ROTTEN.". 41 is not even close to 60%.If you disagree with the way RT does things, why even include that site?. You also have metacritic for comparison so it should be ok.Osborn18 (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the score is not generally negative. The IP was putting "generally negative" and also seemed to believe that the Metacritic score for this film means generally negative. I never stated that 41% is close to 60%, of course, nor did I state that putting "Rotten" should not go into this article; BovineBoy is the one who tackled that (seen above). I also never stated that I have a problem with the way Rotten Tomatoes does things; it was about how the IP was doing things that I had a problem with. Putting "Rotten" is not needed anyway, and that word is absent from a lot of good or featured film articles here when relaying Rotten Tomatoes information...such as the Transformers (film) article. When it is "Fresh," that word is almost always included, however (not surprisingly). Even if I hated Rotten Tomatoes, I would still use it at this site because that site is highly trusted for critical reception and is the standard here at Wikipedia.

I appreciate you weighing in on this matter, though, seeing as it is to make sure things are accurate within this aricle. Flyer22 (talk) 01:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, are you the IP? If so, it is nice that you went ahead and signed up. Flyer22 (talk) 05:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This section seems well researched and written, but is oddly disproportionate in size to the current success of the movie. I do not think this movie warrants such a needlessly long (all thought very detailed) explanation that basically boils down to being considered an okay B flick with a negligible return on the investment. Big Crow (talk) 11:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts on the article, Big Crow. You feel that the Reception section is too big for a film that did not do good at the box office, right? While I get your point about that, the Halloween (2007 film) did not do too well with critics...and yet look at its Reception section. The point is that we are supposed to make the best articles we can, no matter the film's reception with either critics or fans or simple moviegoers. This film was much hyped, and, despite its utter failure at the box office, turned out to divide critics (evenly enough) instead of most of them agreeing it is a complete mess. I was simply trying to clearly represent this. That said, I did/do feel that the Reception section needs trimming when it comes to the quoting; I mentioned this below regarding the GA review. I would not mind you presenting a version of the Reception section here on the talk page, so that we can compromise, before adding it to the article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The "Reception" section seems to be longer than necessary for this film. Is Diablo Cody really allowed to edit the Wikipedia article for Jennifer's Body?? Isn't that a violation?? Mardiste (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

How is the Reception section "longer than necessary for this film"? Who said that the Reception section for this film should have a certain length, other than you and others who feel that films that were a box office bomb should be treated just as poorly by Wikipedia as they were at the box office? That is not how Wikipedia works. Films that do badly either with critics, the box office, or both, should get decent, good or great articles too. See above what I said about the Reception section of the Halloween (2007 film) article, and what others said below about all Wikipedia film articles deserving to be fixed up: #Opinion about article. Making snipey comments about the work gone into this article is an extremely sad insult, and complete waste of time. Not to mention...exactly what Wikipedia talk pages are not for.

Oh, and I assure you that I am not Diablo Cody or a fan of hers. I am simply someone who likes to "go all out" when fixing up articles. Not the halfway crap that is done with so many articles around here. Flyer22 (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Flyer22 just wrote an extremely rude, threatening and insulting message to my inbox as well. I would like to make a complaint against this user. Mardiste (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, relax, Diablo. It's a good movie. It's a really good movie. I'm sorry I implied otherwise. It's, um . . . smart? And quirky. And um . . . I don't know, edgy? Chill out. Mardiste (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Saying, "And in the future, make sure not to use talk pages solely to insult the hard work of other Wikipedia editors." is not an "extremely rude, threatening and insulting message" at all. There is no reason to report me. There is, however, reason to report you. And I just might, since you are still at it. I can tell you have no idea how Wikipedia works, so I suppose I should cut you some slack for that. Flyer22 (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Flyer22. We appreciate it :) Mardiste (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The last line

I don't think we should say she finds and butchers them all because it's not how the movie ends. It ends with her saying "Tonight's their last show." Yeah, its obvious that's what we're meant to think happens, but it's not actually in the movie. It would be anticlimactic if it was. And what if there's a sequel, and something else happens? Anyway I really strongly think we can't add stuff that isn't in the movie, even if it's reasonable to assume they happen. 98.246.190.129 (talk) 07:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This was settled on my and the IP's talk pages. The IP had not watched what happens once the credits start to roll and how Needy does, in fact, butcher them all. Flyer22 (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Opinion about article

This is a ridiculously long page for a completely forgettable and inconsequential film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.207.253 (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well, I care about the quality of articles I work significantly on (though I also care about fixing up lousy articles in general). There is nothing ridiculous about this article having as much information as it does, seeing as the information was available for me to expand this article beyond the mediocre and Wikipedia articles are suppose to be the best they can be...despite how people may feel about the topic. Your feelings about this topic, that this film is "completely forgettable and inconsequential," are obviously not shared by all or even most; the Reception section, which shows a definite and about even divide on this matter, is proof of that. Flyer22 (talk) 07:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Re IP 173.x: Thank goodness this is Wikipedia, then, where no one is forced to work on articles they find uninteresting and where every article has a chance at attracting the attention of someone willing to fix it up, as this one apparently has. Personally, I was surprised and happy to see the broad coverage at a time people are looking for information on the movie. Perhaps you can fix up an article that's interesting to you- there's a list of films considered "important to cover" located here. Liquidluck (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Liquidluck. Flyer22 (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote a good amount of information on Hard Target and even more embarrassingly on The Wild World of Batwoman, I applauder all the hard work done on this article. Great job all around! Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Bad films deserve good articles just as much any other article, Catwoman (film) and Battlefield Earth (film) especially so. -- Horkana (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Andrzejbanas, I appreciate the compliment. I like the work you did on the Hard Target article. And, LOL, Horkana. True. Though I do not feel that anyone can honestly say that Jennifer's Body is as bad a film as those two films you cited above. I do feel that Jennifer's Body is a decent film. Not great, but not horrible either. Just decent. That Battlefield Earth (film) article is excellent, by the way. Flyer22 (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I find it hilarious that this much writing has been devoted to trying to explain why the film was a failure. Maybe it just wasn't very good? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.123.113 (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

To some, it wasn't. But, as you can see in the Critical reception section, to enough others it was. And whatever the case, it doesn't stop the fact that why it failed at the box office (not with all critics) was analyzed by enough people to be documented here. Flyer22 (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Minor nitpick

I've only seen the film once, but I'm pretty sure that Needy was placed in a correctional facility, not a mental institution. But, I won't change it unless someone else confirms.

67.246.199.242 (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Thanks for the thought, IP. We can definitely try to research that. Flyer22 (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Plot and Casting sections

Str1977 recently made changes to this article's Plot and Casting sections. I disagreed with the changes and reverted, as, out of the two versions, I prefer the article this way.

As I stated on Str1977's talk page, I prefer that the plot summary be told in in-universe style, as I also stated here some time earlier. But the main objection I have to Str1977's revision is that the revision gave the article an unneeded Cast section, when the article already has a Casting section. I combined these sections earlier on when fixing up and expanding this article because there is no need for two. Having two, that simplistic, partly red-link Cast section, made the article look sloppier (in my opinion). Furthermore, I will be nominating this article for GA status soon, after I do more work/additions to it, and I feel that having a single, prose Cast section is more GA material. For more of my and others' feelings about Cast sections with prose being better, check here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You might prefer in universe but WP disagrees with you and I agree with WP. Furthermore, it is supposed to be a summary of the plot - details like "they have a BFF necklace" is totally superfluous (and that is only the most glaring example). The summary also should, as much as possible, follow the chronology of the film, not telling beforehand what happened to Jennifer that night.

As for the cast/ing section/s. The Casting section explains how various actors were cast and gives more information about them. The Cast section simply lists the cast and enables the reader to quickly gather that information. So, the cast section is far from unneeded - it is the casting information one actually could do without.

As for GA status, I do not care much for such formal proceedings. Your feelings how these are helped are not a proper argument. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not state that I prefer in-universe style in the general sense. I was speaking of the plot summaries. The Manual of Style does not disagree with me when it comes to plot summaries. Most plot summaries on Wikipedia are in in-universe style, and that includes GA and FA articles. Saying "The summary also should, as much as possible, follow the chronology of the film, not telling beforehand what happened to Jennifer that night" is your opinion. And the plot section can be trimmed in a different way than you prefer. I was already going to trim it myself. Reverting to your version, where you leave out details you find irrelevant is simply opinionated as well.

As for saying the Casting section explains how various actors were cast and gives more information about them and the Cast section simply lists the cast and enables the reader to quickly gather that information, I understand that and still state that both are not needed at the same time. Readers can see who has been cast from infobox. And as for the infobox not showing the additional cast, if you want to bring that up, so what? Yes, the Cast section is far from needed. So much so that GA and FA articles such as The Dark Knight (film) and Transformers (film) only have one section for all that information. Having a simple bullet-point Cast section often only leads to a sloppy Cast and characters section anyway, where unneeded plot is added in. The casting information is not something GA and FA articles usually do without.

As for your not caring about this article reaching GA status, that is clear from your recent edits to this article. If you do not care about much regarding this article, you should also not care about your changes to it. You were not even willing to discuss those changes first, as I had asked you, before making them again. I care more about articles being their best. Your version does not reflect that, in my view. I will go ahead and bring in other editors on this matter to gain consensus. Flyer22 (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, I am not sure how irrelevant the BFF necklace is, since Needy ripping it off seems to give her a huge advantage in killing Jennifer (other than Jennifer already being weakened that night). But I can do without it being mentioned. Flyer22 (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, there is no Wikipedia rule that says the Cast section should simply list the cast in order to enable readers to quickly gather that information. A lot of good film articles around here, such The Dark Knight (film) and Transformers (film), have one section for cast, casting and character details. Flyer22 (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, WP:MOSFILMS#Cast actually discourages it, and states it's basically a last resort. Prose is preferred over plain lists. Speaking of, the way it is in Flyer's version, I would probably move it under "Production", because it's pure prose. As opposed to the "list prose" that pages like The Dark Knight and Transformers has; what you've got is more akin to Friday the 13th, which is probably going to be a typical format for horror films. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not see Str1977's problem with the casting section incorporating the whole cast. To add a bulleted list seems redundant. The plot is a touch long but in-universe plots have been accepted for GA and FA articles before now (Dark knight being a good example) and I think that simply recounted the film rather than "The film begins with" and "the film ends with" are clunky. Str1977 may not care for GA or FA but the aim of the whole of this project is that all articles should be that good not one third of one tenth of one per cent. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

But you repeatedly stated that you prefer an in-universe style, even though WP policies discourage it. Most plot summaries actually are writen the way I changed the section, without any trifles like BFF added.

Your cast(ing) section with a few exception does not give the information many readers will be looking for, who plays whom. The infobox does not and should not include the entire cast.

What I don't care about is the formal classing of this article. Sure I want it to be a good article. I were not willing to discuss changes first? Last time I looked there was no requirement to discuss the removal of BFF beforehand. And no, it is not relevant unless - as your previous version had it - you want to give a blow-by-blow report of the film.

Str1977 ^(talk) 22:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Flyer, you seem under the impression that you own this article and have right to decide about writing it in an in-universe style (even though WP discourages it) and that the privilege to cut down an overly long plot section yourself while everbody else has to wait for you doing it.

The fact is: you do not OWN this article. Everyone can edit it. You had all the time in the world to reduce the plot section until I came along and did it. Until you come up with something better (which will always be debatable), I don't see why you should be free to revert to the the long, BFF, sickly-green-water version.

PS. Your BFF version also includes unverified things like Needy developing murderous instincts. That's purely OR!

PPS. What "real-life details" are you talking about?

Str1977 ^(talk) 23:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I stated that I prefer in-universe style for plot summaries, as in Plot sections. Wikipedia does not discourage that plot summaries be told in in-universe style, as witnessed by most being written exactly that way. It says that the plot synopsis being written in in-universe style can (and "can" is the key word) be problematic. The main problem with writing in in-universe style is if readers confuse real-life events with fictional events. The readers are not going to be confused that a section titled Plot is about fictional details only. If anything, your version can confuse real-life matters with fictional matters. And most plot summaries on Wikipedia are actually written in in-universe style. That is evident from any random fiction-related article found here. You act as though your way is the right/correct way, despite having excellent articles such as The Dark Knight (film) and others serving as examples. Your way does not have to be followed with this article, and now two editors (myself and Darrenhusted) have expressed not quite grasping your need to have this plot section that way.

"My Cast section" does give the information many readers will be looking for, who plays whom. It is right there. It notes the main cast first, and then the additional cast and who they portray. If any sort of important character is not mentioned, that character and who portrays him or her can simply be added (problem solved).

No, you were not willing to discuss your changes first. And you still are not. Reverting to your version, as if we are simply supposed to leave it like that is not how things are supposed to be done here. Your changes did more than remove BFF, which is also your opinion that mention of it is not needed. My version of the plot summary does not give a blow-by-blow report of the film any more than The Dark Knight (film) article does with its plot summary. Things that I left in, such as mention of the BFF necklace, was due to people having previously and consistently added them in. My version of the plot summary, keeping in a few of the details you find irreleveant, reduced the messy editing of that section significantly. Beforehand, there were IPs and other such editors feeling that certain things should be noted. What I did was tweak or add in those things in a way to keep the plot from being too long at the same time. If you want to see a seemingly blow-by-blow version of this plot summary, you should check in the edit history before I and others started editing it down. I already stated that I planned to trim the plot summary some more myself. I would not even mind if Bignole were to do it, but reverting to your version as if that solves anything, when you know I disagree with it, is fruitless. I also feel that your version does not look any shorter at first glance than "my version" and makes the section look longer with the paragraphs you created.

I am not under any impression that I own this article. You are under the impression that you do not have to work with other editors to gain consensus about disputed matters, when, really, that is how Wikipedia works. You are the one reverting as if your revert is the "be all, end all" and as though it will stay that way simply because you reverted, as if reverting solves everything in this case. You are not even really discussing the matter, with reasons why your way is better or not. You are simply touting your opinions around, without any basis for why those opinions are better. Wikipedia does not thoroughly back you up on any of them.

Basically, we disagree. That is why I started this section -- to gain WP:Consensus. Continuing to revert each other solves nothing, and we also have to be careful about WP:3RR while doing such reverting.

PS. I did not add "unverified things like Needy developing murderous instincts."

PPS. "Real-life details" are your additions of the "film opens with", the "film ends with" or whatever type of mention of the story being fictional. That is completely unneeded. There is no need whatsoever to remind readers that this film is fictional in a section titled Plot, and I will be removing it; I will be putting back in an earlier shorter version of this plot section. Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You may prefer in-universe style and you may even state it time and again but as I said before your preference or even your stating it does not give you any special right to insist on it. In the end, it would be your preference to my preference. And despite your trying to ignore it, in-universe is not preferred by WP.

However, I now realise that you are actually jumping for minutae as the only "out-of-universe" things I added are the phrases "the film opens" and "the film closes", which I included not in order to warn the readers about fictionality but because these scenes must be somehow included and I think "Jennifer Check, is startled by a hooded face appearing in her bedroom window at night" is not a proper way to begin the plot section. The first scenes are special as they set the stage for the story then told as Needy's flashback. As for the end, the band massacre is also a special scene as it is part of the credits.

"Your way does not have to be followed with this article" is a strange sentence in the light of your previous insistence that your way must be followed. (Darrenhusted only made a small comment, so don't claim him as completely supporting you.)

"Your Cast section", if I remember correctly, did not give the "who plays whom" for all actors initially. But that problem was solved the last time around and hence I did not revert that again. Also, I was inclined to think that you would be more compromising on the plot if I was compromising on the cast.

Certainly I am not "willing to discuss my changes first" - neither are you - a demand that has no basis in WP policies. I used BFF merely as an example for totally ridiculous detail included in "your version". Others included the band's name, the finding of the very same knife. Leaving in these details actually is part of the "messy editing" - IPs or other overzealous editors try to include rubbish, then we need to rever them, not give in hoping that they will then go away. Oh, and please stop pointing me to other film articles. They can mess up just as much as this one.

You could please stop telling me what you "already stated". I know what you already stated as I read. But I don't care what you already stated - I care for what you do. If you wanted to trim the plot that was fine but you didn't do it.

Furthermore, "reverting to your version as if that solves anything, when you know I disagree with it, is fruitless". I can say the same thing. Again, you sound like claiming ownership. It is you who started to revert instead of building on what I did

"You are not even really discussing the matter, with reasons why your way is better or not." - Well, neither are you. Your arguments are: I prefer in-universe style (never the real issue), I keep the stupid details so that others do not add them in. Indeed, you are simply touting your opinions around, without any basis for why those opinions are better. Wikipedia does not thoroughly back you up on any of them.

I agree that continuing to revert each other solves nothing and that WE - that includes you - have to be careful about WP:3RR but I was not the one that started the reverting.

Ah, and yes you did 'add "unverified things like Needy developing murderous instincts"' by reverting to "your version" of the plot.

Str1977 ^(talk) 12:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to ignore Wikipedia's formatting guideline. Despite your comments to the contrary, Wikipedia does not heavily discourage in-universe style for plot summaries. I understand Wikipedia quite well. It is not as though I randomly linked to Wikipedia's guideline on in-universe style. If I did not know what it stated, I would not have linked to it. It may have been your first time reading that guideline, but I have read and followed it countless times. And what do I see all around Wikipedia? It being common sense that out-of-universe style is not needed for sections titled Plot or Storyline, or anything similar where the heading's title makes it clear that we are relaying fictional events. The main reason Wikipedia created its guideline on in-universe style was so that real-life events would not be confused with fictional events. Common sense people are not going to mistake a section titled Plot in a film article for something that really happened.

On the matter of out-of-universe things, you added more than "the film opens" and "the film closes." You also added in reference to the initial opening scene when Jennifer is lying on her bed, about to be murdered by Needy. In my opinion, "Jennifer Check, is startled by a hooded face appearing in her bedroom window at night" does not need to be included, either at the beginning of the plot or at the end...when the film is finally back to that point.

I never insisted that "my way" must be followed. I stated why I prefer "my way" and why I feel it is best. I am the one who posted a polite message to you on your talk page in order to discuss this, and then brought it to this talk page. What did you do first? Immediately reverted to your version, seemed to come here with an attitude (I could be wrong about your attitude; it rather seemed a certain way to me), insisting you were right, and showing that you were not willing to discuss this in a way in which we could work together. I do not take well to an editor significantly changing an article without taking other editors' feelings into consideration first, unless the significant changes are actually needed. Talk pages exist to work these things out, and see what is already consensus. I always check the talk page of articles first when I am thinking of making significant changes to articles, to see what may or may not already be consensus. And if I see that the article is active, I usually propose my changes on the talk page first. I am quite aware of WP:BOLD, but WP:BOLD is something that should be handled with care. Darrenhusted did support me in my feelings about the plot summary. I never stated anything about complete support, but there is nothing to conclude that Darrenhusted only somewhat supported me either.

My version of the Cast section did give the "who plays whom" for all actors initially. You can check on that through the edit history. You had probably missed it. I make viewing mistakes as well, so I will not fault you for that.

Certainly you are not "willing to discuss [your] changes first"? It has no basis in policies? It is well-known that discussing significant changes first is something that should be done for active articles, unless those changes are clear-cut improvements, as I just stated above. There was nothing wrong or ridiculous about mentioning the BFF locket, since it plays a role in Jennifer's death. Nor is there anything wrong with mentioning the band's name (you mentioned the football captain's name), but I address that below. And the finding of the very same knife is a strong point, as it strongly signifies what Needy will do with it. Leaving in these details is not messy editing at all. I point you and other people to good or featured articles because they are supposed to serve as the very best examples; the ones I pointed to do that. You may feel that their plot summaries are "messed up," because of your preference for generic summaries, but that is your opinion. It is an opinion. My version of the plot summary was actually fine the way it was, though it could have done without a little of some of that detail (and I actually was planning to cut it a bit). But I am sure that it would have still made GA with that version of its plot.

I mention "what I already stated" out of habit.

I explained above why I reverted you, and how I brought the discussion here. If I was not willing to listen to your feelings, I would have never taken this matter to your talk page or to this one. I also point out that I would have already reverted other changes to this article, such as Bignole's removal of the Tracklist section (though I did not add that) and the cover art, if I felt that this article was without a doubt mine. At Wikipedia, people always accuse other people of feeling that they own articles when those "other people" have significantly contributed to and watched over those articles. Bignole has been accused of such countless times, simply because he takes good care of the articles he has significantly contributed to. You are not the first to accuse me of feeling I own an article, and you will not be the last. Most editors here become very protective of articles they have created, significantly contributed to or watched over, though; that is only natural.

I have discussed my feelings, and why I prefer in-universe style for plot summaries (I linked to another discussion for my explanation). I did not simply tout my opinions around, without any basis for why those opinions are better, but I leave you to your opinion on that. I feel that Wikipedia does at least significantly back me up, judging by all the great example articles around. Flyer22 (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I will go ahead and tweak your version. To restore the article right now to an earlier version than either of ours could be seen as a violation of 3RR. Yes, I will be removing mention of "real-life details." If you revert my additions on that as well, then I will simply ask for more editors to weigh in on this topic from any other relevant project...if no more speak up here before then...or I will take it to WP:RfC or some other place for resolution dispute. I am willing to compromise. If you are not, oh well.

You should also keep watching this article to help remove the details you find irrelevent being added to it by IPs and other editors. Flyer22 (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It is an improvement in your approach (though I resent your warning me about 3RR. Your kettle is just as black as mine in that regard.)

However, ... Str1977 ^(talk) 12:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and tweaked the Plot section as I stated I would, leaving some of your changes in and all that extra detail you despise out. I am still unsure, however, if it is best not to name the actors in parentheses beside the character names; the Manual of Style favors that, last time I read it. But then again, articles The Dark Knight (film) and Transformers (film) do not follow that format either. Flyer22 (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

However, your new version still includes the band's name, do not include the opening scenes, report the sacrifice at the wrong point and fail to note that the band massacre is in the credits - this might again leading a spectator leaving early to claim that this wasn't in the film, noting that this was part of the credits prevents that.

The actor's names I removed because I inserted a cast section. Since you removed that, they should put back in.

Str1977 ^(talk) 12:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the negative in mentioning the band's name. Your version mentions the football captain's name, when I do not feel that is needed, but I left it in anyway. The band's name is more important, seeing as it is noted in the Cast section and they lead to all this mayhem. And my version of the plot does not report the sacrifice at the wrong point; it does happen at that point; it's just that the real-life audience does not initially see it right there. I get your point about the band's massacre happening during the credits, as the same concerns about that were also addressed to me before by an IP (as one of the top links to my talk page in this section shows), but I feel that most people will get the idea that the band's massacre does happen onscreen and that they surely missed something if they do not watch the credits. The credits roll immediately after the film "ends," and I am sure that if they are not watching a bootleg version that does not show the end credits (like I did upon first viewing the film), they will conclude that it happened then. The point is that the film's story is not over after Needy hitchhikes. If someone does not watch the end credits, which start immediately with new scenes, that is more of their own problem. Not necessarily ours.

As for the Cast section again, this article still has a Cast section. It is just as easy to see who portrayed whom with the prose Cast section I have created as it is with the simple bullet-point Cast section you created. If you would prefer, we could combine the idea -- create a bullet-point prose Cast section, like the two example articles I have repeatedly pointed to. I would prefer the look of The Dark Knight's article, though, which does not use bullet points while listing the Cast in bullet point style. The reason I decided to go against bullet-point or anything resembling it is because of what Bignole stated above; he stated something similar to me months earlier, and then I applied that to this article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

And I don't see the positive in mentioning the band's name. My principle for mentioning such things is whether they help the reader draw the connection to some other part of the plot summary or of the article. This is why I named the football captain (but only by his first name - I don't think this giving full names, even for the two main characters goes too far) - so that it can augment the information given in the cast section. The band's name is not supposed to be mentioned in the cast section and wasn't when I removed it - that "they lead to all this mayhem" is a purely in-universe explanation and I hope you don't expect me to take it seriously.

Yes, your version reports the sacrifice at a point at which the film doesn't tell us nothing about it, at which the film intentionally leaves out what happens.

"I get your point about the band's massacre happening during the credits, as the same concerns about that were also addressed to me before by an IP" - actually, your discussion was about whether this massacre was actually shown or merely implied. Turned out that the IP followed that annoying custom to leave when the credits began. But that's not our issue here apart from my view that noting that it is during the credits that will future IP-leaves-early editors from removing it again. I am not suggesting that the story is over with the hitchhiker - I merely think that we should note the special way in which the massacre is shown.

"As for the Cast section again ..." Why? Haven't we cleared up this issue by now? Str1977 ^(talk) 09:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The band's name is supposed to be mentioned in the Cast section, when the Cast section is detailed prose. I still do not get your rationale for including the football captain's name. The explanation of "whether they help the reader draw the connection to some other part of the plot summary or of the article" is more of my reason for mentioning the band's name; they are noted more than once in the plot summary due to having set off all this mayhem, and are addressed more significantly in the Cast section than the football captain is. Yes, I usually expect editors to take my comments seriously on Wikipedia. It makes more sense to me to mention the band's name than the football captain's name; I suppose we simply disagree on this matter.

I feel that what I stated above about mentioning the sacrifice in the spot that I do is sufficient enough for my rationale on that. But I can compromise with you and agree to move it to the spot where Jennifer explains to Needy what happened. I still want it in in-universe style, though. Would you be okay with this, even though out-of-universe style is your preference for this plot summary? And by the way, is out-of-universe style your usual preference for plot summaries? I am only asking because I want to know is it rather that you feel that it is best for certain plot summaries, like this one.

You stated that the new version of the plot summary "fail[s] to note that the band massacre is in the credits - this might again leading a spectator leaving early to claim that this wasn't in the film, noting that this was part of the credits prevents that." I stated that an IP brought up the same concerns. I do not see how the IP's concerns were/are different than yours. The IP is one of those spectators who left early and claimed that the massacre was not in the film. Yes, the IP felt that we are to believe that it happens within the story, but the IP did not believe it happens in the film. This IP also noted to me that it may be best that we mention it happening in the credits. That is why I brought up that conversation here, because it is the same thing you are saying about why we should include the fact that the massacre happens in the credits. As for myself on this matter, I will give it more thought. After all, I did originally let mention of the massacre happening in the credits stay in the article instead of reverting the IP (a different one) who added it. But I still feel that it is not necessarily needed, for the reasons I noted earlier.

To what part of that paragraph is your "Why?" directed? Do you mean...why compromise with you for a bullet-point prose Cast section? Well, it is clear that you still want a bullet-point type of Cast section. Since I prefer prose, it only seems logical that we combine the two ideas, as other articles have done. That way, readers can get the information as quickly as you feel they can, and it is still encyclopedic enough for my tastes. If you meant "why" about the Bignole part, that is clear from my above comment. Flyer22 (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reduced the plot down to 503 words and remove some awkward phrasing and superfluous descriptions. Needy goes to the occult section of the library, we don't need to be told "after some research". That she finds the knife used by Low Shoulder is not needed. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Good cut, Darrenhusted. Though I wouldn't say all of that detail is not needed. Wouldn't it be better to make it clear that Jennifer shows her power to Needy (seeing as that leads Needy to the occult section of the library)? Or do you trust that simply saying "Jennifer explains what happened" takes care of that? As for the kiss, I included that in the plot months ago to show the extent of the intimacy between these two girls, seeing as Diablo Cody feels that it is important to the film. It also shows readers at what point it happens. I believe that is also why I originally included the BFF information (seeing as how the BFF necklace plays a role in Jennifer's death), their sort of psychic connection, and the flashbacks each have right before Jennifer is killed. Flyer22 (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and added in "initiates physical intimacy with her" to substitute for mention of the kiss and Jennifer's suggestion that they continue their romantic encounter. Despite not minding most of the details that were in this article before, I feel that I am liking this new, condensed version a lot better Wikipedia-wise. Flyer22 (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and I also removed some wikilinks. The black fluid is black fluid, no need to hide an egg. Goth and hitch-hike tells us nothing about the film. I'll take another read an see if there is anything else that can be cut, but as it stands my personal preference is for in-universe, present tense, short and to the point. Not every tiny detail needs to get in, my own stance on the BFF necklace and the kiss is that they are superfluous to describing the events, that Brook Busey feels they are important is a given, she put them in there, but they do little to move the plot along. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I know that plot summaries do not need references. I am always stressing that (though some editors still insist on them for soap opera character articles, seeing as those episodes cannot be easily accessed), but it seems that it would be needed to confirm what type of liquid it is that she vomits since the film does not mention what type it is. I am pretty sure that is the reason it was put into the plot summary. However, since the type of liquid she spits up has now simply been reduced to "black fluid," (recently by Str1977, and then by you without the pipelink), it is fine.

I would rather you not cut anything else out of the plot summary, unless it is unneeded Wikilinks, but I will not throw a bitch fit if you do, LOL. And, LOL, at you mentioning Diablo Cody's real name. When I hear "Diablo," I do think "devil. Flyer22 (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Better. I still think the first and last secenes and their special nature should be properly noted. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Image for graphic novel not needed?

File:Jennifer's Body book cover.jpg

Cover art for Jennifer's Body graphic novel, by Eric Jones.

Bignole, is it really against policy that there be a picture of the graphic novel in this case? I added it because that section does note the art for the graphic novel, and it is not something that readers can correctly envision with text alone. This is the same reason that anime articles such as Fullmetal Alchemist and Strawberry Panic!, etc. show video game, light novel and DVD covers, etc. Flyer22 (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There isn't critical commentary on the cover art. All I see is "Fox's likeness". Since we know what Megan Fox looks like, we don't need to see an image of her on the novel to know that they used her likeness. Critical commentary would be them going into detail about what the cover art looks like, and why they chose it, and even then it's based on "significantly enhancing the readers' understanding". Generally, cover art for an adaptation in a section of a parent article is rarely justified. Bignole (talk) 4:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The cover art is not just illustrating Fox's likeness, though; it is showing what the cover art for the direct market looks like. That is not something that can be accurately envisioned, unless it were described in detail. As part of that section states, "Two covers, in Fox's likeness, were designed; one for the direct market by Eric Jones (available only in comic specialty stores), and the other by Frank Cho for the mass market focusing more on 'hellish Jennifer stories'". But now that I think about it, going with the mass market one would probably make more sense, since it reaches more people; it's just that I kept seeing the direct market one more than the mass market one online...and like it better.

I trust your judgment; you know that I do. Maybe I have been looking at anime articles too much around here, seeing as they often have cover art images of the type of stuff I already mentioned above. The justification usually is that it significantly enhances the reader's understanding because text cannot convey it alone. In other words (though I really don't have to break this down, LOL), it's significantly beneficial to know what the cover art looks like in cases where text is not sufficient enough to do so. Flyer22 (talk) 05:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sex scene between Chip and Needy

The sex scene between Chip and Needy is not the first time they've had sex. Chip clearly says, 'I bought more condoms.'

The director, Karyn Kusama, and the writer, Diablo Cody, discuss this scene in the audio commentary on the DVD and they clearly say it is not meant to represent their first time, although they do say that a lot of people misinterpret the scene that way.

C.S.Strowbridge (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Cody and Kusama should have been clearer on this matter in presenting this relationship and that scene. Their sex scene in the film is most definitely presented as Chip and Needy's first time having sex...even with Chip saying he bought more condoms (though I don't currently remember him saying that). Call it misinterpretation or whatever, but that is how it looks (and they clearly know that). "I bough more condoms" could easily mean he just wanted to be in good stock or have a variety to choose from. I have even read reviews where their sex scene is said to be "awkward, first time sex." I am not sure why, if that is not their first time, the film would present it that way. Are they saying that this was instead one of Chip and Needy's first few times having sex together, which is why it was/is still awkward? Are they saying that teenage sex is always awkward? Flyer22 (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Call it misinterpretation or whatever, but that is how it looks (and they clearly know that)."

Since there is no direct statement in the movie that this is their first time, then the plot summary on Wikipedia should not state that it is their first time. 'Misinterpretations' should not trump what the creators have said on record. There are reasons why the sex scene is there and why it is presented like that, but I would think they are off topic for the plot summary.

C.S.Strowbridge (talk) 11:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, what the creators have said should not play a part in what is and what is not included in the Plot section. What we see on film is what counts, and the film seems to imply that it is their first time. Misinterpretation? Hardly. But I will go ahead and remove "for the first time."

Also, I was not stating that the reasons they now say they wrote the scene that way should be included in the Plot section. I was asking so that I could get a better feel of how to word that part in the Plot section, and so that I could possibly add that information (the creator details about it) to a more appropriate part of the article. I remember Cody saying something about that scene intentionally being awkward. At that time, she did not correct anyone when they felt it was Chip and Needy's first time having sex. So I have even more reason to be skeptical of why the scene is played the way it is, just as many are skeptical of why she included the kissing scene between Jennifer and Needy. I could put "awkward sex," since it is clear that it was awkward...and Cody has said that it was supposed to be. But I will probably leave that out as well. Flyer22 (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

GA (Good article) nomination

As I stated to Tomer T, there are still further improvements I wanted to make to this article before nominating it for GA, such as adding a Marketing section and cutting down a bit on the quoting in the Critical reception section. But Tomer T sees it as good enough already, so we will see what happens. Flyer22 (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jennifer's Body/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SkarmCA (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I am in the process of review this article. Please check back in a few days for the typical GA checklist and comments. Thank you! SkarmCA (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Writing (Prose/MoS)

The article is very well written and uses more 'advanced' grammatical techniques correctly. In my two sweeps of the article I did not find any minor errors to correct which furthers my conclusion that this article was well prepared for the Good Article Nomination process. The only issue I have with the prose is that some of the sections, such as the Design and Effects subheading under Production, rely mainly on verbatim quotes. While they are sourced appropriately and are not hurting this article I find that I struggled reading through the material. Rather than quoting directly for every piece of information it may be worthwhile to re-write some of it, relying on fewer direct quotes from the source material, before a Featured Article Nomination if that is in the plans for this article. As I mentioned the above does not hurt the article with regards to the Good Article Nomination process, but it is a comment I have aimed at furthering the article.

Verifiable

The article uses a broad range of sources. While some of the sources, such as entertainment sites, may offer reviews based solely on the opinions, key sources also include well known and respected newspapers. Having checked through the links cited I find that only major entertainment sites have been used, that are well known, and thus there does not appear to be any problem with the sources chosen.

A comment: Does the DVD home-video release for the film include behind the scenes information that may be cited instead of some of the websites? This may be a wise idea if it is plausible to do. I am not familiar with what was included in the Jennifer's Body DVD release specifically, but I do know based on other DVDs or Blu-Rays that I have purchased do include information directly from the creators, writers, and actors which may be an asset to the article.

Coverage

There is not much I can add here. The article covers all major aspects expected of a Good Article on a movie and is also quite precise when covering all major aspects in their appropriate sections.

One comment: Is there enough source material to warrant, perhaps, a separate article on the movie soundtrack? If so, one could be produced with a short overview in the main article with a link under the heading "Main article:". This is merely something to think about.

Neutral Point of View

Given the amount of work that has gone into the article it is clearly a film (or actors/actresses) that the writers appreciate. However, this has not stopped the authors from maintaining a neutral point of review. A broad range of sources are used and cover both the positives and negatives in regards to the film.

Stability

The article is stable. There are no edit-wars and different authors appear to be in agreement about the article and material presented.

Images

There are no issues with the images used in the article. They are appropriately captioned and are a nice addition to the article.

Overall

The article was very well done. It has been a pleasure to review given the amount of effort that was put into it. I wish the authors luck if they wish to pursue Featured Article status, or, if not, the best of luck on their next endeavor. SkarmCA (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, SkarmCA. And I will consider everything you have stated about improving this article, especially the quoting stuff (which I also realized was too much). I suppose I sort of liked this film; something about it (such as the serial killer aspect, Megan Fox, or maybe both) certainly compelled me to work on it as much as I did. Again, thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Which Fox is that?

I think it has to be acknowledged that referring to the main actress as "Fox" within a movie produced by "Fox" ends up as confusing. With lines like, "He complimented Fox (about the movie)", needing a little while to figure out. --Kumagoro-42 16:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumagoro-42 (talk • contribs)

I thought about that too, but only with this line (as everything else is clear that we are talking about the actress and not the studio), which it seems you are talking about too:

He credited Fox with showing "a comic flair" that Transformers never investigated".

Ultimately, I didn't alter it because it's referring to Megan Fox's portrayal in Transformers. Still, not everyone will automatically know that she starred in Transformers, or read the parts of the article which mention beforehand that she starred in that film. We also cannot assume everyone will know that Paramount Pictures distributed Transformers and not the studio Fox. Because of this, I will alter the above blockquoted part to..."Fox's portrayal as." Flyer22 (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Fictional Greek Americans?

Can someone explain why this article belongs in that category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.50.72 (talk) 11:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it was there either, unless one of the characters is stated to be Greek. I removed it. Flyer22 (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Jennifer's Body. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

violation of 'good article' terms and policies

In the plot of Jennifer's Body,there is a part which highlights a kiss between two main characters. This pot point is completely unnecessary and has nothing to do with the plot of the movie, hence ,violating the terms and conditions of a good article in wikipedia. I hope this is edited — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.253.169.20 (talk) 08:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You have been repeatedly reverted by me, General Ization and Gladamas for IP-hopping to remove material that you don't like. This is why the article has recently been semi-protected three times. As this and this edit show, you have not simply been removing the kiss aspect from the Plot section; you've been removing a number of things that you personally disagree with/don't like. Although we can remove the kiss aspect from the Plot section, I decided to retain it because it's noted in the Filming section, Critical response section, and the Box office section. And the Cast section states that Needy "shares a somewhat lesbian infatuation" with Jennifer. You've been removing this piece as well, but writer Diablo Cody quite clearly states, "There is a sexual energy between the girls which is kind of authentic [...]." Given all of the commentary about the kiss, I felt that it was WP:Due to include it in the Plot section for context. You will not find anything at WP:Good article or WP:Film plot stating that, in the Plot section, we shouldn't mention the kiss or that Needy and Chip had sex (which is another piece you focused on removing).

All that stated, there is some cleanup/cutting I need to do to this article, but I'll get around to that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Just noting here that the IP has proceeded to engage in the same disputed editing, this time as the Callmeanidiot (talk · contribs) account to get around CambridgeBayWeather's semi-protection of the article. Callmeanidiot is obviously the IP hopper. No one has been as obsessed with sexual content and foul language in this article as the IP hopper has been, and the Callmeanidiot account has only recently become active. I warned the account. Per above, Callmeanidiot has already been told that the content he keeps removing is not in violation of any Wikipedia policy or guideline, and is supported by sources. If Callmeanidiot wishes for the content to be removed, which he clearly does, then he needs to make a valid case here on the talk page, not keep removing the material because he disagrees with its inclusion. I am willing to discuss, not simply be told "that it shouldn't be there" and then have the content removed.

If General Ization and Gladamas would prefer that this bit be removed from the Plot section, I will also keep that in mind. But as for why it's included there, I already explained above. It is not a gratuitous inclusion any more than its inclusion in the film is gratuitous (which, yeah, Cody has had to defend). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Another note: Callmeanidiot has also been engaged in disputed editing at the Spider-Man: Homecoming article. And that article has recently been semi-protected. There, though, Callmeanidiot is adding material that editors feels is unnecessary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

sorry for the inconvenience, but i stopped removing material that i didnt like ever since I got your messages. I am not removing such content anymore and only removed that one kiss scene recently. Now, it is just the kiss I want to remove. I had also been editing other pages with foul language, but stopped as soon as I got your warning. Also, I have only been using one computer to change the content. I dont know how I used a different IP address. In recent edits, I have only been removing the kiss and nothing else important.sorry for the whole inconveneience but that is all I wish to remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.253.169.20 (talk • contribs)

Also, the spiderman homecoming edits saw me editing a post credits scene which seemed unnecessary to someone else, but similar conditions have appeared in multiple movies in the same franchise. Such debates never occurred in those previous films, so I kept changing that one scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callmeanidiot (talk • contribs) 08:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Another note, the film Cruel Intentions was also famous for the girl on girl kiss, but in that plot the kiss hasn't been mentioned, as it has nothing to do with the plot. I agree that the kiss is well noted, but that is the only thing the kiss has to do with the film. that is all I wish to remove and nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.253.169.20 (talk • contribs)

I appreciate that you have stopped removing all of the sexual content and foul language material. As for Cruel Intentions, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, one article doing one thing does not mean that another article should as well. I'm willing to bet that the Cruel Intentions article once included the kiss, which, really, has far more significance to the plot of that film than the kiss in Jennifer's Body does to its plot, but that someone removed it. Still, per what I stated above, I think it makes more sense to include the kiss in the Plot section of this article so that readers know what we are talking about when reading the sections that mention it. I'm not overly tied to it, but I do think it's better to include it in the Plot section for context. I could also reword it so that it flows better. Except for its Awards section, the Cruel Intentions article currently doesn't even mention its kiss anywhere, despite the kiss's cultural impact. That article is significantly poorer and needs a lot of work to be more comprehensive; so I don't think it should held up as a "no kiss included in the Plot section" example. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

ok, I wont disturb you anymore regarding this topic. I will stop coming to this article and topic any further. If that's the reason its fine, but i still think it violates the good article terms, and that mentioning it in the production is enough, but it doesnt matter too much anymore. I just needed to understand why you included the kiss. Thanks for understanding and sorry for the inconvenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callmeanidiot (talk • contribs)

Callmeanidiot, no, it is not a violation of any good article terms. I already addressed this above. And regarding this and this, when you are blocked, as you previously were by Dlohcierekim and now by KrakatoaKatie, you are not to edit with your IP. The block is not simply on the account; the block is on you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

sorry for responding late, but the block was on me for the dispute with another editor regarding the Spider-Man: Homecoming article and there, I tried to resolve the dispute with the editor on the talk page, but he never responded. Even after multiple requests on the plot to end it, they still haven't responded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callmeanidiot (talk • contribs) 11:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Jennifer's Body. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)