Talk:Independence Day (1996 film)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Blu-ray release date

The article erroneously claimed that the Blu-ray was released on March 11 2008. While this was indeed the US release date, it was available in the UK almost three months earlier, on December 24 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mentasm (talk • contribs) 00:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Similarities to War of the Worlds

I could avoid "weasel wording" by describing precisely how the plot is the same as The War of the Worlds (aliens come and attack Earth, are defeated by viruses, etc.), but then it becomes original research as all the sources I can find that meet all of Wikipedia's 758 requirements that confront this issue are sensible enough to describe it as something like "a cursory retelling with a small twist". Would a reputable plot summary of the WotW novel along with one of the ID film be enough? My suspicion is that because it wouldn't actually point out the similarities, it wouldn't be enough. Can I appeal to WP: Common Sense? Raoul (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

While it is obvious that it is an "update" of sorts of WOTW, the common sense mentality would apply. But a statement of such would be better suited in the production section with sources of the filmmakers specifically explaining the inspiration. Listing a spoiler is no longer a concern; Wikipedia even discourages using the spoiler tag. But placing a statement beginning with "some felt" indicates hearsay and opinion, and adding a source only indicates the same of those mentioned. Placing this in the "critical response" section of a film article can indicate a positive/negative impression of the film inherent only to the statement. It'd be best to list a notable critic's explanation as to why the similarites to WOTW was advantageous or detrimental to the movie. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 02:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll drop this as I have no interest in looking through either loads of interviews to find the writers' inspiration or a lot of major reviews to try and find a mention of the similarities and how they impact the quality. Half of one of your sentences suggests that you misunderstood what I was doing with the sources, but it doesn't affect your argument, so I don't see any point in debating it. Raoul (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the computer virus was a modern homage to the biological virus from War of the Worlds. And El Toro plays a role in both movies (the original, not the Tom Cruise version). This, plus the fact that there's an alien invasion, what else does this movie really have in common with the novel? - Jombage (talk) 05:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Well there's also the force field that was added in the 1953 movie, although that's not much a homage as it is a necessity that today's world is so dangerous the only way to stop our weapons is through a force field. As much as it took from WotW there's also a hell of a lot from V, which I think was a mini-series. The saucers were a lot smaller but still big, and there were many of them each hovering over a major city. and then communicating with each other through a countdown, but that's where it ends where V sends an ambassador to the United Nations and this movie sends a payload of destruction TMV943 (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Fruitless Discussion allowed, but not a serious comparison?

Why doesn't the person who erased my comment regarding the allusion to a scene in the book The Sirens of Titan also erase the fruitless discussion below that centers around comparisons of ID4 to the War of the Worlds? If my comment sucked sufficiently (and violated WP:FORUM, supposedly) so as to merit deletion, so does theirs. Just because you have perhaps not read The Sirens of Titan, doesn't mean my comment is worthy of deletion. The book is amazing, a rollicking hilarious space epic, and much better than ID4, for that matter. This comment is inevitably destined for deletion by the same person who killed my last one, so if you read this before deletion, consider your intellect to have been augmented in some way. Hi Ho. 65.248.164.214 (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Technically this page is reserved for discussing edits and suggesting ways to improve the article. I looked at the history tab and read the entry that you had entered and perhaps it was interpreted as your insistence that your point-of-view be included in the article. If you can find a source somewhere that states that this scene was indeed inspired by that novel, by all means include it in the article. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

Passed on 6 September 2008 at 15:36(UTC) Cheers, (the reviewer) -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 15:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Independence Day (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Version reviewed

First, I am not going to do a full review, because I suck at anything but clear-cut reviews, and I don't want to start something again (see Talk:Dol Guldur). But, a few comments for you:

  • per WP:LEAD, the lead section should probably be a lot longer...4 paragraphs, probably.
    • Is it possible to get it longer? If not, I'll slash it.
  • per WP:LEAD it is preferable to have no references in the lead.
  • Using these two sites...[1] and [2]:
    • Ref #14 is dead.
    • Ref #2 is to rottentomatoes.com...is there a specific page you want to link too?
    • Ref #75 didn't let me in...
      • Point it to a specific point within the grammy site?
    • Twister (film) goes to a disambig.
    • So does Mobile.

Cheers and good luck (as this is my favorite movie, another reason to not review it), -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 20:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

All done. Leads for films are usually three paragraphs; the first paragraph is the plot, the second is development, the third is marketing, release, and reception. Gary King (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I give in—I'm reviewing it...I should have the full review up within an hour at the most. -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 00:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
You know what's sad? The full review took me 59 minutes. =D -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 01:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    see below, plot summary is the only sore point.
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Excellent images!


Comments

Lead

  • These need to be sourced somewhere in the article!
    • The movie was scheduled for release on July 3, 1996, but due to the high level of anticipation for the film, many theaters began showing it on the evening of July 2, 1996, the same day the action in the film begins.
    • It currently holds the 19th highest worldwide gross for a movie all-time, and was at the forefront of the large-scale disaster film and science fiction resurgences of the mid-to-late-1990s.my bad. -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 05:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
They are sourced and elaborated upon in the "commercial" sub-section. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Not the first sentence... -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 05:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Right you are ...my apologies. That fact is noted in the "distribution" section, and I added the one little detail to reflect what was said in the lead. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Good work... Done -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 14:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Plot Summary

  • Should the summary be in past tense? (I really don't know, which is why the rest of these comments will still use present tense, but I think that it would sound a lot better with past tense...)
  • You say "several dozen saucer-shaped "destroyer" spacecraft"--why "destroyer"? The humans didn't know if they were "destroyer" craft.
When the David character is explaining his virus plan in the bunker, there is a drawing behind him, identifying them as such. I believe that's why "destroyer" is in quotation marks. (same with "attacker") - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Is that not OR though? ;) And the humans didn't know if they were destroyers at that point in the movie... -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 05:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I suppose. I don't know if re-wording to read ...saucer-shaped spacecraft (later referred to in the fim as "destroyers")... would be a good idea, but I'd suggest it anyway (using the word "destroyer" to describe that particular ship in all other mentions of it in the article would simplify things). The Defense Secretary does refer verbally to the smaller ships as "attackers" however. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The Defense Secretary said that because he was trying to look better....just pick one and run with it, and then I'll slash it. -talk- the_ed17 -contribs-
Done. "Attacker" it is. Gary King (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Argh! Glad to see this passed, but this is still bugging me. I guess I'm not being clear enough. The mother ship is the giant ship in orbit. The destroyers are the city-sized saucers that come down and blow up cities. The attackers are the smallest that engage the F-18s. What I meant was that the destroyers are never referred to as destroyers verbally in the film. BUT...in a drawn-up diagram of each ship, the city-sized ships are clearly labeled "destroyers". The movie is pretty straightforward about it....Jeff Goldblum points right at it for several seconds. They need to be described as "destroyers" in this article to distinguish them from "attackers", which are mentioned in the article as well but are completely different types of ships. I'll go ahead and change for now. If it's changed back, please discuss. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Earth's major cities should be de-linked, if one was to say that all of those 47 cities were destroyed, it would be OR.
Done. So true, because I have seen edits where an unnecessary list of several major cities is added to this sentence. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
When in heck did you see edits like that, mister I've been around since the beginning of August? =D Just kidding. -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 14:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "The President orders an evacuation of the targeted cities, but soon afterwards, the aliens, using advanced directed-energy weapons, destroy the cities."...sounds weird to me, maybe "The President orders large-scale evacuations of the targeted cities, but the aliens attacked with advanced directed energy weapons before these could occur."
I would suggest re-wording it without including the mention and wikilink of "directed-energy weapons." It links to a low quality article which includes a ton of OR in its sections regarding science fiction. What's difficult is describing the weapon without it being OR, since it's never really explained in the movie. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
"The mention"...of what? -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 05:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The mention of "directed energy weapon". In the movie the middle of the underside of the ship opens up to reveal a big cone of sorts, which zaps down some kind of green/blue laser beam that blows up buildings and starts the chain reaction of destruction. This has to be described according to standard somehow. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Wellll I've seen articles with limited OR so that they could state something like that. Directed energy weapon is fine, because the weapon is obviously that, and anyone watching the movie can tell, so it not going to be mentioned in the movie as one, and its not going to be mentioned in reviews because everyone knows! -talk- the_ed17 -contribs-

 Done -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 15:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

  • "The President, portions of his staff, and the Levinsons narrowly escape aboard Air Force One as a destroyer lays waste to Washington D.C." ....sounds weird also. Don't quite know how to re-word this one.
"As Washington D.C. is destroyed, the President, portions of his staff, and the Levinsons narrowly escape aboard Air Force One" perhaps? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
"The President narrowly escapes aboard Air Force One as a destroyer lays waste to Washington D.C.; only him, portions of his staff, and the Levinsons were able to get out aboard the plane." -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 14:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to change this because I think the original text is acceptable. Gary King (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "On July 3, the United States conducts a coordinated counterattack. A squadron of Marine Corps F/A-18 Hornets, the Black Knights stationed out of El Toro MCAS in Irvine, California..." ...On July 3, the United States conducts a coordinated counterattack; the movie follows one of these battles, showing a squadron of Marine Corps..." Does that sound better?
That does sound better. I would suggest leaving out the "stationed out of..." part. This info stretches the sentence too long, and can be found on the Black Knights article. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Good point. -talk- the_ed17 -contribs-
  • Add the italicized text: "Captain Steven Hiller (Will Smith) ends up as the sole survivor of all of the squadrons sent against the aliens"
Do we know for certain that the Hiller character was the only survivor of the attack? I would remove the part that states he's the "sole survivor" (I don't like the phrase "ends up" anyway). How about ..."releasing scores of 'attacker' ships, and a one-sided dogfight ensues. Captain Steven Hiller manages to survive the attack by luring a single attacker..."? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Better. =) -talk- the_ed17 -contribs-
  • Was it really the Grand Canyon...? I doubt it; the original attack was over Los Angeles!
It was, but eventually Hiller finds himself all the way out in the Grand Canyon while fleeing from an alien ship for so long. Remember him weaving about the canyon walls as the alien continued to give chase? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Where did it say it was the Grand Canyon...? I know that it was a long time, but.... -talk- the_ed17 -contribs-
Would it be best to find an external article that specifically states that it is the Grand Canyon and use that as a source? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes! -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 14:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I added a reference. It is a newspaper. Gary King (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • alien pilot => alien.....jet's => jets'
Should it remain "jet's" since it is refers to just one plane? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
No, that would be a grammatical mistake--with his jet's braking parachute--the apostrophe shows possession. (not plurality!) -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 05:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
But from what I can tell, it's intended to show possession. The braking parachute belongs to the jet. Or maybe it'll be best to remove the word altogether. We already know from earlier that he's in a jet. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Good idea...I'm still convinced that "jet's" is the plural possession form...or something like that. -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 14:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "When lead scientist Dr. Brackish Okun (Brent Spiner) examines the new alien specimen, it attempts escape and takes control of his mind." Add something about how the all of the research team died...pretty big part there...
Done. Elaborated a little as well. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "...using B-2 Spirit bombers on an alien destroyer which is hovering over a deserted Houston..." how about "on one of the alien destroyer hovering over now-deserted Houston."
Would "the" insinuate that it's the only destroyer left? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Good point, changed the sentence above to reflect that. -talk- the_ed17 -contribs-
  • "On July 4, Levinson devises a plan to use the captured attacker to gain access to the interior..." What captured attacker? Was this mentioned earlier?
It was mentioned at the end of the second paragraph in the plot summary; "Area 51 conceals a top secret facility housing a repaired attacker and three alien bodies recovered from Roswell in 1947." - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Then the second part should use the words "repaired attacker" too, or the first one should be "captured attacker"... -talk- the_ed17 -contribs-
Good point, since (according to the Roswell legend) it was recovered after a crash rather than "captured." Changed second mention to "repaired." - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "The underside of the alien craft opens up as its primary weapon" no one who has not seen the movie will know what the 'primary weapon is'.
This is another tricky one. If anyone can figure out a way to work around the similar problem that's stated above, this one should be easy to fix. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Gary King? Any ideas? -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 14:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I explained primary weapons in the beginning of the Plot. Gary King (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I just removed it and replaced it with directed energy weapons...=D -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 15:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "Russell possesses the one remaining missile"....to "Russell possesses the last remaining missile"

Cast and characters

  • I like it.

Starring List

Bill Pullman and Jeff Goldblum should REALLY be before Will Smith in the cast list becuz #1 they appear before him and #2 they have much more roles in the movie then them. OK, I know that Pullman and Goldblum are behind Smith in the MOVIE, but changes can be made on here that is different i.e. Ralphie is below his parents on the starring list of A Christmas Story, but on the artical it's the other way around. 75.69.239.55 (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Production

  • "hidden in some back field ...[o]r they arrive in little spores".... should [o]r be [or]?
    I didn't put that in so I can't say for certain, but I imagine it's because it was originally "Or". Gary King (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I remember that Pullman ad-libbed his speech, from when I was watching DVDTV on AMC...add that in?
The source is apparently the "DVD commentary". I listened to the Blu-ray commentary...don't know itf it's the same, but, the producer pretty much told the story as exactly as it appears in the article. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Can that be even be sourced here on WP? -talk- the_ed17 -contribs-
I've seen discussions stating they can and they can't. I personally don't like them because a DVD commentary can't be accessed through a link at the end of an article. But, with all of that aside, in my last comment on this I was referring to simply the last line of the speech. Whether or not Pullman ad-libbed the whole speech is unknown by me. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, on that DVDTV thing AMC has on every month, it was stated that he ad-libbed the entire thing... That would be a good thing to add... -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 14:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Did you want to add this? (Italics added so you'll see it) -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 15:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I haven't seen that show personally so I don't think we should add it; if you've seen it and know that it supports that claim, then feel free to add it in for us. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
...It was awhile ago, and I don't remember all of the specifics...if I see it again I will add it in for sure. Plus, I don't know how to cite it! PASS. -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 15:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Otherwise, I love it...learned a lot.

Distribution

  • Fine

Reception

Commercial
  • "A month after the film's release, jewelry designers and marketing consultants reported an increased interest in dolphin-themed jewelry, due to the fact that the character of Jasmine in the film wears dolphin earrings and is presented with a wedding ring that features a gold dolphin.[58]" Nice side note...very interesting!
  • Should the image of the TIME cover be removed? I seem to remember there being a fair use stipulation restricing the use of an image of a magazine cover unless it was in an article about the periodical itself. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 07:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Disregard...just read a discussion about the guidelines and it seems that magazine cover is allowed if it helps better illustrate a statement in the article about the significance of the film; it "was at the forefront of the large-scale disaster film and science fiction resurgences of the mid-to-late-1990s." - SoSaysChappy (talk) 07:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Critical
  • It alternates...negative/positive/negative/positive etc. Maybe positive followed by negative? I dunno, this one isn't required...
Sequel
  • Rename the section to 'Possible sequel' or 'Discussed theme' or something of the like.
Done. Combined the two: "Sequel discussion". - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Putting on hold until these are resolved; but overall this is a great article. -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 01:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a lot was done while I was away. Thanks! It's hard to see what still needs to be done – by the looks of it, all of the issues raised have been addressed, though. I'd like to point out that plot sections in films, video games, and other similar articles are in present tense. Gary King (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I didn't know, I just thought that it might sound better....whatever. =) -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 14:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
See the production section. -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 15:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Novelizations

I noticed that one sentence mentions that a novel tells the story of "Captain Cummins and Colonel Thompson". Are these the names as they appear in the novel? I ask because I've never read it, and I also ask because I just watched this again because of its GA nomination and noticed that the two British pilot characters in the Iraqi desert are named "Reginald and Thomson" in the credits. But the nametags they wear have completely different names on them. This could be irrelevant because in the film one can assume they both had to throw on someone else's uniform in a hurry, but I only bring this up because I think it would be best to remove their names from the article and simply refer to them as the "two Royal Air Force officers" to avoid any confusion as to what their names really are. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 07:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

SF Chronicle

“Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle gave the film four stars out of four” I changed this b/c The SF Chronicle doesn't use the star rating but instead a system of little icons of a man in a theater reacting to the movie. In the review of this movie the little man is jumping out of his chair and applauding, which is the equivalent of 4 stars. 71.82.7.116 (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Homosexual panic!

This may be of interest, if anyone is planning on improving the article to FA in the future:

Science fiction films' inclusion of gay characters continues to relegate them to supporting roles, such as the "sterotypical, limp-wristed, frantic homosexual" minor character in the 1996 blockbuster Independance Day,[1] a film whose main theme has been described as being the anxiety surrounding male friendships and homosexual panic.[2]

Both refs can be accessed with Googlebooks, and have a little bit more to say (ie, the gay characters death was necesary to free the other male characters for male-bonding, to reassure the audience that nothing "gay" was implied). Feel free to rewrite, expand, find a decent place in the article. I didn't see anything on critical analysis to put it with.Yobmod (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Okun. Dead or comatose?

OK, lately there seems to be a lot of edits concerning the fate of Dr. Okun. I went back and watched this scene, and we last see him lying motionless on the floor. Someone grabs his neck as if to check his pulse and Okun gives no response. The pulse-checker then looks glances over at the President. There is no clear indication as to whether he's actually dead, but neither is there any that he's in a coma. Aside from whatever evidence is presented in the film itself, the script for the film states that he has, in fact, died. So I reverted the recent edit claiming that he's simply comatose back to the original version that declares him dead, citing the script as a source. I am aware that the producer of the movie is heard saying "don't worry, he's in a coma!" on the commentary, but we can't ascertain as to whether or not he's being facetious. Please discuss before changing again. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going by what the commentary said. To me, it didn't sound like he was kidding when he said he was in a coma. Those guys made the movie so I think they'd know what was supposed to happen.Think about this. Once Bread becomes toast, you can't make it back into bread. (talk) 09:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As a compromise, I would suggest leaving alone the description that states he was killed by the alien, and then follow it up with the fact that the filmmakers hinted that he's simply in a coma. I'll leave this up to someone who knows how to properly format a citation of a DVD commentary. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Found a source and added to article. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiousity...

In one of the captions for the images, you say that "A World War II training plane...". Which type of plane? I'm sure that WP has an article about it, and it would be cool to know which plane (well, to me at least)... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Russell's (step)children

Re: this
I remember looking over this during a plot summary trim...best I can recall they were intended to be his stepchildren, but certain scenes that would have indicated this were removed from the final edition of the film, so that the filmmakers could portray them as being his actual children. If the plot summary is going to say that they are his "Mexican stepchildren", a source is needed. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

References to other films

At various points in the film it references: Star Wars, Close Encounters, 2001, Airplane and a few more. It was one of the things that it made such a clever and knowing film. These used to be mentioned in the article. Would anyone object if I put them back in please?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 20:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If you put them in on the basis of your own point of view, in that it makes the film "clever and knowing", I think you would bump into more than a few objections. If a simple list of what films are referenced in the film is all that is included, it would be pure original research and trivia. However, if there were sources that can be added which verify about how the filmmakers were making references to or drawing influence from these films, then this material be great for the article. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't have souces but it's pretty clear what Emmerich was up to. When David opens up his laptop before flying off to infect the alien mothership it says "Good morning Dave". That's a clear reference to 2001, right? It's even got the same voice as HAL from 2001. When the humans try and contact the aliens via a flashing light display that's a reference to Close Encounters, we agree? And etc.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 15:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree. It's still original research, and including sources would solve the OR problem. And simply saying "scene X is a reference to film Y" is trivia. See Wikipedia:Trivia sections to read about how such info can be deemed relevant and properly included. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

disambig hatnote should be deleted

After I moved Independence Day (film) to Independence Day (1996 film), an editor added a disambiguation hatnote to provide a link to Independence Day (1983 film). Then I deleted that hatnote because "there is no need to add disambiguation links to a page whose name already clearly distinguishes itself from the generic term" per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Usage guidelines. But a second editor added that hatnote again. The reason provided at the edit summary is: "put back dab hatnote per WP:COMMONSENSE; if Independence Day (film) redirects here, it's a solid bet that some may accidentally come here when looking for the 1983 film. May as well not confuse people". I disagree. Even if Independence Day (film) redirects here, no one can be confused because nobody types "Independence Day (film)" to search for a film. They instead simply type "Independence Day", which will bring them to Independence Day (disambiguation) and then they can find relevant film there. "Independence Day (film)" only serves as an incoming link, not as a search phrase. Those who click the link of "Independence Day (film)" are not looking for the 1983 film. Through the context of the articles containing that link, they can understand that it refers to the 1996 film. The disambiguation hatnote here is actually useless. --Pengyanan (talk) 07:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


Independence Day (film) → Independence Day (1996 film) — per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films).—Pengyanan (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I request to move Independence Day (film) to Independence Day (1996 film) per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films). I am just changing all the incoming link "Independence Day (film)" to "Independence Day (1996 film)". Then Independence Day (film) will be redirected to Independence Day (disambiguation). --Pengyanan (talk) 07:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Unnecessary, as this film is clearly the primary topic. Though it's not stated on WP:NCF#Between films of the same name, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is mentioned in the section before regarding Disambiguation From other topics. - BilCat (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment. Please note that "Independence Day (film)" is NOT a primary topic. The primary topic is Independence Day. When a "(film)" is added to the article title, this title is already a disambiguation entry's title. No one types "Independence Day (film)" to search for a film. They instead simply type "Independence Day", which can bring them to Independence Day (disambiguation) and then they can find relevant film there. If you really want to make this film as a primary topic, you should request to move Independence Day (film) to Independence Day. --Pengyanan (talk) 07:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
      • How do you know know one types "Independence Day (film)" (or another title)? I do that at times, and I'm certain I'm not the only one. Also, it makes no sense to have a DAB page when there are only two titles needing to be distinguished, and that is a recommended at WP:HNP#Two articles with similar titles. Why redirect the main title to a DABed page? That's an admission that it is the primary topic for its subject. - BilCat (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - BilCat is right. As far as Independence Day (film) is concerned, this is the primary topic. It isn't for just Independence Day, but since film is already specified most users would be hoping to reach here. There is only one other film by this title, and that is far less well-known and specified clearly in a hat-note. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 10:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment. A primary topic is a "term, name or phrase" (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Is there a primary topic?). When a word or phrase is added in parentheses to the title, the topic will become a specific topic, not a primary topic anymore (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming the specific topic articles No.2). Therefore "XX (film)" is apparently not a primary topic. If it is, then every specific topic, such as "XX (politician)", "XX (novel)", and even "XX (19XX film)", can be seen as a primary topic, and Avatar (2009 film) should be moved to Avatar (film). The purpose of the disambiguation naming convention on primary topic is to save users' time on searching generic terms. As I put it, few users type "Independence Day (film)" to search for a film. They instead simply type "Independence Day". "Independence Day (film)" only serves as a incoming link, not a search phrase. If this moving request is approved, I will change those incoming links "Independence Day (film)" to "Independence Day (1996 film)". Then no one will be confused. Thanks. --Pengyanan (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
      • You misunderstand me: I know that this is not the primary topic for Independence Day. But, if someone is looking for a film called Independence Day, they almost certainly mean this one. And yes, people do type Independence Day (film) into the search box - I do, and I know several others who do too. I feel that moving it to a specified year is unneccessary when the vast majority of people looking for this topic are looking for this article, especially since they may not know the specific year in order to search for it. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 18:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Independence Day is clearly the primary topic among the two films on Wikipedia, getting more than 98% of the pageviews. Hundreds of incoming links point to it, indicating most editors assume they are linking to this film, and readers clicking on Independence Day (film) on the dropdown list of the search box need to get here, not to a dab page. WP:NCF describes how to qualify a title with first "(film)" and then "(year film)" if necessary, but doesn't imply all films necessarily need the year, just those that are not a primary use of that title among films. Station1 (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Both film articles are already disambiguated. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says, "When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase... that term or phrase should either be the title of the article on that topic." As we see, Independence Day is not claimable by either film, and so we cannot apply WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here. We move on to the matter on how to disambiguate properly. What we would apply is WP:SECONDARYTOPIC, but there is no such thing, only the objective organization of secondary topics beyond the primary topic. That organization is guided by WP:NCF, and thus disambiguating by release year is necessary here. Erik (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • With regard to the quote you cite: The ambiguous term or phrase here is "Independence Day (film)". The 'well-known primary topic' for that ambigous phrase is this 1996 film, not the 1983 film. Therefore "Independence Day (film)" should be the title of this article. Station1 (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:DISAMBIG#Deciding to disambiguate clearly indicates that the primary topic is the one without any kind of disambiguation whatsoever. I strongly disagree with your unprecedented claim that because one of two disambiguated article is more popular, it is okay to simplify one of them. It does not matter; neither are the primary topic, "Independence Day", and are already disambiguated from it. That's all there is. Erik (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:DISAMBIG#Deciding to disambiguate says nothing of the kind that I see. The 'claim' is hardly unprecedented; see the two opposition !votes above for example. No one is claiming this film is the primary topic for the phrase "Independence Day"; only that it is the primary topic for the phrase "Independence Day (film)". The logic of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies equally to the latter as to the former: if a reader searches for, or an editor links to, a phrase -- in this case "Independence Day (film)" -- they should wind up where they expect most of the time. Station1 (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • We're not going to convince each other. The editors who also oppose are wrong, doing a similarly misreading of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There is nothing wrong with disambiguating by release year. Erik (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support because this film is not the primary topic as the people who oppose the move are claiming. Seeing that Independence Day redirects to List of countries by Independence Day, there is no clear-cut primary topic here. In addition, WP:NCF#Between films of the same name only indicates disambiguation by the release year. There is no hierarchy of importance or popularity to apply to film articles that are already disambiguated. If there is a 1983 film that is notable by Wikipedia's standards, and it seems like a film reviewed by Pauline Kael would be, then this article should be moved to disambiguate properly and all dab links on Wikipedia should be fixed. Erik (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films). We have two films with the same name, so the year should be part of this article's name to properly disambiguate. The page hits have nothing to do with it, and the 1983 film seems fairly notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support The 1996 film is more recent, but that doesn't give it hegemony. Stetsonharry (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) is a guideline and is problematic because it does not reflect WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in its guidance for how to name films with the same name, probably because only major release films were considered when that rule was written, in which case neither film would ever be the primary use over the other. This is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guidance that applies here:

When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer, then that term or phrase should either be the title of the article on that topic, ...

The "same words" in this case are Independence Day (film), and, since the topic of this page is "much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer", these words should be the title of this article. The films guideline should be revised to reflect the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guidance accordingly, but in the mean time WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should not be ignored here, and so this proposal needs to be opposed. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
You misinterpret WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. "Independence Day (film)" is already disambiguated, so it is not an ambiguous term. "Independence Day" is the ambiguous term. This one, not a primary topic, needs to be further disambiguated (as it has already been disambiguated on one level) to differentiate from other films. Erik (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
You are also counting "(film)" as a word when it is not. When we refer to the topic at hand, we are going to say "Independence Day". This shows that the terms used to disambiguate are not part of it. You will not see "Independence Day (film)" thrown around outside Wikipedia. You can't just say that "Independence Day (film)" is the primary topic because there is no such thing as "Independence Day (film)" outside Wikipedia; we set that up to disambiguate from the primary topic itself. Erik (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Independence Day (film) to Independence Day (disambiguation) is ok by me, once all the incoming links to Independence Day (film) have been addressed. Currently only 60 of the almost 300 articles have been addressed. So I don't think pointing Independence Day (film) to Independence Day (disambiguation) is appropriate until that work is completed. --Labattblueboy (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

F-18 image and caption

"The F/A-18 was the main focus of the U.S. Marine Corps in the film" confuses me. The Marines were focusing on the planes? ...er, huh?? Plus, saying that all other aircraft in the film is given "little screen time" seems ambiguous. What constitutes "little screen time"? Air Force One (a big Boeing jet) was on screen a lot, and so were some helicopters and stealth bombers. I wanted to re-word the caption, but wanted to open a discussion first because I didn't know exactly what the previous caption was trying to say. Then I realized that neither the image nor its caption was either emphasizing article text or really teaching the reader anything new about the film. Is this image necessary at all? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

My bad. I thought the caption might clarify to readers and/or viewers unknown to this movie that most of the combat aircraft seen in the film are F/A-18s. It wasn't meant to refer to every single aircraft seen in the film, but only the ones involved in the dogfight scenes. I didn't see this movie in 1996, but when I did, I thought the film would show all kinds of combat aircraft currently in service with the U.S. Air Force. I read thru this entire article and there was no indication that that Hornet is the only one mainly seen in the action. Is it perhaps necessary to let the reader know that? Wolcott (talk) 11:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

There might be some info out there about how the production chose to mainly use the F-18 for whatever reasons there might be. Such info would be useful in a caption for the image. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Independence Day (film) → Independence Day (1996 film) — The title is shared with at least one other film, Independence Day (1983 film), thus it should be disambiguated per WP:NCF. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 02:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Support per the film article naming conventions; the point of disambiguation is to fully disambiguate and the present title is still ambiguous. "Independence Day (film)" is not the title of any work and thus does not have a primary topic; "Independence Day" would be the page that could have a primary topic. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per proper film article naming conventions - should have full disambiguation as there are multi films with the name. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: Per film article naming conventions guidelines. This is no special case. —Mike Allen 03:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Unnecessary, as this film is clearly the primary topic, and when there are only two titles needing to be distinguished, and that is a recommended at WP:HNP#Two articles with similar titles. - BilCat (talk) 05:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Your citation of that guideline doesn't make sense. Both articles in this case have disambiguated titles, which is not the case contemplated by that guideline. Furthermore, that guideline is about hatnote and disambiguation page management, not article naming. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Your rebuttal does not make sense. - BilCat (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
        • (a) The policy you cite is part of WP:Hatnote, not WP:Article titles or a naming convention policy, so it's irrelevant. (b) The policy you cite says "When two articles share the same title, except that one is disambiguated and the other not". But Independence Day (film) and Independence Day (1983 film) are both disambiguated as they both have parenthetical disambiguator terms at the end of their names. So the policy is doubly not applicable here. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Lugnuts (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • This article is currently "Independence Day (film)". What is the purpose of "(film)"? Erik (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per standard. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC deals with Independence Day - should it be an article, dab page or redirect. As this article has to be disambiguated it should be done so properly. Tassedethe (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support because it is absolutely false to claim that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies here. The primary topic here is Independence Day. All films that have the title "Independence Day" are disambiguated and will never qualify as the primary topic. After the primary topic, there is no hierarchy among films. Readers have to go through the primary topic's article to find this film or the other film, so "Independence Day (film)" is not enough a disambiguation. Erik (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, in other words the same reasons as in the proposal of less than three months ago. WP:NCF cannot and does not conflict with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Logically, Independence Day (film) can point to only 1 of 3 possible articles, the very famous 1996 film, the 1983 film, or a dab page. Since approximately 98% of the readers going directly to "Independence Day film" want this film, that's where they should wind up. That is the logic behind WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Station1 (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
    • This article is currently "Independence Day (film)". What is the purpose of "(film)"? Erik (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
      • (assuming that's rhetorical) The purpose of "(film)" is mostly to differentiate this article from Independence Day (United States) and List of countries by Independence Day. It would be a much stronger argument to propose removing "(film)" from this article than it is to propose adding to it. btw, I noticed that the proposer has been moving all articles with "(film)" in their title to "(year film)" when there is more than one, and I've asked him to stop and propose those at WP:RM. It's a misinterpretation of WP:NCF to say they must be moved, imo. Station1 (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
        • "Independence Day (film)" uses "(film)" to disambiguate from the primary topic "Independence Day", which has a holiday-related setup. "Independence Day (United States)" is only involved because with the film and the American holiday as secondary topics, they should be disambiguated from the primary topic and worded so there is no confusion between the two. When we evaluate this topic, the film, we know it in the public sphere as "Independence Day". "Independence Day (film)" and "Independence Day film" are intra-system modifiers. I am not sure why you are arguing that after the film article is disambiguated from the primary topic, it is then considered a primary topic, despite "(film)" and "film" not actually being part of the term. For a given term, which is in this case "Independence Day", there is a primary topic, then there are secondary topics. There are not two primary topics termed "Independence Day". Erik (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
          • You guys are pushing this point about there being only one primary topic to riduculous extremes. I see no reason within the broader WP guideliens why there cannot be primary topics within subjects, or to look at it another way, pirmary, secondary, and tertiary topics. As interpreted, you're sayaing all secondary topics are equal, which is clearly beyond what is intended by the guidelines. Yes, "(film)" is a disambiguator, but "(1996 film)" is not on a equal basis - it's a double disambiguator. We are going to keep having this argument until the issue is clarified by the WP community as a whole, especially if novice users keep moving articles against a previous consensus. Perhaps we should put all these moves on hold and take this issue into the RFC/mediation/Arbitrtion processes. - BilCat (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
            • My interpretation matches Erik's, but since neither of the two interpretations is clearly definitive, I don't see why, given such doubt, we shouldn't defer to the existing WP:NCF guideline. Agree this should be raised on WT:Disambiguation at some point for a definitive decision on which interpretation is right. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
              • I also agree the broad issue should be taken to an RFC and/or WT:Disambiguation. To answer why we should not defer to WP:NCF, it's because we honestly disagree on its interpretation. It either means that when you have a film such as Independence Day disambiguated with "(film)", and then you have another less-sought film with the same title, that (a) the second film gets disambiguated with "(year film)", or (b) both films get disambiguated with "(year film)". Station1 (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
            • Yes, all secondary topics are equal. Once we determine the primary topic, which is the core term that is expected to be searched for without any modifiers, we don't repeat the logic process within the set of secondary topics. Why would we? People will go through the primary topic and look for a list of secondary topics. That's why disambiguation pages are supposed to be centralized. The term "double disambiguator" is meaningless; secondary-topic films are differentiated from each other through the term "film" and release year because it is the most standard application. We could disambiguate by director name, but this is the way it goes. If anything, we should move this article and talk about the possibility of redirecting "Independence Day (film)" and "Independence Day film" here per WP:ASTONISH. Erik (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
              • Now we're getting somewhere! I would have much less of a problem moving this page if we could guarantee Independence Day (film) would redirect here. But the proposer has been redirecting the "(film)" redirects to dab pages instead (ex: The Diary of Anne Frank (film)), where people will be astonished. On the other side of the coin, if the redirects continued to point here, what would be the real value in moving it in the first place? Station1 (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
                • The only value that I'm suggesting in the redirect is that there is a subset of "smart" readers who will try to skip the primary topic's page because they know it will probably be about the holiday. This film is more likely than the other to be accessed, but they are both still secondary topics. They were invalidated from being primary topics the moment "(<disambiguation>)" was added. Like I said before, we don't process the primary-topic logic with the set of secondary topics. We centralize all such topics on a disambiguation page and write out the blue links in full; we never pipe them. All this points to clarifying that this article should be clearly identified with "(1996 film)". Erik (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
                  • We actually agree much more than it may have appeared. We agree there will be some readers (not a majority) who will skip the primary topic Independence Day and go directly to Independence Day film. We also agree this film is more likely to be accessed. I think we're hung up on the terminology of "primary" and "secondary". When you agree that more people will likely access this film than the 1983 film, the logic to me is that anyone typing in or linking to "Independence Day (film)" or "Independence Day film" should get here first. That's all "primary" means to me. Station1 (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
                    • We need to be aware that not everyone does this smart kind of circumnavigation, though, and I am not sure if there is a way to determine it. The issue here is that "(film)" is intended to be used only to identify a film that is not a primary topic. If there are two or more films, none of them being the primary topic, then we disambiguate the films from each other by "(<release year> film)" because this is a very standard approach. It can tell the reader that the topic at hand is a film, and the release year gives stronger definition. Nationality could theoretically be used, but it's more likely for films of the same title to be of the same nationality than for them to be released in the same year, which would make it confusing. So that's why I take issue with "(film)" being a factor of importance. Working on film articles, if none of them are primary topics in the sense of lacking disambiguation terms, then we just treat them all evenly for article naming purposes. It just seems regressive to pigeonhole one film article into a more ambiguous name. I do not think primary topic arguments should apply here, but rather redirect arguments. Erik (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
              • (edit conflict)All that is your opinion, Erik - it's not in the general guidelines anywhere that I can find. It is in WP:NCF because one or two of the project members put it there in january; before that, it was jsut as ambiguous. I don't have a clue how WP:ASTONISH applies to an article title though - "Independence Day (film)" is certainly a less astonishing title than "Independence Day (1996 film)". The two people a year looking for the 1983 film just need to use the Hatnote, per WP:HNP#Two articles with similar titles. We don't need to further disambiguate (ie. double disambiguate) a title if the shorter one is redirected to one of the other two titles - just use the shorter one to begine with. - BilCat (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
                • Arguing that there are primary topics within a set of secondary topics after a primary topic is made-up. I'm suggesting redirects per WP:ASTONISH because like I told Station1, there will be "smart" readers who will circumvent the primary topic. I am not sure why you both are so set on wanting this hierarchy when we should not worry about one after the one primary topic for "Independence Day". If this is at "(1996 film)", then everything will run smoothly, especially if films called "Independence Day" come out in ensuing decades. This holds it back. Erik (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There is too much focus on factoring disambiguation terms into the primary topic argument. The primary topic is the one (emphasis mine) that is much more likely than any other in the set of topics that use the term, in this case the term being "Independence Day". This is how it needs to be seen:

Like I said before, it is regressive to argue for the importance of films to inhabit the "(film)" slot. The point is that it is not supposed to matter in terms of wiki-organizing. We have our primary topic, and so we don't have to worry about another primary topic in a subset of topics. The 1996 film has never been and will never be a primary topic. Erik (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

One needn't view it so linearly. The famous 1996 film may be simultaneously a secondary topic for the phrase "Independence Day" and a primary topic for the phrase "Independence Day film", which we agree some readers search for. Btw, notice the last two items you list. One is Independence Day (song) and the other is Independence Day (Bruce Springsteen song). The former is the primary topic among songs while simultaneously a secondary topic for Independence Day. This how it's usually been done throughout WP, not only for films, but also songs, albums, novels, etc. Station1 (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
That is indeed how it is done when one of the works is the primary topic for the bare term itself; that's not the case here. Anyway..., Independence Day film indeed should probably redirect to this page. Independence Day (film), however, is an artificial and unnatural Wikipedia-ism. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad we agree Independence Day film should redirect here. As it is, it automatically goes to Independence day film, which the proposer had redirected to the dab page before being reverted. If you type "Independence Day film" or "independence day film" into the Search box, the only thing that drops down is "Independence Day (film)", so they are basically the same thing as far as WP search software is concerned. But I'm afraid I don't see how your first sentence relates to the example of Independence Day (song). Station1 (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Right, let me try again: Basically, there's a point where we should stop speculatively trying to intuit what people are going to search for and what they meant and just let the search mechanism handle it; I draw the line at "Foo (bar)" as being sufficiently unnatural & unlikely (compared to "Foo" and "Foo bar"). The current state of the songs is wrong, just as this article's title currently is. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
It is that linear; there is supposed to be one primary topic in that set. The disambiguation by release year is intended as permanent organization. If we move this article to Independence Day (1996 film), we'll never have to talk about moving it again because there will never be another film with that disambiguated title. We can't go back in time, after all! :) On the other hand, it is still possible for there to be another film called Independence Day. That's why we should explore the possibility of redirects; it is only the "film" and "(film)" search queues that would need to be modified. With a move, we have to discuss the impact on multiple articles. If all articles had their respective "(1996 film)" and "(1983 film)" links, they'd certainly never need to change. WP:NCF could be updated to provide redirect guidelines for this; redirects and hatnotes are "cheaper" than whole article moves. What do you think? Could there be discussion about this, factoring in WP:ASTONISH in what "smart" readers search for? Erik (talk) 11:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Certainly there could be discussion about that. The main concern with that solution is that it's so much easier and less noticeable to redirect a redirect than to move a page, that stability would suffer. Station1 (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:NCF. A disambiguated page name can never be a "primary topic name" since the primary name is not disambiguated. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 04:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support The guidance about primary topic does not apply to the disambiguating phrase use to differentiate between two topic of the same type. older ≠ wiser 00:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Precisely! You've put it quite succinctly. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a silly discussion. There are only 2 articles with the name and therefore, that is when WP:HATNOTE comes in. Per guidelines, the title should stay where it is at. (WP:SIMILAR) Raaggio 22:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a case of Similar. They are both disambiguated, while Similar deals with one dabbed and the other isn't. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 22:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I read this whole discussion and it seems to be utterly ridiculous. Basically, the reason to carry the move out is:

"If we move this article to Independence Day (1996 film), we'll never have to talk about moving it again because there will never be another film with that disambiguated title... On the other hand, it is still possible for there to be another film called Independence Day."

— Erik, on explaining the necessity of the move

This is preposterous. If this were a legitimate reason to make a move, then all movies should have the years attached to them. Should The Departed be under The Departed (2006 film)? Who is to say there will never be another film called The Departed? The notion that this is a legitimate reason to move the page is a product of lack of common sense. The page's location, currently, right now, has caused absolutely NO PROBLEM. None whatsoever.

The only reason this is named a problem is because of Independence Day (1983 film). Well, lets see the scenarios:

1. The person writes "Independence Day" in the Wikipedia search box.
a. The person is directed to List of countries by Independence Day. The hatnote links them to Independence Day (disambiguation)
b. Independence Day (disambiguation) lists various articles which they might want to read and explicitly lists Independence Day (1983 film).
c. The person clicks Independence Day (1983 film).
 Done SUCCESS!
2. The person writes "Independence Day (film)" in the Wikipedia search box, but in reality is looking for Independence Day (1983 film)
a. The person is directed to Independence Day (film) (this article), however, this was not the article the person wanted to see. Conveniently, there is a well-placed hatnote that directs the reader to Independence Day (1983 film).
b. The person clicks the link to Independence Day (1983 film).
 Done SUCCESS!

There is absolutely no problem with where the article stands right now. There is no confusion as there is a disambiguation page and a hatnote leading to the other movie. The move, other than ridiculous, is also unnecessary. Raaggio 21:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I submit that Person #2 is unusual and atypical and we don't need to cater to them. I don't believe average/normal users add parenthesized disambiguators to the end of their search queries, unless they know the exact article name in advance from copy-pasting or having already visited the page, in which case the article name doesn't matter anyway. If a normal user is gonna go through the disambiguation page, we might as well at least give them a page with a fully unambiguous title for their troubles. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
That's your counter-argument? The move is to "reward the reader with a fully unambiguous title for their troubles" That has a snowball's chance in hell of making sense. How is adding the year to the title reward the reader? Raaggio 23:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Not directly, sure, but if the point of sending them to the disambiguation page is to completely disambiguate and that doesn't happen, then that kinda screws with the whole point of the exercise, no? Also, from an editing standpoint, there is non-insignificant debate over primary disambiguation as it is; choosing "primary topics" for the "main subtopic" pages would multiply the number of such debates drastically. So, do you endorse increasing relatively fruitless debate? --Cybercobra (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I believe you're out of line. You're speculating that fruitless debates would pop up. But why would they? Why would any editor want to fight about the title of a page that is not causing any problem whatsoever. Its not like if the title is completely irrelevant, or if people searching for a certain article are not getting there because of this article's title. No, there is no problem. Moving it will just be a by-product of someone's Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. No guidelines are being violated, no problems are being created, and there's no fundamental reason to move the page. Its just people like Bovineboy being bored with their time. Raaggio 00:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Neither film is the primary topic, and the naming conventions for films is to disambiguate these secondary topics by release year. "Independence Day (film)" on its own is ambiguous; we don't know looking at just that term if it means the 1996 film or 1983 film. Disambiguation pages and hatnotes are helpful navigation tools on top of giving these articles the proper disambiguation treatment. Erik (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notice: The general "sub-primary-topics" article naming issue is currently under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Primary_topic_after_first_primary_topic.3F --Cybercobra (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

"ID4"

I don't understand the abbreviation. ID is Independence Day, sure, but what does the 4 stand for? 4th of July? Xavius, the Satyr Lord (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. --Rprince418 (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yet another wrongness in the movie?

I think that there could be yet another error in the film. At least in the German synchronisation aired a few days ago on TV, the POTUS is member of the counter-attacking Hornet flight - but his callsign is "Eagle one" and not, as it should be, Air Force One or, in case that is was a marine corps flight, Marine One... It's funny that such a patriotic film doesn't make use of the "mighty" Air force One callsign. Somebody could object that this rejection of the use of AF1 is done in order to hide the president's presence in the flight, but I would expect that the attackers have the technology of using voice recognition on radio transmissions, so that this stratagem would be futile... Grand-Duc (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems trivial to me unless you've got a reliable source talking about it. Doniago (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I concur with Doniago. There are a lot of details to be observed in a film, but not all details are worth mentioning unless it has been done by a reliable source. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, there seems to be some bit of a misunderstanding here. I wasn't thinking about mentioning it in the article, I just wanted to ask if somebody else has noted this thing... :-) Grand-Duc (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, okay! Well, we tend to focus talk page discussions on article improvement, hence our assumption. We don't have general discussions on these talk pages, unfortunately. IMDb might be a better bet. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I conceive that it isn't so obvious that I'm used to Wikipedia by the number of my contributions here on EN, but nevertheless, I'm quite experienced, being a member of the German "Adopt-a-user" program. I know for sure that talk pages are meant to improve articles, and that everything else could possibly go the WP:Village pump or similar - but is it excluded that someone puts a remark like mine somewhere, without thinking about article improvement, and that somebody else takes it as a good point for an inclusion in an article? If I'm mistaken on that point, I ask to clarify it for me. :-) Grand-Duc (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Not at all. But given the nature of the information you presented...in fact, in any case where an editor suggests that new information be added to an article, I think the first question the suggestor is going to face is whether or not there's reliable sourcing for the information, as if there is not then it fails WP:VERIFY and generally isn't appropriate for inclusion. Doniago (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Booker, M. Keith (2006). "Independence Day". Alternate Americas: Science Fiction Film and American Culture. Praeger. pp. 233–246. ISBN 0275983951. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik (talk • contribs) 21:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Palmer, William J. (2009). "The American President". The Films of the Nineties: The Decade of Spin. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 108–115. ISBN 0230613446. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik (talk • contribs) 02:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Retreat into the Rocky mountains..?!

Near the end of the plot summary, the claim is made that some of the aliens survive & retreat into the Rocky Mountains... where is that in the movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.194.78.3 (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like that vandalism was inserted in this edit. I've removed the sentence – thank you! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sequel(s)

It's been over a year since the sequel was announced. Are there any updates? Has production started yet? Should we start a new page for the sequel(s)?173.58.53.212 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC).

Not until details are reported by reliable sources. a_man_alone (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent cast edits

I do think that some of the real-world character info could go back in (e.g. how Pullman prepared for the role, etc.) since it is sourced, real world info. But the some total of what is being readded is just way too much. Can we look at selectively adding those items that fall under that real world umbrella? Millahnna (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Remove "In Other Media" section

Not very encyclopedic and there are so many other references in other movies to it, that it's impossible to put them all here. User:GreatBritain1843 (talk) 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to remove references that have significant third-party coverage attached to them but am willing to be overruled if consensus feels otherwise. Doniago (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Natural resources

Wikilink to specify what kind of resources in ... "The captured alien regains consciousness at an Area 51 lab, and reveals that its species travels from planet to planet, harvesting a planet's resources before moving on." please. See Natural resource extraction. 99.190.81.248 (talk) 06:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Harvey Fierstein as Marty Gilbert: David's boss

As many times as I have seen this film, I have yet to encounter any hint that Marty Gilbert is David's boss.--Mfwills (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It is clearly said in the novelization, and possibly in the comics as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.76.218 (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Independence Day: War in the Desert

Err ... the Books piece states Author Stephen Molstad wrote a third novel, Independence Day: War in the Desert, which allegedly "centers around Captain Cummins and Colonel Thompson, the two Royal Air Force officers". Is the error in ranks (the RAF uses its own rank structure, not Army style ranks like the USAF) in this Book, or is the error in the Wikipedia entry ? Somersetlevels (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Text error

The other survivors at the military base with Jasmine and the First lady are the survivors that Jasmine picked up on the way to the military base. This sort of thing is NOT something to be discussed unless you haven't seen the movie. 173.76.119.10 (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The dispute is not over who the group are, but your definition of them: The introduction of the term "the" changes the context of the statement from a generic label applied to a group to a specific label applied to the group.
By using the term "the" you are stating that there are no other survivors: The group of survivors, not a group of survivors. I see your point, but it is less grammatically correct than without.
Also, as a final point - you're now at 3RR. I suggest that regardless of your opinion you stop or face a block. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move (2013)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 07:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Independence Day (film) → Independence Day (1996 film) – This is reluctantly long overdue, especially per WP:NCF and after two failed title requests on this film. After my failed requests on Titanic (1997 film) and strongly successful disambiguation on Psycho (1960 film), I have no choice but to propose a disambiguation by simply year. George Ho (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Support - and a barnstar to George for doing what is rarely seen among us, a U-turn when presented with guidelines that are the other way. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC there is only "one" unquote article which is primary topic, hence no WP:PRIMARYFILM, WP:PRIMARYCRICKETER, WP:PRIMARYMOLLUSC.. etc, so when disambiguating we use disambiguous disambiguation. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:NCF. Hehe, PRIMARYMOLLUSC. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and WP:NCF and preceding RMs. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 10:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per G.H. and I.i.o, clearly primary topic is/are the numerous annual celebrations. Reservations about PRIMARYMOLLUSC, guidelines with great potential. Green Giant (talk) 10:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support since there is another film that shares the same title at Independence Day (1983 film). Per WP:PRECISION, we should be "precise enough", and Independence Day (film) is not that. It is still too ambiguous of a term. Differentiating by release year helps organize these articles, especially when the primary topic is accounted for. If an article title has a disambiguation term, it cannot be considered a primary topic on some secondary level; that defeats the purpose of the one-and-many relationship in the guidelines. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Hopefully this sets a precedent in case one doesn't exist yet. Once you get past the primary topic, everything else MUST have a 100% specific title. My preference would be Independence Day (Will Smith movie) but I'll take the proposal, I guess. Red Slash 00:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. "Independence Day" has a primary topic other than this film and "Independence Day (film)" is an ambiguous article name and thus the simple "(film)" is not sufficient ambiguation. WP:NCF supports including the year. BOVINEBOY2008 22:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I supported the last time this move was proposed and still agree. older ≠ wiser 19:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Given the history of previous RM "no consensus" results, and the fact that, if moved, there would be no good reason to move it back, the WP:Yogurt Rule applies. --B2C 05:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Claim about most model work used in a movie

The article claims that this movie's "model-making department built more than twice as many miniatures for the production than had ever been built for any film before" and it has a source but I'm terribly afraid this info might be outdated. Miniature effects were used heavily in Batman Begins, LOTR trilogy, and it's said that the miniatures used in the earthquake scene in 2012 would cover a football field. Someone might want to check some sources around the web to see if this claim in the article still holds up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.185.47 (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hence the qualifier "before" in the mentioned statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.182.232 (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

SEQUEL to Independence Day get's green light and May 2015 shoot date; Emmerich not locked as director (yet)

I've already added it to the page, but just in case, I'll leave this here. The film will not be split into two parts as it was earlier said to be, noted in Deadlines article and noted on the page itself, turning the "sequels" section to "Sequel". 2601:C:780:234:FDD2:EA5D:A9AB:EF0F (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Dean Devlin confirms Emmerich as director for Independence Day sequel.

Here's the source. Hope to see it added to the page 2601:C:780:234:8DC9:DA35:5440:A919 (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Booker, M. Keith (2006). Alternate Americas: Science Fiction Film and American Culture. US: Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 239. ISBN 0275983951.
  2. ^ Kaveney, Roz (2005). From Alien to The Matrix: Reading Science Fiction Film. US: I.B.Tauris. ISBN 1850438064. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Independence_Day_(1996_film)/Archive_3&oldid=1142764559"