Talk:The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence)

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 June 2011. The result of the discussion was snow keep.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A fact from The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 June 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) has been banned by the British Board of Film Classification? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/June.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: British This article is supported by the British cinema task force. London Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Horror Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Could someone please explain why this is up for deletion? (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclefishbits (talk • contribs) 00:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone instead tell me why an entirely self-serving article about a film with no artistic merit or redeeming value has not been speedily deleted?68.144.172.8 (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing Wikipedia talk pages with

a forum. —Mike Allen 03:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Because it's a notable film? Besides, we already have Fred: The Movie, so...--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is the article "self-serving"? I'm not even clear on how an article can be self-serving. And artistic merit and redeeming value, aside from being matters of personal subjective judgment, have no bearing on whether the article should be deleted. -- 98.108.198.118 (talk) 09:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "U.K. film board bans 'Human Centipede' sequel." CNN. June 7, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

....that for the next few hours this article is on the main page DYK? Hooray! Coolug (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did the text say "What goes 99 banned, 99 banned"....? Lugnuts (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article calls it a British film, although the film maker is Dutch and it's not even being given classification in th UK. What is that makes it a British film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.236.191 (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Human Centipede II editors. You may be aware that the article for the first film is currently a Featured Article Candidate. I would really appreciate it if anyone went over to the review and threw in any comments, as the review is somewhat stalling at the moment and I'm concerned that it might not be promoted due to a lack of interest yet again. It would be really cool if the human centipede was up there with all those serious articles on the list of featured articles, and therefore I ask that if you have a little spare time, please get over to the featured article review (here) and have your say. It's a great article and I've put tonnes of work into it over the last two years. cya Coolug (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm not currently all that active on this article because I'm in a massive sulk that no-one is supporting the human centipede (first sequence) FAC (joking) but I just thought I'd stick my head in for a second and ask if this article really needs to be protected at the moment? Yes it has a fair bit of vandalism, but it usually gets reverted pretty quickly, and with the film coming out soon surely we want this article to be nice and accessible so when new information is available people are encouraged to stick it on here. Whilst I realise vandals are basically rubbish, as someone who started out as a bit of a vandal myself only to get into the idea of wikipedia and eventually become quite a committed and serious editor, I think it is important that we try and keep this project as open as possible in order to attract new participants.

I reserve the right to be a massive hypocrite and immediately go running to an admin for protection the moment anybody starts messing with meine liebe first sequence article. Now go and review the FAC please! cya Coolug (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism may get removed quickly, but it's still kind of a nuisance. One obvious act of vandalism lasted for four hours until I revised it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Human_Centipede_II_%28Full_Sequence%29&action=historysubmit&diff=450376373&oldid=450337087) I asked for the article to be semi-protected and before it happened, the article got vandalized again with me fixing it. Don't worry; the semi-protection will expire in just four days. Then, we'll see how things go, but since the film is coming out soon, I bet the vandalism will get worse.--EclecticEnnui (talk) 04:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough, as I said I haven't really been all that active on this article as I've been focusing on trying to get the article on the first film up to the highest possible standard in the hope that it might finally pass its FAC - hey if you're at a loose end any comments on the FAC would always be appreciated :)

Anyway, just wanted to express that generally I'm not a fan of stuff being too protected on wikipedia, but from looking at the page this morning I can see that there's a hell of a lot of rubbish that's been snuck in. Once I'm done with First Sequence I might make this one into a bit of a project and see what I can do to repeat the success of the first article. It needs to pass that bloody FAC first though! cya Coolug (talk) 10:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the plot summary sound like advertising? Andy Pipkin (talk) 11:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the plot summary sounds like a 12-year old telling his friends about the movie, and it stops abruptly, not offering a good summary at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.230.77.104 (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The conclusion is being damaged by an unregistered user who doesn't care about the abrupt stoppage, first saying critics' ideas shouldn't be included in the plot, then saying we need a reliable source about the ambiguity (you can trace it all from the article's history). I can't imagine what they are talking about. Otherwise, I don't see anything wrong about the summary. The Other Saluton (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if anyone wants to take ownership of this article with the eventual aim getting GA or FA, but I would suggest that now the film been released the reviews from random movie blogs be removed and replaced with more mainstream sources. Just my two cents, my girlfriend has more or less banned me from getting too involved in this article :) Coolug (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. The Human Centipede (First Sequence) has been nominated to be on the Main Page this year for Halloween. Any supports or comments would be really helpful. You can do this at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Thanks! cya Coolug (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far the nomination has 11 supports to 2 opposes which is pretty cool. However, it would be great if as many people as possible could have their say on this. So get on down to the nomination page and have your say! The page is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests! Coolug (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article and source say that the ending shows him at work Meaning it didn't happen, or it did happen and he's returned to work for whatever reason But you can clearly hear the baby (He left it in the car park when collecting people) crying I didn't want to put this in the article, since people on this page seem to hate the plot summary already and I'd be getting rid of a source (I'm not too familiar with this Wikipedia nonsense anyway, so for all I know I'd be doing bad?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.223.196 (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

end is not ambiguous

it did happened (i mean in the movie, not in real life), the scream of the baby are here to state that it happened, it was horrible/gruesome and that Martin still do not care about human beings. Whoever think it was a dream is wrong, that would mean that it didnt happened, so the spectators that we are would be less chocked, then the film would be less chocking. 88.188.252.46 (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He kidnaps 12 people, one dies, there are 10 in the centipede ? Does this add up ?Eregli bob (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but isnt it so that he does kidnap 12 people one person dies and the pregnant woman is pressumed dead and isnt involved in the centipede that gives you a 10 person centipede. I might be wrong.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I was an undergrad, a friend of mine had a band. There self-released album used a sound clip from Alien. This does not belong in

Yeah but Epicardiectomy are huge in the slam scene. I'm in a band myself and we used sound clips from the film Closer and Big Bang Theory; doesn't mean I'm gonna go say my band used sound clips on the Wikipedia articles for that show and movie. Only reason why I restored it here is because I saw the edit, recognized the band and felt in a way that it could have been notable. I won't restore it if you truly feel like it's that trivial. But they are, however, a pretty notable band in the death metal underground and not just because all three of them have a harsh fashion in wiggerdom haha. Second Skin (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A non-notable band's use of the clip is not a significant element of the film.

talk) 03:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, I've just removed these facts from the "Plot" section for they are not present in the actual movie: _ Genitals wrapped in barbed wire before the rape. _ Baby's skull crushed under the pedal. (source: well, the movie) Thanks - Yean3d (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You must have watched a censored version because both of those things occurred in the film. Darkknight2149 (talk) 07:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]