OK to have made this edit? I ask as a matter of courtesy having seen STID last night in jolly old London, and realize that lots haven't--Archer4real (talk) 14:30, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

Don’t know about the video game, but the reference is certainly in the film. Surely this is primary? Background note re VG seems wholly reasonable--Archer4real (talk) 14:52, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

Once more with feeling: this ref's unquestionably in the film so surely this is the primary source of info and thereby renders whatever's in the game X degrees down the pecking order. Apols if my phrasing's off but I trust the point's conveyed--Archer4real (talk) 10:34, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

If it hasn't been removed, it's pretty much ok to keep.
Do note, as an aside, that there have apparently been a number of contradictions to both the ongoing comic series and the video game found in the new movie. There have been a couple of references to each in the movie though. -- sulfur (talk) 10:44, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

Once again the movie is, surely, a primary source and beats info in some video game every day of the week and twice on Tuesdays. This is liable to turn into a clone of the joyful metacarpal/-carpus days, I know it--Archer4real (talk) 15:29, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

I guess this is about me reverting your recent edit, so: First, italics are used to mark "alternate universe" info on any article that isn't solely restricted to info from one universe (marked by a {{article type}} header other than "xx"). This is the case here, so the italics shouldn't have been removed. Second, I believe that stating that something was used in a game is a valid background info, although we can discuss that here if you believe this is not true. In any case, this has nothing to do with replacing the film as "primary resource". -- Cid Highwind (talk) 16:11, September 25, 2013 (UTC)