Jump to content

Talk:Skyfall/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

RfC on plot summary

Consensus is that the link should be at the top of the plot section with the full name on display and a tweak to the corresponding information at the foot of the section. — SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comments are invited on a point in the plot summary of the Skyfall article. A character is shown in the first scenes of the film and the plot summary currently contains a wikilink. Her name is not revealed until the final scenes of the film and can be considered a minor twist, although not one that affects the film's plot. Is it more appropriate to link the name at the front of the summary, or to leave it until the end? This RfC follows an above thread and DRN. - SchroCat (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Survey

  • Retain the status quo The link should remain at the top of the summary, with the introduction of the character. The subsequent identity of that character as Eve Moneypenny has no bearing on the plot or storyline of the film and there is therefore no need to hide it away at the end. As film summaries are not faithful narratives, leeway is both allowable and encouraged if reader's understanding is aided. A previous RfC on this topic was eight months ago, which has been superseded by the current version. A recent consensus on this page is to retain the status quo. - SchroCat (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  1. As per WP:FILMPLOT, "events in the film do not have to be written in the order in which they appear on screen. If necessary, reorder the film's events to improve understanding of the plot", and identifying the character falls into this area: we know who she is, so hiding her identity until later serves no real purpose;
  2. As neither the character's first or surnames are not revealed until the final scene, there is not appropriate way of naming her in her four scenes, apart from "In Istanbul, MI6 agents James Bond and an unnamed female operative..." (which we have to repeat in three other times). This is not a way to improve understanding of the plot;
  3. The "reveal" at the end of the film is, at best, a minor plot point and it affects nothing in the film at all (although does potentially have a wider ramification for the series as a whole). By hiding the identity we do not improve understanding of the plot.
This is not an exhaustive list of the reasons to retain, but will suffice for the present. - SchroCat (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I can see arguments for either approach here. For the current approach, it can be useful for a reader to be able to click on Moneypenny at the beginning of the plot summary. At the same time, WP:WAF#Plot summaries says to consider the context of the production, so it is apparent that the film is structured to reintroduce the character in an "ah-ha" moment of sorts. Still, the importance of this reintroduction is contemporary and will likely fade, especially if/when Moneypenny is shown in the next Bond film. I'm leaning more toward the current approach of the upfront link, but I'm wondering if the wording can't be changed to indicate that Bond only knows her as Eve. The fragment "formally introducing herself to Bond as Miss Moneypenny" is a bit of a wink. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Part of the problem is that the name Eve isn't mentioned until the final scene either. We can presume Bond knows her as Eve, but that's pure supposition... - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Identify character as Eve in opening line of plot summary and throughout summary until the closing sentence when her surname is revealed Identifying the character as Miss Moneypenny at that point in the plot section is a mischaracterisation of the narrative as it misleadingly implies that the character has actually been identified as Miss Moneypenny as such in the film when she has not. The identity of the character is in fact deliberately withheld until the closing moments and is explicitly set up as a reveal of sorts within this narrative. Although the character is not identified on screen as "Eve" either, this name was released by the production team in official materials prior to release.
Common practice is that plot summaries relate the narrative faithfully, which would generally mean in the order and manner it is presented in the film. The rest of the article is of course explicitly exempt from this: we are not concerned with “spoilers” - which is why the identity of the character remains in the lead section - but with faithfully relating plot points as they occur. Policy states that “events do not have to be presented in the order they occur and that if necessary, reorder the film's events to improve understanding of the plot”. Identifying the character at that point does the opposite by implying something that has not actually occurred within the film. To be encyclopaedic we should aim to reflect the plot and narrative as faithfully as possible. As the plot is otherwise related in accurate chronological order it is illogical to change the order of when the name appears. Nsign (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • "misleadingly implies that the character has actually been identified". As does using the name Eve. The pre-release material argument is a non sequitur
  • "Common practice is that plot summaries relate the narrative faithfully" Do you have any evidence for that? I find it dubious; besides, wiki film summaries are not 'faithful reproductions' - SchroCat (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep the link. I will briefly reiterate my comments from above. The purpose of the plot summary is to summarise the main thrust of the story, and within it Moneypenny's name is fairly meaningless. To look it another way, if "Moneypenny" was revealed to be the name of Lois Maxwell's character only at the end of Dr No, would it be relevant to the plot summary in that article? It's already covered in the cast overview which I believe is the more appropriate place for this information, since it speaks more to the character's significance to the series as a whole than the actual plot of the film. Betty Logan (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Moneypenny's identity was not set up as a deliberate reveal of a returning character after an absence of ten years within the narrative of Dr No. It is in Skyfall. Nsign (talk) 08:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep the link as it's unimportant to the plot and thus the plot summary. Reproducing the narrative in terms of drama and atmosphere isn't the purpose of the plot summary. DonQuixote (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
If I had suggested that it "spoils the plot" you'd have a point. I have not. As is clear from my comment above where I state "we are not concerned with spoilers". Nsign (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep the link. The benefits of moving the link seem to be allowing the user to feel the impact of the twist. The benefit of keeping the link higher up is having the information more readily available, which is the one I generally lean to as more important. (see below) AVAAGAA↪ 13:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I think this comment pretty much sums up the debate in a nutshell. Betty Logan (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Change. Edit request is to mention the plot twist in the plot summary in a way that won't be confusing. Mentioning the name immediately does imply that the character identity is known, which is definitely confusing. The link should be kept to provide the information as readily as possible, but the text can be changed to represent the plot more closely, so I recommend replacing "James Bond and Eva Moneypenny" with "James Bond and his partner" per the comment below. The text implies that the identity of the character is unknown while the link remains helpful for the user. AVAAGAA↪ 15:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
(Side note: the current link points to redirect Moneypenny and probably should be changed to Miss Moneypenny AVAAGAA↪ 15:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Personal opinion? Keep. We're not here to produce dramatic tension and epic reveals (if we were, we'd need that sloth from The Croods). We're here to provide information, and we should do so in the most concise manner we can. Linking at the beginning (as per our policy to link the first occurrence) is the most practical manner for us to lay out the information.  drewmunn  talk  14:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Who has said anything about "spoilers", "dramatic tension", "epic reveals" or allowing "users to feel the impact of the twist"? These are all straw men. The argument put forth is, very simply, about whether it is a misleading characterisation of the narrative as told. It is not about spoiling the film or any of the above terms. If it were then it would be an argument about having the character's identity in the lead. It isn't. Nsign (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah! My mistake. This must be a bit frustrating for you. I don't think it mischaracterizes the plot to add a link. The link provides beneficial information about the character. I do think that it might be a good idea to keep the link but change the text to James Bond and his partner and mention the reveal towards the end. The user is then subtly informed of the lack of identity of the character while still having the ability to find out more about the character if they want. AVAAGAA↪ 15:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks - not frustrating exactly, but a bit baffling to have rebuttals advanced against an argument that hasn't actually been made! I've actually only just noticed that everyone above is referring to the Wikilink only. I'd like to clarify here that I do not actually object to keeping the link, only the use of the full name of Eve Moneypenny in the opening of the plot section. Nsign (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
That would fail WP:EGG, I think, although happy to hear others views on that. - SchroCat (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Although I'm in two minds over the actual reveal of the name (I see merits of both sides), I think linking at the beginning is the best option. Per WP:EGG, it'd therefore be required to keep the name at the beginning.  drewmunn  talk  16:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure that it applies, but I don't know how it has been applied to links before so I'm not even close to an authority on the policy. If it does end up failing EGG, Nsign's request is an equally effective change. It is also pretty similar, though, so an analyzing it in terms of EGG might produce similar results. The main problem I see with leaving out the change is that the twist, which is relevant to the plot, can be easily misinterpreted with the current text. Beginning with "In Istanbul, MI6 agents James Bond and Eve Moneypenny chase a mercenary" and ending with "Following M's funeral, Eve—formally introducing herself to Bond as Miss Moneypenny—retires from field work to become secretary for the new head of MI6" seems to me to imply that they were formally introducing themselves ceremonially having already known eachother's name, as opposed to revealing the return of a previous, well-known character. AVAAGAA↪ 16:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. It (unarguably, in my view) implies something that simply hasn't happened. Why mislead when we don't have to? Nsign (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure about "unarguably", when so many people are providing valid arguments against, based on guidelines and policy. - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
No, what's unarguable is that it implies something that hasn't happened. As I said. What we're debating is whether to do that is acceptable / preferable. And in amongst some valid points, "so many" people have actually advanced straw men thus far, as pointed out above. Nsign (talk) 08:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Nsign, people are not advancing straw men arguments here, no matter how much you try and taint their lines of arguments. They are giving their opinions in good faith on their reading of the overall situation as to where the link should or should not go. They are not necessarily arguing against the points you and I are making, but giving their input and explaining it in terms of the various policies and guidelines. As to your "unarguable" point, we are not saying that something has or has not happened (ie. there is no "event" to report on here), we are putting the name to one of the characters for the ease of readers. The only part of it being part of the plot would be if there were ramifications within the film (ie. if she were Eve Silva, or Eve Mallory etc). - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Don't bicker and don't accuse me of "tainting" lines of argument. The references made above to "spoilers", "dramatic tension", "epic reveals" and allowing "users to feel the impact of the twist" are straw men and it is right to highlight this. Why? Because no one has advanced an argument that includes these as factors for consideration. The other points made are perfectly valid, even if I disagree. The above are not. And it would seem that I'm going to lose this one anyway so stop wasting energy being argumentative. We've both put our cases. Nsign (talk) 09:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Nsign, I'm not bickering: I'm just trying to point out that, despite your many protestations to the contrary, the opinions of others about where or where not to put the link, should not be condemned by you . A closing admin will be able to adequately judge the strengths of the various arguments, without your opinion on whether or not you consider them to be valid. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
You are. And what are you talking about, "condemned"? This is a discussion. If people have misunderstood elements of the argument and put forward straw men as a result, then it is right to point that out. User Avaagaa has at least acknowledged this has occurred. Nsign (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
That may well be your opinion: I'm happy to leave it to the closing admin. - SchroCat (talk) 11:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Since when do we reveal details of the film the order they are revealed in the film? If we do that for the first half of summaries we wouldn't have names of characters in - identity twist or not. For the sake of reading, and that we already identify characters by their full name (i.e. Bond) through out the film in the first instance, we should Keep Eve Moneypenny as the full name. This does seem like a clear case of someone coming along and not liking the way it is written because it is a "Spoiler" - which in all fairness if they don't want spoilers they shouldnt be here in the first place. So for me it is a very strong keep! And to be fair, it is my experience that you are very argumentative/discussive Nsign, which is good, as you are debating a for/against. But saying someone's argument is a "Straw man" and that other people's arguments are not valid is not very good faith and unfair. -- MisterShiney ✉ 11:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
This is exactly what I mean - how can this be a "clear case" of arguing it is a spoiler when I have quite clearly and specifically stated above that that is not what I have said. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it. I have never said anything about "spoilers" or ruining the twist etc. That is why I have pointed out above that those who are rebutting those reasons are providing rebuttals against arguments that have not been made. That's a straw man. The other rebuttals advanced, such as the first point you make, are perfectly valid. And "argumentative" I may well be - have a look around, this is Wikipedia: in this I can hardly be said to stand alone. Nsign (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Nsign, without wishing to labour the point, people are not necessarily arguing against your points, but looking at the position of the link against all the relevant guidelines and policies. It's not your point they are rebutting, but rather giving their reasons for the position, based on their judgment, regardless of whatever the original arguments either you or I have put forward. That's the way we end up with a consensus based on the MOS, rather than being based on votes between you and I. I do hope you can understand this rather subtle but important difference. - SchroCat (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, look - any references to keeping the full name because it doesn't matter if we ruin the ending, or include spoilers, or affect dramatic tension are straw men. In a debate you debate what has been proposed and the reasons why. You don't debate reasons that no one has advanced. Basic rule of debate. Now leave it for admin - you're simply bickering and I freely admit to not having the patience at this point. Nsign (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry you are failing to understand this. Thankfully this RfC is WP:SNOWBALLing towards an early and obvious close. - SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
If there is anyone consistently or even deliberately failing to understand something, such as what a straw man actually is, it is only yourself. Some of the above is based on pure misunderstanding of the arguments - a fact that only one user so far has actually acknowledged - due in part to your representation of the debate as being about the wikilink, rather than the use of the name. I'll take it on good faith that this was unintentional. Avaagaa has suggested an amendment to the final paragraph that I find acceptable and cannot see any logical objection to. Why not address that instead of making a weak and transparent attempt at provocation by making references to snowballing and obvious closes? Nsign (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Please withdrawn the accusation of provocation: there is none, and your finger-pointing is badly misplaced. I will pass over the straw man jibes again: it is obvious that we disagree on that and no amount of patient explanation is going to make you understand why people are coming to the decisions that they are. I look forward to the provocation withdrawal more in hope than expectation. - SchroCat (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Then hope away. It is what you well know it is. I'm neither stupid or timid. Nsign (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you read WP:AGF at some stage: you have shown little in the way of it throughout this discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
In your opinion. I always assume good faith and will debate happily with anyone who knows how to. Nsign (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
You are both reasonable, nice people and may have read too far into eachother's comments. Your opinions on the content don't even conflict anymore! I'd recommend restarting the whole communication to avoid a trouting. AVAAGAA↪ 15:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
We probably don't have to show the reveal in the same order the film does in order to properly characterize it. A really easy fix would probably be changing "Eve—formally introducing herself to Bond as Miss Moneypenny—" to "Eve—formally introducing herself to Bond as Miss Moneypenny for the first time—". That tells the viewer directly that the reveal only happened at the end of the film. AVAAGAA↪ 13:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually I think that's rather a good solution, even if I would still prefer the name not to be used in the first sentence. But this does make the narrative sequence of events somewhat clearer. Nsign (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Identify character as Eve in opening line of plot summary and throughout summary until the closing sentence when her surname is revealed sums up my opinion, too. Stick with the original RfC decision. There shouldn't be a handful of users who see themselves as overseers of the article. Consensus was reached and the original decision should stand. Newjerseyliz (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
And yet that "stewardship" doesn't cover violation of RFC's, particularly if you come down on that side of the fence. Let's be clear: the DRN suggested a new RFC because two admins over there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Skyfall) could not come to a decision about whether the RFC was violated (a "very close question", in their words) and so their solution was to chuck it in the bin and have a new one. Can't say I agree with that, but here we are. The existing "implied consensus" was reached only because no one raised the reverts in a new discussion and those who tried to fix it were simply reverted without explanation for why the RFC should be overturned, and as one of the admins pointed out, silent consensus is the weakest consensus. So here we are again, and the users acting as stewards of the article look as though they will get their way and overturn the wording agreed upon in the original RFC. I cannot and am not complaining about this - it is how Wikipedia works and a (rather maddeningly simple) solution has been suggested by Avaagaa that I think we can all live with and looks like the most likely outcome - but let's be quite clear about how this situation has come about. I think I'm essentially done with this discussion now until the RFC closes. Nsign (talk) 08:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Nothing was "violated", despite your over-emotive language. The consensus can change, and indeed that is exactly what has happened here, as can clearly be seen from those who have commented so far. A good and workable compromise has been suggested by Avaagaa. If you are in agreement with it then we are able to close the RfC today and enact that change. - SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
And black is white etc ad infinitum. Before we decide on the final change the RFC can stay open for a while since its here, I'd be interested to hear admin's closing thoughts. Nsign (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually it doesn't have to be an admin's closing: I can close if consensus has been reached quickly (which it has), or we can close it if you agree to it (or, of course, any other uninvolved editor (not necessarily an admin) can close it, if you wish this to drag on for longer...) - SchroCat (talk) 09:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
It hasn't, actually. And we've come this far so a few days more won't hurt. Nsign (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. It seems like conversations on Wikipedia are often shut down prematurely when the desired results seem to appear. Newjerseyliz (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

So with the suggested tweaks by Avaagaa, the sections in question would change to:

Plot
In Istanbul, MI6 agents James Bond and Eve Moneypenny chase a mercenary, Patrice, who has stolen a computer hard drive containing details of undercover agents placed in terrorist organisations by NATO states. Patrice wounds Bond in the shoulder and, as the two men fight atop a train, Eve inadvertently shoots Bond, allowing Patrice to escape. Bond falls into a river and goes missing, presumed to be dead.

Remainder of plot section remains the same

Bond and M are met by Kincade, the Skyfall gamekeeper. The trio are only lightly armed, but they improvise a series of booby traps throughout the house. When Silva's men arrive, Bond, M and Kincade fight off the assault, although M is wounded. Silva arrives by helicopter to lead a second assault, and Bond sends M and Kincade off through a secret tunnel at the back of a priest hole to a chapel on the grounds. The second assault is much heavier than the first, using incendiary grenades and a machine gun mounted on the helicopter. Bond detonates gas canisters with a stick of dynamite and retreats down the same tunnel as M and Kincade. The resulting blast causes the helicopter to crash, destroying the house and killing most of Silva's men. Silva survives and, spotting Kincade's torch beam, follows Kincade and M to the chapel. He forces his gun into M's hand, begging her to kill them both. Bond, having been delayed fighting Silva's henchmen, arrives and kills Silva by throwing a knife into his back, but M succumbs to her earlier wound and dies. Following M's funeral, Eve—formally introducing herself to Bond as Miss Moneypenny for the first time—retires from field work to become secretary for the new head of MI6, Mallory, who assumes the title of M.

Unless there are any complaints about it, the necessary changes can be made... - SchroCat (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm complaining. I don't think a consensus has been reached yet as the issue hasn't been open long enough to reach a consensus. Maybe after a week but not a day or two. Newjerseyliz (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
How about pretty much every editor who has come across this has agreed that the summery should remain that Eve Moneypenny remains the same...? That is a consensus. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Er, demonstrably incorrect, but let's not bicker. Let the consensus play out first. Once that's done and if we're in the same place, I'll agree to this version. Its the best we're going to get. Nsign (talk) 07:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've seen this type of problem resolved with "later revealed" in some places, e.g. "Eve, later revealed to be Eve Moneypenny, ...". This conveys to the reader that we are presenting her full name earlier than is done in the film. I have no real opinion on whether it's appropriate to name her at the beginning or end of the plot section. FWIW, I thought she was Moneypenny the whole time and didn't realize it was a "twist" until the "reveal" at the end. Some guy (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It doesn't have to be an admin's closing: I can close if consensus has been reached quickly, or we can close it if you agree to it (or, of course, any other uninvolved editor (not necessarily an admin) can close it. Are you happy for me to close now? - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
May as well, unless anyone else objects. I think a reasonable compromise has been reached. Nsign (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request on 4 October 2013

Hi. I would like to suggest rearranging the categories into alphabetical order. It helps for easier navigation. Thanks. 108.95.130.150 (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Done: there were only two out of order. - SchroCat (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

meaning of title?

Are there any reliable sources explaining the meaning of the title? Naming a house that way is not logical, so the house was obviously named after the movie. One can assume there was a very good reason to name the film that way because otherwise it would have made sense to give the house a more logical name and then use that as the film's title. The explanation "fiat justitia ruat caelum, a legal phrase that means "justice must be done, even if it means the sky falls"" given here is the best explanation i've found, but it won't do as a source. --91.156.56.204 (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't get hung up on the title. Titles of Bond films are often pretty meaningless, as long as they sound "cool" - hence the likes of Tomorrow Never Dies. I do know that you would never find an old house in the Highlands called anything like "Skyfall", though. It's just a title. Alot better than Quantum of Solace though :) Nsign (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I think that's amusing that someone would say "I wouldn't get hung up on the title." Wikipedia is all about asking such questions. Mrdavenport (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the title may be derived from John Buchan's last Hannay novel "Island of Sheep" in which the last third of the book is eerily similar to the last third of the movie Skyfall (read the novel and see if you agree). The name of the house in Buchan's novel is Sea Fell. I have tried to insert this connection into this article, but editors felt it was too much like original research. Some websites claim the film's screen-writers Purvis and Wade thought up the film's title at two in the morning. Apparently they stated: "We needed a haunting place name. I just plucked it out of the air, and it turned out to be something that struck a chord with the filmmakers." Mrdavenport (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Your statement of connection with "Island of Sheep" is original research, as is anything that an editor backs up with the phrase "eerily similar", although if you can find a few reliable sources also making this connection, then it would lend weight to its inclusion. As it happens, I'm not able to find such a source with a cursory internet search (the top result for the term "Island of Sheep Skyfall" is this talk page). Similarly, I'm not sure moviequotesandmore (I've corrected a duplication in your link, hope you don't mind!) would be classed as reliable, as the listed sources are this Wikipedia page and the IMDb trivia page; we can't accept Wikipedia articles as sources (see citogenesis), and IMDb is not classed generally as a reliable source per this note.  drewmunn  talk  07:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
<<sigh>> I get so tired of pompous editors (or would-be editors -- one never knows) lecturing me (even in the 'talk' section) about how to contribute. I suppose this is partly because when I started contributing, around 2004, there was a very different zeitgeist around here and the new pomposity takes a bit of getting used to. (yes, I know, I don't contribute enough or often enough to get the epaulet and the night stick, but that's because I have a job and a family). But I digress...
Thank you, Sonicdrewdriver, for poking around the internet for evidence of an authorial link to Island of Sheep. I did the same 8 months ago and found nothing significant. I know that "eerily similar" is inadequate evidence, but the longer paragraph I wrote 8 months ago was long ago deleted and I assume no one is interested. Mr/Ms 91.156.56.204 raised a question and I responded as briefly as I could. Yes, I know that we need reliable sources. I knew that IMDb is unreliable (or at least I assumed so) but it was more evidence-based than 91.156.56.204's speculation about "fiat justitia ruat caelum" although I think it is a very good stab at an explanation. Mrdavenport (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm a little confused. Who are you referring to as pompous?  drewmunn  talk  10:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Box office section

I would like to bring your attention to the box office section. I made an edit which you can find here. However, it was dismissed as "trivial", with "way too much info". Other negative comments included "Wrong variety of English, date format, generally accepted level of formatting etc".

I would like anyone who agrees with these comments to bring up specific pieces of info that could be considered trivial, although I want to point out that all of the information is well covered by major box office websites like Box Office Mojo and Hollywood Reporter, as indicated by the references.

Compare it with this edition. This one has worldwide records and UK records all mixed up together in the first paragraph. It is not retrospective, but rather more historical (e.g. "By 9 November 2012 ...", "After 40 days of release..." etc). Where as just stating the milestone it reached (e.g. "It is the highest-grossing film of 2012 in the UK") is much closer to Wikipedia's guidelines. And as far as trivia go, this version contains this sentence: "as well as grossing $14.3 million on its opening weekend in France." This is TRIVIA in its greatest form. This sentence doesn't explain why this is important, i.e. whether it's a 2012 record, an all-time record or a James Bond record etc. The film isn't a French flm either, so why is this piece of information important?

As for the final comment considering wrong variety of English, date format, etc, I am not a native English speaker so I would appreciate if someone corrected any mistakes, instead of reverting the whole edit and calling me bloody lazy (which is apparently considered by some people as a standard way of addressing fellow Wikipedia editors).Spinc5 (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@User:Spinc5 Hi there! I might can offer a couple of suggestions. One of Wikipedia's rules is that just because something is fact that doesn't automatically make it suitable for the encyclopedia. Reading over Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information might help u understand this a little better. The main goal is to give a good summary of the article's topic, not really to provide every little detail of everything. As far as the wrong variety of English, the Skyfall article is written in British English (as opposed to American or Indian English for example), so there can be minor differences in the spelling and punctuation and other stuff like that. No worries though, that stuff can be easily fixed. As for the comments SchroCat made to u, I think he's right, but he could've been a little more civil about it than he was. Is this of any help? Survivorfan1995 (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Next time, could you please not get into an edit war, but use the talk page when you are first reverted, especially when there are a list of issues in the edit summary that you may wish to address. Re-introducing errors a second time after being told about them is not constructive. As to the substance of the problems I have with your addition:
  1. The logic of subsections titled "Worldwide"; "Outside the US and Canada" and "USA and Canada" is poor: "Worldwide" covers all territories, including the US and Canada and outside the US and Canada. Why the special subsection for N America and dross for everyone else? That's meaningless for a film that had a global release.
  2. Within that there is a sub-section for "UK, Ireland and Malta". Why? The UK figures cover the UK, not the entirely separate and sovereign states of Ireland or Malta, so why lump them all together? That's just pointless and misleading.
  3. Splitting out the individual territories in the opening line of the section is poor (especially for a film that is British and American, not American and Canadian.
  4. Some of the figures provided (or at least your phrasing of them) is wrong: "On its opening weekend, it earned $173.6 million.[111]" That's just wrong. It was $80.6 million. BO Mojo screws up every time by adding "domestic" (US) opening weekend and "overseas". What they forget is that in cases like these, the US and overseas opening weekends were two weeks apart, so it's misleading to add them together. What's even more more misleading is that you leave both amounts in: one in Worldwide and one in "Outside US and Canada". People are going to be really confused by this – and get entirely the wrong end of the stick too.
  5. The US and Canada: the only information you added about the US market was "the first film since How to Train Your Dragon to top the weekend box office on its fifth weekend"? Talk me through the relevance of this, pointing out how it's not trivia if you could please?
  6. Yes, the formatting you used was poor: using a semi-colon to start a sub-section is not advisable as it fails WP:ACCESS and screws up machine readers. SHOUTY titles in the references also fail MoS standards; FN 128 (BFI Statistical Yearbook 2013) doesn't work – only half the ref done on it.
  7. Inconsistent dates: I mentioned this in the first reversion summary, so I am at a loss as to why you decided to shove the same inconsistency back in there. Why didn't you change them?
All in all it was not a step in the right direction for the article, which is why I was happy to revert it back to the previous version which, for all its perceived faults, is more accurate than your version, and contained less glaring errors and misleading fudges of information. - SchroCat (talk) 11:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with SchroCat. This article is a good article, as such it is subjected to a much higher standard and scrutiny than other articles who have not achieved this status. Especially as GA is a springboard into FA. Experience that SchroCat has copious amounts of and as such we would all do well to listen to.
As for his tone in his edit summaries...well that is subjective. Reading something can be taken so many ways. Add a heightened sense of annoyance/anger at an edit being reverted...you get the idea, it can come across as much more upsetting than it actually is. MisterShiney ✉ 11:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
After reading and re-reading your edit a few times, MisterShiney, I am still trying to understand how it contirbutes even slightly to this conversation. The reference to GAs and FAs is pointless. An experienced user can still be wrong. Even if the likelihood of her/him being wrong is less, that doesn't mean you should dismiss other editors' opinions. As for my subjectiveness, in my opinion, there couldn't be a more subjective comment than yours.Spinc5 (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Then I suggest you re read it again. An editor with a proven track record is offering advice. Take it. MisterShiney ✉ 13:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
1. These guidelines say "this section may detail specific results of opening weekends, results from different English-speaking territories" so a special section for the USA and Canada and a special section for the UK, Ireland Malta is reasonable, especially since it's a British film.
2. In Box Office Mojo, the UK, Ireland and Malta count as one territory. Everyone else never mentions this but as they report the same numbers they're still talking about the UK, Ireland and Malta. Here is one of countless examples: THR article, BOM article, BOM Charts. In the articles, they say "in the UK" but in the chart, just below the Box Office Mojo logo, it reads: "International > United Kingdom and Ireland and Malta". So if you can find any source that provides separate data for the UK, that would be great, but currently what has happened is that you have been misled by box office websites. What I wrote is not at all misleading.
3. Every single box office website provides numbers for the USA and Canadian box office as if it is one country. They rarely point this out but this is the case. If you can find any source that provides separate information for these two countries feel free to use it as a source. But currently, everyone is reporting one number and that includes both countries.
4. Fair enough, Box Office Mojo does have a strange way of adding up opening weekend numbers. We can leave the opening weekend number as $80.6 million. However, I don't believe your version was any better at distinguishing this. You say "On its opening weekend, it earned $80.6 million from 25 markets." and then you say "Skyfall went on to gross [...] $88.4 million in its opening weekend." Since I at least have headings above each paragraph, a reader can realise that one number is from the USA and Canada, the other is from outside the USA and Canada, and one is a worldwide number.
5. Fair enough, this can be re-written as "the film finished at first place on its first and fifth weekends"
6. I can fix that ref. Also I won't use a semicolon.
7. OK, I can fix the date formatting.
Formatting errors are still not an important enough reason to revert my whole edit. Also you have failed to explain why everything else is trivial. Is this trivial: "the first film for Sony/Columbia to cross the $1-billion mark." or this: "It ended its box-office run [in the UK, Ireland and Malta] with £102.8 million." or this: "In Australia, it set an opening-weekend record for Sony/Columbia with $12.9 million" (Australia is an English-speaking territory) or this: "It remained in first place at the box office outside North America for three consecutive weekends." or this: "the third highest-grossing 2D-only film."?Spinc5 (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
"Formatting errors are still not an important enough reason to revert my whole edit": You've obviously missed what I spent time writing above. I didn't revert it on the basis of formatting errors, although that helped the decision, but because it was a poor edit. You introduced errors, minced up sections to a ridiculous degree and introduced misleading information. I'll repeat: your edit was not a step in the right direction for the article, which was why it was reverted. I'll deal with the rest of your comments shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Just because something is in the Guidelines doesn't mean that they need to be included. After all that is the whole point of a guideline. It's not law. The trivial information is not encyclopaedic and doesn't add anything to the article in any way. MisterShiney ✉ 13:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment I don't think the restructuring (i.e. Outside the US) makes much sense for this article. Box Office Mojo structures its reports like that since it is an American media outlet and they separate their reports into a domestic/foreign perspective. The three relevant perspectives for this particular film are the UK market (I will come to this in a moment), the combined US & Canadian market (these two regions tend to be treated as a whole) and worldwide. We cover the UK and US markets as the two production countries and we cover the film's global performance to give a neutral overview of how it has performed at an international level. When covering the worldwide performance we should cover any regions where the film set new records, or had a particular notable performance. As for what the UK market covers exactly, I am not completely sure myself: on page 25 of the BFI's 2012 report they explicitly state that their figures include the Republic of Ireland, while on page 33 they state the figures are for the UK, so there seems to be some inconsistency; it's possible the BFI themselves don't know in some cases since it really depends on how distributors record their data. Betty Logan (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I see what you mean about the international perspective and I think you are probably right. Maybe we should have three subsections: one for Worldwide, one for the UK and Ireland (we could possibly leave Malta out, due to the ambiguity) and one for the USA and Canada. However, the fact that BO websites tend to include the UK and Ireland in the "overseas" figure means that we have to state it as such and specify that it includes these two regions.
So who agrees with this version?
Skyfall earned a worldwide total of $1,108,561,013. Worldwide, it is the eighth highest-grossing film, the highest-grossing film distributed by Sony/Columbia, the second highest-grossing 2012 film, the highest-grossing James Bond film and the third highest-grossing 2D-only film. On its first weekend of release, it earned $80.6 million from 25 markets. On 30 December 2012, its 66th day in theaters, Skyfall became the 14th film in history and the first film for Sony/Columbia to cross the $1-billion mark. It earned more than the inflation-adjusted amount of $1.047 billion earned by Thunderball.
Skyfall set an opening weekend record in Switzerland ($5.3 million) and recorded the second-largest opening weekend for a Hollywood film in India ($5.1 million). In Austria, it achieved the second-highest opening weekend ever ($3.4 million) behind The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, while in Finland, it scored the largest opening weekend when excluding previews ($1.47 million). In Australia, it set an opening-weekend record for Sony/Columbia with $12.9 million. Its highest-grossing territories were the USA and Canada ($304.4 million), the UK and Ireland ($161.2 million), Germany ($85.3 million), France and the Maghreb region ($60.1 million) and China ($59.2 million).
In the UK and Ireland, the film grossed £20.1 million ($32.5 million) on its opening weekend, making it the second-highest Friday-to-Sunday debut ever behind Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2. It also achieved the second-highest IMAX debut ever behind The Dark Knight Rises. The film set a record for the highest seven-day gross with £37.2 million, surpassing previous record holder Deathly Hallows – Part 2 (£35.7 million). By 9 November 2012 the film had earned over £57 million, becoming the highest-grossing film of 2012 and the highest-grossing James Bond film. It became the highest-grossing film of all time, surpassing Avatar, and the first film to gross more than £100 million. It ended its box-office run with £102.8 million.
In the USA and Canada, Skyfall is the fourth highest-grossing 2012 film and the highest-grossing James Bond film. The film opened in 3,505 cinemas, the widest opening for a James Bond film. The film earned $2.2 million on Thursday from IMAX and large-format cinemas and $2.4 million from midnight showings. CinemaScore polls reported that the average grade filmgoers gave the film was an "A" on an A to F scale. Skyfall went on to gross $30.8 million on its opening day (including midnight grosses), and $88.4 million on its opening weekend, the biggest debut for a Bond film. It was at first place on its first and fifth weekends.Spinc5 (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Why do we need overly short, stubby sub-sections at all? - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Why break out the US figures in the first line? (There are still other issues, but I'm editing on a phone at the moment: will post more soon. - SchroCat (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

As an asnwer to the stubby sub-sections, isn't it easier to have a heading saying USA and Canada instead of saying "in the USA and Canada" in every sentence? Also I removed the break out of US figures in the first sentence.Spinc5 (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Not when it's written properly. It's certainly better than having one paragraph sub-sections, which I think fail MOS:BODY ("Very short ... sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose"). - SchroCat (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Fine, I changed it again. Would you agree that this is now an acceptable version?Spinc5 (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
No. As I say above, there are other issues I will point out when I'm not editing on a mobile. - SchroCat (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Separating the wheat from the chaff, and putting a couple of your changes into BrEng, I suggest the following, which works from global, to UK (main producer and country of first release) to N America (secondary producer) to records in other territories:

Skyfall has earned $1.1 billion worldwide and is the eighth highest-grossing film. It the highest-grossing film for Sony Pictures, the second highest-grossing film of 2012 and the highest-grossing James Bond film. On its opening weekend it earned $80.6 million from 25 markets. On 30 December 2012 Skyfall became the 14th film in history and the first film for Sony/Columbia to earn $1 billion and had earned more than the inflation-adjusted amount of $1.047 billion earned by Thunderball.
In the UK the film grossed £20.1 million on its opening weekend, making it the second-highest Friday-to-Sunday debut ever behind Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2. It also achieved the second-highest IMAX debut ever behind The Dark Knight Rises. The film set a record for the highest seven-day gross with £37.2 million, surpassing previous record holder Deathly Hallows – Part 2 (£35.7 million). By 9 November 2012 the film had earned over £57 million to become the highest-grossing film of 2012 and the highest-grossing James Bond film in the UK. Skyfall is the highest-grossing film in the UK, and the first film to gross more than £100 million; when it ended its box-office run, the box office takings were £102.8 million.
In North America the film opened in 3,505 cinemas, the widest opening for a Bond film.[116] The film earned $2.2 million from IMAX and large-format cinemas and a further $2.4 million from midnight showings on its opening day.[116] CinemaScore polls reported that the average grade filmgoers gave the film was an "A" on an A to F scale.[117] Skyfall went on to gross $30.8 million on its opening day in the US and Canada,[118] and $88.4 million in its opening weekend, the biggest debut yet for a Bond film.[119] By the end of its theatrical run, the film earned $304,360,277 in the United States and Canada, making it the fourth highest-grossing film of 2012 in these regions.[7][120]
In other territories Skyfall set an opening weekend record in Switzerland ($5.3 million) and recorded the second-largest opening weekend for a Hollywood film in India ($5.1 million). In Austria it achieved the second-highest opening weekend returns ($3.4 million) behind The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, while in Finland, it scored the largest opening weekend when excluding previews ($1.47 million). In Australia, it set an opening-weekend record for Sony/Columbia with $12.9 million.

There are some aspects of your edit that I removed as being either misleading (depending on where you live), or trivial or just too hard to clearly understand. – SchroCat (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It is clear and well structured. I don't think we need sub-headings for each paragraph. Betty Logan (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
1. I insist on including " the third highest-grossing 2D-only film". Among so many 3D films at the top of the charts, this adds to the importance of the achievements of the film.
2. Why not include a few of its highest-grossing territories, which contributes to the worldwide perpsective?
3. Why are you insisting on "in the UK" instead of "in the UK and Ireland"?
4. Why is it not important that it was the highest-grossing James Bond film in the USA and Canada (which I added but you removed), but it is important the it had "the biggest debut yet for a Bond film"?
5. Why is it not important that it was at first place at the box office on its first and fifth weekends in the USA and Canada? Being first on the fifth weekend is quite rare and thus notable.
6. Its earnings "from IMAX and large-format cinemas" occurred on Thursday, i.e. before earnings "from midnight showings". It only makes sense to state them in chronological order.
Overall, you are just stubbornly insisting on retaining your exact phrasing and ignoring any remarks Betty Logan and I have made.Spinc5 (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
1. I'd rather you discussed, rather than insisted: it'll make things so much less unpleasant. I left it out because I think we're in danger of swamping readers with way too much detail as it is, without adding too much more. This is bordering on the overly-pedantic records, rather than something more realistic and concrete. "The best film released on a Tuesday in May etc": it's all a little too desperate to claim some record for a film that doesn't need to invent new records to chase.
2. We cover the records of some countries. That's sufficient as it stands, without bloating out to the point readers feel as if they've been swiped by a black-jack of minor factoids. The "territories" also include N America (which we've covered) and the UK (with a somewhat disputable Irish connection)
3. Most of the sources we use relate to the UK only.
4. We already cover the "highest grossing Bond film" worldwide and the UK, so we don't need to relate it to each and every country or territory.
5. Because firstly your version means sweet FA "It was at first place on its first and fifth weekends". That's just nonsense. Even if it's re-written, are we really going to hang out the bunting and celebrate the fact that it was the highest grossing film on its fifth weekend? It's little more than trivia.
6. I've switched the two facts around
Not at all. Actually most of the phrasing in both the suggested versions is very similar. I've gone for the more easily readable, in correct encyclopaedic English. There is nothing stubborn about what I am suggesting: I have tried to merge the best parts of the two suggestions, so I think you'd probably be best to drop the attitude. - SchroCat (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I think the thing about it being #1 on the fifth weekend might be acceptable since that's a pretty rare thing. But overall, the rest of this stuff is just way to bloaty. Again, I think "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" applies here. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
1. When you rank a film you apply specific criteria. e.g. films released by Sony, films released in 2012 etc. Similarly and equivalently, you can say "films released in 2D". This criterion is neither more nor less important than the others.
2. Look at other films that are good articles, like Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, Avatar (2009 film). They mention at least three of the highest-grossing territories other than their native territory.
3. Am I really the one who is insisting? Hmmm...
4. So you are saying that it is important to state that it achieved "the widest opening for a Bond film" (number of theaters) and "the biggest debut yet for a Bond film" (opening-weekend grosses) but not "the highest-grossing Bond film" (total box office grosses). Am I really the one who has included trivia? Hmmm...
5. Clearly, I am not the only one who supports this one.
Logic is a totally acceptable attitude.Spinc5 (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
We already did mention more than just the film's native territory. We've got info on Switzerland, India, Canada, United States, Austria, and more. Did u even read the link I posted above? Survivorfan1995 (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
1. Dubious point, especially when readers are already drowning in so many other factoids
2. Look at a whole stack of other GA film articles (the vast majority, I'd suggest) which don't include them. As Survivorfan has pointed out, it's getting slightly ridiculous to include them when we already include so many single territory record takings
3. Yes. You are the only person here who as insisted on a point. Everyone else is making suggestions, comments or observations.
4. Yes, you are the one peddling trivia. I haven't said that "the highest-grossing Bond film" shouldn't be included: I've pointed out that we've mentioned it twice already.
5. And others may disagree: the comment is there for discussion by all.
Your attitude is not good here (an no, it's not logical, it's snarky): you are acting like this is some form of battleground, which is isn't. I've suggested a tweaked version of the existing text that combines some of the elements of yours. I'm sorry if you don't think that is enough, but we'll have to let other have their say. - SchroCat (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Survivorfan1995, I did read your comment. Ideally, there should be some standardisation of the information that are included. For example, consider a film that broke no records in non-native countries. So the only thing that would be worth mentioning is the box office gross outside the native country (e.g. in the case of Skyfall, the UK). Mentioning just one number is probably too little information. So if we also include, for example, the three non-native countries where it earned the most (e.g. Germany, China etc), that would add a bit to the worldwide perspective. In the case of Skyfall, it will have also broken records in non-native countries (e.g. Switzerland), but not necessarily in the highest-grossing ones. Does that mean we shouldn't include the three highest-grosing territories. Wouldn't that be inconsistent? It's impossible to have a box office section of the same size for all films, and we shouldn't try to do this by ommitting information that would otheriwse be included.Spinc5 (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the problem there is, exactly how many countries and territories are acceptable? I mean, there're like 200 countries in the world. Listing too many of them would be giving excessive statistics, which is one of the things that link I posted specifically warns against. I see the point you're trying make, but again the goal is to include an adequate summary of the info, not every little detail. This is one of the reasons we post external links in the article, so people can read further info if they choose. Personally, I followed the production of Skyfall on fansites for about two years and there's more info out there than the average reader would be interested in. If we posted it all, we'd probably be able to make a small book out of it. Even professionally written encyclopedias and books can't include all available info, so they usually have a "further reading" section or something like that. No work of good quality is an indiscriminate collection of information. That's something u learn in school. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with SchroCat on the box office bloat. It's fine as it is, find something which really needs the work and move on.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

SchroCat, you are clearly avoiding to address some of the issues that I brought up by changing your mind and attitude each time you respond. For exapmle you said: "so we don't need to relate it to each and every country or territory." and then said: "I haven't said that "the highest-grossing Bond film" shouldn't be included", while failing to admit that other parts of your version are too trivial, as I've already pointed out. Another example is how you are insisting that the grosses from the UK are only from the UK and not the UK and Ireland (and Malta, but it's gonna take centuries to reach consensus on that one).
If there is anyone who has turned this into a battle field, it's you, since from the very start you have been characterising me as "bloody lazy" and my contributions as "crap". This has become such a personal issue for you that I just can't be bothered to discuss anymore. And sadly the useful conributions from third persons to this conversation have been very few. To be clear, what I mean by useful is referring to specific points in the article which are/aren't problematic or building an argument around why particular information are not so relevant to the section. So all I can say is keep up the good work. Spinc5 (talk) 10:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Spinc5, Again, I'll urge you to lose the attitude, because it's really not helping reach any common ground here. As I've already tried to take your suggestions on board in my suggested text above, and explained the rationale behind it, I hardly think I am taking a battlefield approach to this. I am not the one who has "insisted" on anything: that was you. You are the one who is making this personal, not me. If you look at the comments above, I have asked for others to comment on points: that is not taking a battlefield approach to the subject. You edit warred rather than discussed to begin with: that is taking a battlefield approach.
Yes, I called you "bloody lazy". I'll say that to anyone who edit wars a block of text back into an article when they have been told that there are issues with it ("Wrong variety of English, date format, generally accepted level of formatting"). If you can't be bothered to at least look at the most obvious errors, such as the inconsistent date format, then yes: I'll call you out for being bloody lazy.
You need to get a lot less personal about this—and do so quickly—if this discussion is going to be in any way constructive. There are other editors who have helpfully commented on this so far, and others may do so in the near future. - SchroCat (talk) 10:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Opening

The universal wiki opening for Films is "Film name" "Year" "Country" "Genre", you'll find this standard on 99% of films on wikipedia. To disregard this standard for this particular film is odd. Atotalstranger (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Stranger, you need to stop edit warring right now. It was bad enough before, but you breaching WP:3RR, which can lead to a block. - SchroCat (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing "universal" about this, and I'm bemused on the 99%: did you count them? There is absolutely nothing that says we have to follow the film project guidelines on an opening line. When it's about a Bond film, highlighting an "action film" is hardly helpful to readers: saying it's a "Bond film" is far more helpful. Similarly saying which Bond film (Eon's 23rd) is also more of a help than anything else. Your edit was reverted because a) it wasn't an improvement, and b) it introduced an error into the opening line, which certainly isn't helpful. - SchroCat (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Academy awards template

The template is the end of the article needs to show that it was succeeded in winning Academy Award for Best Original Song by Let It Go from Frozen -86.152.112.255 (talk) 08:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The request is for:
{{succession box
| before = "[[Man or Muppet]]" from<br />''[[The Muppets (film)|The Muppets]]''
| title  = [[Academy Award for Best Original Song]]<br />"[[Skyfall (song)|Skyfall]]"
| years  = 2012
| after  = TBA
}}
to be replaced with:
{{Succession box
| before = "[[Man or Muppet]]" from<br />''[[The Muppets (film)|The Muppets]]''
| title  = [[Academy Award for Best Original Song]]<br />"[[Skyfall (song)|Skyfall]]"
| years  = 2012
| after  = "[[Let It Go (Disney song)|Let It Go]]" from <br />''[[Frozen (2013 film)|Frozen]]''
}}

— {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 19:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should currently be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Done. The page was still locked when the request came through: all now sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 10:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


Overrated

I've placed a referenced sentence pointing expressing a reviewer's opinion that Skyfall is overrated. The opinion adds balance to the topic, and the linked article substantiates the opinion by with rationale and examples. This addition was reveted by User:Betty Logan with the claim that the change gave undue weight to "just one person's opinon". Any review, of course, is just one person's opinion.

After reverting the removal, User:Betty Logan again reverted the addition, this time claiming that the opinon is WP:FRINGE and that only "revies that are representative of the concensus" are selected. This, of course, is ludicrous; many people think that Skyfall was overrated and the opinion certainly isn't fringe. There is general agreement that the movie was overrated, so I believe the text (and its reference) should stay. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Now that User:SchroCat has reverted the text again with an admonishment to use the Talk page (despite this talk page section being added), I'm posting the text in question here so it's readily accesible to those who want to review it rather than revert it without participating in a conversation about its merit:
In April 2014, The Daily Telegraph placed the title on their top ten list of the most overrated films.[1]

References

  1. ^ Tim, Robey (2014-04-21). "10 most overrated films of all time". telegraph.co.uk. Telegraph Media Group. Retrieved 2014-06-01.
-- Mikeblas (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I reverted you. For a start you have ignored WP:BRD and edit warred to put in something you want. You should have come to the talk page without reverting Betty Logan. Secondly I reverted you (asking for you to come to the talk page for a second time) before you had saved this thread, so it wasn't "despite" anything. In future, please read and adhere to BRD AND use the talk page to come to an agreement, rather than edit warring. As to "There is general agreement that the movie was overrated", I think that's probably unmitigated balls, and certainly something unsupported by the vast majority of sources. - SchroCat (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • This is being discussed at the Film project where I have given a full explanation. I won't be contributing to this specific discussion because it affects several other articles too. That said I won't be making any more reverts to this article or the others until the main discussion arrives at a consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Critical Response section

It says the movie received "generally positive reviews," yet the movie got a 92% on Rotten Tomatoes, fitting more under "universal acclaim," while "generally positive" would be more accurate for a movie with 60-70% on Rotten Tomatoes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.201.19 (talk)

We tend not to use the over bloated and WP:PEACOCKy "universal acclaim", especially when based on something so awful as RT. Apart from being unencyclopaedic, it's wrong (ie. how can it be "universal" if 8% disagree?) - SchroCat (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

We should use "Widespread Critical acclaim". This label has been used other films with similar ratings such as Saving Private Ryan.--9999 (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Please cite a source that says "widespread critical acclaim", and it'll be used in the article. DonQuixote (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
We have a long-standing consensus on this page (and generally more broadly) that we avoid the bloated nonsense of the meaningless widespread or universal critical acclaim. It's peacockery, overly-bloated and bollocks. A balanced selection of reviews is the best way to show the feelings of critics, without such nonsense. Engage brains: 92% does not equal "universal" by some distance, especially when the thread below this is about the film being over-rated! - SchroCat (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

SchroCat instead of purely focus your unexplained hatrid of Skyfall hear, I suggest you see other pages such as "Saving Private Ryan", "Frozen", and "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings", the later of which has less than 92%. Until then this page should remain like others. --9999 (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

My "unexplained hatrid [sic] of Skyfall"?? Firstly, do not personalise discussions on Wiki: you have absolutely no idea about my thoughts on this or any other topic, so please do not try and double guess me. Secondly, the only way this page should "remain" is as it is, unless you can gain a consensus to change to something else, which I see as unlikely. Thirdly, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no argument to do anything on any other page, especially when against the overall consensus of the site. - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I reviewed the wording in this article, and I am not seeing where the "generally positive" claim is attributed to. Why do we not use RT's statement that critics found Skyfall to be one of the best James Bond movies, or Metacritic's statement of "universal acclaim"? There are also additional statements to be found if we Google skyfall "critics" which shows results like this and this. The current wording seems to downplay the overall praise, which I assume is what WARNER one was getting at. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
92% is not "universal", despite the peacockery nonsense of the review aggregator sites. If you read the reviews, the film was also criticised (which is what our review section also covers). See also the thread below this, where one critic thought the film to be over-rated, so again, it's hardly "universal". The over reliance on the aggregator sites is a poor reflection on how a film is received: boiling down a balanced review of shade and nuance to a raw number (or to "fresh" or "rotten") is crass beyond belief, and there is no reason for us to follow that if we are reflecting the overall consensus of the critics by use of their actual words. - SchroCat (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I never said 92% was universal. Metacritic says "universal acclaim", and I can understand taking issue with "universal" as hyperbole. However, the problem is that "generally positive" is a weak label that could easily apply to a film that is between 70-89% on Rotten Tomatoes or at least green on Metacritic. A better approach is to be clearer about the RT and MC methodologies, such as how RT identifies reviews as positive or negative, never in between. Earth to Echo#Critical reception is an example I've been updating. In addition, per MOS:FILM#Critical response, we can use critical commentary to report on the overall consensus apart from RT and MC. The links above can do that, as well as Los Angeles Times, which states, "'Skyfall' is garnering excellent reviews, with many critics hailing it as one of the best Bond films of the series." That kind of thing is what the summary sentence should be based on. Betty Logan, you've troubleshooted Transcendence -- what do you think, for this particular film? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy that the review section we have here reflects the consensus of the critics, without moving into the peacockery that Rancid Tomatoes and Metacritic automatically go for. It may be a cultural thing: my English understatement is never going to bloat out the way that the aggregators tend to, and I'd rather the reviews spoke for themselves, than to let hyperbole rule the roost. Given the thread below, it's kind of ironic that we trying to strengthen the summary! If we are to go down the route of the LA Times summary, then there is no reason to exclude the Telegraph reviewer either: there is no sense in that. A cool reflection that removes the extremes and balances the consensus is what we should be aiming for, and I don't think that puffery in the opening sentence is the best way to go on this. - SchroCat (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
ps. I didn't mean to imply that you had suggested 92% was universal: I was talking generally about it's use, so sorry for the confusion there. - SchroCat (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
For that opening sentence we could have something like "The reviews surveyed by aggregators Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic were regarded as mostly positive" which would probably best reflect the actual partitioning on those sites. I think that would adequately summarise the aggregator findings; anything more specific than that would need to be directly sourced. If we really have to have that "universal acclaim" hyperbole in there it should be explicitly clear it is only a Metacritic label for their summary alone. Betty Logan (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Erik, regarding the Earth to Echo section: I think copying the format on this article would give too much weight to the aggregators. It may be fine for that article, where there are no actual reviews looked at, but this article provides a good selection of reviews, quotes from a range of the critics, and is balanced to reflect the what the sources actually say. In cases like this, an over-reliance on the crass aggregators is unnecessary. For those articles entirely lacking in an in-depth examination of the actual reviews themselves, then yes, an aggregator is a useful shortcut, but it isn't needed when we get the rest of the review section right. I know the MOS says we can use aggregators, but it's a question of whether we should use them in all circumstances, and I think not. - SchroCat (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Then how are you determining "a good selection of reviews" if you are ignoring the "crass" aggregators? Due weight should be achieved by following the lead of independent sources that state how critics have received a film overall, which includes aggregators and the periodicals I mentioned. We need attributable summary statements to lend credence to the balance of sampled reviews. Is the term "generally positive" based on the aggregators at all? It sounds like the aggregators are being ignored here and that "generally positive" is based on an assessment of individual reviews, which would be synthesis. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
No, they are not being ignored, but neither are they being taken as the single, sole source of information. They, along with other sources, are being taken together to come up with the current balanced view. Two quick examples are Waterstones, who say the film "has met with generally positive reviews", as does GlobalPost, ("The film has earned generally positive reviews from critics and fans"). Erik, this article wasn't just thrown together, and it represents the work of a large number of editors, so I don't think that accusing everyone who has worked on this (and who took part in the discussions here, here, here and here) of ignoring sources and synthesising is justified. This topic has been flogged to death to a large extent, and because of the four previous discussions on this exact point, it has a pretty strong consensus to remain, without having to veer wildly into peacockery. It may be that to satisfy those who worship at the altar of the aggregators we add their descriptors as a footnote, but to be honest, even that isn't a positive step. – SchroCat (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2014

The box office earnings currently shows "$1,108.6 million" It should be changed to Billion. It earned $1,108,561,013 world wide. 99.241.146.82 (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: $1,108.6 million is numerically equivalent to $1,108,561,013 after rounding. Betty Logan (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Film

An edit warring IP has been swapping out all uses of the term "film" for the Americanism "movie". This is against the long-standing use of the term film on the page. The IP has asked people to use the talk page, so here it is. IP, the floor is yours to explain why you are changing out a good word for the less appropriate one. - SchroCat (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Action. It is also against the long-standing use in the English language. A film can be many things, including a layer of slug slime. In the context of the film industry it can refer to a motion picture as a physical or creative entity, or even the medium of film-making itself. It can also be used in a verb sense referring to the creative act of creating a motion picture, regardless of whether actual photographic film stock is involved in the process (see Digital filmmaking). The IP should put a stop to this silliness otherwise only one person will be getting blocked. Cut. Betty Logan (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
It's not even an EngVar issue. WP:FILM prefer the use of film over movie. - X201 (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Image: Daniel Craig's personal copy of the final script

Title page of Daniel Craig's personal copy of the final script

Hi, I'd like to come back to the issue of the script's title page. The copyright issue has been cleared on Commons, we can use it. I advocate that we should use it. It confirms the heavy editing of the script and the script revision by John Logan. As Daniel Craig's personalized copy of the script it is a unique item well suited for the article. Thus the file is a valuable addition of fact and improves the article. Please restore it. --h-stt !? 14:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that it isn't encyclopaedic. We say in the text that there were re-writes, so the image doesn't give us much additional information. Finally, it's not a particularly attractive image: it's terribly boring ad has an ugly watermark across the front. - SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
The "ugly watermark" across the front is the sign for the personalized copy of Daniel Craig. It is the single most valuable part of the file. And there is a difference between writing about heavy editing in the copy of an article and the visualization of it by showing the revision marks on the script. This is a unique item, invaluable in showing the processes of film production. Movies aren't just what finally happens on the screen. Our articles should reflect that. --h-stt !? 14:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Then definately not. There is nothing useful or valuable about the image. It does not aid any understanding of the subject that cannot be more easily and obviously put in words, and despite your claims, it shows us very, very little, let alone anything "invaluable". Just my opinion, and I'm happy to leave it to others to leave their comment too. - SchroCat (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Skyfall/Archive_7&oldid=1137189883"