Talk:In a World...

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Query[edit]

Is this nationwide thing a part of sundance now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Tetralogy" vs. "Quadrilogy"[edit]

Everyone in the film uses "quadrilogy", but the correct word is "tetralogy". My take is that the synopsis should use the correct term since it's not "in universe". - Richfife (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it simple: it is a "series". Done. -- 109.78.178.110 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment[edit]

Very poorly constructed RFC, apparently with the locus of dispute changing midstream. Also doesn't have a clear NPOV question being asked. But it appears that the "not includes" have it. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

To be clear the content at issue is this--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I withdraw my challenge of the top 10 list content based on my 21:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC) comment earlier. Phoenix Film Society remains at issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect because it's a poor article we have that gives no background at all about the Society or the award. At least the Society's own page explains exactly who they are. - SchroCat (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We had a brief discussion about this on Skyfall (see Talk:Skyfall/Archive 5#Awards/Accolades Table) and the consensus was to avoid putting in the pointless minor awards of various insignificant groups, which is something I'd agree with. - SchroCat (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been asked here and on my talk page to clarify my !vote:
    • Oppose inclusion of top 10 lists from individual journalists/groups: aggregated versions may be acceptable, on a case-by-case basis.
    • Oppose inclusion of small/non-entity awards. I appreciate we appear to have some general agreement on referring to people or groups where we have an article, but our own article tells us absolutely nothing, and the membership fills me with dread and horror that this is somehow considered "notable". The "SchroCat Film Awards" would be a more compelling inclusion to make!
    • Strong oppose of the use of the phrase "critical acclaim" (as appears in the removed content at issue: too far into WP:PEACOCKery for my liking): let the balanced selection of reviews point the way. - SchroCat (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has been discussed at length elsewhere. Just because a film club or a critics' society is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article doesn't mean that every pronouncement, award or nomination they make is notable. Phoenix is neither a center of film culture nor a hotbed of nationally known critics. Have you actually looked at its roster? It includes: "George Grorud, Retired"; "Mike Massie [and] Joel Massie, GoneWiththeTwins.com"; "Frances Rimsza, Retired"; "Shana Schwarz, The Foothills Focus" weekly shopper; "Dawn Underwood, Movienighttrafficlight.com"; and more like that, along with a couple of local TV stations. Non-professional retirees, weekly shoppers, non-notable websites. About the only noteworthy critics are two from The Arizona Republic newspaper, and they're not exactly Kevin Thomas or Manohla Dargis. You're not going to find the situation much different at Salt Lake City City, Albuquerque or Portland, Maine. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we be a bit more clear with exactly what information might be added to/excluded from the article? I haven't looked at the article history for details, but it seems that this film hasn't received much recognition so I don't think it can hurt to include whatever recognition it did received from professional critics. --Loeba (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • As noted above, the Phoenix critics include non-professional retirees and critics whose "professional" credentials are technical at best: self-published websites and free local weekly shoppers. That's not even the same creature as the New York Film Critics Circle. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • As a contributor based in Europe I know little of the pecking order of North American media outlets, but I think it would be helpful to our readers to cite papers etc internationally recognised as noteworthy, and avoid minor ones whenever possible. Whether the one at issue is major or minor I cannot say, though I must confess I hadn't heard of it before. Tim riley (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include all the information that was removed. It may not be as notable as being listed in Kenneth Turan's top ten or receiving an award from the NYFCC, but that doesn't mean it isn't notable at all. As far as I know, the PFCS is regarded as a professional group and the newspapers mentioned are professional newspapers. It's not for us to say "No they aren't professional ENOUGH!" It's only a small bit of text and I just can't see any problem with including it. --Loeba (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Not having a problem with including it" is a matter of personal taste and doesn't actually provide a reason for inclusion other that WP:ILIKEIT. And it actually is for us to say, by consensus, that including everyone and everything no matter what is WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You've ignored the first part of my comment, where I stated that the information is notable so should be included. The latter part of my comment is is still related to policy: I'm saying that "indiscriminate" doesn't apply when we're only talking about a small bit of information. The policy is there to stop articles from being burdened with every related factoid ("Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles"), but that wouldn't be a problem here. --Loeba (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose :I don't see an issue with the top 10 part where those top 10s are from notable bodies but why do we care what the Phoenix Film whatever thinks? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Generally we include awards that we have articles about and remove awards that don't have articles. We do cover the Phoenix Film Critics Society awards so the correct way to challenge their notability would be to WP:PROD or AfD the award I guess. Obviously if they survive deletion then they are de facto notable. As for top tens, I think those are generally best dealt with on a case-by-case basis. If they have received some independent secondary coverage, or have been solicited as part of a prestigious poll (such as the Sight & Sound decennial poll) then they are probably notable, but at the same time notability isn't hereditary so we shouldn't automatically just include a top 10 just because the critic is notable. Betty Logan (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think the critic top tens should be restored unless they can be established as being independently notable: with aggregators, it is the overall critical consensus that is notable rather than what each individual critic thinks (and in the case of very successful films the number of placements on critic top tens could be endless). In the case of the National Board of Review top 10, we have an article at National Board of Review Awards 2013#Top Independent Films, so I would advocate inclusion in the case of this particular top ten. Betty Logan (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore contested content. In terms of top 10 lists, if we limit to those mentioned by Metacritic (the WP:RS for the deleted content) we are not being WP:INDISCRIMINATE and since Phoenix Film Critics Society has its own article we are not being WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That blanket statement, I'm afraid, isn't accurate. It's been established in past discussions — and I hope as a fellow veteran editor you'll exhibit good faith and not make me spend a hour or two laboriously combing archives to cite chapter and verse — but just because a group has a Wikipedia article doesn't mean every utterance from it is notable. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since I have never heard that this is an invalid standard for inclusion in a list, you do have to say why it is not a valid standard for inclusion in a list like this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can't make a unilateral demand like that. In other words, you have to back up your assertion as well: You need to show where it says we're required to include every single award and nomination of every single piddling little organization that has an article in Wikipedia. I would say that clearly violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think I have satisfied a reasonable burden by providing WP:ICs from WP:RSs. Once I establish that RS consider a subject worth discussing, it is the responsibility of wikipedians to summarize that content. In terms of movie review type content, Metacritic is pretty close to as important a source as there is. If they compile a list of top tens, we should summarize it. I disagree that Metacritic is a piddling little organization.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not talking about Metacritic. Talking about the Phoenix Film Critics Society. Just because Wikipedia acknowledges that it exists doesn't mean that every utterance from that organization is intrinsically notable. That's WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Changing subjects: If Metacritic gives a top-10 based on an aggregation, that's one thing. Including every top-10 list down to the the Podunk Daily Star is quite another.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you support Metacritic top-10 aggregation as significant and I summarize the agggregate for this film by stating the more notable sources from that aggregate, what is the problem?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Metacritic's own list at http://www.metacritic.com/feature/film-critic-top-10-lists-best-movies-of-2013 is one thing, and In a World... is not on that list. As for the Anytown USA Times, it's inconsequential. There are hundreds of newspapers and magazines and thousands of movie websites. A huge number issue top-10 lists. We are not obligated to list every film on every top-10 list that every newspaper, magazine and website posts. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • There is some merit to your statement. I don't really do a lot of film articles. I guess it is sort of similar to the basketball teams that are only "receiving votes" but not among the top 25 in the AP Poll or Coaches' Poll and detailing who gave them votes even though they were not among the top 25.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I appreciate your graciousness in saying that, Tony. Despite editors here having philosophical differences, this has been a very civil discussion overall, and your collegiality has been a big part of that. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include all awards/festivals that have an article. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Phoenix Film Critics Society award, neutral on the others. Both sides have made good arguments. For the Phoenix Film Critics Society, I was able to find coverage here on HitFix, here at Indiewire, here at The Wrap, and here at Broadway World. The award is notable enough to attract attention from multiple reliable sources, and a PFCS nomination was also included in Prometheus's list of accolades, which is a Featured article. On the topic of the critics' top 10 lists, I'm neutral. They are often included in articles as puffery, but I'm not directly opposed the practice. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the hard work in digging these up. These WP:RS bolster my challenge.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm afraid that's apples and oranges. We're not talking about whether the Phoenix film Critics Society is a reliable source for footnoting. The issue is whether a "critics" society that includes amateurs, non-notable WP:SPS bloggers and free weekly penny-shoppers has any significance. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Link for Marc Graue[edit]

This link goes to a page for 'SuperMario'? PeterM88 (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was a bad Easter egg, as we call links to redirect to inappropriate, surprise pages. I'll fix. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Spinixster (trout me!) 06:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:In a World.../GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Spinixster (talk · contribs) 07:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'll be reviewing this. At first glance, there are some issues with the article that should be fixed:

  • There is 1 CN tag in the article as well as some unsourced parts.
  • I'd suggest rearranging the sections per MOS:FILM; right now, the placements are confusing.
    I think the Music section should be under the Production section; many other film articles follow this trend. Also, the Filming section may suffer from oversectioning because the sections are quite short. Spinixster (chat!) 12:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some (MOS:EDITORIAL, I think) issues with the prose, such as She deliberately filmed using shots in the style of a drama, although the film is a comedy. The "nose kiss" scene was suggested by Ken Marino, and it made Bell laugh so much she told him he would need to do it twice.
    I did not remember the exact guideline, but the part I mentioned is much better now. I'll do an in-depth review later. Spinixster (chat!) 13:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:LEAD, the lead is too short.

I'll put this review on hold for now before I do a full review. Feel free to ask any questions if needed. Spinixster (chat!) 07:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Full review[edit]

Thanks for the needed improvements, I will now review the article further. This may take a while.

  • Lead and infobox:
  • Plot
    • Currently, the plot section sits at ~670 words, so there are no worries about the plot section being too long and violating MOS:PLOT. However, there are many one-sentence paragraphs, which is not encouraged, so I'd merge parts with similar ideas and summarize wherever possible.
  • Production
  • Release
  • Box office
    • Perhaps this section can be moved to be inside the Reception section? I see that this is the trend with most articles, and it makes sense.
Per WP:FILMCAST, any uncredited roles should be sourced to reliable sources. Spinixster (trout me!) 05:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
removed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the changes. There's just a few more things that I think are needed before I pass this article:

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.

Verbiage in the plot summary[edit]

I might just be showing my ignorance here, but I think the phrase "loop her accent" in the first paragraph of the plot summary should be changed to something easier to understand, as I'm finding it difficult to decipher its meaning and it feels like it might be an industry-specific usage. Most search results I found were websites that copy Wikipedia word-for-word, but I did stumble upon something called loop lines, referring to dialogue that's recorded separately and spliced into a scene where the actor doesn't appear on screen. This seems like it's somehow related to the way "loop" is used in the plot summary, although I can't quite put it all together. Any help would be greatly appreciated. – Majora4 (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:In_a_World...&oldid=1221829077"