Talk:The Iron Claw (film)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Use of images in the cast section
[edit]Mike, your original objection to having images in the article was that the images were stretching the page on Desktop. To address your concern, I altered the images from a vertical Multiple image template to a horizontal image gallery. This means the page is neither stretched out on Desktop or mobile. Additionally, as I've pointed out now a number of times in the revision history, using images of the cast in articles is not unusual; please see The Lord of the Rings (film series)#Cast and crew or Friends#Cast and characters.
Given that I switched the images from vertical to horizontal, can I ask why you're continuing to remove the images from the article? CeltBrowne (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not the only one that has removed the images. The article barely has any content, so I do not see a valid rationale to add eight images that are insanely large. If needed, I can ask WP:FILM for additional feedback, since not many people have this page on their watchlist. Mike Allen 03:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm not the only one that has removed the images.
- Yes, but the other editor who removed them was an IP editor who would not explain why they were removing the images despite me trying to communicate with them. We have no real idea if they had a valid basis to do so or not.
The article barely has any content
- You touched on this in the edit history section, but I'm not aware of any Manual of Style guideline which suggests the amount of images should directly tied to the amount of text in an article. As far as I know, it's about the purpose of the images. The images I'm adding do have a purpose; to demonstrate how well (or not) the cast visually compare to the subjects they're portraying. I don't believe 4 comparisons is excessive.
eight images that are insanely large
- 150xp in height is the default size of images on Wikipedia (at least that's definitely the case for infoboxes), if they were set to that default size, should that not be fine?
I can ask WP:FILM for additional feedback
- We can, but in the spirit of standard consensus building here on Wikipedia, I'd like to see if can come to mutual agreement first. CeltBrowne (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- See my edit summary. It was due to settings on my end, my apologies. Mike Allen 15:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- Throwing my opinion in here. At time of my writing this, the 8 images are still off putting and very large. They're just too darn big. It looks comical. Cinnamonrollsaregood (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- I did an experiment and viewed Wikipedia in a private tab (I use Firefox) and I see part of the issue; I'm using the "old" Wikipedia skin that uses the full width of a Desktop screen, whereas most of you are using the new default Wikipedia which centres all the images and text. For some weird reason, despite the height of the gallery being set at a small size, the images were in fact appearing quite large on screen on the new skin. I've now reduced the size of the height and also set a width setting. This makes them look very small on the Old Wikipedia skin, but they should now look normal on the new skin, as well as mobile, where they've always looked fine because mobile layout of images is very different to desktop anyway. CeltBrowne (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- Just wanna throw in my 2 cents here. I don't have any objection to the use of images in this way. Unless there's explicitly a rule against it... if it can avoid getting out of hand, and it causes no technical issues for most users, I think it's a great addition to the page. However, considering Lance Von Erich is most likely a minor supporting character, his inclusion at the top of the cast list feels a little misleading.Dahumorist (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- I did an experiment and viewed Wikipedia in a private tab (I use Firefox) and I see part of the issue; I'm using the "old" Wikipedia skin that uses the full width of a Desktop screen, whereas most of you are using the new default Wikipedia which centres all the images and text. For some weird reason, despite the height of the gallery being set at a small size, the images were in fact appearing quite large on screen on the new skin. I've now reduced the size of the height and also set a width setting. This makes them look very small on the Old Wikipedia skin, but they should now look normal on the new skin, as well as mobile, where they've always looked fine because mobile layout of images is very different to desktop anyway. CeltBrowne (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- Throwing my opinion in here. At time of my writing this, the 8 images are still off putting and very large. They're just too darn big. It looks comical. Cinnamonrollsaregood (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- See my edit summary. It was due to settings on my end, my apologies. Mike Allen 15:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
It's not a limited release
[edit]The summary states right now that the film will have a limited theatrical release on December 13, 2023. That's not really correct - there is only a single showing on Dec 13 in multiple cities. There are no showings in between that and the actual wide release on Dec 22, nor are there multiple screening on that day. It's a marketing thing, not a release. 2001:A61:3545:C301:8D78:42E:9848:7467 (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- I've reverted the information about a limited theatrical release since it was poorly sourced and is possibly incorrect as you've suggested. CeltBrowne (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)