Jump to content

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]

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]
    • 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]
        • 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]
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]

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]
[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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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]

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.


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.

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]