| Revision as of 18:46, 14 July 2009 editRavensfire (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers89,126 edits →Year of Release: Corrected link to WP:FilmRelease← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:23, 14 July 2009 edit undoInurhead (talk | contribs)698 editsm re: release dateNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| After some wandering around, I found ], which says to use a list if applicable, starting with the films earliest release, then first release in a majority English-speaking country then release dates in the country/countries that produced the film. From that, plus IMDB using 2008 as the release year, I think it's pretty clear that we should be using 2008, and not 2009. ] (]) 15:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | After some wandering around, I found ], which says to use a list if applicable, starting with the films earliest release, then first release in a majority English-speaking country then release dates in the country/countries that produced the film. From that, plus IMDB using 2008 as the release year, I think it's pretty clear that we should be using 2008, and not 2009. ] (]) 15:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :] specifically says that the release date should be based on when it was released in the country that produced the film (there is no hierarchy placed on that in that WP), and specifically states an "English-speaking country" (since this is the English version of Misplaced Pages, not the Italian version). This is an American film. It is the standard that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences has adhered to for decades that a release date is considered to be the date the film is released in Los Angeles, California ("rule 2"). AMPAS is a higher authority than unpaid Misplaced Pages freelance contributors on this issue. So, for all lists of "2009 films" which Misplaced Pages readers will be likely searching and choosing Academy Award nominees from, it would be wrong and even misleading to exclude ''The Hurt Locker'' which is a front runner by many critics accounts in this 2009 season. It seems the intention of those who are trying to list the film as "2008" (based on limited film festival previews in 2008), are trying to do damage to the film's viewership and odds at receiving awards, which also could result in fiscal harm to the film. That the above contributor went "wandering around" after-the-fact trolling for excuses to alter the release date, might show alterior motives. So the release date is going to be changed back to "2009" for those reasons. ] (]) | |||
Revision as of 19:23, 14 July 2009
 | Film: War / American Start‑class | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Editing BADLY needed
Can someone who isn't a shill for this movie or a overhyper fan of the stars get this into decent shape? Opening graphs should be short, all the reviews need to be moved into a critical reaction section.
24.24.244.132 (talk) 07:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Could still use a trim, though, to edit down the reactions. --Ckatzspy 08:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Lead section
Regarding the use of the phrase "award-winning" in the opening sentence of the lead section, I do not think that it is appropriate per WP:LEAD. First of all, the phrase is vague; what award, and what kind of award? It does not specify a difference between Best Picture at the Academy Awards and Best Summer Film at the Teen Choice Awards. WP:LEAD states, "The article should begin with a straightforward, declarative sentence that, as briefly as possible, provides the reader who knows nothing at all about the article's subject with the answer to two questions: "What (or who) is it?" and "Why is this subject notable?" Also, "Do not tease the reader by hinting at startling facts without describing them." This is why the specific addendum was added to MOS:FILM; a lot of articles erroneously start out this way. Same with the usage of taglines and their promotional language. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Year of Release
It's just one of the points of contention, but let's actually talk about it. Several users (including me) prefer 2008, noting that the film was released in a limited manner in 2008. Several sources ( use 2008 as the release date. Others, including Inurhead, prefer 2009, saying that the film was released in the US in 2009 and that the limited release doesn't count.
After some wandering around, I found WP:FilmRelease, which says to use a list if applicable, starting with the films earliest release, then first release in a majority English-speaking country then release dates in the country/countries that produced the film. From that, plus IMDB using 2008 as the release year, I think it's pretty clear that we should be using 2008, and not 2009. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- WP:FilmRelease specifically says that the release date should be based on when it was released in the country that produced the film (there is no hierarchy placed on that in that WP), and specifically states an "English-speaking country" (since this is the English version of Misplaced Pages, not the Italian version). This is an American film. It is the standard that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences has adhered to for decades that a release date is considered to be the date the film is released in Los Angeles, California ("rule 2"). AMPAS is a higher authority than unpaid Misplaced Pages freelance contributors on this issue. So, for all lists of "2009 films" which Misplaced Pages readers will be likely searching and choosing Academy Award nominees from, it would be wrong and even misleading to exclude The Hurt Locker which is a front runner by many critics accounts in this 2009 season. It seems the intention of those who are trying to list the film as "2008" (based on limited film festival previews in 2008), are trying to do damage to the film's viewership and odds at receiving awards, which also could result in fiscal harm to the film. That the above contributor went "wandering around" after-the-fact trolling for excuses to alter the release date, might show alterior motives. So the release date is going to be changed back to "2009" for those reasons. Inurhead (talk)