This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Die Hard article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Die Hard is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 13, 2021. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Other talk page banners | |||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Die Hard was copied or moved into Die Hard (soundtrack). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Oh..... we should definitely reopen up this can of worms. NickCT ( talk) 16:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
To me this kinda reads like a film-studies essay, and a rather subjective (and at times down-right tenuous) one at that? At the least it feels like it should be written more like the critical response section, where the views are clearly attributed to published works - I don't mean just citing sources, but outright stating e.g "Richard Brody, writing for The New Yorker, portrays Die Hard as a story of redemption through violence." etc in the same way Roger Ebert's opinions are clearly stated as his own. The section seems like an original-research opinion piece, backed up with the same few sources referenced several times throughout. It may be interesting, but it doesn't seem objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.229.155 ( talk) 21:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I count 84(!) uses of the semicolon. This seems rather excessive to me; many of these can probably be full stops. I cannot recall reading another piece of prose with such of a high concentration. Sizeofint ( talk) 07:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
This article boasts that some “copy editor” has worked on it. Well, not one who would get hired anywhere as any kind of copy editor. The article is full of tortured prose that needs cleaning up.
Just one example. The Music section uses the word “song” to apply to themes in Beethoven’s compositions, which is hilarious to anyone familiar with how to write about classical music. This mistake may derive from an over-reliance on the language of modern commercial music software: Spotify, for example, mislabels everything from a Chopin mazurka to a movement in a Charles Ives symphony a “song”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.170.122 ( talk) 04:52, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This line is in the Plot section: "Meanwhile, seeing another amiss, Powell prepares to leave" It should be changed to, "Meanwhile, seeing nothing amiss, Powell prepares to leave" Walter Wpg ( talk) 05:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Apologies if I have missed it but there doesn't seem to be any explanation of the title of the film - should this be added in? McPhail ( talk) 12:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
This is extraordinary to me - that's almost 200 bucks adjusted for inflation. It's cited to a NYT article which does indeed give this figure, but I just want to make sure, is it possible that was an error? Maybe the home media market really was different back then. Popcornfud ( talk) 14:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I was surprised by this reversion. It's true that we don't say anything to imply the price was abnormal, but (as the previous talk section demonstrates) that's what a lot of readers are going to assume if we don't provide any context. So I'm not clear on why we wouldn't? I can't find a specifically relevant policy, but there are countless examples of similar clarifications throughout Wikipedia. So @ Darkwarriorblake:, could you please explain your reversion? I've undone it for now, as cited material should not be removed without discussion, but I'm open to being convinced if you can point to a policy that says we actually SHOULDN'T have all those similar examples, etc. - Elmer Clark ( talk) 23:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, I feel a little bad that this discussion ended up completely removing this point of interest from the article instead of contextualizing it, but I can't really disagree with anyone's points - this does seem like the most appropriate solution. - Elmer Clark ( talk) 01:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Any idea why this article is subject to so much vandalism today? Is there a post on reddit or something? Seems out-of-the-ordinary. Liz Read! Talk! 02:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
This is of low importance for American cinema? Seems very wrong and inaccurate to me. Zedd1997 ( talk) 12:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
WP:PIPE the link "making it character of its own" towards Anthropomorphism. 2601:646:8400:1ED0:3890:8503:2139:77F5 ( talk) 09:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Had added Christmas Eve to the last sentence in the first paragraph "who is caught in a terrorist takeover of a Los Angeles skyscraper while visiting his estranged wife on Christmas Eve", which seems perfectly fine and even essential as a descriptor since visiting an estranged wife at any time is quite the thing, and doing so on Christmas Eve is a long way from random (say, March 10). This was reverted. Then I linked Christmas Eve further down the lead which was, again, reverted as an overlink. Seems the lead is allergic to Christmas Eve. Since this film is now firmly in the Christmas column ( see these 2018-2022 n-grams if there is still doubt) I'd like to propose adding Christmas Eve back into the "visiting his estranged wife" descriptor in the lead paragraph. Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The reception section and its summary in the lead currently focus on its mixed/mediocre initial reception and subsequent reappraisal. What seems to be missing from that summary is the fact that it received an A+ CinemaScore and was considered a surprise success, especially considering how negative coverage of Willis was before release. Both seem to point to a very positive audience reception even at the time. These facts are mentioned in the article, but the overall narrative seems to contradict them. Over the last few years there have been plenty of films with mixed critical reception but overwhelming audience scores (notably Venom, the Mario movie or Dead Men Tell No Tales), so it shouldn't be that hard to include that in the article. jonas ( talk) 03:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Die Hard article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Die Hard is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 13, 2021. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Other talk page banners | |||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Die Hard was copied or moved into Die Hard (soundtrack). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Oh..... we should definitely reopen up this can of worms. NickCT ( talk) 16:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
To me this kinda reads like a film-studies essay, and a rather subjective (and at times down-right tenuous) one at that? At the least it feels like it should be written more like the critical response section, where the views are clearly attributed to published works - I don't mean just citing sources, but outright stating e.g "Richard Brody, writing for The New Yorker, portrays Die Hard as a story of redemption through violence." etc in the same way Roger Ebert's opinions are clearly stated as his own. The section seems like an original-research opinion piece, backed up with the same few sources referenced several times throughout. It may be interesting, but it doesn't seem objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.229.155 ( talk) 21:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I count 84(!) uses of the semicolon. This seems rather excessive to me; many of these can probably be full stops. I cannot recall reading another piece of prose with such of a high concentration. Sizeofint ( talk) 07:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
This article boasts that some “copy editor” has worked on it. Well, not one who would get hired anywhere as any kind of copy editor. The article is full of tortured prose that needs cleaning up.
Just one example. The Music section uses the word “song” to apply to themes in Beethoven’s compositions, which is hilarious to anyone familiar with how to write about classical music. This mistake may derive from an over-reliance on the language of modern commercial music software: Spotify, for example, mislabels everything from a Chopin mazurka to a movement in a Charles Ives symphony a “song”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.170.122 ( talk) 04:52, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This line is in the Plot section: "Meanwhile, seeing another amiss, Powell prepares to leave" It should be changed to, "Meanwhile, seeing nothing amiss, Powell prepares to leave" Walter Wpg ( talk) 05:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Apologies if I have missed it but there doesn't seem to be any explanation of the title of the film - should this be added in? McPhail ( talk) 12:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
This is extraordinary to me - that's almost 200 bucks adjusted for inflation. It's cited to a NYT article which does indeed give this figure, but I just want to make sure, is it possible that was an error? Maybe the home media market really was different back then. Popcornfud ( talk) 14:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I was surprised by this reversion. It's true that we don't say anything to imply the price was abnormal, but (as the previous talk section demonstrates) that's what a lot of readers are going to assume if we don't provide any context. So I'm not clear on why we wouldn't? I can't find a specifically relevant policy, but there are countless examples of similar clarifications throughout Wikipedia. So @ Darkwarriorblake:, could you please explain your reversion? I've undone it for now, as cited material should not be removed without discussion, but I'm open to being convinced if you can point to a policy that says we actually SHOULDN'T have all those similar examples, etc. - Elmer Clark ( talk) 23:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, I feel a little bad that this discussion ended up completely removing this point of interest from the article instead of contextualizing it, but I can't really disagree with anyone's points - this does seem like the most appropriate solution. - Elmer Clark ( talk) 01:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Any idea why this article is subject to so much vandalism today? Is there a post on reddit or something? Seems out-of-the-ordinary. Liz Read! Talk! 02:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
This is of low importance for American cinema? Seems very wrong and inaccurate to me. Zedd1997 ( talk) 12:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
WP:PIPE the link "making it character of its own" towards Anthropomorphism. 2601:646:8400:1ED0:3890:8503:2139:77F5 ( talk) 09:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Had added Christmas Eve to the last sentence in the first paragraph "who is caught in a terrorist takeover of a Los Angeles skyscraper while visiting his estranged wife on Christmas Eve", which seems perfectly fine and even essential as a descriptor since visiting an estranged wife at any time is quite the thing, and doing so on Christmas Eve is a long way from random (say, March 10). This was reverted. Then I linked Christmas Eve further down the lead which was, again, reverted as an overlink. Seems the lead is allergic to Christmas Eve. Since this film is now firmly in the Christmas column ( see these 2018-2022 n-grams if there is still doubt) I'd like to propose adding Christmas Eve back into the "visiting his estranged wife" descriptor in the lead paragraph. Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The reception section and its summary in the lead currently focus on its mixed/mediocre initial reception and subsequent reappraisal. What seems to be missing from that summary is the fact that it received an A+ CinemaScore and was considered a surprise success, especially considering how negative coverage of Willis was before release. Both seem to point to a very positive audience reception even at the time. These facts are mentioned in the article, but the overall narrative seems to contradict them. Over the last few years there have been plenty of films with mixed critical reception but overwhelming audience scores (notably Venom, the Mario movie or Dead Men Tell No Tales), so it shouldn't be that hard to include that in the article. jonas ( talk) 03:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)