This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It clearly states on the back of the DVD and in the making of bonus feature that the budget for the movie was $6,500 USD and not $8,000. I am changing it in the article. Roguegeek ( talk) 05:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Why is a film in the Criterion Collection rated as low importance? -- Scottandrewhutchins 15:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The link to Jack Woods leads to Oxleas Wood, a forest, and that to Robin Christopher leads to a different actress of that name, not even born when the film was made. I shall therefore remove them. Kostaki mou ( talk) 23:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
This article is too short and needs to be expanded. The plot section is not that well developed and should be worked upon and expanded. Also information on the film's reception needs to be added in a separate section and the production section could be expanded a little bit more.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 00:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
No rule in either MOS:FILM, MOS:IBX, or Template:Infobox suggests you add a "uncredited" tag in the infobox. Where are you getting these rules from @ Gothicfilm:? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 06:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Adding "uncredited" in the infobox, makes it look like both directors are uncredited. It is not clear and not what infoboxes are for, remember "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose", adding extra details, makes it fail this rule Andrzejbanas ( talk) 19:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Nothing has changed in the last eight days. To repeat: Usually the consensus is that uncredited people should not be listed, which I agree with. Case-by-case judgment is necessary. In a situation where an uncredited writer or director is deemed to have contributed enough to also be listed in the infobox, below the credited writer and/or director, than the name should certainly be tagged with "(uncredited)" - as most are that I have seen. That is what I have done here. Numerous reliable sources list uncredited people in infoboxes, such as the AFI. But they are labelled as such. To not label them as "(uncredited)" would be misrepresenting the credits and misleading the reader.
No one has supported your position here or at the Talk:John Wick page. If you want to go against the way uncredited names are handled in most WP film infoboxes, you need to get consensus. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 21:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
After giving this article a long hard read, I've started to notice quite a few problems that need to be fixed. I'm making a list of said problems so editors here know just what needs to be accomplished in order for this article to meet GA/FA class standards. I'm currently working on resolving at least one of the issues so I will add a not that I'm working on that particular issue. Here is the complete list of tasks that need to be accomplished before this article can be nominated for GA/FA status:-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 18:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It clearly states on the back of the DVD and in the making of bonus feature that the budget for the movie was $6,500 USD and not $8,000. I am changing it in the article. Roguegeek ( talk) 05:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Why is a film in the Criterion Collection rated as low importance? -- Scottandrewhutchins 15:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The link to Jack Woods leads to Oxleas Wood, a forest, and that to Robin Christopher leads to a different actress of that name, not even born when the film was made. I shall therefore remove them. Kostaki mou ( talk) 23:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
This article is too short and needs to be expanded. The plot section is not that well developed and should be worked upon and expanded. Also information on the film's reception needs to be added in a separate section and the production section could be expanded a little bit more.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 00:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
No rule in either MOS:FILM, MOS:IBX, or Template:Infobox suggests you add a "uncredited" tag in the infobox. Where are you getting these rules from @ Gothicfilm:? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 06:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Adding "uncredited" in the infobox, makes it look like both directors are uncredited. It is not clear and not what infoboxes are for, remember "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose", adding extra details, makes it fail this rule Andrzejbanas ( talk) 19:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Nothing has changed in the last eight days. To repeat: Usually the consensus is that uncredited people should not be listed, which I agree with. Case-by-case judgment is necessary. In a situation where an uncredited writer or director is deemed to have contributed enough to also be listed in the infobox, below the credited writer and/or director, than the name should certainly be tagged with "(uncredited)" - as most are that I have seen. That is what I have done here. Numerous reliable sources list uncredited people in infoboxes, such as the AFI. But they are labelled as such. To not label them as "(uncredited)" would be misrepresenting the credits and misleading the reader.
No one has supported your position here or at the Talk:John Wick page. If you want to go against the way uncredited names are handled in most WP film infoboxes, you need to get consensus. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 21:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
After giving this article a long hard read, I've started to notice quite a few problems that need to be fixed. I'm making a list of said problems so editors here know just what needs to be accomplished in order for this article to meet GA/FA class standards. I'm currently working on resolving at least one of the issues so I will add a not that I'm working on that particular issue. Here is the complete list of tasks that need to be accomplished before this article can be nominated for GA/FA status:-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 18:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)