This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
A reference. I'm a bit floored from this, but I think it might be worth mentioning to this article. From Overkill's announcement it will include the titular character, a new skill and perk tree, a gun, a knife, three "masks" and a heist. I have already written it into Payday 2's article. Zero Serenity ( talk - contributions) 16:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
This article contains a large plot summary detailing the story of the film, but does not provide users with a quick summary of the plot. This is useful for when a user has not yet seen the film, but would like to understand what it is about. Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film -- Thegrs ( talk) 21:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Chad Stahelski & David Leitch shot the film together. Every source that talked about this film up to its release listed two directors, and some continued to do so after its release. There are interviews of the two together. They both belong in the lead and infobox, with Leitch listed as uncredited. A good source should be found for how this happened, but there's plenty that back up it did happen. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 21:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
After combing through the archives of
WT:FILM, it appears that you are indeed correct,
Erik. There was a discussion
a little while back deciding that it was notable to include them if their contributions were significant and verifiable. I was unaware of this consensus, and after reading through that discussion, I feel a bit bull-headed for thinking no one uncredited should be in the infobox. I'm now all for adding Leitch's credit to the infobox and the lead section, though we should probably add a footnote explaining that his work went uncredited.
Sock
(tock talk)
13:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of not giving credit to those who deserve it, you were right from the start,
Gothicfilm, and I apologize for making this could-be open-and-shut issue into an argument.
Sock
(tock talk)
13:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was move per request. Clear support with evidence provided for the film being the primary topic.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 12:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
John Wick (film) → John Wick – The film is the clear primary topic: "John Wick game designer" only gets 60,700 results, whilst "John Wick film" and "John Wick movie" both get over 2 million. The game designer was only viewed 614 times last month, whilst the film was viewed 86,805 times during the same time period. Also we won't need the disambiguation page if this move goes through, as there are only two topics. Unreal7 ( talk) 22:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
John Wick (film) has been viewed 242308 times in the last 90 days. [1]
John Wick (game designer) has been viewed 1697 times in the last 90 days. [2]
Zarcadia ( talk) 03:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Wow, talk about going-off-the-rails fanboy. Embarrassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.36.49.117 ( talk) 15:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
This article reads like a giant press release, long, empty, and overly flattering. I guess the marketing people at Lionsgate's or the other producers' deserved their salary on this one. Sometimes to the point of being comical. Stuff like "on this day, it was announced that X would join the cast", "on that day, it was announced that Y would join the cast", for paragraphs on end. Or the minute and comprehensive listing of every foreign distributor LG sold the rights to in Cannes.
And by the way, this (unfortunately) really seems to be a trend you can see on WP. Older movies articles are written by real film buffs and are generally truly interesting and informative. Current movies pages seem to be taken over by the PR departments, and read like a glossy, empty press release. Sad. Fils du Soleil ( talk) 04:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
The character played by Alfie Allen - - - is it "Iosef" or "Yusef"?
I see "Yusef" on the lead-in line, but it's "Iosef" everywhere else.
Where did "Yusef" come from?
I did not want to make an edit since the difference is so obvious that I thought there must be a reason why it hasn't been changed or addressed before now and I did not want to get into trouble or start one of those endless back-and-forths over a minute detail. 2600:8800:50B:6700:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 ( talk) 12:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I realize this was discussed in 2014, but as it was re-added to clarify if someone had or not directed the film, I see it as more confusing. The infobox is not really large enough to add this information with an "(uncredited)". It is not clear which director is credited. Both? Just the last one? I know it is explained in the prose, but the infobox shouldn't be made confusing. I would propose the following:
Thoughts? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 19:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
After Bartallen2 made this huge expansion to the article on November 22, I considered stating something (whether in a WP:Dummy edit or on this talk page) about how the critical reception material is too positive. And by "too positive," I mean that it includes no criticism. Yes, the film got a high score on Rotten Tomatoes and a "generally favorable" score on Metacritic, but there should still be criticism in the Critical response section, although not much...per WP:Due weight. I figured that I might add a bit of negative critical information to the article, but, as everyone can see, I haven't gotten around to doing that. So considering that the Critical response section is still currently too positive, I've decided to finally address this matter on this talk page. Flyer22 ( talk) 22:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: serioushat is Twinsday. Twinsday, thanks for the help. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 15:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Is a 6.9 RT average, 68 on metacritic, and "B" audience poll really "critical acclaim"? This is practically the highest praise you will see on wikipedia for artistic work, other than legendary classics. For such a strong statement it should have very strong evidence. If all it's based on is being "Certified Fresh" on RT, it should just say it's Certified Fresh on RT. But I don't want to start an edit war - there are clearly a number of big fans contributing to this article. Jerodast ( talk) 01:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on John Wick. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on John Wick. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
As I write, the link to the upcoming The Continental series is to an older CBS series. I suggest creating a new page called The Continental (John Wick Franchise) if no existing page exists. Will ( Talk - contribs) 08:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:John Wick (franchise) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 13:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
The article mentions the budget twice, but only in passing. $20m seems incredibly low for a theatrical action film starring Keanu Reeves. Did he waive his salary? Was most of the budget off the books? Was it just a very cheap film? - Ashley Pomeroy ( talk) 18:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The building used for exterior shots of the Continental was the Beaver Building at 1 Wall Street Court, not Delmonico's. Delmonico's was used only for interiors. Source: https://www.legendarytrips.com/2014/11/john-wick-continental-hotel-new-york-filming-locations/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.1.132.44 ( talk) 19:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Darkwarriorblake: "Future" in this context refers to the future of the franchise after the film's release, not the future in real-time. I do believe this is the standard wording on most film articles I've seen, though I have no idea why it's not on MOS:FILM. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 00:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
All other John Wilk films use his first name in the plot. Every other character's first name is used throughout the plot. Why is this one the only outlier? Bloodyboppa ( talk) 16:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
For fictional entities, use common names.In this case, it is debatable whether "John" or "Wick" is his common name, so I would be fine with either way. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 17:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
The film says John Wick's car is a Boss 429. The article says it's a Mach 1. Why? Where is the consensus stating the change? Urbanracer34 ( talk) 01:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Darkwarriorblake: it's true that MOS:LEADCITE allows us to remove citations from the lead when those citations that are included in the body. But for statements that could be disputed, it's still best to cite things directly in the lead. And please keep WP:ENCOURAGE in mind.
I've now copied a few citations from the body to the lead, so Toock, there you go: those claims are now properly cited. You're still free to propose copyedits to those sentences, or to propose other reliable sources we could use, right here on the talk page. On Wikipedia, there are better alternatives to trying to "push changes through"; you'll have a better time here if you use talk pages, and if that fails, you can use our dispute resolution processes. DFlhb ( talk) 14:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
statements that are likely to be disputed". If you do it for mildly disputable statements, there's a greater chance those citations will be relegated to the body at some point in a future copyedit, GA, or FA review. Still, it can't hurt, especially as a means to move past a current dispute. My 2¢ -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 15:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
frequently challenged" as a prerequisite. It reminds us that any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged may need an inline citation even if the material has not been frequently challenged. Clearly it has been challenged, and citations are often necessary when the lead includes strong claims like "John Wick is now considered one of the greatest action films ever made". I'm also not sure why you reverted DFlhb in the midst of an active discussion ( diff). The page is already getting attention for edit warring behavior. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 18:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
The article is full of exaggerations with no references.– Such as? InfiniteNexus ( talk) 17:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
A reference. I'm a bit floored from this, but I think it might be worth mentioning to this article. From Overkill's announcement it will include the titular character, a new skill and perk tree, a gun, a knife, three "masks" and a heist. I have already written it into Payday 2's article. Zero Serenity ( talk - contributions) 16:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
This article contains a large plot summary detailing the story of the film, but does not provide users with a quick summary of the plot. This is useful for when a user has not yet seen the film, but would like to understand what it is about. Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film -- Thegrs ( talk) 21:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Chad Stahelski & David Leitch shot the film together. Every source that talked about this film up to its release listed two directors, and some continued to do so after its release. There are interviews of the two together. They both belong in the lead and infobox, with Leitch listed as uncredited. A good source should be found for how this happened, but there's plenty that back up it did happen. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 21:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
After combing through the archives of
WT:FILM, it appears that you are indeed correct,
Erik. There was a discussion
a little while back deciding that it was notable to include them if their contributions were significant and verifiable. I was unaware of this consensus, and after reading through that discussion, I feel a bit bull-headed for thinking no one uncredited should be in the infobox. I'm now all for adding Leitch's credit to the infobox and the lead section, though we should probably add a footnote explaining that his work went uncredited.
Sock
(tock talk)
13:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of not giving credit to those who deserve it, you were right from the start,
Gothicfilm, and I apologize for making this could-be open-and-shut issue into an argument.
Sock
(tock talk)
13:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was move per request. Clear support with evidence provided for the film being the primary topic.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 12:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
John Wick (film) → John Wick – The film is the clear primary topic: "John Wick game designer" only gets 60,700 results, whilst "John Wick film" and "John Wick movie" both get over 2 million. The game designer was only viewed 614 times last month, whilst the film was viewed 86,805 times during the same time period. Also we won't need the disambiguation page if this move goes through, as there are only two topics. Unreal7 ( talk) 22:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
John Wick (film) has been viewed 242308 times in the last 90 days. [1]
John Wick (game designer) has been viewed 1697 times in the last 90 days. [2]
Zarcadia ( talk) 03:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Wow, talk about going-off-the-rails fanboy. Embarrassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.36.49.117 ( talk) 15:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
This article reads like a giant press release, long, empty, and overly flattering. I guess the marketing people at Lionsgate's or the other producers' deserved their salary on this one. Sometimes to the point of being comical. Stuff like "on this day, it was announced that X would join the cast", "on that day, it was announced that Y would join the cast", for paragraphs on end. Or the minute and comprehensive listing of every foreign distributor LG sold the rights to in Cannes.
And by the way, this (unfortunately) really seems to be a trend you can see on WP. Older movies articles are written by real film buffs and are generally truly interesting and informative. Current movies pages seem to be taken over by the PR departments, and read like a glossy, empty press release. Sad. Fils du Soleil ( talk) 04:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
The character played by Alfie Allen - - - is it "Iosef" or "Yusef"?
I see "Yusef" on the lead-in line, but it's "Iosef" everywhere else.
Where did "Yusef" come from?
I did not want to make an edit since the difference is so obvious that I thought there must be a reason why it hasn't been changed or addressed before now and I did not want to get into trouble or start one of those endless back-and-forths over a minute detail. 2600:8800:50B:6700:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 ( talk) 12:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I realize this was discussed in 2014, but as it was re-added to clarify if someone had or not directed the film, I see it as more confusing. The infobox is not really large enough to add this information with an "(uncredited)". It is not clear which director is credited. Both? Just the last one? I know it is explained in the prose, but the infobox shouldn't be made confusing. I would propose the following:
Thoughts? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 19:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
After Bartallen2 made this huge expansion to the article on November 22, I considered stating something (whether in a WP:Dummy edit or on this talk page) about how the critical reception material is too positive. And by "too positive," I mean that it includes no criticism. Yes, the film got a high score on Rotten Tomatoes and a "generally favorable" score on Metacritic, but there should still be criticism in the Critical response section, although not much...per WP:Due weight. I figured that I might add a bit of negative critical information to the article, but, as everyone can see, I haven't gotten around to doing that. So considering that the Critical response section is still currently too positive, I've decided to finally address this matter on this talk page. Flyer22 ( talk) 22:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: serioushat is Twinsday. Twinsday, thanks for the help. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 15:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Is a 6.9 RT average, 68 on metacritic, and "B" audience poll really "critical acclaim"? This is practically the highest praise you will see on wikipedia for artistic work, other than legendary classics. For such a strong statement it should have very strong evidence. If all it's based on is being "Certified Fresh" on RT, it should just say it's Certified Fresh on RT. But I don't want to start an edit war - there are clearly a number of big fans contributing to this article. Jerodast ( talk) 01:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on John Wick. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on John Wick. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
As I write, the link to the upcoming The Continental series is to an older CBS series. I suggest creating a new page called The Continental (John Wick Franchise) if no existing page exists. Will ( Talk - contribs) 08:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:John Wick (franchise) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 13:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
The article mentions the budget twice, but only in passing. $20m seems incredibly low for a theatrical action film starring Keanu Reeves. Did he waive his salary? Was most of the budget off the books? Was it just a very cheap film? - Ashley Pomeroy ( talk) 18:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The building used for exterior shots of the Continental was the Beaver Building at 1 Wall Street Court, not Delmonico's. Delmonico's was used only for interiors. Source: https://www.legendarytrips.com/2014/11/john-wick-continental-hotel-new-york-filming-locations/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.1.132.44 ( talk) 19:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Darkwarriorblake: "Future" in this context refers to the future of the franchise after the film's release, not the future in real-time. I do believe this is the standard wording on most film articles I've seen, though I have no idea why it's not on MOS:FILM. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 00:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
All other John Wilk films use his first name in the plot. Every other character's first name is used throughout the plot. Why is this one the only outlier? Bloodyboppa ( talk) 16:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
For fictional entities, use common names.In this case, it is debatable whether "John" or "Wick" is his common name, so I would be fine with either way. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 17:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
The film says John Wick's car is a Boss 429. The article says it's a Mach 1. Why? Where is the consensus stating the change? Urbanracer34 ( talk) 01:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Darkwarriorblake: it's true that MOS:LEADCITE allows us to remove citations from the lead when those citations that are included in the body. But for statements that could be disputed, it's still best to cite things directly in the lead. And please keep WP:ENCOURAGE in mind.
I've now copied a few citations from the body to the lead, so Toock, there you go: those claims are now properly cited. You're still free to propose copyedits to those sentences, or to propose other reliable sources we could use, right here on the talk page. On Wikipedia, there are better alternatives to trying to "push changes through"; you'll have a better time here if you use talk pages, and if that fails, you can use our dispute resolution processes. DFlhb ( talk) 14:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
statements that are likely to be disputed". If you do it for mildly disputable statements, there's a greater chance those citations will be relegated to the body at some point in a future copyedit, GA, or FA review. Still, it can't hurt, especially as a means to move past a current dispute. My 2¢ -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 15:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
frequently challenged" as a prerequisite. It reminds us that any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged may need an inline citation even if the material has not been frequently challenged. Clearly it has been challenged, and citations are often necessary when the lead includes strong claims like "John Wick is now considered one of the greatest action films ever made". I'm also not sure why you reverted DFlhb in the midst of an active discussion ( diff). The page is already getting attention for edit warring behavior. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 18:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
The article is full of exaggerations with no references.– Such as? InfiniteNexus ( talk) 17:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)