This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Parker (2013 film) 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 |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 7 October 2012. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Since the entire previous discussion here was removed, I think it'd be helpful for people who came in late to know what has happened. I found an unimpeachable source (the head of one of the studios that produced Parker) saying the budget was 'Mid-30's'. I accordingly put up a budget figure of ~35 million--since the exact figure is unavailable, and probably always will be, and that seems a reasonable interpretation of this studio executive's comment. This edit was undone, because there were a number of sources that said 30mil, based on earlier and less accurate estimates. I decided to send the information about the Variety interview I'd used as a source to The Numbers, Box Office Mojo, and IMDb, all of whom very shortly afterwards had 35mil as the budget, indicating that all of them agreed this was a good source and a reasonable interpretation of 'Mid-30's'. There was some dispute as to whether by doing this, I'd violated the No Original Research guideline, and also protests that 'Mid-30's' is not an exact figure, and we ended up at the Dispute Resolutions Noticeboard, where an agreement was reached to wait three months and see if any better and more specific sources about the budget became available--if not, the 35mil figure would be put up in the databox, and in the meantime information about the Variety article was put in the body of the article. So July 1st is the date agreed upon, I believe. I am not going to take it upon myself to delete anyone's edits, but I completely support Arre9 if she wishes to stick to the agreement as it currently stands. No other source is likely to appear, so the outcome is the same either way. Status, who was also involved in the earlier dispute, was worried this kind of conflict might arise, because people would wonder why the article doesn't have the budget information up when the three most important sources of film financial data all say 35mil. While the talk page probably needed some pruning, I think deleting the entire discussion without putting up some kind of explanation of what had previously transpired was probably bound to lead to misunderstandings like this. Xfpisher ( talk) 17:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
It seems to be from her recent world concert tour, which bears no relation to "Parker". I'm sure there must be more appropriate photos to use--either promotional film stills, or shots of her on set, on location, at the red carpet opening, etc. Also, the caption about how her performance was praised for its comic relief seems out of place. It's technically accurate, in that a minority of critics did praise her performance, but it doesn't belong there in any event, any more than a comment about how her performance was lambasted by many other critics. I don't see why the caption should say anything other than when and where the photo was taken. WP:NPOV would seem to apply here, as would concerns about redundancy. It's stated in the article that some critics liked her performance. To single out those opinions in a photo caption (for a photo that isn't even related to the film) is both redundant and non-neutral. Xfpisher ( talk) 14:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
There's really no point. And obviously she wouldn't look like she did in the film, she was playing a character. This image is of the person. Example here, a picture of Beyoncé Knowles is used in concert in the reception area.. It really doesn't matter where they are, it's an image of the person who stars in the film. Stating its her in concert is even more random, I'll just find a new pic of it's such a big issue. However, if you'd like to upload a non-free image of her at the film's red carpet opening, you can. I'd say someone here would find a reason to quickly delete it, though. Additionally, there was several remarks about the comical relief from Lopez's performance by reliable critics such as Christy Lemire, A.O. Scott ( The New York Times) (among other sources). I don't get how it's WP:NPOV. Ar re 10:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
If you are intent on those photos, you can have them brought onto Wikipedia. There are plenty of film FAs and GAs with free images of actors which isn't related to the film. Don't you get that these are free images? They don't have to always be of someone at the movie premiere of that specific film or anything. E.g. on song articles that have pictures of the producers often, but not in the studio producing that very song. What I'm saying is the photo isn't non-free meaning it doesn't have to be justified to the T. Ar re 14:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for those examples Erik, that's exactly what I'm trying get across to Xfpisher. Wikipedia encourages us to use free images instead of non-free wherever possible. Xfpisher please read the caption again, there's nothing "non neutral" about mentioning "comparisons". It doesn't say "critics praised Parker for being similar to Out of Sight", no. It's not bending over backwards to present a positive critical review which you are clearly against. Also, "some" sounds way less formal than "multiple", but Icbb. Overall, the free images are of the lead stars of the film; there is nothing wrong with them being present here and your argument against them isn't that strong. Ar re 06:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Somebody changed the budget (ahead of the agreed-upon date) with an unsigned edit. Half the time I can't even figure out what's been edited, or why, because there's no explanation. Now I would have thought the proper procedure would be to undo an edit like that, but Arre seems to disagree. Arre, I could be completely wrong, but could you or somebody explain why it's kosher to change a Wikipedia article without identifying yourself, or the changes you've made? Xfpisher ( talk) 13:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
In the Hollywood Reporter review that is prominently mentioned in this article, it's reported that the studio insisted that critics attending a special screening had to sign an agreement that they would make sure their reviews weren't published until Parker opened. This, in film biz parlance, is called a 'review embargo', and it is widely recognized to mean the studio believes reviews will do the film more harm than good, and therefore they want to keep people from seeing them for as long as possible, to maximize the opening weekend box office. The reviews were, in fact, heavily negative, so the studio's concerns were warranted. I felt this was worth mentioning, so I edited the article, mentioning that this critic had said this. This unusually positive review for Parker had received more space than any other in the review section, so I felt it was necessary to take out a rather gushy comment about Statham that didn't add much of anything, as well as a mention of the on-location shooting, which the reader already knows about from the production section. Now honestly, the review embargo should be even more prominently featured than this--it should probably be mentioned at the very start of the section. But I didn't want to make the section even longer, and to more significantly tamper with the flow of the section, so I did it that way. If anyone has any suggestions how to do it better, I'm listening. But I will not accept the embargo not being mentioned, and I will not accept this atypically positive review getting more space than any of the much more representative pans of Parker. It was a badly reviewed film, and clearly the people who made it EXPECTED it to be badly reviewed, and did all in their power to head off those bad reviews for as long as possible. That, in Wikipedia parlance, is relevant information. Xfpisher ( talk) 10:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant. Ar re 14:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
General grammar and structure edits needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.206.18 ( talk) 07:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Parker (2013 film) 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 |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 7 October 2012. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Since the entire previous discussion here was removed, I think it'd be helpful for people who came in late to know what has happened. I found an unimpeachable source (the head of one of the studios that produced Parker) saying the budget was 'Mid-30's'. I accordingly put up a budget figure of ~35 million--since the exact figure is unavailable, and probably always will be, and that seems a reasonable interpretation of this studio executive's comment. This edit was undone, because there were a number of sources that said 30mil, based on earlier and less accurate estimates. I decided to send the information about the Variety interview I'd used as a source to The Numbers, Box Office Mojo, and IMDb, all of whom very shortly afterwards had 35mil as the budget, indicating that all of them agreed this was a good source and a reasonable interpretation of 'Mid-30's'. There was some dispute as to whether by doing this, I'd violated the No Original Research guideline, and also protests that 'Mid-30's' is not an exact figure, and we ended up at the Dispute Resolutions Noticeboard, where an agreement was reached to wait three months and see if any better and more specific sources about the budget became available--if not, the 35mil figure would be put up in the databox, and in the meantime information about the Variety article was put in the body of the article. So July 1st is the date agreed upon, I believe. I am not going to take it upon myself to delete anyone's edits, but I completely support Arre9 if she wishes to stick to the agreement as it currently stands. No other source is likely to appear, so the outcome is the same either way. Status, who was also involved in the earlier dispute, was worried this kind of conflict might arise, because people would wonder why the article doesn't have the budget information up when the three most important sources of film financial data all say 35mil. While the talk page probably needed some pruning, I think deleting the entire discussion without putting up some kind of explanation of what had previously transpired was probably bound to lead to misunderstandings like this. Xfpisher ( talk) 17:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
It seems to be from her recent world concert tour, which bears no relation to "Parker". I'm sure there must be more appropriate photos to use--either promotional film stills, or shots of her on set, on location, at the red carpet opening, etc. Also, the caption about how her performance was praised for its comic relief seems out of place. It's technically accurate, in that a minority of critics did praise her performance, but it doesn't belong there in any event, any more than a comment about how her performance was lambasted by many other critics. I don't see why the caption should say anything other than when and where the photo was taken. WP:NPOV would seem to apply here, as would concerns about redundancy. It's stated in the article that some critics liked her performance. To single out those opinions in a photo caption (for a photo that isn't even related to the film) is both redundant and non-neutral. Xfpisher ( talk) 14:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
There's really no point. And obviously she wouldn't look like she did in the film, she was playing a character. This image is of the person. Example here, a picture of Beyoncé Knowles is used in concert in the reception area.. It really doesn't matter where they are, it's an image of the person who stars in the film. Stating its her in concert is even more random, I'll just find a new pic of it's such a big issue. However, if you'd like to upload a non-free image of her at the film's red carpet opening, you can. I'd say someone here would find a reason to quickly delete it, though. Additionally, there was several remarks about the comical relief from Lopez's performance by reliable critics such as Christy Lemire, A.O. Scott ( The New York Times) (among other sources). I don't get how it's WP:NPOV. Ar re 10:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
If you are intent on those photos, you can have them brought onto Wikipedia. There are plenty of film FAs and GAs with free images of actors which isn't related to the film. Don't you get that these are free images? They don't have to always be of someone at the movie premiere of that specific film or anything. E.g. on song articles that have pictures of the producers often, but not in the studio producing that very song. What I'm saying is the photo isn't non-free meaning it doesn't have to be justified to the T. Ar re 14:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for those examples Erik, that's exactly what I'm trying get across to Xfpisher. Wikipedia encourages us to use free images instead of non-free wherever possible. Xfpisher please read the caption again, there's nothing "non neutral" about mentioning "comparisons". It doesn't say "critics praised Parker for being similar to Out of Sight", no. It's not bending over backwards to present a positive critical review which you are clearly against. Also, "some" sounds way less formal than "multiple", but Icbb. Overall, the free images are of the lead stars of the film; there is nothing wrong with them being present here and your argument against them isn't that strong. Ar re 06:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Somebody changed the budget (ahead of the agreed-upon date) with an unsigned edit. Half the time I can't even figure out what's been edited, or why, because there's no explanation. Now I would have thought the proper procedure would be to undo an edit like that, but Arre seems to disagree. Arre, I could be completely wrong, but could you or somebody explain why it's kosher to change a Wikipedia article without identifying yourself, or the changes you've made? Xfpisher ( talk) 13:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
In the Hollywood Reporter review that is prominently mentioned in this article, it's reported that the studio insisted that critics attending a special screening had to sign an agreement that they would make sure their reviews weren't published until Parker opened. This, in film biz parlance, is called a 'review embargo', and it is widely recognized to mean the studio believes reviews will do the film more harm than good, and therefore they want to keep people from seeing them for as long as possible, to maximize the opening weekend box office. The reviews were, in fact, heavily negative, so the studio's concerns were warranted. I felt this was worth mentioning, so I edited the article, mentioning that this critic had said this. This unusually positive review for Parker had received more space than any other in the review section, so I felt it was necessary to take out a rather gushy comment about Statham that didn't add much of anything, as well as a mention of the on-location shooting, which the reader already knows about from the production section. Now honestly, the review embargo should be even more prominently featured than this--it should probably be mentioned at the very start of the section. But I didn't want to make the section even longer, and to more significantly tamper with the flow of the section, so I did it that way. If anyone has any suggestions how to do it better, I'm listening. But I will not accept the embargo not being mentioned, and I will not accept this atypically positive review getting more space than any of the much more representative pans of Parker. It was a badly reviewed film, and clearly the people who made it EXPECTED it to be badly reviewed, and did all in their power to head off those bad reviews for as long as possible. That, in Wikipedia parlance, is relevant information. Xfpisher ( talk) 10:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant. Ar re 14:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
General grammar and structure edits needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.206.18 ( talk) 07:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)