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 |
The reference to the claim that Johnny Depp was originally cast in Fiennes' role never states that Depp was involved. Actually it's pretty clear that he never was. I tried to remove it, but apparently people wants to believe Depp was involved. He never was. But as Anderson said himself, he is an actor he would like to work with in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.160.59.30 ( talk) 15:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The article lists this movie as being British-German, but it should also be listed as American. It was directed by an American, written by Americans, all listed producers are American, cinematography by an American, has a largely American cast, two of the four production companies are American, and it has an American distributor. I think that things things qualify it as being American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrono85 ( talk • contribs) 04:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
This article lists the following production companies as being involved in this film: American Imperial Pictures, Indian Paintbrush, Scott Rudin Productions, and Studio Babelsberg. If we can agree that these first three productions companies are American, then that makes this movie a co-American production, by definition. That is, unless the article is incorrect in stating these production companies. I am kind of getting the feeling that you are making your edit based on nationalistic bias, rather than plain facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrono85 ( talk • contribs) 16:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
"The Grand Budapest Hotel is a 2014 comedy-drama film written and directed by Wes Anderson..."
That might be the best compromise, lest we find ourselves in a fifteen-thousand paragraph debate over what makes a film distinctly German, American, British, etc.... Constablequackers ( talk) 10:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Why are the RS we usually use not being discussed?
I can find no listing for this film at AFI or Lumiere.
The Hollywood Reporter announcement "Wes Anderson's 'The Grand Budapest Hotel' to Open Berlin Film Fest" was published several months before the film's release. There is no reason to give it dominance over the RS we usually use, especially as its advance listing of production companies does not match the credited companies named onscreen in the film itself or its poster. The primary production company is Wes Anderson's American Empirical Pictures. It and the second company, Indian Paintbrush, as well as Scott Rudin Productions, are American, and so is the distributor Fox Searchlight Pictures. It is clear the US needs to be listed. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 22:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. We have an official statement of the Studio that did co-produce The Grand Budapest Hotel telling us that the film is a UK-German co-production - yet, some editor/s, although aware of that statement - continue their edit warring.
A minor thing, but I have a nagging memory of one of the voiceovers in the film explicitly referring to eastern Europe. A promotional website (most likely built without Anderson's close attention) probably isn't enough of a source here; there's a recent interview here with a quote from Anderson saying that his film is "set in eastern Europe", another here saying "our movie is an Eastern Europe filtered through movies", and another of "our own invented version of eastern Europe". I can't find any equivalent quotes where he describes it as being located in central Europe. -- McGeddon ( talk) 10:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Desgoffe-und-Taxis, Gabelmeister's Peak (German for "forkmaster's"), the Trans-Alpine Jodel newspaper, Schloss Lutz, Lutzbahn Station, the alpine competition sites (probably referring to the 1936 Olympic sites in Garmisch-Partenkirchen?), etc.
Inspector "Henckels", for example, refers to the Kunstmuseum (where Kovacs got killed) and the " Biergarten", and the fellow prisoners are called: Ludwig, Günther, Wolf - the prison cell has "Hilfe" (German for "help") and other German words written on the wall. The chaplains' name is "Franz Müller", and at the fairground there is a " Gasthaus zum ...". Also, Wes Anderson was inspired by the writings of Stefan Zweig. Anderson: "There’s a wonderful photochrom of the hotel that I always thought of as sort of the model for our hotel, which is the Hotel Pupp in Karlovy Vary, which was Carlsbad." here In 1938, the Sudetenland, including Carlsbad, became part of Nazi Germany. The whole political setting does remind me of the 1938 German annexation of the Sudetenland and the black-red-black colours of the Sudeten German National Socialist Party
"Boy with Apple is a quintessential product of the Czech mannerist, Habsburg high Renaissance, Budapest neo-humanist style. To put it another way, it is a finely constructed piece of nonsense in the same playful spirit as everything else in Wes Anderson's delectable middle European fantasy, The Grand Budapest Hotel." here In its place Gustave hangs a watercolour of lesbian lovers by real-life Austrian painter Egon Schiele.
Another problem is the definition of Eastern Europe - in my opinion the references using the term "Eastern Europe" are referring to the Grand Budapest Hotel in the late 1960s; i.e during the Cold War - a definition that is used more or less synonymously with the term Eastern Bloc.
Alternatively, one could say: "... the fictional Republic of Zubrowka, a European alpine state ..." -- IIIraute ( talk) 02:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Whatever it may seem like from the languages or whatever, within the first 42 seconds of the movie it very clearly says "On the farthest eastern boundary of the European continent: The former Republic of Zubrowka, Once the seat of an Empire." 71.19.181.162 ( talk) 03:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
So is the film a comedy-drama or a comedy?
Looking at souces, i've found the following: Comedy
Drama
Comedy; Drama" [50]
Adventure
WP:PRIMARY
Caper
Comedy-drama
So that's several more for comedy than other genres, and I was looking for all genres related to it. If there aren't any objections, I think the lead and categories should say comedy and not comedy-drama. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 14:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Get a life! -- IIIraute ( talk) 19:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
" Comedy-drama is a genre of theatre, film, and television that combines elements of comedy and drama, having both humorous and serious content." Most of the sources you have presented clearly state: Comedy, Drama.
The 64th Berlin International Film Festival did open with the world premiere of The Grand Budapest Hotel. Wes Anderson (himself) did open the 64th Berlinale. The film won the Silver Bear Grand Jury Prize, and is classified as tragicomedy -- IIIraute ( talk) 21:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
In response to your friendly commentary and the other controversial edit you did to this article today - which you yourself described as "kinda anal" - I was questioning your power of judgement with the words: "So, you are saying that the classification "Comedy, Drama" ≠ "comedy-drama", because that's "original research"? Get a life!", meaning, that you must have an awful lot of time at hand to worry and edit war, i.e. start page long discussions about such "anal" [sic] hairsplitting. -- IIIraute ( talk) 01:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The 64th Berlin International Film Festival did open with the world premiere of The Grand Budapest Hotel. Wes Anderson (himself) did open the 64th Berlinale. The film won the Silver Bear Grand Jury Prize, and is classified as tragicomedy
and so did you, as most of the sources you have presented clearly state: Comedy, Drama. -- IIIraute ( talk) 02:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I would say both parties should probably just take a breather. We're getting a little too fired up. Back and forth fights aren't helpful to anyone, can be extremely destructive, and can create a very unstable article. We don't want that, do we? Now, as for the topic at hand. Personally, I think Andrzejbanas has made it obvious that most available sources call the film a comedy, without any "drama" mentioned (including AllMovie, which is frequently used as a primary source for a film's genre), and therefore it should probably be what the lead reflects. Mentioning the writer's take on the drama in specific review summaries would be acceptable, but it's not widely stated enough to be included in the lead.. Corvoe (speak to me) 04:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I added crime film cats to the article, but was reverted. The article's description of the stories mentions crime prominently in each one. Its IMDb article says that crime is one of its genres, along with adventure and comedy. Jim Michael ( talk) 16:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Each source mentioned lists the UK first. We should follow in suit. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 16:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I do not mind at all "British-German" in the text, as Anglo-German, Franco-German, etc. is the common terminology, i.e. "order", that is used in historical publications, in journalism, and also in the film industry. However, regarding the infobox, I do think Germany should be mentioned first, because not a single UK studio was involved and "Grand Budapest Limited" is a letterbox company to qualify for a softer tax regime; the film was financed by German financial companies and governmental film funding organizations, inspired by the writings of Stefan Zweig - and was filmed entirely on location in Germany. Neunzehnte Babelsberg Film was in place as sole executive production company, and the film premiered at the 64th Berlin International Film Festival. So, what exactly makes you think that "it's more British produced than German" Please explain. -- IIIraute ( talk) 18:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment It seems editors are basing their decisions on WP:Original research here. In truth we don't know the varying factors behind how a film's nationality is assessed (the BFI categorize it as American according to this); nor do we know their reasons for selecting a specific order i.e. do they list the countries alphabetically, do they have some sort of criteria? We just don't know. All we do know is what they publish, so in the absence of any explicit reasoning behind the order I think alphabetical ordering should be adopted here i.e. British-German or Germany/United Kingdom. Betty Logan ( talk) 03:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The section on the soundtrack has the following: there are haunted-house piano stylings in "Mr. Moustafa". I don’t really know what this means - which haunted house? Jock123 ( talk) 21:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Are the number of reviews detailed in the Reception section really necessary? It makes that section longer even than the synopsis, which is ridiculous. Pick a few positive and negative reviews to balance the viewpoints and leave it at that. -- Levontaun ( talk) 09:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
To both I ask: why? This is a British-German film, so it stands to reason that it would use British English. And American film studious and companies had no involvement in the making of this film according to damn near every source we have. I'm thinking we definitely need to reconsider. We're already using British dating, why would we using American Engilsh? Corvoe (speak to me) 11:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The "Accolades" section has been split out of the article to List of accolades received by The Grand Budapest Hotel on the grounds it is "absolutely massive, like 50% of the article". I reverted it but the split was reinstated by Sock on the grounds that " something that would have to happen anyway if the article gets expanded" and Bbb23 who commented " the article is not that short, I agree with the split, take it to Talk if you wish to discuss the splitting guidelines".
I disagree with the general assertion that the size necessitates a split. WP:SIZESPLIT actually instructs us to not split the article on size grounds when the readable prose is under 40kb. In this case the readable prose of the entire article comes in at 25kb. Therefore the size of the article does not necessitate a split. We now have readers coming to a short article for information about the film and to get it all we direct them to another short article. I don't understand the logic behind this split. If the article inflates beyond an acceptable size it can be split then, but what is the point of having two short articles when one reasonable length article can accommodate the information? I also disagree that the content necessitates a split. We have plenty of "accolade" sections on film articles, so it is content that is usually covered by film articles. I suggest we restore the section to the article and only split it if the page size eventually meets the criteria for splitting. Betty Logan ( talk) 02:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Um, every year the Oscar favorites get their own articles for awards. This is not a new thing. It's been this way every single year for like a decade now, it's common practice. The film has already garnered a massive award haul and the season has barely only started, by the end of it the article is going to be gigantic. Take a look at the 12 Years a Slave article to see how large these charts can get if not split. Bruce Campbell ( talk) 03:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Apologies for my revert, I wasn't familiar with
WP:SIZESPLIT as I've never run into this issue before. I suppose I'm being a bit of a
mystic in saying that it'll probably need to be split later. But it doesn't right now, and that's what my judgment should've been based on. You'll hear no further argument from me that it should be split, at least not until I (or another editor) get around to expanding this article. Thanks for your patience, Betty!
Sock
(tock talk)
05:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
If you all like wasting time, go ahead, but in a month you'll understand why this is common practice. Bruce Campbell ( talk) 05:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Should the section "Accolades" be split off now? It's getting pretty large and its constant editing is a nuisance for article watchers. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 14:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Can this be elaborated upon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaums ( talk • contribs) 14:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm an editorial newbie, but this sounds a lot like a junior English major's literary crit to me. I was affected enough by the movie to come looking here for Zweig and a few other things, but that is not what I took from it. I would have said,
The final scene returns to the girl reading in front of the statue of the Author, returning us from the deeply nested story to the present. Treethinker ( talk) 01:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
There is a dispute over the correct order of countries in the infobox. In the current revision, there are six different sources for countries, with different (and even conflicting) informations. Provided sources list the countries as follows:
Other potential sources also have different informations:
I think it is better (and logical) to list the countries simply in alphabetical order in such cases. I haven't seen anything about this matter in related guidelines, giving priority to IMDb for example, and there is apparently no consensus to give priority to a specific source for credits. An alphabetical order for countries doesn't seem to be a problem for Antichrist, The Pianist, The Ninth Gate, Cosmopolis, In the Fog etc. Raamin ( talk) 20:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
{{cite web}}
templates I had added. The whole point of this dispute is that it's not clear and agreed that countries should be listed in order of the 'importance' of production companies. If there is a section in guidelines, a consensus, or a discussion about this matter that resulted in an agreement, please present it.
Raamin (
talk)
16:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)country
parameter explanation: For reasons explained below preference is given to reliable databases like BFI, AFI, or Variety. Variety says UK, Germany in this case, and it is a reliable source.
Raamin (
talk)
17:02, 12 April 2015 (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 |
The reference to the claim that Johnny Depp was originally cast in Fiennes' role never states that Depp was involved. Actually it's pretty clear that he never was. I tried to remove it, but apparently people wants to believe Depp was involved. He never was. But as Anderson said himself, he is an actor he would like to work with in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.160.59.30 ( talk) 15:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The article lists this movie as being British-German, but it should also be listed as American. It was directed by an American, written by Americans, all listed producers are American, cinematography by an American, has a largely American cast, two of the four production companies are American, and it has an American distributor. I think that things things qualify it as being American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrono85 ( talk • contribs) 04:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
This article lists the following production companies as being involved in this film: American Imperial Pictures, Indian Paintbrush, Scott Rudin Productions, and Studio Babelsberg. If we can agree that these first three productions companies are American, then that makes this movie a co-American production, by definition. That is, unless the article is incorrect in stating these production companies. I am kind of getting the feeling that you are making your edit based on nationalistic bias, rather than plain facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrono85 ( talk • contribs) 16:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
"The Grand Budapest Hotel is a 2014 comedy-drama film written and directed by Wes Anderson..."
That might be the best compromise, lest we find ourselves in a fifteen-thousand paragraph debate over what makes a film distinctly German, American, British, etc.... Constablequackers ( talk) 10:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Why are the RS we usually use not being discussed?
I can find no listing for this film at AFI or Lumiere.
The Hollywood Reporter announcement "Wes Anderson's 'The Grand Budapest Hotel' to Open Berlin Film Fest" was published several months before the film's release. There is no reason to give it dominance over the RS we usually use, especially as its advance listing of production companies does not match the credited companies named onscreen in the film itself or its poster. The primary production company is Wes Anderson's American Empirical Pictures. It and the second company, Indian Paintbrush, as well as Scott Rudin Productions, are American, and so is the distributor Fox Searchlight Pictures. It is clear the US needs to be listed. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 22:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. We have an official statement of the Studio that did co-produce The Grand Budapest Hotel telling us that the film is a UK-German co-production - yet, some editor/s, although aware of that statement - continue their edit warring.
A minor thing, but I have a nagging memory of one of the voiceovers in the film explicitly referring to eastern Europe. A promotional website (most likely built without Anderson's close attention) probably isn't enough of a source here; there's a recent interview here with a quote from Anderson saying that his film is "set in eastern Europe", another here saying "our movie is an Eastern Europe filtered through movies", and another of "our own invented version of eastern Europe". I can't find any equivalent quotes where he describes it as being located in central Europe. -- McGeddon ( talk) 10:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Desgoffe-und-Taxis, Gabelmeister's Peak (German for "forkmaster's"), the Trans-Alpine Jodel newspaper, Schloss Lutz, Lutzbahn Station, the alpine competition sites (probably referring to the 1936 Olympic sites in Garmisch-Partenkirchen?), etc.
Inspector "Henckels", for example, refers to the Kunstmuseum (where Kovacs got killed) and the " Biergarten", and the fellow prisoners are called: Ludwig, Günther, Wolf - the prison cell has "Hilfe" (German for "help") and other German words written on the wall. The chaplains' name is "Franz Müller", and at the fairground there is a " Gasthaus zum ...". Also, Wes Anderson was inspired by the writings of Stefan Zweig. Anderson: "There’s a wonderful photochrom of the hotel that I always thought of as sort of the model for our hotel, which is the Hotel Pupp in Karlovy Vary, which was Carlsbad." here In 1938, the Sudetenland, including Carlsbad, became part of Nazi Germany. The whole political setting does remind me of the 1938 German annexation of the Sudetenland and the black-red-black colours of the Sudeten German National Socialist Party
"Boy with Apple is a quintessential product of the Czech mannerist, Habsburg high Renaissance, Budapest neo-humanist style. To put it another way, it is a finely constructed piece of nonsense in the same playful spirit as everything else in Wes Anderson's delectable middle European fantasy, The Grand Budapest Hotel." here In its place Gustave hangs a watercolour of lesbian lovers by real-life Austrian painter Egon Schiele.
Another problem is the definition of Eastern Europe - in my opinion the references using the term "Eastern Europe" are referring to the Grand Budapest Hotel in the late 1960s; i.e during the Cold War - a definition that is used more or less synonymously with the term Eastern Bloc.
Alternatively, one could say: "... the fictional Republic of Zubrowka, a European alpine state ..." -- IIIraute ( talk) 02:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Whatever it may seem like from the languages or whatever, within the first 42 seconds of the movie it very clearly says "On the farthest eastern boundary of the European continent: The former Republic of Zubrowka, Once the seat of an Empire." 71.19.181.162 ( talk) 03:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
So is the film a comedy-drama or a comedy?
Looking at souces, i've found the following: Comedy
Drama
Comedy; Drama" [50]
Adventure
WP:PRIMARY
Caper
Comedy-drama
So that's several more for comedy than other genres, and I was looking for all genres related to it. If there aren't any objections, I think the lead and categories should say comedy and not comedy-drama. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 14:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Get a life! -- IIIraute ( talk) 19:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
" Comedy-drama is a genre of theatre, film, and television that combines elements of comedy and drama, having both humorous and serious content." Most of the sources you have presented clearly state: Comedy, Drama.
The 64th Berlin International Film Festival did open with the world premiere of The Grand Budapest Hotel. Wes Anderson (himself) did open the 64th Berlinale. The film won the Silver Bear Grand Jury Prize, and is classified as tragicomedy -- IIIraute ( talk) 21:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
In response to your friendly commentary and the other controversial edit you did to this article today - which you yourself described as "kinda anal" - I was questioning your power of judgement with the words: "So, you are saying that the classification "Comedy, Drama" ≠ "comedy-drama", because that's "original research"? Get a life!", meaning, that you must have an awful lot of time at hand to worry and edit war, i.e. start page long discussions about such "anal" [sic] hairsplitting. -- IIIraute ( talk) 01:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The 64th Berlin International Film Festival did open with the world premiere of The Grand Budapest Hotel. Wes Anderson (himself) did open the 64th Berlinale. The film won the Silver Bear Grand Jury Prize, and is classified as tragicomedy
and so did you, as most of the sources you have presented clearly state: Comedy, Drama. -- IIIraute ( talk) 02:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I would say both parties should probably just take a breather. We're getting a little too fired up. Back and forth fights aren't helpful to anyone, can be extremely destructive, and can create a very unstable article. We don't want that, do we? Now, as for the topic at hand. Personally, I think Andrzejbanas has made it obvious that most available sources call the film a comedy, without any "drama" mentioned (including AllMovie, which is frequently used as a primary source for a film's genre), and therefore it should probably be what the lead reflects. Mentioning the writer's take on the drama in specific review summaries would be acceptable, but it's not widely stated enough to be included in the lead.. Corvoe (speak to me) 04:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I added crime film cats to the article, but was reverted. The article's description of the stories mentions crime prominently in each one. Its IMDb article says that crime is one of its genres, along with adventure and comedy. Jim Michael ( talk) 16:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Each source mentioned lists the UK first. We should follow in suit. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 16:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I do not mind at all "British-German" in the text, as Anglo-German, Franco-German, etc. is the common terminology, i.e. "order", that is used in historical publications, in journalism, and also in the film industry. However, regarding the infobox, I do think Germany should be mentioned first, because not a single UK studio was involved and "Grand Budapest Limited" is a letterbox company to qualify for a softer tax regime; the film was financed by German financial companies and governmental film funding organizations, inspired by the writings of Stefan Zweig - and was filmed entirely on location in Germany. Neunzehnte Babelsberg Film was in place as sole executive production company, and the film premiered at the 64th Berlin International Film Festival. So, what exactly makes you think that "it's more British produced than German" Please explain. -- IIIraute ( talk) 18:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment It seems editors are basing their decisions on WP:Original research here. In truth we don't know the varying factors behind how a film's nationality is assessed (the BFI categorize it as American according to this); nor do we know their reasons for selecting a specific order i.e. do they list the countries alphabetically, do they have some sort of criteria? We just don't know. All we do know is what they publish, so in the absence of any explicit reasoning behind the order I think alphabetical ordering should be adopted here i.e. British-German or Germany/United Kingdom. Betty Logan ( talk) 03:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The section on the soundtrack has the following: there are haunted-house piano stylings in "Mr. Moustafa". I don’t really know what this means - which haunted house? Jock123 ( talk) 21:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Are the number of reviews detailed in the Reception section really necessary? It makes that section longer even than the synopsis, which is ridiculous. Pick a few positive and negative reviews to balance the viewpoints and leave it at that. -- Levontaun ( talk) 09:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
To both I ask: why? This is a British-German film, so it stands to reason that it would use British English. And American film studious and companies had no involvement in the making of this film according to damn near every source we have. I'm thinking we definitely need to reconsider. We're already using British dating, why would we using American Engilsh? Corvoe (speak to me) 11:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The "Accolades" section has been split out of the article to List of accolades received by The Grand Budapest Hotel on the grounds it is "absolutely massive, like 50% of the article". I reverted it but the split was reinstated by Sock on the grounds that " something that would have to happen anyway if the article gets expanded" and Bbb23 who commented " the article is not that short, I agree with the split, take it to Talk if you wish to discuss the splitting guidelines".
I disagree with the general assertion that the size necessitates a split. WP:SIZESPLIT actually instructs us to not split the article on size grounds when the readable prose is under 40kb. In this case the readable prose of the entire article comes in at 25kb. Therefore the size of the article does not necessitate a split. We now have readers coming to a short article for information about the film and to get it all we direct them to another short article. I don't understand the logic behind this split. If the article inflates beyond an acceptable size it can be split then, but what is the point of having two short articles when one reasonable length article can accommodate the information? I also disagree that the content necessitates a split. We have plenty of "accolade" sections on film articles, so it is content that is usually covered by film articles. I suggest we restore the section to the article and only split it if the page size eventually meets the criteria for splitting. Betty Logan ( talk) 02:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Um, every year the Oscar favorites get their own articles for awards. This is not a new thing. It's been this way every single year for like a decade now, it's common practice. The film has already garnered a massive award haul and the season has barely only started, by the end of it the article is going to be gigantic. Take a look at the 12 Years a Slave article to see how large these charts can get if not split. Bruce Campbell ( talk) 03:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Apologies for my revert, I wasn't familiar with
WP:SIZESPLIT as I've never run into this issue before. I suppose I'm being a bit of a
mystic in saying that it'll probably need to be split later. But it doesn't right now, and that's what my judgment should've been based on. You'll hear no further argument from me that it should be split, at least not until I (or another editor) get around to expanding this article. Thanks for your patience, Betty!
Sock
(tock talk)
05:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
If you all like wasting time, go ahead, but in a month you'll understand why this is common practice. Bruce Campbell ( talk) 05:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Should the section "Accolades" be split off now? It's getting pretty large and its constant editing is a nuisance for article watchers. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 14:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Can this be elaborated upon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaums ( talk • contribs) 14:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm an editorial newbie, but this sounds a lot like a junior English major's literary crit to me. I was affected enough by the movie to come looking here for Zweig and a few other things, but that is not what I took from it. I would have said,
The final scene returns to the girl reading in front of the statue of the Author, returning us from the deeply nested story to the present. Treethinker ( talk) 01:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
There is a dispute over the correct order of countries in the infobox. In the current revision, there are six different sources for countries, with different (and even conflicting) informations. Provided sources list the countries as follows:
Other potential sources also have different informations:
I think it is better (and logical) to list the countries simply in alphabetical order in such cases. I haven't seen anything about this matter in related guidelines, giving priority to IMDb for example, and there is apparently no consensus to give priority to a specific source for credits. An alphabetical order for countries doesn't seem to be a problem for Antichrist, The Pianist, The Ninth Gate, Cosmopolis, In the Fog etc. Raamin ( talk) 20:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
{{cite web}}
templates I had added. The whole point of this dispute is that it's not clear and agreed that countries should be listed in order of the 'importance' of production companies. If there is a section in guidelines, a consensus, or a discussion about this matter that resulted in an agreement, please present it.
Raamin (
talk)
16:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)country
parameter explanation: For reasons explained below preference is given to reliable databases like BFI, AFI, or Variety. Variety says UK, Germany in this case, and it is a reliable source.
Raamin (
talk)
17:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)