![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (soundtrack) page were merged into Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri on 23 April 2022. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
As awards season goes on, it's become clear that this film is one of the major contenders, and is thus subject to be listed for more nominations/wins. As the accolades section is already taking up a substantial portion of the article, might it be wise to just split it off at this point?-- Sunshineisles2 ( talk) 05:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Please read WP:LEAD and WP:SPOILER. The function of the lead is to give an overview of the article. Since the bulk of many film pages is the plot (and it's always a substantial portion), it is not acceptable to say, "x is a 2017 movie about a man with a truck." You have to give an overview of the plot, not the most barebones premise conceivable. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I completely and totally disagree with this. It's a huge spoiler for the movie, containing events that take place well into the second half, and that aren't mentioned in any of the promotional material. It's honestly just a dick move to keep putting it back. When people go to look at the opening paragraph they want to know the PREMISE, not the entire plot. People shouldn't have to be spoiled on this movie because of this Justin guy's weird attitude about this. 82.10.113.92 ( talk) 16:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Our spoiler policy doesn't mean that people should include spoilers simply because we can, nor should spoilers be avoided because simply because they're spoilers, rather the material should be evaluated to determine whether or not the material serves an encyclopedic purpose. Given that most material mentioning the synopsis, does not seem to include this information, I think we should err on the side of caution. If however there is significant developments regarding the spoiler either in the production or in the reception of the film, than yeah we should cover it, but it's probably not lead material. -- Deathawk ( talk) 15:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
The issue is, in my opinion at least, a practical one, many of our readers check to see info about a film before seeing a film, providing spoilers in the lead, does not serve a purpose to them, other readers have already seen a film and know the spoiler, providing spoiler to them does ot serve a purpose to them either. Really putting spoilers in leads serves a to benefit only a few at the expense of many. The info, spoilers and all is in the "plot" section if anyone is really interested. I guess I just don't see a good reason to put the info there. -- Deathawk ( talk) 21:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Note that the lede for
Star Wars: The Last Jedi says The plot follows Rey as she receives Jedi training from Luke Skywalker, in hopes of turning the tide for the Resistance in the fight against Kylo Ren and the First Order.
The lede should always be fairly terse. --
SarekOfVulcan (talk)
16:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with those, such as Sock, who say the lead should cover the film's premise and no more. Quite apart from WP:SPOILER arguments, explaining further plot events is overkill for a lead. Popcornduff ( talk) 17:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The lead describes this movie as a black comedy, which seems odd to me given the trailer. Both IMDB and Allmovie do not list "comedy" at all in the genre, while both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic list it as under the genre of "Comedy" and "Drama". I worry that, even taking to the account that it is humerous apparently, labeling it as only a black comedy fails to convey the point of what the movie is. We should at least state it's a "Drama-comedy" or something of that nature. °-- Deathawk ( talk) 19:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
There has been persistent attempts since this was last discussed (mostly by IP editors) to label this as black comedy in the lead. I requested page protection to prevent this and left a hidden note inviting editors who disagree with the current genre to discuss this on the talk page before changing it. -- Deathawk ( talk) 01:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
The word "Outside" is capitalized here, but in the actual credits in the film itself, the title reads "Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri" with the word "outside" not capitalized. I always thought that a film's officially recognized title was not whatever is used in promotions, etc, or what is commonly used by the press and public, but only exactly what appears in the film's titles. For example, the title of the 1995 David Fincher film is "Se7en" because that's exactly how it appears in the opening titles. It seems to me that the page address and every single instance of the title in the article should be changed to reflect the title as it appears in the film's credits. -- Jamesluckard ( talk) 08:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The word "outside" is not capitalized in any production materials or submissions to awards committees. Any website giving precedence to their style (itself likely deriving from a newspaper's style which would not be applicable to an author of works not under its aegis) is essentially an unnecessary and unwelcome correction of an author of works that potentially strips titles of meaning. Inglorious Bastards indeed! Eunoia666 ( talk) 07:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry just saw that this was a contentious issue after I rifled through the article changing the capitalization, but saw the film last night and noticed it as well. I agree with Eunoia666 and talk though. Not capitalizing a word that would normally be capitalized in a title is a deliberate move by Martin McDonagh, and should be respected. I think a quick fix would be to use what Mother! or Existenz does in their articles--include a parenthetical "stylized as mother!/eXistenZ" at the beginning. Npilchen ( talk) 21:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps the principle of least astonishment is germane? Are readers more likely to think "Wikipedia has a typo in the title" or "Wikipedia wasn't savvy to the important meaning of the lower 'o'"? I suspect the former, which favors MOS:TITLECAPS - Reagle ( talk) 21:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
FTR, discussed by Janan Ganesh in the Financial Times: Why politics should not go to the cinema. JDAWiseman ( talk) 19:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
While the article mentions the location of the filming, there is no mention of whether ( or not !) there is a real Ebbing. I have just tried Google etc but I get nothing definitive either way. Given that the title is highly specific, and that the portrait of the town is most unflattering, I suggest that the text include an explanation, as eg "...the action occurs in the fictional town of Ebbing..". FWIW I can imagine that the some of the real Missourians can hardly be enthusiastic about this portrayal of their region, particularly if the story is fictional Feroshki ( talk) 08:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I Think Critical Reception Would Benefit From More Positive Review Quotes. Negative Review Currently Have Dis-Proportionate Representation. IUpdateRottenTomatoes ( talk) 21:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Maybe add abbreviated and/or stylized as "3Billboards"? "Three Billboards"? Ssredg ( talk) 09:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Is there a reason why people are left out of the cast list. Christopher Berry, Tony, in the movie was left out & @TheOldJacobite keeps undoing my work. The actors I have been trying to add are listed in the credits at the end of the movie. If anyone would like to verify that, here is a link to that movie.
http://m4ufree.club/watch/QvM9BJv2-three-billboards-outside-ebbing-missouri.html
MissTofATX ( talk) 05:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX MissTofATX ( talk) 05:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
@TheOldJacobite how so/ why? MissTofATX ( talk) 03:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)@MissTofATX
Can we please have a discussion here about the recent edits by @TheOldJacobite "I take issue with your refusal to explain your edits with an edit summary, and his (or her) removal of material. The addition of sourced material, obviously, is not a problem, but in the absence of an explanation, his wholesale changes look suspect to me. All I want is some kind of explanation of the changes being made, in keeping with Wikipedia policy and precedent. Is that too much to ask?" ~ The old jacobite
Your quote above explains exactly what I'm asking you. Maybe before your mass reversions, you could bring it up to be discussed with the group/get a consensus?
In another quote, you mentioned the "I don't like it" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:I_just_don%27t_like_it and from that, you seem to be employing the "because I said so" tactic diffs.
“Because I say so Many discussions on Wikipedia devolve into statements of opinion that the editor expects to be accepted as fact. This is an example of ipse dixit ("He, himself, said it"), also known as the bare assertion fallacy, a term which is used to identify and describe a sort of arbitrary dogmatic statement which the speaker expects the listener to accept as valid.[3]”
I’ve asked several times what criteria he uses when deciding whether a character is minor or not, and he implies refusal by deleting discussions without answering.
MissTofATX ( talk) 13:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
When we have different opinions on certain characters, you should justify why you think it should not be included & allow others to make a case of why they should be included. Then others can decide whether or not it belongs or not. That’s what I want. I have never edited a page for a movie that I have not personally watched.
Your own quote about questioning “wholesale” changes without discussion is exactly what you’ve been doing. So, hopefully you can follow your own stance on these matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissTofATX ( talk • contribs) 15:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
It appears the “onus” would be on both~ As per the WP about Dispute resolution, below. I don’t have everything backwards, in as much as you selectively choose what to adhere to.
I can guarantee you that hence forth, I will make notes on the respective talk pages. Please look there before reverting anything I write from now on
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution
“There are many methods on Wikipedia for resolving disputes. Most methods are not formal processes and do not involve third-party intervention. Respond to all disputes or grievances, in the first instance, by approaching the editor or editors concerned and explaining which of their edits you object to and why you object. Use the article talk page or their user talk page to do so; be civil, polite, and always assume good faith.”
MissTofATX ( talk) 15:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Am I allowed to add Sandy Martin as James Dixon's mother to the cast list? JIP | Talk 21:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Who do you think you are? Next time you disagree with someone, start by explaining yourself. It is not Ok to cut and edit other peoples work WITHOUT even taking the time to explain your actions. You are being extremely impolite and are disrespecting other editors on the website. You keep cutting, Ill keep undoing your edits. How does it sound for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfast ( talk • contribs) 20:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
The cast section includes a note that says "The cast is in closing credits order and the names are as credited" - however, this is not the case. While the majority of the cast is in closing credits order, Harrelson, Rockwell, Cornish, Hawkes, and Dinklage are not. They are in the poster order (for example, Rockwell is fourth in the credits order, but third on the poster, as with in the article). Furthermore, the names are not as credited for McDormand, Harrelson, Rockwell, Cornish, Hawkes, Hedges, Newton, and Peters - there is no Hayes surname, given name/nickname for Bill Willoughby, surname for Anne, given name for Dixon, and title for Abercrombie.
While I normally support having the cast in closing credits order, the obvious problem with this film is that the closing credits for the cast is in order of appearance, which appears to have resulted in Harrelson, Rockwell, Cornish, Hawkes, and Dinklage being placed in their poster order instead of their closing credits order due to their perceived prominence and not in line with what the cast section says it's supposed to be following. So for consistency purposes and to have the cast be more reflective of prominence, I suggest we use the title credits order, which would read as follows:
If Hawkes and Dinklage seem too low, I am not opposed to prioritizing the poster order, then using the title credits. Nevertheless, I believe using the title credits order will allow us to order the cast through prominence - which appears to be the intent, as the credits order is currently not applying to the aforementioned Harrelson, Rockwell, Cornish, Hawkes, and Dinklage - and with a source, as opposed to a completely original order.
As for the names, I do not have a preference if we use the credited names or not, but if we are following this rule, then this rule needs to apply to all names, including the above cited ones that are not as credited. If we are not applying this rule to all names, then it should not apply at all. Bluerules ( talk) 22:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Cutting Edge Group is not a producer. They provide music services. Their own website attests to this. The Variety credit is incorrect. I tried changing this but my edits were reverted by someone who threatened me with banishment for disrupting the page. Carnival Honey ( talk) 01:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Agree with the 2021 proposal that the soundtrack ( Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (soundtrack)) doesn't warrant a separate page and should be merged to here; it's short and would benefit from the context of the merge. Klbrain ( talk) 16:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (soundtrack) page were merged into Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri on 23 April 2022. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
As awards season goes on, it's become clear that this film is one of the major contenders, and is thus subject to be listed for more nominations/wins. As the accolades section is already taking up a substantial portion of the article, might it be wise to just split it off at this point?-- Sunshineisles2 ( talk) 05:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Please read WP:LEAD and WP:SPOILER. The function of the lead is to give an overview of the article. Since the bulk of many film pages is the plot (and it's always a substantial portion), it is not acceptable to say, "x is a 2017 movie about a man with a truck." You have to give an overview of the plot, not the most barebones premise conceivable. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I completely and totally disagree with this. It's a huge spoiler for the movie, containing events that take place well into the second half, and that aren't mentioned in any of the promotional material. It's honestly just a dick move to keep putting it back. When people go to look at the opening paragraph they want to know the PREMISE, not the entire plot. People shouldn't have to be spoiled on this movie because of this Justin guy's weird attitude about this. 82.10.113.92 ( talk) 16:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Our spoiler policy doesn't mean that people should include spoilers simply because we can, nor should spoilers be avoided because simply because they're spoilers, rather the material should be evaluated to determine whether or not the material serves an encyclopedic purpose. Given that most material mentioning the synopsis, does not seem to include this information, I think we should err on the side of caution. If however there is significant developments regarding the spoiler either in the production or in the reception of the film, than yeah we should cover it, but it's probably not lead material. -- Deathawk ( talk) 15:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
The issue is, in my opinion at least, a practical one, many of our readers check to see info about a film before seeing a film, providing spoilers in the lead, does not serve a purpose to them, other readers have already seen a film and know the spoiler, providing spoiler to them does ot serve a purpose to them either. Really putting spoilers in leads serves a to benefit only a few at the expense of many. The info, spoilers and all is in the "plot" section if anyone is really interested. I guess I just don't see a good reason to put the info there. -- Deathawk ( talk) 21:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Note that the lede for
Star Wars: The Last Jedi says The plot follows Rey as she receives Jedi training from Luke Skywalker, in hopes of turning the tide for the Resistance in the fight against Kylo Ren and the First Order.
The lede should always be fairly terse. --
SarekOfVulcan (talk)
16:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with those, such as Sock, who say the lead should cover the film's premise and no more. Quite apart from WP:SPOILER arguments, explaining further plot events is overkill for a lead. Popcornduff ( talk) 17:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The lead describes this movie as a black comedy, which seems odd to me given the trailer. Both IMDB and Allmovie do not list "comedy" at all in the genre, while both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic list it as under the genre of "Comedy" and "Drama". I worry that, even taking to the account that it is humerous apparently, labeling it as only a black comedy fails to convey the point of what the movie is. We should at least state it's a "Drama-comedy" or something of that nature. °-- Deathawk ( talk) 19:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
There has been persistent attempts since this was last discussed (mostly by IP editors) to label this as black comedy in the lead. I requested page protection to prevent this and left a hidden note inviting editors who disagree with the current genre to discuss this on the talk page before changing it. -- Deathawk ( talk) 01:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
The word "Outside" is capitalized here, but in the actual credits in the film itself, the title reads "Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri" with the word "outside" not capitalized. I always thought that a film's officially recognized title was not whatever is used in promotions, etc, or what is commonly used by the press and public, but only exactly what appears in the film's titles. For example, the title of the 1995 David Fincher film is "Se7en" because that's exactly how it appears in the opening titles. It seems to me that the page address and every single instance of the title in the article should be changed to reflect the title as it appears in the film's credits. -- Jamesluckard ( talk) 08:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The word "outside" is not capitalized in any production materials or submissions to awards committees. Any website giving precedence to their style (itself likely deriving from a newspaper's style which would not be applicable to an author of works not under its aegis) is essentially an unnecessary and unwelcome correction of an author of works that potentially strips titles of meaning. Inglorious Bastards indeed! Eunoia666 ( talk) 07:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry just saw that this was a contentious issue after I rifled through the article changing the capitalization, but saw the film last night and noticed it as well. I agree with Eunoia666 and talk though. Not capitalizing a word that would normally be capitalized in a title is a deliberate move by Martin McDonagh, and should be respected. I think a quick fix would be to use what Mother! or Existenz does in their articles--include a parenthetical "stylized as mother!/eXistenZ" at the beginning. Npilchen ( talk) 21:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps the principle of least astonishment is germane? Are readers more likely to think "Wikipedia has a typo in the title" or "Wikipedia wasn't savvy to the important meaning of the lower 'o'"? I suspect the former, which favors MOS:TITLECAPS - Reagle ( talk) 21:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
FTR, discussed by Janan Ganesh in the Financial Times: Why politics should not go to the cinema. JDAWiseman ( talk) 19:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
While the article mentions the location of the filming, there is no mention of whether ( or not !) there is a real Ebbing. I have just tried Google etc but I get nothing definitive either way. Given that the title is highly specific, and that the portrait of the town is most unflattering, I suggest that the text include an explanation, as eg "...the action occurs in the fictional town of Ebbing..". FWIW I can imagine that the some of the real Missourians can hardly be enthusiastic about this portrayal of their region, particularly if the story is fictional Feroshki ( talk) 08:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I Think Critical Reception Would Benefit From More Positive Review Quotes. Negative Review Currently Have Dis-Proportionate Representation. IUpdateRottenTomatoes ( talk) 21:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Maybe add abbreviated and/or stylized as "3Billboards"? "Three Billboards"? Ssredg ( talk) 09:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Is there a reason why people are left out of the cast list. Christopher Berry, Tony, in the movie was left out & @TheOldJacobite keeps undoing my work. The actors I have been trying to add are listed in the credits at the end of the movie. If anyone would like to verify that, here is a link to that movie.
http://m4ufree.club/watch/QvM9BJv2-three-billboards-outside-ebbing-missouri.html
MissTofATX ( talk) 05:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX MissTofATX ( talk) 05:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
@TheOldJacobite how so/ why? MissTofATX ( talk) 03:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)@MissTofATX
Can we please have a discussion here about the recent edits by @TheOldJacobite "I take issue with your refusal to explain your edits with an edit summary, and his (or her) removal of material. The addition of sourced material, obviously, is not a problem, but in the absence of an explanation, his wholesale changes look suspect to me. All I want is some kind of explanation of the changes being made, in keeping with Wikipedia policy and precedent. Is that too much to ask?" ~ The old jacobite
Your quote above explains exactly what I'm asking you. Maybe before your mass reversions, you could bring it up to be discussed with the group/get a consensus?
In another quote, you mentioned the "I don't like it" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:I_just_don%27t_like_it and from that, you seem to be employing the "because I said so" tactic diffs.
“Because I say so Many discussions on Wikipedia devolve into statements of opinion that the editor expects to be accepted as fact. This is an example of ipse dixit ("He, himself, said it"), also known as the bare assertion fallacy, a term which is used to identify and describe a sort of arbitrary dogmatic statement which the speaker expects the listener to accept as valid.[3]”
I’ve asked several times what criteria he uses when deciding whether a character is minor or not, and he implies refusal by deleting discussions without answering.
MissTofATX ( talk) 13:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
When we have different opinions on certain characters, you should justify why you think it should not be included & allow others to make a case of why they should be included. Then others can decide whether or not it belongs or not. That’s what I want. I have never edited a page for a movie that I have not personally watched.
Your own quote about questioning “wholesale” changes without discussion is exactly what you’ve been doing. So, hopefully you can follow your own stance on these matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissTofATX ( talk • contribs) 15:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
It appears the “onus” would be on both~ As per the WP about Dispute resolution, below. I don’t have everything backwards, in as much as you selectively choose what to adhere to.
I can guarantee you that hence forth, I will make notes on the respective talk pages. Please look there before reverting anything I write from now on
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution
“There are many methods on Wikipedia for resolving disputes. Most methods are not formal processes and do not involve third-party intervention. Respond to all disputes or grievances, in the first instance, by approaching the editor or editors concerned and explaining which of their edits you object to and why you object. Use the article talk page or their user talk page to do so; be civil, polite, and always assume good faith.”
MissTofATX ( talk) 15:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Am I allowed to add Sandy Martin as James Dixon's mother to the cast list? JIP | Talk 21:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Who do you think you are? Next time you disagree with someone, start by explaining yourself. It is not Ok to cut and edit other peoples work WITHOUT even taking the time to explain your actions. You are being extremely impolite and are disrespecting other editors on the website. You keep cutting, Ill keep undoing your edits. How does it sound for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfast ( talk • contribs) 20:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
The cast section includes a note that says "The cast is in closing credits order and the names are as credited" - however, this is not the case. While the majority of the cast is in closing credits order, Harrelson, Rockwell, Cornish, Hawkes, and Dinklage are not. They are in the poster order (for example, Rockwell is fourth in the credits order, but third on the poster, as with in the article). Furthermore, the names are not as credited for McDormand, Harrelson, Rockwell, Cornish, Hawkes, Hedges, Newton, and Peters - there is no Hayes surname, given name/nickname for Bill Willoughby, surname for Anne, given name for Dixon, and title for Abercrombie.
While I normally support having the cast in closing credits order, the obvious problem with this film is that the closing credits for the cast is in order of appearance, which appears to have resulted in Harrelson, Rockwell, Cornish, Hawkes, and Dinklage being placed in their poster order instead of their closing credits order due to their perceived prominence and not in line with what the cast section says it's supposed to be following. So for consistency purposes and to have the cast be more reflective of prominence, I suggest we use the title credits order, which would read as follows:
If Hawkes and Dinklage seem too low, I am not opposed to prioritizing the poster order, then using the title credits. Nevertheless, I believe using the title credits order will allow us to order the cast through prominence - which appears to be the intent, as the credits order is currently not applying to the aforementioned Harrelson, Rockwell, Cornish, Hawkes, and Dinklage - and with a source, as opposed to a completely original order.
As for the names, I do not have a preference if we use the credited names or not, but if we are following this rule, then this rule needs to apply to all names, including the above cited ones that are not as credited. If we are not applying this rule to all names, then it should not apply at all. Bluerules ( talk) 22:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Cutting Edge Group is not a producer. They provide music services. Their own website attests to this. The Variety credit is incorrect. I tried changing this but my edits were reverted by someone who threatened me with banishment for disrupting the page. Carnival Honey ( talk) 01:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Agree with the 2021 proposal that the soundtrack ( Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (soundtrack)) doesn't warrant a separate page and should be merged to here; it's short and would benefit from the context of the merge. Klbrain ( talk) 16:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)