This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Uncharted (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Uncharted" film – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The current poster, taken from IMP Awards, says "Exclusively at Cinemas" at the bottom and has the UK release date, indicating that this is the international version. The Uncharted Twitter page has the U.S. version (with "Exclusively in Movie Theaters" and the U.S. release date), but the poster is in a non-standard aspect ratio used by all Sony films for some reason. Now, unless someone can find a version of the U.S. poster in a standard aspect ratio, I personally think that the Twitter one is a better option that the current international version. Thoughts? InfiniteNexus ( talk) 02:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
An editor tagged the critical response section for being too long and {{ Hard to navigate}}. I disagree with this assessment, the section lists many critics but is a fairly normal length. It could be written better but "hard to navigate" is not the problem.
I would agree that it is a little repetitive and that choice of some of the critics seems a little strange. I suppose some editors might wanted to include critics from publications that normally review video games not films (ie ArsTechnica, Engadget, Polygon) but if that was the intention the quotes from their reviews do not offer any particular insight or perspective from people familiar with the video games (with only Indiewire mentioning the video games).
If editors believe the section is too long (rather than not written well) how do they propose to shorten it? -- 109.78.199.168 ( talk) 14:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Because this has been undone by several IP editors, please can we get a consensus that as most of the reviews we have sourced do not praise, or are indifferent to, the action sequences (we only have one that is praising), it therefore should not be noted as a complimented aspect of the film in the lead? Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 13:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
This article previously claimed the budget was $90-120 million. Variety posted different figures at different times. It is not clear why, by who, or if these two different figures represent different things. An editor removed the earlier figure [1], disregarding it as unimportant or incorrect. This editor does not believe that when he does it omitting earlier figures constitutes "cherry picking" that Template:Infobox film the guidelines expressly warn against. We might reasonably assume that since multiple sources now say the film cost $120 before P&A, [2] and that since Variety is contradicting previous figures we should go with the figure that everyone is reporting now, but point of the warning in the documentation not to cherry pick would seem to be, to strongly discourage exactly those kinds of assumptions and to instead include both figures.
Many films have had different budget figures reported at different times. We do not know why exactly the earlier figures were revised. If we could clarify exactly what the $90 million represents it might be a detail worth including, if we are going to make assumptions we could reasonably guess the budget was $90 million at the start but since the film took so long to make, and suffered delays because of the pandemic, the final production cost increased to $120 million. We don't know for sure, which is why we should not exclude the lower figure either. The guidelines warn against cherry picking, and they do not say "but" or suggest various exceptions like Wikipedia guidelines so often do. (Perhaps someone could point to a past discussion that might help clarify the intent behind this particular bit of documentation, but it always seemed to me that it was intended to err on the side of caution and to keep conflicting information even when another figure seems most likely.) I think that the warning against cherry picking also includes cases like this, even where editors might be making reasonable assumptions in good faith, but we should not assume we know better, we should not assume at all, and we should keep both figures. -- 109.76.139.121 ( talk) 15:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Editors did not discuss, the
WP:CYCLE continues. I have added the $90 million figure again, it is reliably sourced.
[5] We do not know why Variety published two different figures and we should not presume we do. When reliable sources differ we should present the information to readers, not cherry pick, as {{
Infobox film}} clearly warns. Also
WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE states that the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article
and the article body failed to mention any budget figures at all. Even if you think excluding the lower figure is justifiable editors still need to improve the article body. --
109.76.197.121 (
talk)
02:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia film articles, more often than not include the post-credits scenes in their plot summaries, they're a part of the movie and should be included. Advofspec ( talk) 23:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Mid- and post-credit scenes should generally not be included in the plot summary" and removing the epilog will quickly shorten the plot section to comply with the guidelines. I read the guidelines again to be careful, and in case they had changed recently but the film is not yet part of a franchise and a sequel is not yet in production (it has not even been confirmed to be in the development/script stage) so this film does not meet the guidelines requirements to make an exception and include the epilog. -- 109.77.197.59 ( talk) 04:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Uncharted (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Uncharted" film – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The current poster, taken from IMP Awards, says "Exclusively at Cinemas" at the bottom and has the UK release date, indicating that this is the international version. The Uncharted Twitter page has the U.S. version (with "Exclusively in Movie Theaters" and the U.S. release date), but the poster is in a non-standard aspect ratio used by all Sony films for some reason. Now, unless someone can find a version of the U.S. poster in a standard aspect ratio, I personally think that the Twitter one is a better option that the current international version. Thoughts? InfiniteNexus ( talk) 02:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
An editor tagged the critical response section for being too long and {{ Hard to navigate}}. I disagree with this assessment, the section lists many critics but is a fairly normal length. It could be written better but "hard to navigate" is not the problem.
I would agree that it is a little repetitive and that choice of some of the critics seems a little strange. I suppose some editors might wanted to include critics from publications that normally review video games not films (ie ArsTechnica, Engadget, Polygon) but if that was the intention the quotes from their reviews do not offer any particular insight or perspective from people familiar with the video games (with only Indiewire mentioning the video games).
If editors believe the section is too long (rather than not written well) how do they propose to shorten it? -- 109.78.199.168 ( talk) 14:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Because this has been undone by several IP editors, please can we get a consensus that as most of the reviews we have sourced do not praise, or are indifferent to, the action sequences (we only have one that is praising), it therefore should not be noted as a complimented aspect of the film in the lead? Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 13:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
This article previously claimed the budget was $90-120 million. Variety posted different figures at different times. It is not clear why, by who, or if these two different figures represent different things. An editor removed the earlier figure [1], disregarding it as unimportant or incorrect. This editor does not believe that when he does it omitting earlier figures constitutes "cherry picking" that Template:Infobox film the guidelines expressly warn against. We might reasonably assume that since multiple sources now say the film cost $120 before P&A, [2] and that since Variety is contradicting previous figures we should go with the figure that everyone is reporting now, but point of the warning in the documentation not to cherry pick would seem to be, to strongly discourage exactly those kinds of assumptions and to instead include both figures.
Many films have had different budget figures reported at different times. We do not know why exactly the earlier figures were revised. If we could clarify exactly what the $90 million represents it might be a detail worth including, if we are going to make assumptions we could reasonably guess the budget was $90 million at the start but since the film took so long to make, and suffered delays because of the pandemic, the final production cost increased to $120 million. We don't know for sure, which is why we should not exclude the lower figure either. The guidelines warn against cherry picking, and they do not say "but" or suggest various exceptions like Wikipedia guidelines so often do. (Perhaps someone could point to a past discussion that might help clarify the intent behind this particular bit of documentation, but it always seemed to me that it was intended to err on the side of caution and to keep conflicting information even when another figure seems most likely.) I think that the warning against cherry picking also includes cases like this, even where editors might be making reasonable assumptions in good faith, but we should not assume we know better, we should not assume at all, and we should keep both figures. -- 109.76.139.121 ( talk) 15:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Editors did not discuss, the
WP:CYCLE continues. I have added the $90 million figure again, it is reliably sourced.
[5] We do not know why Variety published two different figures and we should not presume we do. When reliable sources differ we should present the information to readers, not cherry pick, as {{
Infobox film}} clearly warns. Also
WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE states that the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article
and the article body failed to mention any budget figures at all. Even if you think excluding the lower figure is justifiable editors still need to improve the article body. --
109.76.197.121 (
talk)
02:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia film articles, more often than not include the post-credits scenes in their plot summaries, they're a part of the movie and should be included. Advofspec ( talk) 23:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Mid- and post-credit scenes should generally not be included in the plot summary" and removing the epilog will quickly shorten the plot section to comply with the guidelines. I read the guidelines again to be careful, and in case they had changed recently but the film is not yet part of a franchise and a sequel is not yet in production (it has not even been confirmed to be in the development/script stage) so this film does not meet the guidelines requirements to make an exception and include the epilog. -- 109.77.197.59 ( talk) 04:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)