This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Kingsman: The Secret Service 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 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened:
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TonyPJs. Peer reviewers: Adinh92, Fsanchez18, Gman802, Lserrano60.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 23:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The Swedish prime minister and princess are referred to as such. There was a reference to Scandinavia as well, but they were clearly meant to be Swedish, not the vague "Scandinavian". Royalcourtier ( talk) 03:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Why is this being kept out of the plot description? The only reason I can think of is some sort of moral objection. It is not just a throwaway line in the film, but a joke that is referenced multiple times (the princess saying "If you save the world, we can do it in the asshole" or whatever, Eggsy returning to the seductively seated princess at the end of the film with Champagne, Merlin view of the Princess' ass and then his embarrassed behavior). The way it is written now, "Merlin congratulates him for his success, but Eggsy chooses to visit the princess" is vague and doesn't really describe how the film ends. Jb 007clone ( talk) 17:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Jb, I haven't seen the film. Seeing the film is not a prerequisite for editing. It actually puts him in a unique position to read the summary with no knowledge of the film and determine if something makes sense or not. In this case, the mention of a joke at the end makes little sense because there is no context for this joke anywhere. Not having it there does not dampen my understanding of the basic point of the movie. As for your comment about descriptive violence, I would agree with you on that. It shouldn't really be that descriptive. I write a lot of horror film articles, and the ones I write don't have the details of every character's death. They have the basic idea that the character was killed, but the fact that they received a machete to the face or their head exploded is not essential to understanding the plot. In this case, the anal gag and the specifics about how a character died are not essential to understanding. What purpose does it truly serve to the reader? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
"The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail."The gag is pointless fluff - certainly not even close to a plot point and its inclusion is unencyclopaedic nonsense. - SchroCat ( talk) 21:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Schro and Betty. Betty explains it well in that we don't generally relay dialogue from the film in the plot section. It's supposed to be a general overview. If the anal joke has had extensive coverage in reliable books and sources though it might be worth mentioning somewhere in themes or reception or whatever.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn as WP:COMMONNAME applies, and this film is not part of any type of media series. (Either way, at least this discussion now serves as a note of which policy takes priority in the naming of this article.) Steel1943 ( talk) 21:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Kingsman: The Secret Service → Kingsman (film) – Per WP:SUBTITLES. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Nightscream, STOP EDIT WARRING. There is no set pattern for the wording relating to Rancid Tomatoes, and certainly no reason why we unthinkingly follow the wording of some other pages (see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS for unthinkingly copying formats across pages). As I have explained to you, there is no reason not to phrase it the way it currently stands in the article ("Rotten Tomatoes sampled 157 critics and judged 73% of the reviews positive, with an average rating of") This is accptable, is seen in some other articles, including GAs etc, and is correct as it stands. You are basing your choice entirely on [WP:IDON'TLIKEIT]] and nothing else. If you can stop the patronising tone you tried to adopt on my talk page, I will be happy to discuss it with you, but try and be open minded in your aproach, not just come here to demand a slavish adherence to poor writing elsewhere. - SchroCat ( talk) 15:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
As to RT's self-claimed "consensus", there is no such thing. What RT shows to is not a consensus: it is a summary of some key points. The OED defines a consensus as "Agreement in opinion; the collective unanimous opinion of a number of persons". That is a long way from what RT call a consensus.
I see the opening line has been changed yet again from "Kingsman: The Secret Service is a 2014 ..." to 2015. As this was first shown on 13 December 2014 at Butt-Numb-A-Thon I think this falls into a 2014 listing. Does anyone have any other thoughts (based on a guideline or consensus elsewhere would be best, but we can settle on something suitable otherwise...) Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 15:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why we need to have such a huge spoiler right in the second sentence of the article. It stands to reason that a person that wants to see the film will read the description on wikipedia, but not the plot summary, and it will spoil it for them. It would appear that another user tried to do this revision but both of our edits were reverted, so I would like to discuss it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megadeoxys ( talk • contribs) 08:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
And now we say he is recruited. Noooo - spoiler alert! Spoiler alert! If the previous wording is put back in 6 months, absolutely no-one will complain: as it is people are complaining because they haven't seen the film, so we're censoring it for a mi notify only. Now that doesn't help our readers. - SchroCat ( talk) 04:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I see we're ignoring BRD now Sock? Is there any reason for forcing your version onto things against the wishes of other editors? I took the names out because they are fairly non-standard in leads (although you'll find them if you look), but mostly because it anything in brckets stops the flow of the prose. What there is there is now stilted as a result. - SchroCat ( talk) 15:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
At least someone can prove the scene was cut, because I watched the church scene, maybe the violence could be somehow reduced, but it was not removed, adittionaly, as someone said, this scene is basic because of what happens at the end. In Mexico the scene was not removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.244.16.241 ( talk) 22:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Should we add character descriptions to the Cast section like we do with the James Bond 007 film articles? Some details such as Valentine's lisp are vital to the film, but not necessary on the Plot section. - Areaseven ( talk) 04:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request revert for the following edit: (cur | prev) 14:12, 4 March 2015 Areaseven (talk | contribs) . . (33,549 bytes) (-392) . . (→Cast: Rm minor characters)
I disagree with the above edit to remove certain actors from the cast list.
I propose that the following actors and characters be included in the cast section: Bjørn Floberg ... Scandinavian Prime Minister Hanna Alström ... Princess Tilde
With respect, I would offer the following arguments in favor of their inclusion:
(1) the characters are at least as consequential to the plot as Professor James Arnold played by Mark Hamill who also appears on the cast list.
(2) they are central to the gag ending which is of considerable interest (both positive and negative) to viewers.
(3) individual editors may not agree with the merit of the gag ending, but is nevertheless of significant public interest, and the names of the actors & actresses involved should be a part of the wikipedia article.
Thank you for your consideration.
73.180.170.160 (
talk) 03:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a
consensus for this alteration before using the {{
edit semi-protected}}
template..
Betty Logan (
talk) 03:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Valentine's last word "perfect" is an homage to The Last Samurai (2003) where Katsumoto (Ken Watanabe) utters this word in his last breath after committing seppuku with the assistance of Algren (Tom Cruise). Psudaddy ( talk) 15:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I made an addition to the cast list adding Samantha Womack. I see that addition was reverted. I wonder whether the person who reverted this understands the difference between a cast list and starring. I made no attempt to alter the starring list. I would have thought anyone with a Wikipedia entry who was cast into a film is fully entitled to be listed in the cast regardless of the extent of their role. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kingsman:_The_Secret_Service&diff=650523848&oldid=650512226 . In this case whilst not a major role - a star - certainly not a bit part. What do others think? Robertforsythe ( talk) 22:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
If this was released theatrically in both the UK and US commercially in 2015 then shouldn't it be 2015 rather than 2014? Tibetan Prayer ᧾ 13:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Why should the soundtrack info be deleted? - Areaseven ( talk) 05:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Do forgive me for asking, but how is this a comedy film when there was nothing to spoof or parody? Just because it doesn't take itself too seriously never meant it should be addressed as a comedy. -- ZeroMinusTen ( talk) 09:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I was talking to a passing acquaintance recently about this film, and mentioned the scene where the Swedish princess says to Eggsy, "If you save the world, we can do it in the asshole", and he told me he heard no such dialog. So my question is this: Is there an official censored version of this film? 68.10.81.239 ( talk) 20:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
In the current Wikipedia entry, the sequence of events described under, Plot, is different than what occurs on the DVD (U.S. terriory release) I have. The sequence of events that I'm seeing after Lancelot is killed is:
1. Eggsy nicks the pub fob's car and gets thrown in jail.
2. Eggsy calls the number on the medal, using the passphrase, "Oxford not Brogues".
3. Hart/Galahad gets Eggsy out of jail and they talk at the pub about the details of Eggsy's father's death and Eggsy's potential and past.
4. Hart/Galahad beats up the fobs and gets Eggsy to promise, under pain of death, not the reveal anything about his existence.
5. Eggsy's promise is put to the test when his mom's boyfriend, Dean, threatens to kill him unless he tells who the man was who beat up his friends. Eggsy doesn't talk and passes.
6. Eggsy meets Hart/Galahad at the tailor shop and is recruited.
7. Eggsy begins training.
8. Hart/Galahad confronts Prof. Arnold, whose head explodes, and Hart/Galahad is put into long term unconscious state from something he was exposed to from the explosion.
9. While Hart/Galahad remains in an unconscious state, Eggsy continues to train and remains in the program with the field of candidates shrinking as the others wash out.
10. Hart/Galahad awakens.
11. Eggsy, Hart/Galahad, and Merlin review close up footage of Arnold's head exploding, and trace the signal back to Valentine.
12. Hart/Galahad and Merlin learn of Valentine's free SIM card program from Eggsy.
13. Hart/Galahad has dinner with Valentine.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtwchinn ( talk • contribs)
I propose to add a Category:Films set in Russia to the article because the last quarter of the film is set there. These fact prove it:
-- Tohaomg ( talk) 14:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
is the large painting in the dinner hall behind Michael Caine / Arthur's chair. There, a portrait of Rudyard Kipling has been inserted: before Kingsman decides to satirize the conventions of the spy thriller genre, it makes for a rather pleasant retelling of Kim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.108.27.26 ( talk) 20:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The term " Chav" has been explained - and reverted a few times now. As per WP:BRD we have had the Bold, and the reversion - but no discussion. That's happening now.
To the editor who wants to insert the explanation as well as the wikilink - please justify it here prior to reinsertion.
I am of the opinion that there is no need to explain the term when it is wikilinked - which is the whole point of wikilinking. The editor has claimed WP:JARGON which is not applicable in this case, as the term is not "intrinsically technical" - WP:JARGON is intended for a very specific context, not the plot section of a film.
Incidentally, I use the singular to refer to the editor, as geolocate suggests that it's the same person from Austin, Texas. [1] [2]
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that while we discuss - the original version should be left in place, ie without the additional text. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 17:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kingsman: The Secret Service. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
-- Fsanchez18 ( talk) 19:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC) The article's lead presents a good summary of what the article talks about. It is well detailed, and all the different sections help show that Kingsman: The Secret Service was a well received movie. I suggest that you check grammar because in the lead organization was spelled with an s, and also some sentences sounded a little off, nothing too serious though. I would also recommend in the plot description to add more details of the movie, like how the recruits believed that if they got eliminated then that means they would get killed, when that wasn't true. Maybe also add some of Eggsy's reactions to the training all the recruits went through. It would be helpful to also explain the scene where Harry says his famous line "Manners maketh man", because the article only mentions it in the end when Eggsy does the same thing, and i believe it could help the reader understand the reference better. Lastly, in the review section, or how people responded section, it was said that "some people said...", and it would make the article better if you referenced exactly who said this critique. I would also suggest to add Colin Firth's experience in an action film and of doing most of his stunts. Overall a helpful article to explain the movie.
Today (well, yesterday, because I'm writing this after midnight) there was a controversy over an edited clip from the movie being played at a political event for President Trump, in which the President's head is edited in over Colin Firth's face and the victims in the church massacre scene are edited to be his different...political opponents, for lack of a better expression. Is this controversy worth mentioning in the article? I think it is, but I want to reach a consensus before adding it. -- Praefect94 ( talk) 05:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
i recommend this gets removed as it adds no value to the wiki page and the video was clearly meant as a meme. there's memes like this on both sides of the political aisle and there's much more vile shit out there to begin with. are we going to add sections like this on the page about the holocaust because there's controversial memes about the holocaust? no. again, get over it, remove this section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:984:3e4f:1:95f4:1e94:b1a:2970 ( talk • contribs) January 21, 2022 (UTC)
its fictional the film but having to do much with the climate change. media matters! its more than the plot at stake, its wikipedia lying in some way. climate change is personified in some way by samuel jackson. whatevrr Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 23:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
thank you! ill find out if any sources out there. Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 14:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoandri Dominguez Garcia ( talk • contribs)
yall are filthy. I edited and it got took out utter. ME NOT KNOWING. 19:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58B:8000:2330:387B:787E:4AEB:5D97 ( talk)
i see now it was some nobody that said it was pointless. Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 20:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoandri Dominguez Garcia ( talk • contribs)
Why is there a section for the Donald Trump spoof? It doesn't contribute anything to the article. I suggest it is removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.137.1.22 ( talk) 13:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
IMHO this is a critical part of the movie, if not for the fact that it's a blank when he has to shoot the dog, Kingsman comes off as an evil organisation, which isn't intended by the film. MarkiPoli ( talk) 11:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
This content is extremely WP:UNDUE. It has nothing to do with the movie (ie did not involve anyone associated with it and did not impact the movie whatsoever) and would be better served on a controversy section of Donald Trump (if at all considering he denied any knowledge of it and condemned it). Meaning this section describes a meme played/created/watched by no notable people involving no one associated with the movie and did not have any impact on the movie itself. I'm surprised this information stayed on this page for so long. Also considering the entirety of reporting was done between 10/13/19 and 10/16/19, this reeks of WP:RECENT. Feel free to discuss why you believe this should be kept.
Quick note for reversion of reinstatement: please see WP:ONUS and WP:DON'T PRESERVE. Thanks, Anon0098 ( talk) 02:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Kingsman: The Secret Service 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 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened:
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TonyPJs. Peer reviewers: Adinh92, Fsanchez18, Gman802, Lserrano60.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 23:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The Swedish prime minister and princess are referred to as such. There was a reference to Scandinavia as well, but they were clearly meant to be Swedish, not the vague "Scandinavian". Royalcourtier ( talk) 03:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Why is this being kept out of the plot description? The only reason I can think of is some sort of moral objection. It is not just a throwaway line in the film, but a joke that is referenced multiple times (the princess saying "If you save the world, we can do it in the asshole" or whatever, Eggsy returning to the seductively seated princess at the end of the film with Champagne, Merlin view of the Princess' ass and then his embarrassed behavior). The way it is written now, "Merlin congratulates him for his success, but Eggsy chooses to visit the princess" is vague and doesn't really describe how the film ends. Jb 007clone ( talk) 17:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Jb, I haven't seen the film. Seeing the film is not a prerequisite for editing. It actually puts him in a unique position to read the summary with no knowledge of the film and determine if something makes sense or not. In this case, the mention of a joke at the end makes little sense because there is no context for this joke anywhere. Not having it there does not dampen my understanding of the basic point of the movie. As for your comment about descriptive violence, I would agree with you on that. It shouldn't really be that descriptive. I write a lot of horror film articles, and the ones I write don't have the details of every character's death. They have the basic idea that the character was killed, but the fact that they received a machete to the face or their head exploded is not essential to understanding the plot. In this case, the anal gag and the specifics about how a character died are not essential to understanding. What purpose does it truly serve to the reader? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
"The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail."The gag is pointless fluff - certainly not even close to a plot point and its inclusion is unencyclopaedic nonsense. - SchroCat ( talk) 21:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Schro and Betty. Betty explains it well in that we don't generally relay dialogue from the film in the plot section. It's supposed to be a general overview. If the anal joke has had extensive coverage in reliable books and sources though it might be worth mentioning somewhere in themes or reception or whatever.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn as WP:COMMONNAME applies, and this film is not part of any type of media series. (Either way, at least this discussion now serves as a note of which policy takes priority in the naming of this article.) Steel1943 ( talk) 21:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Kingsman: The Secret Service → Kingsman (film) – Per WP:SUBTITLES. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Nightscream, STOP EDIT WARRING. There is no set pattern for the wording relating to Rancid Tomatoes, and certainly no reason why we unthinkingly follow the wording of some other pages (see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS for unthinkingly copying formats across pages). As I have explained to you, there is no reason not to phrase it the way it currently stands in the article ("Rotten Tomatoes sampled 157 critics and judged 73% of the reviews positive, with an average rating of") This is accptable, is seen in some other articles, including GAs etc, and is correct as it stands. You are basing your choice entirely on [WP:IDON'TLIKEIT]] and nothing else. If you can stop the patronising tone you tried to adopt on my talk page, I will be happy to discuss it with you, but try and be open minded in your aproach, not just come here to demand a slavish adherence to poor writing elsewhere. - SchroCat ( talk) 15:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
As to RT's self-claimed "consensus", there is no such thing. What RT shows to is not a consensus: it is a summary of some key points. The OED defines a consensus as "Agreement in opinion; the collective unanimous opinion of a number of persons". That is a long way from what RT call a consensus.
I see the opening line has been changed yet again from "Kingsman: The Secret Service is a 2014 ..." to 2015. As this was first shown on 13 December 2014 at Butt-Numb-A-Thon I think this falls into a 2014 listing. Does anyone have any other thoughts (based on a guideline or consensus elsewhere would be best, but we can settle on something suitable otherwise...) Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 15:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why we need to have such a huge spoiler right in the second sentence of the article. It stands to reason that a person that wants to see the film will read the description on wikipedia, but not the plot summary, and it will spoil it for them. It would appear that another user tried to do this revision but both of our edits were reverted, so I would like to discuss it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megadeoxys ( talk • contribs) 08:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
And now we say he is recruited. Noooo - spoiler alert! Spoiler alert! If the previous wording is put back in 6 months, absolutely no-one will complain: as it is people are complaining because they haven't seen the film, so we're censoring it for a mi notify only. Now that doesn't help our readers. - SchroCat ( talk) 04:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I see we're ignoring BRD now Sock? Is there any reason for forcing your version onto things against the wishes of other editors? I took the names out because they are fairly non-standard in leads (although you'll find them if you look), but mostly because it anything in brckets stops the flow of the prose. What there is there is now stilted as a result. - SchroCat ( talk) 15:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
At least someone can prove the scene was cut, because I watched the church scene, maybe the violence could be somehow reduced, but it was not removed, adittionaly, as someone said, this scene is basic because of what happens at the end. In Mexico the scene was not removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.244.16.241 ( talk) 22:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Should we add character descriptions to the Cast section like we do with the James Bond 007 film articles? Some details such as Valentine's lisp are vital to the film, but not necessary on the Plot section. - Areaseven ( talk) 04:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request revert for the following edit: (cur | prev) 14:12, 4 March 2015 Areaseven (talk | contribs) . . (33,549 bytes) (-392) . . (→Cast: Rm minor characters)
I disagree with the above edit to remove certain actors from the cast list.
I propose that the following actors and characters be included in the cast section: Bjørn Floberg ... Scandinavian Prime Minister Hanna Alström ... Princess Tilde
With respect, I would offer the following arguments in favor of their inclusion:
(1) the characters are at least as consequential to the plot as Professor James Arnold played by Mark Hamill who also appears on the cast list.
(2) they are central to the gag ending which is of considerable interest (both positive and negative) to viewers.
(3) individual editors may not agree with the merit of the gag ending, but is nevertheless of significant public interest, and the names of the actors & actresses involved should be a part of the wikipedia article.
Thank you for your consideration.
73.180.170.160 (
talk) 03:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a
consensus for this alteration before using the {{
edit semi-protected}}
template..
Betty Logan (
talk) 03:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Valentine's last word "perfect" is an homage to The Last Samurai (2003) where Katsumoto (Ken Watanabe) utters this word in his last breath after committing seppuku with the assistance of Algren (Tom Cruise). Psudaddy ( talk) 15:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I made an addition to the cast list adding Samantha Womack. I see that addition was reverted. I wonder whether the person who reverted this understands the difference between a cast list and starring. I made no attempt to alter the starring list. I would have thought anyone with a Wikipedia entry who was cast into a film is fully entitled to be listed in the cast regardless of the extent of their role. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kingsman:_The_Secret_Service&diff=650523848&oldid=650512226 . In this case whilst not a major role - a star - certainly not a bit part. What do others think? Robertforsythe ( talk) 22:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
If this was released theatrically in both the UK and US commercially in 2015 then shouldn't it be 2015 rather than 2014? Tibetan Prayer ᧾ 13:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Why should the soundtrack info be deleted? - Areaseven ( talk) 05:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Do forgive me for asking, but how is this a comedy film when there was nothing to spoof or parody? Just because it doesn't take itself too seriously never meant it should be addressed as a comedy. -- ZeroMinusTen ( talk) 09:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I was talking to a passing acquaintance recently about this film, and mentioned the scene where the Swedish princess says to Eggsy, "If you save the world, we can do it in the asshole", and he told me he heard no such dialog. So my question is this: Is there an official censored version of this film? 68.10.81.239 ( talk) 20:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
In the current Wikipedia entry, the sequence of events described under, Plot, is different than what occurs on the DVD (U.S. terriory release) I have. The sequence of events that I'm seeing after Lancelot is killed is:
1. Eggsy nicks the pub fob's car and gets thrown in jail.
2. Eggsy calls the number on the medal, using the passphrase, "Oxford not Brogues".
3. Hart/Galahad gets Eggsy out of jail and they talk at the pub about the details of Eggsy's father's death and Eggsy's potential and past.
4. Hart/Galahad beats up the fobs and gets Eggsy to promise, under pain of death, not the reveal anything about his existence.
5. Eggsy's promise is put to the test when his mom's boyfriend, Dean, threatens to kill him unless he tells who the man was who beat up his friends. Eggsy doesn't talk and passes.
6. Eggsy meets Hart/Galahad at the tailor shop and is recruited.
7. Eggsy begins training.
8. Hart/Galahad confronts Prof. Arnold, whose head explodes, and Hart/Galahad is put into long term unconscious state from something he was exposed to from the explosion.
9. While Hart/Galahad remains in an unconscious state, Eggsy continues to train and remains in the program with the field of candidates shrinking as the others wash out.
10. Hart/Galahad awakens.
11. Eggsy, Hart/Galahad, and Merlin review close up footage of Arnold's head exploding, and trace the signal back to Valentine.
12. Hart/Galahad and Merlin learn of Valentine's free SIM card program from Eggsy.
13. Hart/Galahad has dinner with Valentine.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtwchinn ( talk • contribs)
I propose to add a Category:Films set in Russia to the article because the last quarter of the film is set there. These fact prove it:
-- Tohaomg ( talk) 14:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
is the large painting in the dinner hall behind Michael Caine / Arthur's chair. There, a portrait of Rudyard Kipling has been inserted: before Kingsman decides to satirize the conventions of the spy thriller genre, it makes for a rather pleasant retelling of Kim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.108.27.26 ( talk) 20:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The term " Chav" has been explained - and reverted a few times now. As per WP:BRD we have had the Bold, and the reversion - but no discussion. That's happening now.
To the editor who wants to insert the explanation as well as the wikilink - please justify it here prior to reinsertion.
I am of the opinion that there is no need to explain the term when it is wikilinked - which is the whole point of wikilinking. The editor has claimed WP:JARGON which is not applicable in this case, as the term is not "intrinsically technical" - WP:JARGON is intended for a very specific context, not the plot section of a film.
Incidentally, I use the singular to refer to the editor, as geolocate suggests that it's the same person from Austin, Texas. [1] [2]
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that while we discuss - the original version should be left in place, ie without the additional text. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 17:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kingsman: The Secret Service. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
-- Fsanchez18 ( talk) 19:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC) The article's lead presents a good summary of what the article talks about. It is well detailed, and all the different sections help show that Kingsman: The Secret Service was a well received movie. I suggest that you check grammar because in the lead organization was spelled with an s, and also some sentences sounded a little off, nothing too serious though. I would also recommend in the plot description to add more details of the movie, like how the recruits believed that if they got eliminated then that means they would get killed, when that wasn't true. Maybe also add some of Eggsy's reactions to the training all the recruits went through. It would be helpful to also explain the scene where Harry says his famous line "Manners maketh man", because the article only mentions it in the end when Eggsy does the same thing, and i believe it could help the reader understand the reference better. Lastly, in the review section, or how people responded section, it was said that "some people said...", and it would make the article better if you referenced exactly who said this critique. I would also suggest to add Colin Firth's experience in an action film and of doing most of his stunts. Overall a helpful article to explain the movie.
Today (well, yesterday, because I'm writing this after midnight) there was a controversy over an edited clip from the movie being played at a political event for President Trump, in which the President's head is edited in over Colin Firth's face and the victims in the church massacre scene are edited to be his different...political opponents, for lack of a better expression. Is this controversy worth mentioning in the article? I think it is, but I want to reach a consensus before adding it. -- Praefect94 ( talk) 05:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
i recommend this gets removed as it adds no value to the wiki page and the video was clearly meant as a meme. there's memes like this on both sides of the political aisle and there's much more vile shit out there to begin with. are we going to add sections like this on the page about the holocaust because there's controversial memes about the holocaust? no. again, get over it, remove this section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:984:3e4f:1:95f4:1e94:b1a:2970 ( talk • contribs) January 21, 2022 (UTC)
its fictional the film but having to do much with the climate change. media matters! its more than the plot at stake, its wikipedia lying in some way. climate change is personified in some way by samuel jackson. whatevrr Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 23:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
thank you! ill find out if any sources out there. Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 14:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoandri Dominguez Garcia ( talk • contribs)
yall are filthy. I edited and it got took out utter. ME NOT KNOWING. 19:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58B:8000:2330:387B:787E:4AEB:5D97 ( talk)
i see now it was some nobody that said it was pointless. Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 20:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoandri Dominguez Garcia ( talk • contribs)
Why is there a section for the Donald Trump spoof? It doesn't contribute anything to the article. I suggest it is removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.137.1.22 ( talk) 13:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
IMHO this is a critical part of the movie, if not for the fact that it's a blank when he has to shoot the dog, Kingsman comes off as an evil organisation, which isn't intended by the film. MarkiPoli ( talk) 11:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
This content is extremely WP:UNDUE. It has nothing to do with the movie (ie did not involve anyone associated with it and did not impact the movie whatsoever) and would be better served on a controversy section of Donald Trump (if at all considering he denied any knowledge of it and condemned it). Meaning this section describes a meme played/created/watched by no notable people involving no one associated with the movie and did not have any impact on the movie itself. I'm surprised this information stayed on this page for so long. Also considering the entirety of reporting was done between 10/13/19 and 10/16/19, this reeks of WP:RECENT. Feel free to discuss why you believe this should be kept.
Quick note for reversion of reinstatement: please see WP:ONUS and WP:DON'T PRESERVE. Thanks, Anon0098 ( talk) 02:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)