Misplaced Pages

Talk:Skyfall: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:50, 23 November 2014 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,118 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Skyfall/Archive 7) (bot← Previous edit Revision as of 17:20, 5 December 2014 edit undoBetty Logan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers78,661 editsm →FilmNext edit →
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 196: Line 196:


*'''Comment''' It's fair to say that hard drives are commonly associated with computers, but it doesn't hurt to clarify it for people who are unfamiliar with IT parlance. I personally would have gone for "presumed dead" if I had written the summary myself, but if it is incorrect in British English I am happy to defer to SchroCat on that one rather than The Guardian which is infamous among British media for its poor grasp of English. I am largely indifferent to things like "rifle" and "political pressure" i.e. the summary would get by without those terms, but we are not really gaining much in the way of brevity at the expense of losing some context. In truth it's a well-written plot summary, and while there are many alterations that could be made to it, very few of them would offer a qualitative improvement on what we've already got. In truth, the time of both parties would be better spent improving plot summaries that actually need improving. ] (]) 20:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC) *'''Comment''' It's fair to say that hard drives are commonly associated with computers, but it doesn't hurt to clarify it for people who are unfamiliar with IT parlance. I personally would have gone for "presumed dead" if I had written the summary myself, but if it is incorrect in British English I am happy to defer to SchroCat on that one rather than The Guardian which is infamous among British media for its poor grasp of English. I am largely indifferent to things like "rifle" and "political pressure" i.e. the summary would get by without those terms, but we are not really gaining much in the way of brevity at the expense of losing some context. In truth it's a well-written plot summary, and while there are many alterations that could be made to it, very few of them would offer a qualitative improvement on what we've already got. In truth, the time of both parties would be better spent improving plot summaries that actually need improving. ] (]) 20:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

== Film ==

An edit warring IP has been swapping out all uses of the term "film" for the Americanism "movie". This is against the long-standing use of the term film on the page. The IP has asked people to use the talk page, so here it is. IP, the floor is yours to explain why you are changing out a good word for the less appropriate one. - ] (]) 16:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
:Action. It is also against the long-standing use in the English language. A film can be many things, including a layer of slug slime. In the context of the film industry it can refer to a motion picture as a physical or creative entity, or even the medium of film-making itself. It can also be used in a verb sense referring to the creative act of creating a motion picture, regardless of whether actual photographic film stock is involved in the process (see ). The IP should put a stop to this silliness otherwise only one person will be getting blocked. Cut. ] (]) 17:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:20, 5 December 2014

Good articleSkyfall has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starSkyfall is part of the James Bond films series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 19, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
January 23, 2012Good topic candidatePromoted
January 27, 2013Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFilm: British
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
WikiProject iconJames Bond (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject James Bond, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.James BondWikipedia:WikiProject James BondTemplate:WikiProject James BondJames Bond

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Media mentionThis has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Template:Find sources notice

Archiving icon
Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.


Academy awards template

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The template is the end of the article needs to show that it was succeeded in winning Academy Award for Best Original Song by Let It Go from Frozen -86.152.112.255 (talk) 08:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The request is for:
{{succession box
| before = "]" from<br />'']''
| title  = ]<br />"]"
| years  = 2012
| after  = TBA
}}
to be replaced with:
{{Succession box
| before = "]" from<br />'']''
| title  = ]<br />"]"
| years  = 2012
| after  = "]" from <br />'']''
}}

— {{U|Technical 13}} 19:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should currently be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Done. The page was still locked when the request came through: all now sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 10:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


Critical Response section

It says the movie received "generally positive reviews," yet the movie got a 92% on Rotten Tomatoes, fitting more under "universal acclaim," while "generally positive" would be more accurate for a movie with 60-70% on Rotten Tomatoes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.201.19 (talk)

We tend not to use the over bloated and WP:PEACOCKy "universal acclaim", especially when based on something so awful as RT. Apart from being unencyclopaedic, it's wrong (ie. how can it be "universal" if 8% disagree?) - SchroCat (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

We should use "Widespread Critical acclaim". This label has been used other films with similar ratings such as Saving Private Ryan.--9999 (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Please cite a source that says "widespread critical acclaim", and it'll be used in the article. DonQuixote (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
We have a long-standing consensus on this page (and generally more broadly) that we avoid the bloated nonsense of the meaningless widespread or universal critical acclaim. It's peacockery, overly-bloated and bollocks. A balanced selection of reviews is the best way to show the feelings of critics, without such nonsense. Engage brains: 92% does not equal "universal" by some distance, especially when the thread below this is about the film being over-rated! - SchroCat (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

SchroCat instead of purely focus your unexplained hatrid of Skyfall hear, I suggest you see other pages such as "Saving Private Ryan", "Frozen", and "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings", the later of which has less than 92%. Until then this page should remain like others. --9999 (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

My "unexplained hatrid of Skyfall"?? Firstly, do not personalise discussions on Wiki: you have absolutely no idea about my thoughts on this or any other topic, so please do not try and double guess me. Secondly, the only way this page should "remain" is as it is, unless you can gain a consensus to change to something else, which I see as unlikely. Thirdly, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no argument to do anything on any other page, especially when against the overall consensus of the site. - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I reviewed the wording in this article, and I am not seeing where the "generally positive" claim is attributed to. Why do we not use RT's statement that critics found Skyfall to be one of the best James Bond movies, or Metacritic's statement of "universal acclaim"? There are also additional statements to be found if we Google skyfall "critics" which shows results like this and this. The current wording seems to downplay the overall praise, which I assume is what WARNER one was getting at. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
92% is not "universal", despite the peacockery nonsense of the review aggregator sites. If you read the reviews, the film was also criticised (which is what our review section also covers). See also the thread below this, where one critic thought the film to be over-rated, so again, it's hardly "universal". The over reliance on the aggregator sites is a poor reflection on how a film is received: boiling down a balanced review of shade and nuance to a raw number (or to "fresh" or "rotten") is crass beyond belief, and there is no reason for us to follow that if we are reflecting the overall consensus of the critics by use of their actual words. - SchroCat (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I never said 92% was universal. Metacritic says "universal acclaim", and I can understand taking issue with "universal" as hyperbole. However, the problem is that "generally positive" is a weak label that could easily apply to a film that is between 70-89% on Rotten Tomatoes or at least green on Metacritic. A better approach is to be clearer about the RT and MC methodologies, such as how RT identifies reviews as positive or negative, never in between. Earth to Echo#Critical reception is an example I've been updating. In addition, per MOS:FILM#Critical response, we can use critical commentary to report on the overall consensus apart from RT and MC. The links above can do that, as well as Los Angeles Times, which states, "'Skyfall' is garnering excellent reviews, with many critics hailing it as one of the best Bond films of the series." That kind of thing is what the summary sentence should be based on. Betty Logan, you've troubleshooted Transcendence -- what do you think, for this particular film? Erik (talk | contrib) 18:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy that the review section we have here reflects the consensus of the critics, without moving into the peacockery that Rancid Tomatoes and Metacritic automatically go for. It may be a cultural thing: my English understatement is never going to bloat out the way that the aggregators tend to, and I'd rather the reviews spoke for themselves, than to let hyperbole rule the roost. Given the thread below, it's kind of ironic that we trying to strengthen the summary! If we are to go down the route of the LA Times summary, then there is no reason to exclude the Telegraph reviewer either: there is no sense in that. A cool reflection that removes the extremes and balances the consensus is what we should be aiming for, and I don't think that puffery in the opening sentence is the best way to go on this. - SchroCat (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
ps. I didn't mean to imply that you had suggested 92% was universal: I was talking generally about it's use, so sorry for the confusion there. - SchroCat (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
For that opening sentence we could have something like "The reviews surveyed by aggregators Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic were regarded as mostly positive" which would probably best reflect the actual partitioning on those sites. I think that would adequately summarise the aggregator findings; anything more specific than that would need to be directly sourced. If we really have to have that "universal acclaim" hyperbole in there it should be explicitly clear it is only a Metacritic label for their summary alone. Betty Logan (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Erik, regarding the Earth to Echo section: I think copying the format on this article would give too much weight to the aggregators. It may be fine for that article, where there are no actual reviews looked at, but this article provides a good selection of reviews, quotes from a range of the critics, and is balanced to reflect the what the sources actually say. In cases like this, an over-reliance on the crass aggregators is unnecessary. For those articles entirely lacking in an in-depth examination of the actual reviews themselves, then yes, an aggregator is a useful shortcut, but it isn't needed when we get the rest of the review section right. I know the MOS says we can use aggregators, but it's a question of whether we should use them in all circumstances, and I think not. - SchroCat (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Then how are you determining "a good selection of reviews" if you are ignoring the "crass" aggregators? Due weight should be achieved by following the lead of independent sources that state how critics have received a film overall, which includes aggregators and the periodicals I mentioned. We need attributable summary statements to lend credence to the balance of sampled reviews. Is the term "generally positive" based on the aggregators at all? It sounds like the aggregators are being ignored here and that "generally positive" is based on an assessment of individual reviews, which would be synthesis. Erik (talk | contrib) 15:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
No, they are not being ignored, but neither are they being taken as the single, sole source of information. They, along with other sources, are being taken together to come up with the current balanced view. Two quick examples are Waterstones, who say the film "has met with generally positive reviews", as does GlobalPost, ("The film has earned generally positive reviews from critics and fans"). Erik, this article wasn't just thrown together, and it represents the work of a large number of editors, so I don't think that accusing everyone who has worked on this (and who took part in the discussions here, here, here and here) of ignoring sources and synthesising is justified. This topic has been flogged to death to a large extent, and because of the four previous discussions on this exact point, it has a pretty strong consensus to remain, without having to veer wildly into peacockery. It may be that to satisfy those who worship at the altar of the aggregators we add their descriptors as a footnote, but to be honest, even that isn't a positive step. – SchroCat (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Overrated

I've placed a referenced sentence pointing expressing a reviewer's opinion that Skyfall is overrated. The opinion adds balance to the topic, and the linked article substantiates the opinion by with rationale and examples. This addition was reveted by User:Betty Logan with the claim that the change gave undue weight to "just one person's opinon". Any review, of course, is just one person's opinion.

After reverting the removal, User:Betty Logan again reverted the addition, this time claiming that the opinon is WP:FRINGE and that only "revies that are representative of the concensus" are selected. This, of course, is ludicrous; many people think that Skyfall was overrated and the opinion certainly isn't fringe. There is general agreement that the movie was overrated, so I believe the text (and its reference) should stay. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Now that User:SchroCat has reverted the text again with an admonishment to use the Talk page (despite this talk page section being added), I'm posting the text in question here so it's readily accesible to those who want to review it rather than revert it without participating in a conversation about its merit:
In April 2014, The Daily Telegraph placed the title on their top ten list of the most overrated films.

References

  1. Tim, Robey (2014-04-21). "10 most overrated films of all time". telegraph.co.uk. Telegraph Media Group. Retrieved 2014-06-01.
-- Mikeblas (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I reverted you. For a start you have ignored WP:BRD and edit warred to put in something you want. You should have come to the talk page without reverting Betty Logan. Secondly I reverted you (asking for you to come to the talk page for a second time) before you had saved this thread, so it wasn't "despite" anything. In future, please read and adhere to BRD AND use the talk page to come to an agreement, rather than edit warring. As to "There is general agreement that the movie was overrated", I think that's probably unmitigated balls, and certainly something unsupported by the vast majority of sources. - SchroCat (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • This is being discussed at the Film project where I have given a full explanation. I won't be contributing to this specific discussion because it affects several other articles too. That said I won't be making any more reverts to this article or the others until the main discussion arrives at a consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Box Office Gross Formatting

@SchroCat:. Is there a reason you don't want to follow the guidelines for MOS:LARGENUM and MOS:NUMERAL? AbramTerger (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, as per BRD, please discuss instead of reverting, not as well as. Secondly, we do adhere to both those guidelines. As per the note there, a million and a billion refer to differing amounts in differing territories, and this format gives clarity to those are who still consider a billion to be a million million, not a thousand million. Finally, don't add a source to it: it is sourced within the article and needs no additional (indeed, duplicated) reference. - SchroCat (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
The article is compliant with both guidelines as far as I can tell. Betty Logan (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
If it is consistent, then it seems that the Template:Format price is NOT set up correctly. I used the template to format the value, I did not manually format the value. As I see it, the guidelines with MOS:NUMERAL are for using the $1.11 billion not $1,108.6 million. MOS:NUMERAL states: "billion and trillion are understood to represent their short-scale values of 10^9 (1,000,000,000) and 10^12 (1,000,000,000,000), respectively." so the concern about misunderstanding is misplaced per WP standards. Also the film is a UK/US film and in both countries the short scale is used (the UK fully adopted it 40 years ago). Using a billion also keeps consistency with the rest of the article. From the lead:"Skyfall was positively received by critics and at the box office, becoming the 14th film, as well as the first Bond film, to cross the $1 billion mark worldwide". From the "Box Office" section: "Skyfall has earned $1.1 billion worldwide" and "Skyfall's takings at the box office saw it become only the fourteenth film and first Bond film to gross over $1 billion, making it the seventh highest-grossing film ever made at the time and taking it past the inflation-adjusted amount of $1.047 billion earned by Thunderball." If the consensus is that "$1,108.6 million" should be the format for the total gross in the infobox then we as editors should be consistent and use the "$1,000 million" instead of "$1 Billion" throughout the article. That can cause confusion when paraphrasing/quoting an article that uses $Billion (eg "Box Office Milestone: Daniel Craig's 'Skyfall' Crosses $1 Billion Worldwide". Also the category in wiki is "Billion-dollar grossing films", not One-thousand-million-dollar grossing films". As editors we need to be consistent within the article and also between articles. AbramTerger (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Just because {{Format price}} applies an arbitrary level of precision doesn't mean we are beholden to it, nor does it mean it is incorrect. It's simply a tool to facilitate formatting. There is nothing in the MOS that dictates precision, that is dependent on the context. Considering that film industry economics primarily operate in units of a "million" I would say the level of precision in the article is appropriate. I do agree that we should either consistently use a "billion" or consistently avoid the term though, and since a consensus stands to not use the term then occurrences of it should be brought into line with the rest of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
The precision in {{Format price}} can be adjusted as desired, it is the fact that it uses billion vs 1,000 million that I question if we want consistency. I can live with the 1,000 million. Thanks for making the changes.AbramTerger (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Plot copy edit

Hello! Yesterday I copy-edited the first part of the plot summary. I think it has a lot of redundancy and clumsy wording. A few examples:

"Computer hard drive" - all hard drives are for some sort of computer. You don't need to say "computer".

Like what? Cameras, phones, game consoles, yes - but these are all essentially computers. The hard drive might have been stolen from a PS3 for all it matters to the summary (and it's not like we specify it was taken from a laptop instead). Do you really think it is necessary for plot comprehension that we specify it is a computer hard drive?
A camera isn't a computer, neither is a phone, a Sky satellite box, a satnav system, or an external hard drive storage. We're just clarifying slightly for readers, and I don't see the problem in having it here. - SchroCat (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

"Presumed to be dead" can simply become "presumed dead".

"Presumed dead" is the standard term; a Google search produces about 148k results for "presumed to be dead" and about 601k for "presumed dead". Moreover, there is nothing bad about that English. For example, look at the uses of the construction "presumed dead" on the Guardian website; they read perfectly well. Popcornduff (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
A Google search? Why are we basing good English on the results of the semi-illiterate? Ditto on the use of journalistic English of the Grauniad? Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia, and it needs to use good, formal, encyclopaedic English, such as "Presumed to be dead". - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

"distant shot with a rifle" - is it necessary for plot comprehension to specify that the shot is taken with a rifle?

"Eve" - we refer to Bond as Bond in the plot summary (not James), but Moneypenny is "Eve". Why? Besides, the character is widely known as Moneypenny, not Eve.

  • There is a long history in the talk parchives as to why this was the format taken - you can go thrugh the rather long threads to read it for youself if you want, but it is there. - SchroCat (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

"containing details of undercover agents placed in terrorist organisations by NATO states" - we don't mention the thing about "placed in terrorist organisations by NATO states" again in the plot summary. Just stating "containing details of undercover agents" is sufficient here to convey that the information is sensitive and M wants it back. The rest is superfluous.

  • Can you explain why it isn't superfluous? I've searched the archives for the word "NATO" and found no discussion about whether that information should be included. It looks as if it has been unchallenged. Am I missing something? Popcornduff (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Again, gently clarifying for readers to understand. It adds to the material about political pressure: releasing the details of ones own agents is bad enough, but the agents of your NATO allies as well...? - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

"M comes under political pressure to retire from Gareth Mallory, the Intelligence and Security Committee Chairman" why specify that the pressure is political? we specify the job titles of Mallory and M so we know this is political, why is that important anyway? Popcornduff (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, it's gently clarifying things in the mind of the reader. It shows that Mallory is acting in a political manner, and isn't personally motivated into trying to steal M's job. By using the phrase "political pressure" we manage to suggest all that, but without having to spell it out in 20 or 30 words for readers. - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, these changes (and more) have been reverted twice by SchroCat. Can SchroCat explain why? Popcornduff (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I shouldn't have had to revert: see WP:BRD, and realise that if you've been reverted, it's for a reason, and the talk page is the place to go, not just re-revert. There were some other bits that were reverted as well, simply because they were, as the edit summary said, not improvements: rogue commas, a mistake and a couple of other issues led to the rv. - SchroCat (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
This is a fair cop; I was going by the three-revert rule, and didn't realise you should talk before re-reverting. Sorry about that. Popcornduff (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
OK. In pretty much every case here, you feel that the elements I contest are necessary clarifications. Is that correct? Rather than argue each one individually again, I'll try one last appeal.
Imagine you're a reader reading my version of the plot summary for the first time. Pretend you don't know what I've deleted. You read that Patrice has stolen "a hard drive". Would this information mislead you? Would it confuse you? Would you want to know what kind of hard drive it was? Is there anything later in the plot that having this information would be necessary to understand? Would you, basically, be any worse off for not knowing this? At all?
This applies to the rest of my edits. I am following the logic explained at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Film/Style_guidelines/Copy-editing_essentials#Don.27t_lose_the_plot. We must "craft a concise plot section that nevertheless leaves out nothing necessary for a full understanding of the article".
If you still think these are necessary clarifications, I'd like to know what other editors think. Popcornduff (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I've already stated my position: these are gentle clarifications. Don't forget that numerous editors have added and reduced this summary since the film came out, and in many cases they may have added bits that you are trying to remove: they felt the need to clarify, or to add a shade of detail here and there, and IMO, it's about right now. Maybe not perfect, but about right: your edits, I feel, were not an improvement, expecially where there was the introduction of two grammatical errors and a typo. - SchroCat (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
So you're basically saying "this has already been worked on a lot and therefore it can't be improved." I hope I don't need to explain why I don't find this convincing.
"Pierce" was an obvious stupid typo (Bond on the brain!) that could have been fixed individually. If the "two grammatical errors" you refer to are the two additional commas, well, uh, they're perfectly grammatical, and though the sentences are grammatical without them, the commas help readability. I'm surprised you argue for the "gentle clarification" of a tautology like "computer hard drive", but find the mentions of "Istanbul MI6" (where is this?) and "Shanghai Bond" (who's that?) grammatically necessary ambiguities. Popcornduff (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
No, that is not what I am saying, so please do not be so rude as to deliberately misrepresent my words. As I have very clearly said this is "not perfect, but about right".
The commas are not grammatical in BrEng. Maybe in AmEng, or in lazy writing, but not BrEng. Just to repeat for the hard of understanding, "computer hard drive" is not a tautology, and a number of examples are above which prove the point. The comma use was only one of the errors you introduced: you altered the grammatically correct "Presumed to be dead" to the incorrect "Presumed dead", as I've already taken the trouble to explain. I'm sorry you don't like the fact that you were reverted, but when you do something that worsens an article, it's what happens - especially over such minor points that don't need working on. - SchroCat (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Cameras, phones, Sky satellite boxes and satnavs all contain computer microchips and use hard drives for computing purposes. An external hard drive is not a computer, but neither is a "computer hard drive". This is needless pedantry and can be omitted. Popcornduff (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The thought had occurred to me and I don't mean Schro. You're coming across as pompous Popcornm give it a rest.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Fair enough - I'm driving this too hard. 16:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm so glad you agree that hard drives do not necessarily need to be in computers. It's not "needless pedantry", but a note of clarity. Yes, it can be omitted, but why bother, especially if you raise the question in people's minds as to if it is, for example, an external storage drive, such as a USB stick or similar? - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Do you have some reliable sources for those commas being ungrammatical in British English? "Presumed dead" is not grammatically incorrect; for example, "Bond is presumed dead" is grammatically identical, using the passive voice, to "The pancake is made delicious (by someone)" or "The house is painted green (by someone)". Do you think the Guardian is getting it wrong every time they use "presumed dead"? Or the Encyclopedia Britannica?Popcornduff (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Try reading one of the style guides (Fowler's Guide to Modern English or similar will educate you on good punctuation). As before, what journalists etc write is neither here nor there: presumed to be dead is perfectly correct, and the grammar doesn't need to be weakened. (As to "The pancake is made delicious (by someone)"… if that's your standard, then I'm more worried than I was before). - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify, "the pancake is made delicious" was not an example of a good sentence - it's a hideous use of the passive voice - but it is nonetheless grammatical, which you are contesting. 16:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • In future, don't break paragraphs to answer a point: answer after a paragraph, or between bullet points only. There is little point in continuing this between ourselves: it is not going to lead to any constructive change of mind, so I suggest we leave it to others to comment on. - SchroCat (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi I saw this on WP:3O. First, understand I have not seen this movie and know nothing about it. I reviewed Popcornduff edits and have mixed feelings about them, which unfortunately is not too helpful. Some of his edits were an improvement, some of them for the worse, and some seemed neutral and just not really necessary. I won't give a line by line critique, but will give one example of each. The change of "the latter" to "Pierce" is very confusing. Who is "Pierce"? The word Pierce is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. On the other hand, the earlier edit that clarified the train they were fighting atop was moving, was a helpful addition. And furthermore, breaking that long sentence up into smaller ones is also a slight improvement IMO. Since you both seem adamant about your positions, I think the solution is for you two to craft an article that includes some of the edits but not all of them. Popcornduff, perhaps you should take into consideration the feedback you received from SchroCat and acknowledge they have made good points, and try submitting something in the middle. For example, you now understand why "Eve" is used over "Moneypeney". Byates5637 (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. For the record, "Pierce" was a simple, idiotic typo on my behalf. It should have been "Patrice". Popcornduff (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment It's fair to say that hard drives are commonly associated with computers, but it doesn't hurt to clarify it for people who are unfamiliar with IT parlance. I personally would have gone for "presumed dead" if I had written the summary myself, but if it is incorrect in British English I am happy to defer to SchroCat on that one rather than The Guardian which is infamous among British media for its poor grasp of English. I am largely indifferent to things like "rifle" and "political pressure" i.e. the summary would get by without those terms, but we are not really gaining much in the way of brevity at the expense of losing some context. In truth it's a well-written plot summary, and while there are many alterations that could be made to it, very few of them would offer a qualitative improvement on what we've already got. In truth, the time of both parties would be better spent improving plot summaries that actually need improving. Betty Logan (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Film

An edit warring IP has been swapping out all uses of the term "film" for the Americanism "movie". This is against the long-standing use of the term film on the page. The IP has asked people to use the talk page, so here it is. IP, the floor is yours to explain why you are changing out a good word for the less appropriate one. - SchroCat (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Action. It is also against the long-standing use in the English language. A film can be many things, including a layer of slug slime. In the context of the film industry it can refer to a motion picture as a physical or creative entity, or even the medium of film-making itself. It can also be used in a verb sense referring to the creative act of creating a motion picture, regardless of whether actual photographic film stock is involved in the process (see Digital filmmaking). The IP should put a stop to this silliness otherwise only one person will be getting blocked. Cut. Betty Logan (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Skyfall: Difference between revisions Add topic