Talk:Blackrock (film)

Potential sources

Soundtrack

• "Excellent sound track" Carmen, Diane (2 February 1997). ""Company of Men' among the best of Sundance films: Rockies Edition". The Denver Post. p. 10.
• "LOUD (mainly because of the hard alt-rock music that accompanies the scenes) and tough Australian teen-pic about a coastal community that's sent into a state of shock by the murder of a 15-year-old girl after an all-night beach party." Murthi, R.S. (14 July 1998). "Well-plotted flick on life and love". New Straits Times. p. 4.

Freikorp (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Vidler quoted in the special features on the DVD: "The soundtrack is very strong, tall, particularly for younger audiences. It's something that they've come to expect and we spent a hell of a lot of time and consideration finding, sifting thought hundreds and hundreds of CDs, you know, as they kind of came off the presses trying to find stuff that was not only appropriate for the film but would also be appealing to the audiences and hopefully, you know, would be released around the same time as the film, which isn't as easy as it sounds!" Freikorp (talk) 08:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Blackrock (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sock (talk · contribs) 17:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this later today. Great timing, with Leigh Leigh's murder just being featured. This subject has recently reinvigorated my interest, and seeing as I saw this article in early December (when it didn't look anywhere near this good) I'm happy to review what looks like marked improvement! Give me a few hours. Sock (tock talk) 17:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Freikorp: Several hours later than intended, I'm here to review! Sorry, I ended up going to dinner with a bunch of friends and passed out shortly after I got home. Just a head's up, I get incredibly thorough with my GA reviews, and generally go through them in the same manner as I would with a Featured Article candidate. Don't take any of my nitpicks personally, I just like to make sure an article is as good as it can be before I pass it. Sock (tock talk) 15:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

• Why isn't Nick Enright linked under the "producer" field rather than the "writer" field?
• Specify which territory the 1 May release was in.
• I added the Sundance premiere to the infobox as suggested by WP:FILMRELEASE, feel free to disagree.
• Who edited the film?
• The sources for the runtimes are iffy at best. DVDs are inconsistent with how they label runtime. I'd stick with the BBFC's runtime of 86 minutes, just for argument's sake.
  • This version length is clearly for the UK release of the DVD (which incidentally I didn't know existed), though as DVD lengths are inconsistent with labelling run-times it's fair to assume its the same length as the Australia version. Anyway are you saying I should lose the American version length altogether and just list the film as being 86 minutes, with no mention of different versions? Freikorp (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    • In the infobox, no. Several members of WP:FILM recently had a discussion about this, and we came to the conclusion that the reliably-sourced theatrical runtime was all that should go in the infobox. Definitely don't remove the alternate runtimes from the body, they're notable, but the infobox should only include one runtime. Since the BBFC is the most reliable source at our disposal in terms of runtime, I'd suggest we go with it. Sock (tock talk) 13:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Done. Freikorp (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Truncated box office numbers (feel free to look at MOS:LARGENUM and this consensus discussion.

Lead

• Alternate opening sentence: "Blackrock is a 1997 Australian drama thriller film directed by Steven Vidler and written by Nick Enright. Marking Vidler's directorial debut, the film was adapted from the play of the same name, also written by Enright, which was inspired by the murder of Leigh Leigh."
• "and also features the film prominent role of Heath Ledger." There's a film called Prominent Role of Heath Ledger? :P I'm not entirely sure what that means, but I'm assuming you meant "first prominent film role"?
• "The film premiered at the Sundance Film Festival, though it was not released theatrically in the United States." Not sure that the US part is relevant enough to mention in the lead, but if it is, it definitely shouldn't be in this sentence.
• Could use a little more description of Jared in the lead. Something like "The film follows Jared (Breuls), a young surfer(?) who witnesses his friends raping a girl (Bojana Novakovic). When she is found murdered the next day, Jared is torn between revealing what he saw and protecting his friends." Something along those lines.
• Specifying which awards it was nominated for could be a nice touch.
  • I thought specifying all five nominations would be a bit much, so I mentioned one nomination and both awards won. Freikorp (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I forgot to actually finish this thought, my bad. I meant to say "in the lead". Mentioning that it was nominated for five AACTA Awards, one for Best Film, is certainly notable. The two AWGIE Awards could go up there as well. Just mix it in with the reception portion of the lead. Sock (tock talk) 13:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• I made a few changes to the third paragraph, mostly grammar fixes. See if you think they improved the article.

Plot This is the most problematic area for sure. A lot of oddly specific details, and some big ones completely neglected. This part's gonna be kind of thick.

Just for the record, the plot was the only part of the article I didn't actually write; I pretty much left it as I found it. Freikorp (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Ahh, quick to pin the blame on others I see :P Sock (tock talk) 13:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Ditch the "Blackrock is set..." portion. The plot should be described in-universe. Ditto with "the film ends with..."
• "odyssey" is a strong word. "Trip"? "Vacation"?
• Alcohol portion isn't necessary. It's never brought up again that anyone was drunk or that it made any difference.
• How relevant is Jared seeing Toby and Tracy having sex? Toby seems to be the only one who didn't rape her, based on the summary, so is he later considered to be a rapist (based on the fact that he desires to "protect Toby and the other rapists")? I'm a bit confused here.
  • From my recollection of the film, Toby doesn't appear to rape Tracy, though I believe he is accused of doing so. I'm rewording so as to address this issue. Freikorp (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Great! I changed "her brother" to "Toby", since he's been named and it's been established that he's Rachel's brother. Just in case people can't remember his relation, they can look for his name. Sock (tock talk) 13:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Suggestion for change: "He later witnesses three males raping Tracy on the beach and flees the party. Later that night, Rachel finds Tracy's beaten corpse on the beach." Not sure this is the best wording, but specifying that she's alive is unnecessary. If the plot doesn't say "they rape and kill her", she's still alive as far as we know.
  • I've reworded it. I thought it should be mentioned that the three males interrupted the consensual sex and then proceeded to rape Tracy. Freikorp (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Reads much better now, that was definitely an important detail. Consider this addressed. Sock (tock talk) 13:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Who is Rachel's brother?
• "for the sake of justice" is a bit dramatic, unless that's his actual reasoning.
• Suggested change: "His silence leads to the breakdown of his relationship with both Rachel and his mother (Linda Cropper), who has recently been diagnosed with breast cancer." Is the breast cancer part relevant? It almost feels like that line in The Room when the mom says "I definitely have breast cancer" and then it's never brought up again.
  • The breast cancer has a notable sub-plot in the film. Because of how withdrawn Jared becomes, his mother has a very difficult time trying to explain the situation to Jared. I'll try and add something about this to the article. Freikorp (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Added some more about the cancer sub-plot, including its first mention. Freikorp (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• How long is "eventually"? Any timespan?
  • I'll try and find out. In the mean time i've removed the word. Freikorp (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    • You removed one, but there's another instance in the last sentence that could use some specificity (if possible) as well. Sock (tock talk) 13:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Removed the second mention. Freikorp (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• When did Jared talk to the police? That would definitely be worth including in here. Suggested change, if you add that information: "He asks Jared help prove his innocence by telling the police that they were together when the murder happened. When Jared goes back to the police..."
  • I'll try and find out when Jared talked to the police. Off the top of my head i'm not sure if it was actually shown, rather Jared may have just told Ricko about it. Freikorp (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. Freikorp (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Suggested change: "Jared finds Ricko at the beach and confronts him, and Ricko confesses that he killed Tracy. He found her on the beach after the rape, and she asked him to take her home."
• "– and ignoring Jared's screams of protest," needs to either have a hyphen or a comma on either side, not both.
• The entire closing of the plot section is worded very clunkily. Specifically, the second-to-last sentence "In the weeks that follow, Jared's life collapses – he leaves home (despite finally finding out about his mother's illness and her recent mastectomy), buys Ricko's panel van and takes up residence in a stack of concrete pipes on a vacant block" is very long, and pretty unclear. "takes up residence in a stack of concrete pipes on a vacant block"? So he lives on the street now, right? It's oddly specific and it makes it strange to read.
  • Any better now? Freikorp (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Much better. You're doing fantastic! Sock (tock talk) 13:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Cast

• A-okay.

Production

• This section is pretty thin. Is there any more information on filming dates or production or anything? If not, I can't really fault you for it, but it's pretty skinny.
  • I expanded it a bit using my existing sources. Let me know if you think the quotes from Enright and Elfick add to the section or not. I'll try and expand the section further once I borrow the DVD and watch the featurettes. Freikorp (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Apart from a small typo, great additions! I'll leave this unstriked for now, but expect it to be considered "addressed" when/if you get more info from the DVD. If you can't, this section is pretty good. Sock (tock talk) 13:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Release

• This section does not exist. That's a problem. Release dates and premiere dates should be included here, as well as box office information. Try to add as much info as you can about the film's releases or screenings at festivals and whatnot, and talk about the box office gross in Australia and internationally.
• It seems you already have some of this information in the "Reception" section, so just move it up to a new one. Also, make sure you put "Home media" as a subsection of release when you make it.
  • Better now? Freikorp (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Absolutely. Sock (tock talk) 13:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Reception

• You gloss over the Premiere negative review, and don't even name the author. I would highly recommend including more info from this review to keep things balanced.
  • The source cited for that review states "The response to its premiere at the Sundance Film Festival was unfavourable, reviews in Variety and Premiere were poor". I was able to track down the negative Variety review and cite it directly, but I could never find the Premiere one. Despite this, I felt the need to add this glossed over mention, as I later state "... that when shown outside Australia, the film lacked the "poignant and powerful narrative support of Leigh's tragedy", and was deemed by critics to be "shallow and clichéd". However I couldn't find many negative reviews from outside Australia to support this assertion, so I felt the need to mention as much as I could about negative reviews. What do you think I should do? Keep the brief mention, or lose it? Freikorp (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    • That was my bad for not looking through the source. I dug through the archives of the internet for nearly a half hour trying to find this, and I couldn't get it either. My assumption is that the review was in a printed version, and due to the film's general obscurity, it was never really archived online. I'd say leave the mention for the sake of balance. Unfortunate that we can't find the review. Sock (tock talk) 13:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I just found an offline article in the Sydney Morning Herald (Rose, Colin (19 April 1997). "Film Noir", page 13) which mentions the Premiere review: "FAST-forward to January 1997, Park City, and the Sundance Film Festival. Blackrock was a flop. Such was the opinion, at least, of Premiere, the American movie magazine. Everyone, the magazine reported, was looking for another Shine, which had done very well at the previous year's festival. Premiere's profile of Sundance '97 led off with the story of "the Australian surfer drama": "All the players were there, from Disney to New Line, clutching their all-access fast passes, shoving their way through the narrow doorway of the Prospector Square Theatre ... The line for wait-list tickets snaked down the hallway. "Within minutes, every seat was filled. Rumours were flying ... As the audience quietly filed out during the closing credits, however, the lobby atmosphere was more dentist's office than Arabian bazaar. 'It's a good thing they had the party before the movie,' commented one publicist. At press time, Blackrock was still surfing for a US distributor." Freikorp (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Accolades

• No issues. It's thin, but the film didn't win that many accolades, so I can't really fault you there either.

Home media

• Any DVD sales information? This area needs a bit of expansion if possible.
  • Not that i'm aware of. If a source can be located i'd be happy to expand the section, though I could not find one. Freikorp (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I couldn't find anything either, so disregard this. Sock (tock talk) 13:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

References

• FN1 and 2 need to be replaced with more reliable ones. If there isn't a news article discussing the home media releases, this information should probably just be removed, and the DVD release date can just be tacked on to the "Release" section.
  • I don't think the 'Urban Cinefile' source is unreliable. According to their 'About Us' page, in addition to other grounds for notability, their website has been considered notable enough to be archived in the Pandora project. Freikorp (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• FN10 needs page numbers
  • It does have a page number, "i" is what is printed on the page. As in it is one of the very first pages explaining the background; pages are only given actual numbers once the play itself begins. Freikorp (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I can honestly say that my eyes didn't even register the "i" sitting there. My bad! Sock (tock talk) 13:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Images

• Poster is fine.
• Ferry is fine.
• No other images. Is it possible to get at least one more image relating to this film? Perhaps one of Leigh in the reception section, summarizing how people felt that it used her murder as the basis? Something like that would add to it.
  • The only photo of Leigh on wikipedia is the one from the inbox at her murder article. So you think that one would be appropriate and justifiable under fair use? I'm happy to add it to that section if you think so. Freikorp (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I didn't even think about the fact that Leigh's picture is fair use. I don't think we can swing that for including here, so never mind that suggestion. If we come across a free photo of Breuls, he could be included, but I don't see that happening. Addressed. Sock (tock talk) 13:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Pass/Fail: All in all, this article looks pretty good. You're in need of some good cleanup, some better sources, and some more info, but you've done great so far. Do you have a DVD copy, by chance? The featurettes on that can be really helpful, and are perfectly valid sources to include. For instance, a lot of the information I got for The FP came from commentaries and featurettes. Just a suggestion. I'll leave this on hold for a week without improvement before I close it. If you reply and/or start making changes before then, don't worry about that deadline. I'm patient. Sock (tock talk) 15:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough review. I can get access to a copy of the DVD via my library, and will have a look at the featurettes. I've started addressing your concerns. If you don't mind, i'm going to strikethrough them so I can keep track of where i'm up to. Feel free to un-strikethrough if you think the issue hasn't been addressed adequately. If i've skipped an issue i'm not necessarily ignoring it, i'll probably come back to it later. Freikorp (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm done editing for today, i'll resume addressing concerns sometime tomorrow. Looking forward to your responses to my replies so far. :) Freikorp (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Sock: Hi there. I've now responded to almost everything I can without obtaining a copy of the DVD (which would be helpful for featurettes and clarifying minor points in the plot). My local library has a copy in stock, though searching their online database today shows it is currently on loan. I'm not sure how long it will take my hands on it; i'll keep you posted. In the meantime, i'f be thrilled if you could go over the points i've attempted to address thus far, and let me know if further work needs doing in any area. Freikorp (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Freikorp: You have done an absolutely fantastic job. You've addressed all of my points very well and made the article look even better than in already did. I'm not going to pass this just yet, because I want to wait until you get a chance to rewatch the film and comb the special features and there's still a couple of issues that haven't been sorted out, but have no doubt that this will be passed in the near future. You've done some stellar work here, not unlike your work on the murder of Leigh Leigh page. Sock (tock talk) 13:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Sock: Thank you, i've enjoyed working on it. While I was at the library today reserving the DVD for when it is returned, I borrowed the book Who killed Leigh Leigh, which I used to write the murder article. I've expanded the production and reception sections using the book, though i'm considering instead moving parts of the newly added information, along with other information in the book and the Donna Lee Brien reference, to a new 'Historical accuracy' section. Freikorp (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me know what you think about this change: [1]. Sorry I don't normally make significant changes once a nomination has begun, but my trip to the library and rediscovering of an old offline source made me aware of a way that the article could be improved. Freikorp (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

And now just to make thing more difficult for you i've added a new casting sub-section. Let me know what you think. Sorry but i'm just on a role with finding new information for this article :). Freikorp (talk) 12:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Sock: Well the good news is I got the DVD of the film and fixed all the plot issues. The bad news is the library's copy is the international version, which has no special features. Considering I don't have easy access to the featurettes, would you be able to pass this nomination in good faith? I intend to nominate this article for featured status one day, so I can assure you i'll find them eventually, I just don't know when that will be. Freikorp (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Freikorp: Just to clarify, this article has already met the good article criteria. I just wanted to give you a chance to add in the featurette info and double check it before passing if you did. Since that's not happen, I'm happy to pass this article. Fantastic work, Freikorp! Sock (tock talk) 12:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations on appearing on Wikipedia's main page as a "Did you know..." listing. I've been involved in the DYK process, (never successfully, I might add!) and so I know the time it takes and the coordination required between between editors...let's just say it isn't the easiest thing to accomplish. You deserve recognition, appreciation and applause. Thank you very much to all the contributing editors who made this listing possible.:The Very Best of Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  10:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Soundtrack

I'd love to format the soundtrack section using the tracklist template, except I don't know what most of the track lengths are. Here is the half completed table for future reference if I or anyone else find a copy of the soundtrack and can find out the track lengths. Freikorp (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

No.	Title	Music	Length
1.	"The Way of All Things"	Rebecca's Empire
2.	"Teach Me"	The Cruel Sea
3.	"Saturated"	Beasts of Bourbon
4.	"Portable Walt Whitman"	Ben Lee
5.	"Gonna Make You"	The Troggs
6.	"Titanic Days"	Sidewinder
7.	"A Day Away"	Shihad
8.	"Bound for the Floor"	Local H	3:42
9.	"Ghost of Love Returned"	Clouds
10.	"Not Coming Home"	Sidewinder
11.	"No Need to Argue"	The Cranberries	2:54
12.	"Tailor's Eye"	Swirl
13.	"Kisses"	Tracy Bonham	2:20
14.	"State of Graceful Mourning"	Died Pretty
15.	"Blackrock Antitheme"	Steve Kilbey

Now a FA in Chinese Wikipedia

I have translated this article to Chinese Wikipedia here and promoted to FA status, and I want to thank User:Freikorp for his effort to write this amazing article. --Jarodalien (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blackrock (film). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140209075310/http://film.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/967/AA4_Aust_Box_office_report.pdf to http://www.film.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/967/AA4_Aust_Box_office_report.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blackrock (film). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141218161814/http://www.aacta.org/winners-nominees/1990-1999/1997.aspx to http://www.aacta.org/winners-nominees/1990-1999/1997.aspx

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blackrock (film). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141222135228/http://www.bostonphoenix.com/archive/movies/97/09/04/BFF_trailers/BLACKROCK.html to http://www.bostonphoenix.com/archive/movies/97/09/04/BFF_trailers/BLACKROCK.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links

I realize sometimes things can just creep in and the "External links" section is no exception.

I removed "OzMovies" from the section. It was a dead link and offers nothing unique or extra over just listing the various sites. The section could use more trimming because others listed run the same track and is just linking a site because we use it. Otr500 (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Review

• IMDb- Standard site used a lot.
• TCM- Offers nothing unique or even new
• Allmovie- Also offers nothing unique or new. The "Synopsis by Sandra Brennan" appears to be a company release repeated below.

• Rotten Tomatoes- The "MOVIE INFO" is a duplicate of Allmovie.
• Palm Beach Pictures- One of the production companies for the movie offering nothing unique or new.

I can see no argument that would allow the indiscriminate listing of all the sites other than the advertisement found on each page. WP:EL offers a guideline on the use of such sites and it seems using more than one is just link farmimg. Inundating Wikipedia with these many sites serves no actual purpose as they mainly just repeat each other that surely does not help a "featured article". If there is consensus that some "must be used" I would suggest only a couple of the better ones and trim the rest. Otr500 (talk) 10:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

This really shouldn't be a discussion held per film article and should be either held at the project level to gain consensus on usage, or even at WP:TFD if you think the template allows linking as advertisement. --Gonnym (talk) 10:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The only one I would retain is the production company's one, ie as an "official site". The rest if no good or not used for references are just junk. Aoziwe (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I really agree with Gonnym that this conversation needs to be held at project level. I agree that Oz Movies should have been removed. I'm on the fence about the Palm Beach Pictures link. The other ones, however, are (for better or worse) an accepted standard; this isn't the place to try and argue that they shouldn't be included in external links anymore. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello and thanks, I wasn't aiming to effect a project change. I would have to review many links and compare them across several articles. Even then there may be some content that might make using one particular link on one article and a different one on another. I did look at the ones on this particular article. They all pretty much have the same information, and some (noted above) are exact duplicates.

I haven't run across any project specifying a preference or any exclusions. Any "standard" of adding links should certainly be on a case-by-case basis, not just because we have a template for that link, and certainly omitted if they don't provide anything unique that can't be incorporated into the article for various reasons including possible copyright issues.

I do agree that it is acceptable to use an "official" site. I actually just made comparisons on this article to see if any could be trimmed not expecting that they would all pretty much offer the same thing. If that is generally true across the board, then maybe they are just sites inundating article pages with no net gain and maybe should be considered at the project level. That is not my intent though. I will also remove Rotten Tomatoes that offers only duplication. Otr500 (talk) 10:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)