Talk:Gravity (2013 film)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gravity (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/20141104201719/http://www.catholicregister.org/arts/item/17074-gravity-opens-the-door-to-the-reality-of-god to http://www.catholicregister.org/arts/item/17074-gravity-opens-the-door-to-the-reality-of-god
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111026122503/http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/archives/producer_mark_heyman_says_alfonso_cuarons_gravity_will_shoot_this_may to http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/archives/producer_mark_heyman_says_alfonso_cuarons_gravity_will_shoot_this_may/

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) 02:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gravity (2013 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://www.webcitation.org/6HzYpGpsN?url=http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2010/03/15/robert-downey-jr-gravity-alfonso-cuaron/ to http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2010/03/15/robert-downey-jr-gravity-alfonso-cuaron/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140108103356/http://static.bafta.org/files/film-1314-nominations-master-list-2141.pdf to http://static.bafta.org/files/film-1314-nominations-master-list-2141.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) 19:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

plot section

the last line of the plot section has some problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.18.241.212 (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

archiving

Please don't manually archive talk points on pages with automatic archiving set up! (Such as this one)

There is a reason for us instructing the bot to hold off archiving until certain criteria have been met. There is absolutely no reason to manually archive pages with automatic archiving set up! If you have issues with the criteria (such as how old a discussion needs to be) discuss this on the page, achieve consensus, then change the archival parameters. CapnZapp (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

archiving questions

Extended content

This is quite unpleasant. First: Where is the archive ? I fail to see any link to it. But even if there was a link ... how does one continue an archived discussion ? How does one quickly see which topics have already been discussed ? In my personal opinion archiving requires maintanance. Just setting up a bot to throw away everything may be easy and always leaves a clean talk page, but it more or less anihilates everything people have contributed over time. This movie might be seen by somebody in 100 years and the discussions vanish after 120 days ... It may sound harsh, but I hate it. JB. --92.195.67.175 (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC) In the box just above this is a set of links to Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4. Immediately below that is a box to search the archives. Archiving does not "throw away" anything. Yes, I suppose we could leave 100 years of discussions on one page. This particular one, so far, would be rather long. Others would be completely worthless walls of text (my user talk page has 16 pages of archives, Talk:The Beatles is up to 33 pages at the moment). How does someone continue an archived discussion? Realistically, you probably don't. The earliest discussion in the archives for this page is at Talk:Gravity_(2013_film)/Archive_1#Bullock,_then_Clooney. Of the three editors in that discussion, one is indefinitely blocked and the other two haven't edited in over 5 years. You can certainly refer to that discussion (as I just did), should you find a need to revisit the issue of whether to credit Bullock or Clooney first, but "continuing" that discussion is rather unlikely to happen. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC) The proper answer on how to continue an archived discussion is: you start a new talk page section, possibly referencing the old (archived) one. Whether the original editors are still around or not is immaterial. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 10:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)  Note: Since this question is unrelated to the article, it's going to be walled off with off topic tags. Holding off until everyone is satisfied with the answers given. CapnZapp (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC) First of all thank you everybody for taking the time to respond to my question. I may not agree with everybody but I'm glad to understand how others see these things. I now located the "Archive 1 2 3 4" ... OK, I still think that's very small in relation to all the other text there. Yesterday I was simply unable to see it at all. I understand the caustic repleys about leaving a 100 years worth of text on one page etc. What I meant was not exactly that. Maybe I can explain it better when I tell how I use WP in many cases ... I first read the article about my topic of interest and then I go to the talk page and have a quick look to see how objective everybody thinks the article is. In some cases there are edit wars visible and I can quickly see the other point of view. Here I struck an empty talk page. I would have prefered one that kept the major topics that people came up with over time. I cannot find those by searching because I would not know what to search for. But I agree now that I can click on the archive pages - just failed to see them, sorry. Last not least "off topic" ... seriously ? As far as I understood the talk page is all about how to improve the WP presentation of a topic. For me that includes the talk page as it is part of the material provided to the reader. Marking that "off topic" as if I had started a discussion about the moon landing ... well ... not very accommodating. Once again, thanks to everybody. JB. --92.195.29.182 (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Asking about how talk pages work is a perfectly valid question, but it should be asked elsewhere, hence my comment. It wasn't personal. That said, you definitely have a point about leaving empty talk pages - this is exactly why I oppose cleaning out the page using OneClickArchiver! (As a perhaps technical note: no, the automatic archival wasn't responsible - it's carefully set up to not archive talk page sections needlessly fast, and it is specifically instructed to always leave five sections visible, regardless of age. No, the emptying was made manually by a user using a script named "OneClickArchiver". It has nothing to do with the automatic archival, which you can read up on here: User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo. Now, if you want to argue select old talk sections should be kept, feel free to suggest this but again not here. This talk page is worked the same as all other talk pages, and so that request is not specific to the article of the Gravity movie. That is all I mean by "off topic". For instance my own explanation just now is also off topic for this talk page (as was my earlier post, and I responded at the user's personal talk once I realized who used the script), yet here I am answering you. It does not mean your opinion should not count - only that you need to take the discussion to an appropriate venue. Begin at the Village Pump, and they will help you. Best regards CapnZapp (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC) OK, that makes it clear. My original intention was to argue to use a more light-handed approach with archiving - and I meant this exact topic, not generally how the WP behaves. That's why I put it here. I was just comparing the situation here with the situation on other talk pages. Now that you explained to me that a person intentionally cleared everything out and that it was not the automatics this answers my question and btw. also shows that I asked in the right spot ;-). Thank you again for taking the time. ... This can be archived now ... JB. --92.195.123.215 (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC) Glad we could come to an amicable conclusion! Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Is gravity science fiction

"Gravity is a 2013 science fiction thriller film".

Really? How is it science fiction? Surely it's a historical disaster movie? HughesJohn (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. Please first peruse the following archived talk page sections, and then I will be happy to address any remaining questions you might have.

• Talk:Gravity (2013 film)/Archive_1#Is_Gravity_science_fiction?
• Talk:Gravity (2013 film)/Archive_2#Sci-fi_or_not_sci-fi,_again
• Talk:Gravity (2013 film)/Archive_3#"Gravity_is_not_sci-fi_but_a_drama_set_in_space"

Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 09:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Long story short: Whether or not you consider it science fiction depends on your definition of "science fiction". Whether or not Wikipedia considers it science fiction depends on what reliable sources say. The majority of sources call it science fiction, so Wikipedia says it is science fiction. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

To add to that: the step "The majority of sources call it science fiction" is where us Wikipedians enter the picture. That is, our job is to arrive at a consensus on what best represents available sources, and then write our articles to reflect that. (Just a note to avoid the notion we use some simple counting algorithm or other "objective" criteria - or that we let SummerPhD decide :-)

Consensus can change and does on occasion. For example, how a movie is regarded sometimes changes over the years sufficiently that our articles change too. All that's needed is for a single editor to start a discussion! In this case, however, I think it would be a tall order to change consensus on Gravity's genre. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Ouch. Yeah, "majority" was a bad word choice and I get cantankerous. Sorry if I put my opinion on a pedestal (I agree with my opinion, it's confirmation bias).

I personally would want to look at who was saying it and in what context. The review aggregators giving capsule snapshots of the film say it's scifi.[1][2][3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SummerPhDv2.0 (talk • contribs) ; note by CapnZapp (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit war

I have restored the last version prior to the edit war between wallyfromdilbert and CapnZapp. Both of you can discuss the issue, walk away or continue to edit war.

If you discuss the issues, you might be able to figure it out.

If one of you walks away, your opinion won't matter.

If either or you edit wars, you will be blocked from editing. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I removed unsourced material about the reception from the lead as per this recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Reception details in lead, which resulted in additional guidance being added to the MOS. I also left CapnZapp a note about my removal and the discussion: [4]. Wikipedia is based on verifiable information, and the policy WP:BURDEN is clear that unsourced contested material should not be restored until the person restoring provides support for it. SummerPhDv2.0, could you please explain why you are restoring that material without either sources or a consensus to include it. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I moved to end the edit war. Your options are clearly outlined on the talk page. If you feel you are in the right to restore your change without waiting for discussion, you will not be discussing it with me. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

So you are not providing a response regarding the content you put in? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The passage in question is this: Particular praise was given to Emmanuel Lubezki's cinematography, Steven Price's musical score, Cuarón's direction, Bullock's performance, Framestore's visual effects, its use of 3D, and its overall realism. Nothing about this comes across to me as particularly smelling of original research or synthesis. Instead, I find it highly plausible some editor has inserted it in good faith, summarizing good sources, just like how a good article is built. Maybe it was even once associated clearly with a source? So instead of outright deleting the passage, I felt it valuable to discuss it here on talk. I am absolutely prepared to have the material removed from the page if the consensus agrees (silently or not). All I can ask for is having it discussed! Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Do note: I am in no way against moving it out of the lead. There is no need to invoke changes to the MOS, since we already don't have paragraphs in the lead that aren't supported by the main text. Even a quick perusal of the page history will quickly confirm that I am wholly on board with moving the passage out of the lead. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Finally, a friendly note to User:Wallyfromdilbert. I would personally not recommend reverting an admin a mere 7 minutes after being threatened with a block. I would instead engage in discussion. But you do you. CapnZapp (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

CapnZapp, you should check who admins are. They can protect a page if they think that is appropriate. As per WP:BURDEN, the material should not be restored until there is sourcing or some kind of consensus to include. You did not attempt to add sources, you simply restored unsourced content (the first time even right back into the lead, which is when I left you a message about the MOS discussion). As for the content you added back into the article, it looks strongly like the typical WP:SYNTH in a film article. It is not supported by review aggregator summaries such as Rotten Tomatoes, which I relied upon when I reduced the unsourced material in the lead with the material adequately supported in the main body [5]. Your claim that I "outright deleted the passage" is inaccurate and not helpful to an honest discussion. If you think that picking and choosing various aspects of individual reviews to state what aspects of the film received "particular praise" generally in an unattributed statement, then that is WP:SYNTH and you would benefit by reviewing the MOS discussion and change. If you have sources for those claimed aspects of the film being praised, then add them with attribution to the the reception section. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

At this time, I simply note that you have finally decided to come to the discussion table. A great first step, Wally! CapnZapp (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I both left a note on your talk page, and left a comment on this talk page explaining my position two days ago. If you want to lie, you should probably do it in a forum that does not log all comments. It would be nice if you would actually provide a reason for why you repeatedly are restoring content against policy as well. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

When you return from your block, Wally, there's been enough time for other editors to chime in, I think. Meaning, at that time, the issue has been resolved one way or the other. Not that I see any point in responding to you, since your comments so far give zero indication you are willing to listen. CapnZapp (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Removal of quote

CapnZapp added this content in July [6]: "In James Cameron's documentary Story of Science Fiction, astronaut Cady Coleman who advised Sandra Bullock on the movie says 'The only really big mistake they made in the movie, is that if you were up on a space station, the last thing you do is let George Clooney go.'" I removed this quote last month, and CapnZapp has now restored this month. I have removed the quote as not encyclopedic and WP:UNDUE, and instead replaced it with the sentence: "Astronaut Cady Coleman advised Sandra Bullock on the film". As the quote is simply a joke by a random advisor about George Clooney, I'm not sure how it improves the article. I am starting this discussion to see if there is consensus to include the quote as per WP:ONUS. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the quote does not belong. It's fluff flavor for what should be an encyclopedic tone. I'm amused by it, but it doesn't fit or matter. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Critic list

So, there's been a disagreement regarding the addition of the film critic list. As per WP:FILMCRITICLIST, "While a concise summary of critics' top-ten lists can be added, do not list individual critics' lists on which a film appears, except on a case-by-case basis subject to consensus. With a film largely overlooked for awards, a prose summary of it appearing on such lists may be appropriate; likewise with films nominated for awards yet appearing on few such lists."

Rather than getting involved in an WP:EDITWAR, which is forbidden, I’m opening up a discussion here to see if it's appropriate to include the critics list here. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Per the guidelines, I am fine with a summary of Gravity's ranking on Metacritic's 2013 Film Critic Top Ten Lists. It is too indiscriminate to name every film critic and ranking for the Wikipedia article. The individuals and the periodicals are not as relevant as the combined overview. I would write something like, "Gravity was on 93 film critics' top-ten lists for 2013, with 22 critics ranking it first and 17 critics ranking it second." While it's not as needed, we could also mention that it is second to 12 Years a Slave in how many lists it appeared on, which would give it context within the year. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the guidelines that listing every film critic's top 10 list is excessive. I think the number of top 10 lists is probably not needed either since this film has received widespread acclaim that is already discussed in the reception section, and that type of information would be more noteworthy if there was a secondary source for it. However, I would not be opposed to the type of summary suggested by Erik, although I think mentioning the 22 who ranked it first is sufficient. I don't think we should be pulling out individual critic's names in that sentence, as was done in the content that CapnZapp had repeatedly restored to the article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that widespread acclaim does not necessarily equate being on many top-ten lists. Like Athlete A has that acclaim but is not on the list. (The source's references show that one critic listed in her top-ten list.) I understand about it not being a secondary source, but primary sources can be used in a limited and descriptive way that is a decent substitute for dealing with individual top-ten lists. I think it could even be seen as a secondary source combining and scoring these individual lists. I'm also not finding it worthwhile to list 22 mostly-random (to the readers) names because it's the combined sentiment more than any one person's sentiment. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I should note that said list of random names also violates a relevant policy: WP:NOT#INFO. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Yep, when I said "indiscriminate" above, I was referring to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

CapnZapp, as you were the one repeatedly restoring this content, are you going to express your opinion here? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I think a consensus has formed that no exception to general policy is warranted. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)