Talk:Tidal Wave (2009 film)

Sea of Japan (East Sea)

Community consensus was reached at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Sea of Japan (East Sea) when referring to the above body of water. Please check the above link before changing any pertinent information in this article. Thanks! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Poster

Please restore the original poster to this article. The original image is more identifiable to English-speaking audiences as it has been used for the UK DVD cover, and the size of the new image is not compliant with MOS:FILM regarding fair use images. PC78 (talk) 01:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I just explained why but you don't seem to be listening to what I am saying. The objects of the photo are too small. And I could hardly see the title even when it is in Korean. It's just one poster I changed what's the big deal PC78? Force a change? I thought you were allowed to change information on Wikipedia that's why it's open freely, isn't it? My poster is now 350px and is under 100MB. It also looks like the same size as yours. It's just that in this one the objects are closer, so you see what's happening more clearly.Colleen16 01:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Colleen, can you please stop posting the same comments in more than one place, as it makes it harder to reply to you. The old image was fine, the objects were not "too small" and the title was perfectly readable. You are not allowed to do as you please and should have stopped to discuss the change when I first objected to it, not continued to edit war to suit your own preference. And you have not properly explained why a change was necessary. The purpose of the poster is to identify the film, not the cast. The previous image did that just fine, and is more recognisable internationally as I said above. The change is not good. PC78 (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And you only want to keep it because it's in the UK. And how do you know that it is international where is your proof PC78? And just to let you know the cast is what makes the film. If the film had no cast could you image how terrible that would be. Colleen16 01:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Colleen16 01:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

By international I mean outside Korea. And yes, it is relevant that the image was used in the UK because this is the English-language Wikipedia. If it helps, here is the same image used (slightly modified) on a Vietnamese poster [1]. Regarding cast, that's a rather silly argument. PC78 (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it really now? You are saying that because you know I am making a point. I have never seen a poster that doesn't have that cast or star actor/actress. Have you? Certain people on Wiki always find a way to get around things so that they get what they want and the fact that you have authority makes it all the more convincing, right? Anyways, do want you want. Colleen16 02:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying it's silly because it is. Just about every film has a cast. Not all film posters show the cast; many don't. The purpose of a film poster is not to show off the cast but to make the film attractive to audiences. I'm not "getting around" anything and I have no "authority", I'm just arguing my point. PC78 (talk) 11:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As the film is Korean, I tend to prefer the new image as it is the actual theatrical poster for the film, versus a DVD cover. The DVD cover's being an English cover does not, to me, make it more preferred, and could be construed as reflecting systemic bias. It is much like with a foreign novel, you'd still use the first cover of the original novel where available, not just the first English one. Yes, we highlight the English release in the prose and use the English name, but I think for identification we should stick with the original poster if its available (and in this case appears to be), just as the infobox focuses on the original language, not the later English translation. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd also agree that the initial poster seems to be the best option for the article. In addition to its wider usage, the first image provides a better preview of what the film includes (while also featuring a few members of the cast). If the article wants to include images of the cast, then free images can be added to the cast section (if available). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 21 December 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Tidal Wave (film) → Tidal Wave (2009 film) – This may be considered an uncontroversial move request. When, on March 16, 2017, Submersion of Japan was moved to Tidal Wave (1973 film) (and that move has not yet been disputed), the qualifier for this entry should have been revised to "(2009 film)". The title Tidal Wave (film) should have then been redirected to Tidal wave#Film. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 08:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support the Japanese film has two English titles, both found in books, doesn't really matter which is physically the title of the article, still requires this move. Well spotted In ictu oculi (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

B-Class review for WikiProject Film 30 March 2019

This article has been checked against the project's criteria for B-Class status:

1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met

   No citations given for awards and nominations, and only seven citations in total.

2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met

   The article is light on text and there are many missing elements.

3. Structure: criterion met

4. Grammar: criterion met

5. Supporting materials: criterion met

   Infobox and poster are fine, though a more complete article would be expected to have more.

Article is still lacking in many areas; besides the lead and plot summary the only prose is a brief section on the film's release, and the list of deleted scenes is essentially just fluff. Nothing at all with regard to production or critical response, and sources are needed for the awards section. Start-Class is an appropriate rating at this time. PC78 (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)