Wikipedia

Talk:John Wick (film)/Archive 1

< Talk:John Wick (film)
Latest comment: 1 year ago by InfiniteNexus in topic Moving past the edit war
Archive 1

Payday 2 Content

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A reference. I'm a bit floored from this, but I think it might be worth mentioning to this article. From Overkill's announcement it will include the titular character, a new skill and perk tree, a gun, a knife, three "masks" and a heist. I have already written it into Payday 2's article. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 16:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Summary of film

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article contains a large plot summary detailing the story of the film, but does not provide users with a quick summary of the plot. This is useful for when a user has not yet seen the film, but would like to understand what it is about. Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film --Thegrs (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Director credit

Latest comment: 9 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

Chad Stahelski & David Leitch shot the film together. Every source that talked about this film up to its release listed two directors, and some continued to do so after its release. There are interviews of the two together. They both belong in the lead and infobox, with Leitch listed as uncredited. A good source should be found for how this happened, but there's plenty that back up it did happen. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with him being included in the lead, but uncredited people do not belong in the infobox. This has been a broadly held opinion for quite some time, and I don't see why it should change now. I'm absolutely fine with listing him where appropriate, including the lead, but belong in the infobox he does not. Sock (tock talk) 21:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
This discussion over Gone with the Wind is very similar, in that there were several people without on-screen credits who weren't added. I should note that I absolutely agree that Leitch should get his credit in the lead and in the article, but the infobox is for credited contributors only. If Leitsch had directed it and then went "Alan Smithee" or something, I think that's the only time it's particularly appropriate to add uncredited contributors to infoboxes. Sock (tock talk) 21:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I was a later participant in that discussion. This is more notable than that. One did not fill in when the other was absent, like Gone with the Wind. Chad Stahelski & David Leitch shot the film together as a team. They were credited together on every source I saw up until just before the release. Your standard is not reflected in many film articles. Numerous sources list uncredited people in infoboxes. When clearly notable, as it is here, it should be included as long as they're properly labelled. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
We could add a footnote similar to the one at Edge of Tomorrow (film) (for screenwriting) to explain that David Leitch was involved with directing too. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
That would be better than nothing, but the involvement of the now uncredited director is considerably more than that would imply. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The problem with this is that we don't have any sources stating why he's now uncredited. There was clearly a reason behind it, but it's unknown to us at this point. There's a chance he wanted to go uncredited and focus more on getting Stahelski boosted into the spotlight. Maybe he hated the film and wanted to take minimal credit for it. We really can't know without a source, which isn't accessible at the moment. I would say that the footnote would work nicely, acknowledging that he was considered a director but was not credited when the film was released. I apologize for my heavy-handedness in terms of the "no uncredited people" argument, but I do stand by it and think that it's unnecessary inclusion nearly 100% of the time. Sock (tock talk) 21:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Sock, Gothicfilm, this basically says the Directors Guild of America does not support recognizing more than one director for a film. Looks like Cloud Atlas (film) went through something similar as covered here, though not sure how they get away with identifying three directors there and only one here. Politics? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I also do not believe that we are absolutely required to use official credits in the film infobox. The official credits are the appropriate baseline to follow, but I don't think we should be constrained by that if verifiability triumphs over officiality. We can check about the consensus for this, but I would support listing both names with a footnote for the officially-uncredited one to explain what the DGA did here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

After combing through the archives of WT:FILM, it appears that you are indeed correct, Erik. There was a discussion a little while back deciding that it was notable to include them if their contributions were significant and verifiable. I was unaware of this consensus, and after reading through that discussion, I feel a bit bull-headed for thinking no one uncredited should be in the infobox. I'm now all for adding Leitch's credit to the infobox and the lead section, though we should probably add a footnote explaining that his work went uncredited. Sock (tock talk) 13:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of not giving credit to those who deserve it, you were right from the start, Gothicfilm, and I apologize for making this could-be open-and-shut issue into an argument. Sock (tock talk) 13:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Very good. I've restored it to the infobox, as well as the lead. The DGA decision is in the Development section, so I don't think we need a footnote in the infobox. As you can see, I was a participant in that "little while back" discussion too, as well as several others on this subject. As I said then: Case-by-case judgment is necessary. In a situation where an uncredited writer or director is deemed to have contributed enough to also be listed in the infobox, below the credited writer and/or director, than the name should certainly be tagged with "(uncredited)" - as most are that I have seen. That is what I have done here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest including the footnote. People might be confused, coming from the film, seeing that there are two directors when there's only one credited. Sock (tock talk) 02:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
My preference is not to add refs or notes to the infobox if the info is in the article body. Here it's in the Development section, and touched on in the lead. This always occurs with "(uncredited)", and there's usually no note in the infobox. Readers who care know to look further into the article. But if you want to add a note, I won't object, as long as the "(uncredited)" also remains in the infobox. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 16 October 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago10 comments9 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request. Clear support with evidence provided for the film being the primary topic.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

John Wick (film) → John Wick – The film is the clear primary topic: "John Wick game designer" only gets 60,700 results, whilst "John Wick film" and "John Wick movie" both get over 2 million. The game designer was only viewed 614 times last month, whilst the film was viewed 86,805 times during the same time period. Also we won't need the disambiguation page if this move goes through, as there are only two topics. Unreal7 (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

John Wick (film) has been viewed 242308 times in the last 90 days. [1]

John Wick (game designer) has been viewed 1697 times in the last 90 days. [2]

Zarcadia (talk) 03:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Routine or not it has 142 times more views than the game designer. Zarcadia (talk) 06:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cast section

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wow, talk about going-off-the-rails fanboy. Embarrassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.36.49.117 (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

One big PR piece

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article reads like a giant press release, long, empty, and overly flattering. I guess the marketing people at Lionsgate's or the other producers' deserved their salary on this one. Sometimes to the point of being comical. Stuff like "on this day, it was announced that X would join the cast", "on that day, it was announced that Y would join the cast", for paragraphs on end. Or the minute and comprehensive listing of every foreign distributor LG sold the rights to in Cannes.

And by the way, this (unfortunately) really seems to be a trend you can see on WP. Older movies articles are written by real film buffs and are generally truly interesting and informative. Current movies pages seem to be taken over by the PR departments, and read like a glossy, empty press release. Sad. Fils du Soleil (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Character name

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The character played by Alfie Allen - - - is it "Iosef" or "Yusef"?

I see "Yusef" on the lead-in line, but it's "Iosef" everywhere else.

Where did "Yusef" come from?

I did not want to make an edit since the difference is so obvious that I thought there must be a reason why it hasn't been changed or addressed before now and I did not want to get into trouble or start one of those endless back-and-forths over a minute detail. 2600:8800:50B:6700:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Use of "uncredited" in the infobox

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

I realize this was discussed in 2014, but as it was re-added to clarify if someone had or not directed the film, I see it as more confusing. The infobox is not really large enough to add this information with an "(uncredited)". It is not clear which director is credited. Both? Just the last one? I know it is explained in the prose, but the infobox shouldn't be made confusing. I would propose the following:

  • Remove uncredited.
  • Add a special footnote like at the beginning of the article on Rififi, which goes into detail about the french-language title.

Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

This is how it's done on numerous articles. If anyone is confused, they can read the article. Numerous reliable sources list uncredited people in infoboxes, such as the AFI. But they are labelled as such. To not label them as "uncredited" would be misrepresenting the credits and misleading readers. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
You are not addressing what I am stating here. AFI does not list an infobox as we do (we have a column, they have a running sentence, which is delimited by commas). And you just said that if anyone is confused "they can just read the article". Couldn't they do that anyways with out the credited mark? Which one is it? :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
The uncredited tag would cause anyone confused to look for the reason why it's there in the article. It should be obvious that would not be the case if the tag is not there. The credits are not to be misrepresented in the infobox, so the "uncredited" label is necessary. And AFI film pages have tables of credits, which is similar to WP's infobox, and is certainly not a running sentence, which is delimited by commas. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Can you show me an example? I think I was thinking of something else when I mentioned split by commas, but they have their credits beside the actor/director/etc. Like this random onehere. We have ours underneath, which I still find unintuitive to me. You do not seem to disagree, but just say if someone does find it confusing, they'll read it. It's our goal to solve it from anyone being confused. That's like saying that someone who can't make out a garbled sentence on wikipedia should just find the information elsewhere. Which is obviously untrue, we'd clean-up our content. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Your own AFI link shows tables of credits if you scroll down. It does not make any difference if it is below or to the side of the text or whatever it is you're talking about. You created confusion - you made it sound like the AFI does not have infoboxes by saying AFI does not list an infobox as we do, which indicates to me that discussing facts with you is not a productive use of my time. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
So if you don't care anymore I can change it right? ;P I made a mistake dude. I know you want to discuss it, but our table is different than there and my issue still stands. You have not addressed any my solutions, and have only said "other articles do this", which is not a reason to do it by any standards and only leaves me to believe you are not following any standards (which I've provided twice). And yeah, AFI doesn't list it the way do, which was your comparison. Which turns out didn't apply. So I'll await for others to tap in. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Critical response section is too positive

Latest comment: 7 years ago13 comments7 people in discussion

After Bartallen2 made this huge expansion to the article on November 22, I considered stating something (whether in a WP:Dummy edit or on this talk page) about how the critical reception material is too positive. And by "too positive," I mean that it includes no criticism. Yes, the film got a high score on Rotten Tomatoes and a "generally favorable" score on Metacritic, but there should still be criticism in the Critical response section, although not much...per WP:Due weight. I figured that I might add a bit of negative critical information to the article, but, as everyone can see, I haven't gotten around to doing that. So considering that the Critical response section is still currently too positive, I've decided to finally address this matter on this talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

In the 16th Annual Golden Tomato Awards, believe it or not, the film has been awarded a 2014 Golden Tomato for Best Reviewed Action/Adventure Film. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/guides/golden-tomato-awards-2014/. According to Yahoo's Finance site, directors Stahelski and Leitch are quoted as saying, ""Holy s**t.... Way better than an Oscar! Thanks to everyone who enjoyed John Wick." --Directors Chad Stahelski and David Leitch, John Wick(Best Reviewed Action/Adventure)" So, there you go, Wordreader (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Oops! I forgot the link: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/rotten-tomatoes-tm-announces-2014-182137044.html Wordreader (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Wordreader, what does that have do with the Critical response section being too positive? The film has received criticism and a bit of that should be in the Critical response section, just like other films that have received as high, or higher, a Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic score as John Wick has and have negative reviews in the reception section of their Wikipedia articles. Flyer22 (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I was perusing the article and noticed this myself before coming to this talk page. In addition to not representing a full range of opinions, this section is excessively long and repetitive. No one is interested in reading through six pointless paragraphs of "praised this" and "praised that". Agree that this should include some criticism, and recommend some trimming as well. Scyllagist (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
This is still a problem! How does one flag something like this for editing / bring it to the attention of relevant users/moderators? I'm not confident enough myself to make anything but small typo-correction changes to articles Scyllagist (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Scyllagist (talk · contribs), you can add Template:POV section and/or Template:Undue-section to the section; you can also ask for help with the section at the WP:Film talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 01:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Zero Serenity, regarding this, this and this, did you overlook this discussion? Flyer22 (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Twinsday, you added Template:Undue-section; so it seems you agree that the section is too positive in tone? Flyer22 (talk) 09:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Tirronan, while I appreciate you adding a negative review, that alone does not solve the problems with the section (see Scyllagist's "08:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)" comment above), which is why I reverted your removal of the WP:Undue tag. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Scyllagist, sorry for the late response. I recently found some negative reviews that may meet WP:RS.
serioushat 10:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: serioushat is Twinsday. Twinsday, thanks for the help. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Is a 6.9 RT average, 68 on metacritic, and "B" audience poll really "critical acclaim"? This is practically the highest praise you will see on wikipedia for artistic work, other than legendary classics. For such a strong statement it should have very strong evidence. If all it's based on is being "Certified Fresh" on RT, it should just say it's Certified Fresh on RT. But I don't want to start an edit war - there are clearly a number of big fans contributing to this article.Jerodast (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John Wick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 11:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on John Wick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 05:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As I write, the link to the upcoming The Continental series is to an older CBS series. I suggest creating a new page called The Continental (John Wick Franchise) if no existing page exists. Will (Talk - contribs) 08:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:John Wick (franchise) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Budget

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article mentions the budget twice, but only in passing. $20m seems incredibly low for a theatrical action film starring Keanu Reeves. Did he waive his salary? Was most of the budget off the books? Was it just a very cheap film? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Other sources put the budget closer to $30 million, and the film seems to have received some New York tax breaks. -- 109.78.233.100 (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Real-life location of the Continental

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The building used for exterior shots of the Continental was the Beaver Building at 1 Wall Street Court, not Delmonico's. Delmonico's was used only for interiors. Source: https://www.legendarytrips.com/2014/11/john-wick-continental-hotel-new-york-filming-locations/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.1.132.44 (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Future section

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments3 people in discussion

@Darkwarriorblake: "Future" in this context refers to the future of the franchise after the film's release, not the future in real-time. I do believe this is the standard wording on most film articles I've seen, though I have no idea why it's not on MOS:FILM. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

"Future" is not the standard in a lot of film articles I frequent. Here are some notable examples:
As shown in those examples, I typically see "Sequels", "Sequels and adaptations", "Sequels and spin-offs", "Legacy", or simply "Post-release" with subsections that cover different items like home media, other media, sequels, etc. Sometimes it's a combination of those. Now where I do typically see "Future" is in franchise articles of active franchises. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
I was going to say that I typically see Future in franchise pages. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 15:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Articles that use "Future" are equally as common:
But I also see that many articles use the headings that GoneIn60 mentioned. "Future" in my opinion seems like the cleanest and most succinct, but we may need to have a larger discussion at WT:FILM to decide which heading should be used (for consistency). InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
"Future" is a fairly recent addition in many of those examples:
So it would appear to be a recent trend, and in one of those, as recent as this month by you, LOL! Dune is the only exception, but then again it's the most recent film in the list and doesn't have a film franchise article, so that kind of makes sense.
We have a few conformity warriors out there that once they spot a trend (or start one themselves), they replicate the change from one article to the next dozens of times over in an effort to make everything consistent. I'm not entirely opposed to "Future", nor would I likely go out of my way to remove it, but I certainly wouldn't mandate that as some kind of requirement either. The MoS is not meant to get that granular, taking sides and forcing editors to choose one acceptable option over another. It's only meant to weed out the unacceptable, from a high level. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
What Gonein60 said, I would expect a future section in a franchise article or a film without a franchise article. I've only ever seen Sequel(s) as a standard header for any articles I've read. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 16:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Huh, I actually forgot I made that edit to Transformers... GoneIn60, I don't disagree with what you said about the purpose of the MoS, but I do think it's good practice for articles to be as consistent as possible. As for Darkwarriorblake's comment about "Sequel(s)", if there is only one type of follow-up (i.e. sequel, prequel, spin-off, reboot, etc.) then that is of course the logical header to go with, "Future" only comes in when there is a combination of different forms. Having said all that, I don't have time right now to continue pushing for this, so perhaps another day. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Plot - John vs. Wick

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion

All other John Wilk films use his first name in the plot. Every other character's first name is used throughout the plot. Why is this one the only outlier? Bloodyboppa (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I've not seen a John Wilk film. But I'm honestly already exhausted with the complaints about unsourced content that is sourced, sequels vs futures and now John vs #@*% Wick, so I've just changed it. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 16:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Bloodyboppa, it is common in film articles for each character to be mentioned by last name in the plot summary, but there is no guideline or policy that requires that approach. I would say that especially when there are two characters with the same last name that the first name would be used instead (and vice versa). The important thing to do regardless of the approach is to keep it consistent at that article. In other words, don't mix first and last name usage. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
MOS:LASTNAME clearly states that For fictional entities, use common names. In this case, it is debatable whether "John" or "Wick" is his common name, so I would be fine with either way. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Is the car in the film really a Mach 1?

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The film says John Wick's car is a Boss 429. The article says it's a Mach 1. Why? Where is the consensus stating the change? Urbanracer34 (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Diogenes
  • Can I just say that I am not a car afficionado, but saying that it is clearly one thing and not the other when one looks like this and one looks like this is probably not fair to say? Either way I've previously said that if the car is not what they say it is, in the film it very much is a Boss 429 or whatever they said. It's a technical error but I'd question if its notable enough to mention as its otherwise unimportant. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 15:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Moving past the edit war

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Darkwarriorblake: it's true that MOS:LEADCITE allows us to remove citations from the lead when those citations that are included in the body. But for statements that could be disputed, it's still best to cite things directly in the lead. And please keep WP:ENCOURAGE in mind.

I've now copied a few citations from the body to the lead, so Toock, there you go: those claims are now properly cited. You're still free to propose copyedits to those sentences, or to propose other reliable sources we could use, right here on the talk page. On Wikipedia, there are better alternatives to trying to "push changes through"; you'll have a better time here if you use talk pages, and if that fails, you can use our dispute resolution processes. DFlhb (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree with that advice. As soon as a dispute becomes obvious, bring it to the talk page. Newer editors especially benefit to learn that the talk page can be a crucial part of the editing process. I would only clarify that citations in the lead should be for "statements that are likely to be disputed". If you do it for mildly disputable statements, there's a greater chance those citations will be relegated to the body at some point in a future copyedit, GA, or FA review. Still, it can't hurt, especially as a means to move past a current dispute. My 2¢ --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
References are not needed in the lead unless they are contentious and frequently challenged. We should not be adding references just because one person objects to it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
InfiniteNexus, MOS:LEADCITE does not specify "frequently challenged" as a prerequisite. It reminds us that any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged may need an inline citation even if the material has not been frequently challenged. Clearly it has been challenged, and citations are often necessary when the lead includes strong claims like "John Wick is now considered one of the greatest action films ever made". I'm also not sure why you reverted DFlhb in the midst of an active discussion (diff). The page is already getting attention for edit warring behavior. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
It is permissable for sure, but ultimately not necessary. And especially not for a statement that isn't and shouldn't be contentious. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
A claim that says John Wick is one of the greatest action films ever made doesn't seem contentious to you? Do you not think that someone reading that would appreciate having the reference right there as opposed to searching for it in the article body? --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
No, I don't. Many articles of films regarded as "the greatest of all time" are GAs or FAs, and they don't typically don't include references in the lead either per LEADCITE. Also, simply Ctrl+F'ing "action films ever made" will take the reader to the relevant section further down in the article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
100% agreed - that’s why I raised the concern in the first place. The article is full of exaggerations with no references. I am genuinely concerned about the stronghold that /u/darkworriorblake holds over this article. Toock (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
The article is full of exaggerations with no references. – Such as? InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Wick_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=1214194870"