Talk:Penguins of Madagascar

Box Office Gross

News from Box Office Mojo says that Penguins of Madagascar made over $300 million worldwide but it didn't update it. I hope it on The Numbers site. When will Box Office Mojo update the international grosses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.46.27 (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Release dates per country

A dynamic IP (Sao Paulo, Brazil) is adding a table of country names and linked dates with unreferenced release dates. This is not valid for this article 1) because there is already a "Release" section that includes or should include notable releases, 2) it is totally unreferenced and 3) because none of those dates have any notable significance. See MOS:FILM#Release and WP:FILMRELEASE for more on what the Manual of Style says about this issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Deleted scenes

I bet the penguin's parents and the origins of their commando skills appear in deleted scenes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.57.247 (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

copyedit tag

To clarify the cleanup tag, the problem is WP:PROSELINE (overuse of "on/in Xmonth Xyear") which falls under the general copyedit template. The Critical response section has a related issue. After Rotten Tomatoes & Metacritic scores it's $name of $publicationtitle gave the film $grade, saying $quotefromreview, 20 times in a row.
This is what readers currently see:

Critical response text

•  · Michael Rechtshaffen of The Hollywood Reporter gave the film a negative review, saying
•  · Elizabeth Weitzman of the New York Daily News gave the film three out of five stars, saying
•  · Ignatiy Vishnevetsky of The A.V. Club gave the film a B, saying
•  · Ben Kenigsberg of The New York Times gave the film a positive review, saying
•  · Bill Zwecker of the Chicago Sun-Times gave the film three out of four stars, saying
•  · Lou Lumenick of the New York Post gave the film one out of four stars, saying
•  · Jeff Labrecque of Entertainment Weekly gave the film a C-, saying
•  · Betsy Sharkey of the Los Angeles Times gave the film a negative review, saying
•  · Simon Abrams of The Village Voice gave the film a negative review, saying
•  · Michael O'Sullivan of The Washington Post gave the film three and a half stars out of four, saying
•  · Patrick Dunn of The Detroit News gave the film a C, saying
•  · Chris Cabin of Slant Magazine gave the film two and a half stars out of five, saying
•  · Tom Russo of The Boston Globe gave the film two out of four stars, saying
•  · Barbara VanDenburgh of The Arizona Republic gave the film three out of five stars, saying
•  · Steven Rea of The Philadelphia Inquirer gave the film two and a half stars out of five, saying
•  · Lindsey Bahr of the Associated Press gave the film two and a half stars out of four, saying
•  · Geoff Berkshire of Variety gave the film a mixed review, saying
•  · Scott Tobias of The Dissolve gave the film two out of five stars,
•  · Peter Howell of the Toronto Star gave the film two out of four stars, saying
•  · Walter V. Addiego of the San Francisco Chronicle gave the film three out of four stars, saying

Removal of some of the reviews if they're variation on a theme is another possibility to consider. They're reliable sources – well done to the editor who added them – it's just there's a cookie-cutter feel to the way they're currently used. 146.199.67.6 (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

An editor reverted out the tag without explanation or comment in the discussion opened here. I've restored it. Again, the formulaic prose issues and excessive quotations (the section's almost entirely made up of quotes) are the problem. 146.198.28.207 (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

And I have restored it again, with some comments made on the page of the editor who twice reverted it, suggesting they avoid ownership behavior and give other editors a chance to improve the article. General Ization ^Talk 01:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I also moved the tag to the section to which the criticism pertains, since it largely doesn't pertain to the rest of the article. General Ization ^Talk 01:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

And now having better considered your first paragraph above, have reverted my last change. General Ization ^Talk 01:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

A section having a "cookie-cutter feel" is no reason to add a copyedit tag. The quotes are short also, so i don't the the problem their. If you have a real suggestion i would be happy to hear it. Koala15 (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Koala15 believes she/he has fixed the issue. However, I would like somebody involved with the copy-editing issue to review their changes before they continue to persistently remove the top template. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 21:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I personally do not think the editor has corrected the issues that were raised by the IP above and referred to within the Copyedit template. They have done nothing at all to address the repetitive proseline issue mentioned in the first sentence, and the addition of the quoteboxes to the Critical response section just adds clutter and distraction while not addressing the existing problem that there are simply too many quotes here to be useful. The editor (or some editor) needs to select a representative sample of quotes, perhaps by the most notable reviewers, and pare the section down significantly. In my opinion, the template needs to remain. General Ization ^Talk 21:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Holy damn. Now I know what the IP meant. Jesus, that is a lot of quotes and repetitive sequence. I, also, agree with the template. It's repetitive, it includes a lot of quotes and doesn't outline the main review. I agree that the quote boxes don't help the issue. It's just excessive with what the article already has. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 21:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know this is how the majority of reception sections are written. The quotes are short, and I thought I did make the sentences less repetitive. You guys are treating this like it's a GA review or something. Koala15 (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Koala15: if you can't see any way to improve the article, or don't think it needs improvement, then don't edit it. The issue here is that others do, so a copyedit template has been placed on the article. This is not a criticism of you; it is the way such opportunities for improvement are brought to the attention of other editors. Your repeated removal of the template is an exhibition of ownership behavior (as we have already discussed on your Talk page) and substitution of your judgment for that of multiple other editors – which is unacceptable. Leave the template there, take a break, and let other editors work on the article. General Ization ^Talk 22:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Is it necessary to be so dismissive to every thing i say? So far three editors have commented here and no one gave any ideas on how the section can be improved. Not that they have to, but it would be helpful. Usually copyedit tags are used when a section is hard to understand or incoherent, this one is not. Koala15 (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Apparently you are not actually reading the comments by the three editors, because they most certainly do identify several ways the article can be improved. Please take another look. General Ization ^Talk 23:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I did, and they say what they think is wrong with it. But their are no suggestions on how it should be improved. Do you think the quotes should be paraphrased? Should they be trimmed down? Suggestions like that. Koala15 (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I could reproduce the suggestions one by one, but it would be insulting to you if I did, since they appear just a few lines above. If you cannot see the multiple suggestions already made, you are not the editor to implement them. Please consider again my previous suggestion that you take a break and let other editors work on the article. General Ization ^Talk 23:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope, it says what they think is wrong with it, but nothing on how they would improve it. Koala15 (talk) 23:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

To get this thing rattling and stop unnecessary edit war and drama, this is what I suggest: 3 paragraphs of critic reviews? That's excessive. The plot and critical reception seem to total the same in word count (by viewing), which is not good. I really say we only include 2 paragraphs (Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic stays as always) of reviews. I am certain (I haven't bothered reading) that a lot of reviews are just repeating the same opinion. I suggest we certainly remove the quote boxes. They're unnecessary, they expand the section and it does not prevent clutter. It's all over the place, which bothers me. That's all I have for now.

And Koala15, please take this seriously: stop removing the template. I've arranged of adding an edit warring template because you were in fact edit warring. You made 5 reverts within less 24 hours. It wasn't your call to say it's been resolved when you were never the user who saw the issues and you initially participated in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR (as said by General Ization). Keyword in one of your edit summaries: "I think I fixed the issue." You think. If you think you've improved the article about the copy-editing issue, please participate in WP:Discussion instead of merely removing the template, deeming your edits as resolution without consultation. I do agree with GI that you should take a short break. If you don't have anything to say to improve the article or don't agree it needs improvement, don't edit at all. It follows under OWNBEHAVIOR.

Now if we're done here, I would like to improve the article. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 00:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

If i "participated in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR" that wasn't my intention. So any suggestions on how you would improve it? Besides the section being 3 paragraphs, its really not that different than a lot of reception sections in GA's for that matter. Koala15 (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Please use indention properly. As for our behaviors, you will stop saying such stuff. So what if we're focusing on this? Maybe it's finally time somebody noticed the issues on film articles. It doesn't matter whether good articles have it as well, a user noticed the issues here and we're going to focus on that. Unless you have other snarky and unhelpful remarks to say, I suggest you stop and actually start improving the article because lately you have been teasing and making unhelpful comments and engaged in unnecessary drama. Please stop and actually help. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 15:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

So what are you're thoughts? Should the section be trimmed down? Should the quotes be paraphrased? I'm genuinely asking. Koala15 (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

(outdent) The core issue isn't the length of individual quotes, but the sheer amount.

As much as possible, we're supposed to write content by summarizing source material in our own words. This fulfills our legal obligation to avoid violating copyrights, and as an additional benefit helps ensure consistent prose style.

Extensive use of short quotes is a problem--even when it might be lawful under 'fair use'. That's because our non-free content guidelines are intentionally stricter than copyright law. Wikipedia's purpose is to create a free enyclopedia. The more we include non-free material, the more we stray from that goal. So we keep use of text under fair use to a minimum.

The relevant WP:NFC point is "extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." NFC points to WP:QUOTE, in which overuse is identified as using quotes to explain points that could be paraphrased, and where quotes dominate the article--or in this case section. In this case they aren't irreplaceable through paraphrasing, and there's a lot of overlap; here, take a look.

There're various ways to tackle these kinds of issues. First, keep quote use to a minimum. When quoting, use as little as possible from the source. Two lines from a book isn't much, two lines from a haiku is a lot. A fifth of Slant Magazine's review was quoted.
Omit words within quoted text by using an ellipsis, or insert words inside square brackets. For instance, not much is added by text after the word "sameness" in the Variety quote or by the scriptwriter names in the Washington Post quote. Rewrite source material's underlying facts in your own words as much as possible. If you're including a point one source made, giving the same point from other sources three more times is repetition. That's true whether you directly quote or paraphrase them. For example, the Philadelphia Inquirer and Variety quotes both say that while it does have strong animation it's unimaginative and repetitive. Avoid having several identically structured sentences in a row. It's monotonous and doesn't read well. As with writing in general, paraphrasing well is a skill and, sometimes, it's hard. It gets easier with practice. –146.199.132.115 (talk) 08:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Critical response

Various editors over time have added various summaries to this section. All of them are unsourced synthesis: combining two or more sources to make a statement that neither one directly states.

There is nothing to be gained by Frankensteining two summaries into one meta-summary. Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes use very different methods to come up with their scores. Any attempt to say that they "agree" is pointless, unless both are 100 or 0.

In the present case, the two clearly do not agree. Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a 72%. This indicates that roughly 3/4 of the critics they reviewed gave the film "positive" reviews. Those reviews may have said the film was the best movie ever made, said it was ever-so-slightly better than average or anywhere in between. The remaining 28% were "negative": saying it was the worst movie ever made, slightly worse than average or somewhere in between. If all of the reviews RT looked at were very close to average (which we have no way of knowing), this would indicate average reviews. If they were all at the extremes, this would indicate some kind of good-to-mixed situation. Maybe all of the positive reviews were just above average and all of the negatives say it was the worst movie ever made. We simply do not know. For all we know, the reviews form a perfect bell curve centered less than one standard deviation above average, making the film (arguably) statistically dead average.

Metacritic's score, OTOH, is 53/100, based on a different set of critics and a different scoring method. They say this means "mixed or average reviews". This 53/100 is notably different than RT's average score of 6.2/10 because the two sites are using different sets of critics and different methods to arrive at their scores.

A common argument for leaving the summary in place is that it is "obvious". If that is the case (and it clearly is not in this instance), the statement would be redundant. The section would be repetitive. The section would say the same thing several times. The section would repeat itself. - SummerPhD^v2.0 11:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Benedict Cumberbatch's character (classified/Classified)

The character's name is never revealed, because it is classified. It would be incorrect to refer to him as "Classified," because that is not his name. The penguins in the movie make this mistake as part of a gag. A plot summary should refer to him as a wolf, not as Classified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.221.144.98 (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The character is also a wolf, not a Siberian husky dog. Compare images of the animated character to images of real huskies and wolves and you'll see the facial coloration patterns match wolf, not husky. Also, all the other animals are wild animals. A domesticated dog breed shouldn't even have been considered. I'd say the error stemmed from a DreamWorks Animation plot summary on IMDB which referred to Classified as "handsome and husky". Not capitalized, the word "husky" was referring to the nature of the character's voice, not his species. Nomopbs (talk) 04:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Knock off trying to tag the character as a domesticated dog! The character was always a wolf. Even before the movie came out it was a wolf. [1] For those having mistaken the character as a Siberian Husky, it was one person's use of the word "husky" — meaning "A voice that is husky is low and rough, often in an attractive way". [2] You can even see Cumberbatch verify he is playing the voice of a WOLF in the upcoming film Penguins of Madagascar starting at point 5:20 in the video interview. See here: [3]
Nomopbs (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Since the vandalism (changes from wolf to Husky) is being repeated, I have requested protection for this page. The perpetrator is an IP editor. Nomopbs (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Anyone questioning this should check the various references. The ones which use the term "Husky" are review websites, not industry press releases. Check for "reliable source" when deciding. Nomopbs (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Pages affected by the vandals:

• Penguins of Madagascar
• Siberian Husky
• List of Madagascar (franchise) characters

Nomopbs (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

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: Not moved, WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 04:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Penguins of Madagascar → Penguins of Madagascar (film) "Penguins of Madagascar" should redirect to The Penguins of Madagascar. 31.52.4.146 (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Don't support - This is no ambiguity in this title so disambiguation is unnecessary. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose no ambiguity. Both topics have comparable significance. SSTflyer 15:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per SSTflyer. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per SSTflyer. ^Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 18:59, 6 August 2016 (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.

Date

According to several trailers, it was released on November 27.

Soundtrack and music section need to be combined

Some of the information in the music section is in the soundtrack section so it makes no sense why there are two different sections for the same information 2601:441:8400:91C0:F1C3:7E76:892C:205E (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)