Talk:The Finest Hours (2016 film)
(Redirected from Talk:The Finest Hours (2015 film))
Latest comment: 8 years ago by OskarsC in topic Infobox
 | A fact from The Finest Hours (2016 film) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 September 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Blatant overlinking of the cast and Company.
editEven after I cut out a section and the cast from the lead paragraph, lLooks to me like they are still linked four two times each! Wow! Same thing is true of Walt Disney Pictures and studio. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- The chronology is still a bit over the top - way too much info. It doesn't matter who was cast when. The Dissident Aggressor 14:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- I thought that too, and had left it on the cutting room floor, but one of our other editors strongly disagreed and thought it indispensable. So it is there, but I for one an not wedded to it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- I put in a very short summary version. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- I support the summary version. I tend to state the month and year when an actor is cast to show the unfolding of the project. I'd actually be fine with a little more detail, stating that Pine joined in April 2014 and that the rest of the cast joined in August-September 2014. It shows that he was added early on and that the ball finally got rolling in the past two months. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- If you have a better way, have at it. Please. We want a good article that will adequately do the job! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- What about casting chronology? Is that not a better way for a good article? --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 02:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Whatever the conclusion is about linking, each cast member should have the source provided, by which we know they were in the film. The fact that they are not in most film cast sections is a violation of WP:VERIFY. This article is off to a good start, and its quality should be maintained. Cite non IMDB new sources for all cast, and in general for all facts added. 50.179.252.14 (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- See my response to "gung-ho" IP editor below - thanks, Garchy (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Whatever the conclusion is about linking, each cast member should have the source provided, by which we know they were in the film. The fact that they are not in most film cast sections is a violation of WP:VERIFY. This article is off to a good start, and its quality should be maintained. Cite non IMDB new sources for all cast, and in general for all facts added. 50.179.252.14 (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- What about casting chronology? Is that not a better way for a good article? --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 02:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- If you have a better way, have at it. Please. We want a good article that will adequately do the job! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- I support the summary version. I tend to state the month and year when an actor is cast to show the unfolding of the project. I'd actually be fine with a little more detail, stating that Pine joined in April 2014 and that the rest of the cast joined in August-September 2014. It shows that he was added early on and that the ball finally got rolling in the past two months. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- I put in a very short summary version. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- I thought that too, and had left it on the cutting room floor, but one of our other editors strongly disagreed and thought it indispensable. So it is there, but I for one an not wedded to it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Edits of this day
editThis article is en route to being a very good article, if its theatrical opening does not result in the usual editorializing and WP:OR and text dumping that often ensues. I thank editors to date for strong ethic of "every fact sourced," per WP:VERIFY, and ask/encourage that this high standard and quality be maintained. Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- It's great that you're spending the time critiquing the article, but that's only half the battle - if you really want to help out it would be great to "contribute" by adding in these references you're looking for. WP:BEBOLD is probably a place for you to start - you won't get much respect about these notes unless you're actively contributing to your points. No one likes a teacher with a red pen unless they are helping out themselves. I did reach out to you on your talk page about this but heard no response. Garchy (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Infobox
editI don't edit english viki. But I did notice the broken infobox. It'd be nice if somebody fixed it, thanx! --OskarsC (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)