Talk:The Salesman (2016 film)

Awards section and Reception section

Jkouhyar, please note that Awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article to demonstrate notability; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Accolades. Also note that in the Reception section we do not use a separate subheading for "Reviews"; they are included in the same section as meta-ratings like Rotten Tomatoes and MetaCritic. You have been notified about these issues on your talk page, and have been notified twice to stop edit-warring, but you are still edit-warring over them. Please stop now before you end up blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 12:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• میتراداست, please note that our style guideline for film articles, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Accolades, states that "Awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article to demonstrate notability". Therefore we do not list awards that do not already have their own Wikipedia articles on English Wikipedia. Please avoid adding or re-adding awards which lack articles. Thank you. If you have any questions about this, you may ask at WT:WikiProject Film. Also note that we cannot use Wikipedia (not even from another language) as a citation. Softlavender (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes Score

The score has changed to 100%, I couldn't change it myself since the article is semi-protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efroim102 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 19:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Language of film is Persian only

@Ksenia2727: I'm wondering why you edited the article to put English and French as languages in the infobox [1]. I don't recall any French dialogue in the film, and hardly any English. Is my memory wrong? I've edited the article a few times to remove French from the infobox [2][3][4]. --Mathew5000 (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight in one section

This article, which currently (21:27, 27 February 2017 UTC) has only a very brief plot summary for the subject film, includes a "President Trump's immigration ban controversy" section which is more lengthy than the rest of the text (and relies upon roughly one quarter of the references), so I have tagged the section using Template:Undue weight. – Athaenara ✉ 02:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I knew some Trump supporter would come along to tag the article for not resorting to alternative facts. A massive amount of news coverage=undue? The rest of the article can be expanded, sure. It's a wiki. Ribbet32 (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there's a ton of bloat on the controversy section, such as naming all the tree-huggers who signed a letter. Good job there's no human rights issues in Iran. Oh, wait. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

This article isn't about human rights issues in Iran. It's about the film and the controversy attached to the film. Wikipedia is not your editorial platform. I say the section should stay, though the information about the movie itself should be greatly expanded as well. SLWatson (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

You spectacularly missed my point. I look forward to your reply in five years' time. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 19:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

My initial response was snippy. I've just given the article plot and production sections, and Lugnuts does have a point about excess details. More work to come! Ribbet32 (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Now that's what I'm talking about! Excellent work Ribbet. For the record, I'm not opposed as such about the Trump section, but this time yesterday this article was all about some people boycotting an awards ceremony and a token line about this being an actual film. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm impressed by the improvements, the article is much more balanced now. That section (currently "Academy Awards boycott") no longer calls so much attention to itself, and no longer looks like the movie was just a hook to hang it on. – Athaenara ✉ 06:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Transliteration "Forušande"

@Rye-96: "Forušande" is nowhere near common, while "Forushande" (and not even "Forushandeh") has been used on many websites. --Z 13:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@ZxxZxxZ: Forušande is the proper form, if we consider the latest Persian transliteration system provided by the UN (commonly used in linguistic sources and encyclopædias such as Iranica). But apparently Forushande shows more results on the web.
It's weird because I thought I had received more results for forušande when I left that edit summary.
—Rye-96 (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

There is little or no need for transliterations in such systems when a transliterated form (Forushande in this case) is already common. I prefer mentioning the common transliterated form besides a phonetic IPA representation next to the Persian form (فروشنده). --Z 11:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Final scene

“Rana and Emad return to the theatre together.” I saw a TV version of the film, and no such scene was included. Was it cut for TV? The final scene I saw consisted of Rana leaving the house alone and wandering away in the street, while Emad stays in the house. This would be a very different ending compared to returning somewhere together. Can anyone help? --92.201.65.186 (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)