Plot descriptions cannot be copied from other sources, including official sources and IMDb, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. They must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. On Inside Man (2023 film). — Diannaa (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when I was copying that "Storyline" from IMDb, I did make some changes in it - got rid of words which wouldn't be immediately understandable (such as "grunt"), simplified syntax a little, dropped couple of sentences which were non-informative or could be construed as judgemental or subjective, linked to other Wikipedia articles (such as Gambino crime family)... Isn't that enough? Especially since I clearly stated in my cited reference where that text originated from (so I wasn't trying to pass it as my own material) - and especially since that "Storyline" was supposed to serve as temporary placeholder for plot summary to provide general idea of what the film is about until proper "Plot" would be added to the article.
The plot summary you added is present at multiple places online. Have a look at the CopyPatrol report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. Please don't add copyright content to Wikipedia, not even temporarily. To do so is a violation of our copyright policy. — Diannaa (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike,
Hi Dianna,
Thanks for your clarifications - and for your patience with me. To be honest, to me it always seemed preferable to use the exact original words when quoting or citing something on Wikipedia, because having to re-express something in one's own words would almost result in subjectivity and emotional bias, i.e. non-factualness. However, with your concerns about possible copiright infringement clearly expressed, I guess there's nothing else to be done about it.
Just give me a few minutes in order to re-phrase plot summaries for the films I watched recently and subsequently copied "Storyline" from IMDb for (Dalíland, Devil's Peak)...
Yes, I'm aware of that (was picked up on that a couple of times in the past). I only mentioned IMDb in comment to my edit because I had to look up the full cast list for that short film Ghost of Old Highways anyway in order to make sure that "Hairlot" was not intentional misspelling - and then I had to decide whether to keep "The" in names of characters or not, so I thought that I might just as well use the spelling as on IMDb (that's where everybody looks for detailed information about the films, isn't it?)... But thanks for reminding me, mate. :-) Szagory (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You also used the reviews on IMDb as the basis for your information about the critical response to the film Devil's Peak, which is another mistake. IMDb reviews should not be included in the discussion of how a film was received by "critics" overall. Many of the people who write those reviews worked on the films themselves. Nicholas0 (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nicholas,
After watching Devil's Peak myself, I thought that toning down negativity about its critical reception just a little bit would be a nice thing. I liked the film - but, hell, I'm no movie critic; so I checked the reviews of the film on Metacritic and IMDb, just for the sake of objectivity and balance. And the best thing one can do with reviews online is to hope for reviewers' objectivity and fairness, but take them with a pinch of salt nevertheless, right?.. The difference between "negative reviews" and "mostly negative reviews" - I wasn't trying to distort the truth about the film's merits, was I? IMO it was well worth watching.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Promised Land (2023 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Manor. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Hello Szagory - just to let you know I removed the map from Hexahydrocannabinol as it is badly out of step with the text. I left a note to that effect on the article talk page. If there is someone with the skill and inclination to update it, it would be a good addition altho the colours are a bit grim. Regards. Orenburg1 (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know, mate. 😎
I've also added a clarification about Bundesregierung ("Federal Government") in the text. Would be great if you could find a citation to back up the fact that hexahydrocannabinol is now Class B in the UK from your previous edit yesterday - I couldn't find anything (only that HHC still remains in grey area), so I had to put [citation needed] there...
I'll ask my brother (he works as a graphics artist and specialises in graphics processing of image files) if he could bring that image up to date and brighten up the colours a bit.
Legality of HHC in EU as of November 2023.Legality of HHC in EU as of November 2023.Legality of HHC in EU as of July 2024[update].
Taking that "violation" and "disruption" at face value - could you just tell me what exactly is wrong with somebody checking information for a film on IMDb and then adding that information to Wikipedia? It's not like I've been trying to pass false information as true, or undo somebody's changes solely on the basis of IMDB alone, right?
In this particular case, original text of the article said: "Distributed by Filmax, the film was released in cinemas on 15 September 2023." First of all, that was distributor only for Spain, elsewhere (e.g. Germany) distribution is handled by different companies. Secondly, that date was specifically for theatrical release in Spain - for Germany there was no theatrical release (only on home media and just a few weeks ago).
And now just tell me: so I went to IMDb and checked there release dates for other countries and release formats for those countries - what could be wrong with adding those extra tidbits, if they make only for fullness and correctness of information on Wikipedia and they don't contain obvious falsehoods? In effect, I corrected incongruities and falsehoods in the article, didn't I? 🤔
P.S. And if in future I come across incompleteness of information (or even worse, if that information were misleading) - where is one supposed to find reliable information, if IMDb shouldn't be used?
P.P.S. And just to confirm everything for me and make it simple: am I to understand that there shouldn't even any reference citations from IMDb?
It has been explained to you here in August 2023 and here again in October 2023 that you cannot use IMDB as a source. Whether you make it an inline citation or merely mention it in your edit summary it cannot be used as it is not a reliable source. WP:IMDB has already been linked for you but here it is again. Please read it. Also WP:CITINGIMDB which lists distributor information and release dates as "Disputed uses." If information cannot be reliably sourced then it should either be removed or a {{cn}} tag added in the hope that another editor can provide one. IMDB should never be used to source and unsourced claim. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got you, mate - no sourcing of material from IMDb in the future (and as consequence no need for me to add citations referencing IMDb, either).
Although, to me it sounds a bit "over the top", if I'm honest. I mean, any web citation could be inherently unreliable, right? So presenting IMDb as absolute evil (almost to extent of banning any reference to IMDb anywhere on Wikipedia) is excessive, IMO. It's not all that much different for information from RT or Metacritic being potentially false. And reviews from 100%-reliable sources like "Hollywood Reporter" - I just find it hard to believe that their people NEVER ever resort to checking information on IMDb..
And just consider this: IMDb is the leading authority on anything related to any film, and information on that site becomes available WAY ahead of any other source (even on basis of the film in question, The Cuckoo's Curse - no reviews for it on Metacritic, on RT, even initial page for the film in missing, whereas ill initial the file is missing. Whereas on IMDb most of useful info is already there...
Which brings me to something you mentioned a short time ago:
=> If information cannot be reliably sourced then it should either be removed or a [citation needed] tag added in the hope that another editor can provide one.
=> If information cannot be reliably sourced then it should either be removed or a [citation needed] tag added in the hope that another editor can provide one. IMDB should never be used to source and unsourced claim.
So if in future some information on any film is for some reason not available on Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic - what should be done? In other words, could you for example add [citation needed] to my changes in the article earlier today?
WP:IMDB is user-generated and that is why it is unreliable. Just like wikis, forums, etc. Rotten Tomatoes isn't user-generated nor is metacritic. You asked what happens if you come across unsourced content and the answer is reliably source it if you can, CN tag if it seems likely reliable sources exist but you don't have access to them, or just remove it. If you add new content, the onus is on your to source it. You can't just add a bunch of unsourced stuff and slap a CN on it. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, it has left me in something of a quandary: one goes to IMDb page for the film in order to confirm its release date (also find out when it will be released in Germany) before adding an appropriate sentence to WP:Lead - only to discover there that not only is the date listed in Wikipedia article is Spain-specific, but also that the article lists film's distributor for Spain without mentioning distributors for other territories (which is plain false, right?) and that the film was already released in Germany, but only only on DVD. Citing IMDb as source raises lots of dander (although it's for the first time that I'm told NOT to source anything from IMDb at all! 🤔) - and now just try finding alternative citations confirming film's release dates or that distributor for Germany is indeed Neue Pierrot Le Fou... 🥵
But you're right, if that's how information sourced from IMDb will be treated now and in the future, such refs should be avoided (although preferred solution for me would be to treat such citations as potentially unreliable, maybe even tagging them with [citation needed] automatically, but still allowing them nevertheless). Wilco. 😎
- Only Spanish is listed as film's language (IMDb lists correctly also German, and I can confirm after watching the film that significant part of dialogue is indeed in German).
- Only two production companies are listed (same as on IMDb), El Pájaro Cuco AIE is missing (which I added to Wikipedia article after watching film's credits).
Go figure why RT should be treated as more reliable source than IMDb... 😒
Having noticed in White Bird a citation on Box Office Mojo for that film's release (and then having made further changes in that article on the basis of that citation), just want to confirm with you quickly: BOM is a reliable source, isn't it? It's titled as belonging to IMDbPro, so in effect it is a part of IMDb... 🙄
Hello. I wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to The Cuckoo's Curse have been removed because you cited the information you added to IMDb. As discussed at WP:RS/IMDb, IMDb is considered a questionable source, and generally should not be used as a sole reference. You are welcome to re-add the information using a different reliable source, or with an additional source confirming the information from IMDb. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- Asqueladd (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added a new section to Talk page of The Cuckoo's Curse by way of replying to you - let's take it from there, would be better and more convenient for everybody, I think. Alright? 😉
It doesn't show though distribution companies involved - and of course Germany isn't displayed there at all (what with release here being restricted to home media).
And just to mention something added to the article's WP:Lead yesterday (I read the archived information on your talk page and noticed occasional incorrect usage of English there) - "a couple of Germans" doesn't mean the same thing as "a German couple".
It is not customary though to include a brief plot description in WP:Lead (and when it's done, it's usually included in the first paragraph, not in a separate paragraph).
Also, knowing that Spanish is your first language: putting lit.'The Cuckoo' back would make sense - it might appear unnecessary to you, but to people who don't know a single word in Spanish, it would be very helpful to know what El cuco actually means.
Next time, pingme if you want answers on here. For any datum, it's preferable proper sources rather than databases. I am not opposed to mentioning German distributors in the infobox nor non-domestic distributors in the body (release section), as long as you do it with proper sources establishing notability for the information, not databases. I suggest you to be open to the idea that if there are no non-database sources highlighting those facts, it may not be a very relevant data anyways. It is not customary though to include a brief plot description in WP:Lead Not really, it is quite common. As for its inclusion for me it's a matter of lede section-body balance (which is a moving balance). Now the plot section is longer → a summarised synopsis could be a better fit in the lede section than before. You are fixating on non-issues. Translation adds nothing really important as Spanish title is an article plus the clear cognate of a name already contained in the English-language title. I understand that German couple is not exactly the same as couple of Germans but German couple is still contained within the meaning of couple of Germans.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, let's leave it at that - and as is. The article doesn't look so bad now, after all - with all the changes there...
No problem. Until next time. By the way, AIE (agrupaciones de interés económico) companies are almost always one-time ad-hoc tax vehicles to take advantage of rebates. I generally include them in the infobox studio parametre along the rest of prod-cos, but try to understand why some reliable sources may sometimes omit them. It is not a big deal.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Asqueladd, as you appear to have watched the film and are clearly a native Spanish speaker: in the final scene, does Olga continue to speak Spanish with German accent (like in the rest of the film) when she speaks to the baby and when she says: "I never liked my nose"? Anna has offered to return her body to her just before that, after all... 🙄
P.S. You could probably remove "GmbH" from "Barry Films" in "Production" - I put names of all the companies in there as they were shown in the credits, but now that I think about it (and in the light of what you've just written about "AIE"), it might look a bit unusual for company type (GmbH = Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung, lit.'Company with limited responsibility') to be included just for that production company.
No, no, no. I did not watch the film. I cannot shed light about the plot. About the company, I usually follow the secondary sources in the body and the wording of the theatrical poster in the infobox. Other than the AIE, I recall having used some Inc. for some American production company (following sources in the body) but perhaps it's best not to do it if the poster does not display it. I am okay with removing GmbH. It's not a big deal.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for May 17
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
, which I myself add to film-related articles whenever "Plot" is either too short or called "Premise").😉
Anyway, the tag is removed now and the article looks alright (IMO) - and hopefully there are no objections from you (who originally added that tag) to its removal. So all is well, I guess... 😎
Sorry, Justin - haven't read your original post carefully enough when replying just now.
=> the lead does not describe what happens in the plot or what it was that critics responded to favorably or critiqued about the film.
I don't think it's all that common for film-related articles to include even a brief summary of the film's plot - IMO, that wouldn't be called for (that's what WP:Plot is for).
But the article does include now critics' reception in its WP:Lead, doesn't it? 😉
In any event, the article's lead now looks pretty much like hundreds of other film-related articles - so I hope you agree that there's no need for
I don't think the plot section is too short, I think the lead does not give an adequate overview of the plot section. You actually point out a persistent problem with film articles, which is that many of them have inadequate overviews of the plots in the lead. "Example is a 2024 movie about a man with a truck" or "Example is a 2024 film, based on the book by John Doe" are not acceptable. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯12:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
=> Set in 1989, its plot follows the relationship between a reclusive gym manager, who is part of a crime family, and an ambitious bodybuilder who commits a string of murders once they get wrapped up in organized crime.
=>The film received positive reviews from critics.
So, that's description of what happens in the plot - and how the critics have responded to the film. 😉
under such circumstances isn't really called for - even a brief description of what the plot is about invariably bloats the lead (and is completely unnecessary, IMO); and critics' response to the film may not be known for a long time... 🙄 Szagory (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Critics' responses to the film are well known by now: you can trivially find over 200 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Again, that plot synopsis is too brief. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯12:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just thinking about that issue you've mentioned:
=> You actually point out a persistent problem with film articles, which is that many of them have inadequate overviews of the plots in the lead.
And I'm thinking now about countless other film pages where I made changes recently (just by way of example, my edits yesterday in Adagio (2023 film)) - and first of all, in order to add such a brief summary of the plot as you're describing, one would really have to read very carefully ALL OF THE PLOT'S TEXT (thus, spoiler for anybody who hasn't seen the film yet, and much more time and effort to be spent on editing); secondly, that would be pretty difficult for many films (too abstract or general, different opinions about what the plot is all about); and thirdly, would such a sentence really make the lead more informative? 🙄
Anyway, as your opinion is that WP:Lead really needs a better plot synopsis in few words (and what that article has in its lead is already way more than other film articles have), I suppose you would be justified in adding
Spoilers? I don't even understand this: first off, we don't censor based on spoilers and secondly, if you haven't seen a movie and want to avoid knowing what happens in it, why are you reading an encyclopedia article about it??? Yes, an actual overview of the plot would be more informative, since that is the function of the lead: to summarize the article. Why are plots somehow exempt? Due to spoilers? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯12:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know, mate - I haven't seen all the films for which I've made changes in Wikipedia articles (and not planning to do or even want to do), and I just don't think that such a thing as a blurb with few words about what the film's plot is all about would make the article's lead more informative or interesting (believe it or not, I've never even wanted to find such a thing about any film in advance; if you're interested in a particular film, you'd read WP:Plot completely, and if you haven't seen the film yet, then clear separation of anything related to the plot is probably advisable to avoid spoilers). Just my opinion... 😉
I think I opened that WP:SPOILER page previously - and having opened it just now, it's pretty much what I'd expect: "Wikipedia articles may include spoilers, it's unacceptable to add "spoiler warning" notices or to delete information from (or hide it within) an article because you think it spoils the plot." All fine and well, and not a single word that I'd have anything against... Still, doesn't change the fact that whenever I open a new page about some film I haven't seen yet, I don't go looking for information about what the film's plot is all about - and neither do I expect film articles to include such a thing in their leads. 😏
Having read the plot summary in the lead of Love Lies Bleeding (2024 film) (presumably written by you, right?), I do agree though that such a well-written succinct synopsis doesn't spoil things. Still, I wouldn't insist on ALL FILM ARTICLES having such a sentence (and it's probably too much to expect such poignancy for all articles).😉
Anyway, nice chatting to you, Justin - good to have a frank exchange of opinions and hopefully nobody's feelings hurt, eh?
This section needs expansion with: WP:Lead should include brief plot synopsis and critics' reception. You can help by adding to it.
would be a better choice to express the perceived lack of some information in WP:Lead though? You can describe in there better what you think is lacking or missing.... 🙄
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of films). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Sources exist for this film to be accepted. In essence, add reviews by reliable sources.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:What You Wish For (2023 film) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, Szagory!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!23:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Getting Started
Tips
![[icon]](File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg){kind=small}
