Talk:Quentin Tarantino

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Actors and Filmmakers (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject United States (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Screenwriters
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Screenwriters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Screenwriting, Screenwriters, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Quentin Tarantino is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Quentin Tarantino at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.

Recurring actors redux[edit]

When I reverted this bold edit, Chocolateboy ought to have opened up a section to discuss his grievances. Instead, he edit-warred. Not good.

Since suggesting a discussion wasn't enough, I'm opening it for him, but it's still up to him to explain what his objections are and gain some consensus before messing with the article. The first revert should have been clue enough that removal was hasty and unsupported. MilesMoney (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're so keen to direct me to your prior gallery-playing bleating on this topic when that's precisely what brought me here in the first place. [1][2] There's clearly no consensus to keep this cruft as it's blatantly unsourced. If reliable, third-party sources can be found, then such material can be included in a way that reflects its importance/notability. The quote mentioned above doesn't justify the current section, though it would be fine as an additional reference in — say — a paragraph mentioning the one or two actors (e.g. Samuel L. Jackson) who have been described by multiple third-party sources as notable Tarantino faves/alumni.
chocolateboy (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

You lost track of the fact that the issue moved back from WP:ORN to Talk:Joss_Whedon#Frequent_casting_tweak, where it was resolved to everyone's satisfaction. It's been close to two months and you haven't raised any issues that haven't been dealt with already. The existence of the list is justified by the quote about Tarantino's preference for reusing actors, the items are sourced to IMDB and to the movies themselves. The whole thing falls under WP:LSC, WP:CALC, and WP:CSC. Seriously, why are you even doing this? The article is much better with the chart than without, your objections depend on a misreading of policy, and your edit-warring is tendentious. You're wasting my time. MilesMoney (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

it was resolved to everyone's satisfaction

Not sure how you figure that:

People who have voiced (on this talk page and NORN) opposition to the inclusion of this material as it currently stands (i.e. without "multiple third-party reliable sources"):
  1. Arzel
  2. Binksternet
  3. chocolateboy
  4. Hchc2009
  5. S. Rich
People who support it:
  1. MilesMoney
the items are sourced to IMDB
Which part of this is unclear? "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources themselves."
You're wasting my time
I've made constructive suggestions above (and on the Joss Whedon talk page) for how a subset of this material might be included as long as it isn't excessive and unsourced (as it is currently). In fact, the policy you introduced to reinstate that material on the Joss Whedon article ("at least three different characters in Whedon's productions"), which you've conveniently forgotten here, was originally introduced by me. AFAICT, you've never added anything of substance to any of the articles you're disrupting beyond repeatedly prosecuting this attempt to undermine a core Wikipedia policy.
chocolateboy (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I've protected them from damage, which makes me a force multiplier instead of just an adder. SO far, you seem to be a subtracter: you remove value. If you'd like to work on improving citations, you'll have my support. MilesMoney (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

you seem to be a subtracter
FWIW, I've added a fair bit to this article (and the Joss Whedon article) over the years, as can easily be verified, but, of course, I remove cruft like this which violates Wikipedia policy.
If you'd like to work on improving citations, you'll have my support.
If you're genuinely interested in improving the article (rather than flying in the face of overwhelming consensus and Wikipedia policy) then the onus is on you to justify the inclusion of this material as per WP:Verifiability:
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material.
chocolateboy (talk) 04:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The Hateful Eight[edit]

I made a redirect for the new film, ready to be expanded when there's more information about the project: The Hateful Eight. — Mayast (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I've just added a subsection and content under the "Controversies" section covering Tarantino suing Gawker Media over the distribution of his scripts for film The Hateful Eight. I've also included why he is no longer continuing the film along with three different sources. I recommend we keep a close eye on this issue within the coming weeks because it is likely to change and the subsection will require expansion. Meatsgains (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

"Kill Bill"[edit]

The lead refers to "Kill Bill" being in the tradition of Japanese martial arts, but in the section on "Kill Bill", to being in the tradition of Chinese martial arts. Which is it? I don't know enough about the film to correct this. -- P123ct1 (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


I have copy-edited the article and am going through the footnotes to check they are sound. Putting {{failed verification}} tags in the text would make it unsightly, so I will list them here. None of these footnotes back up the text they are appended to:-

Early Life:

7 - Monitor, "Ent. Wkly"

9 - Barr, Susan

12 - "The Man and His Movies"

13 - QT Biog. yahoo

16 - "Fresh Air from ...." Nat.Pub.Radio

18 - Clarkson, Wensley

19 - Strong, Danny


22 Fuller, Graham ISBN

23 "Outside the Box ... " USC

.--P123ct1 (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


In years active, it says 1983- What did he do that year? My Best Friend's Birthday started shooting in 1984, but it was released in 87? What are the rules for this years active template? It's kind of dumb. When do you decide that they are active? He was writing since he was a kid.. I dunno, but I don't think 83 is notable. Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


The § Filmography and critical reception and § Reception sections both list Rotten Tomatoes scores. Suggestion: either the Metacritic scores should be moved to the former, or the Rotten Tomatoes scores should be removed from the former. -- (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)