Talk:Source Code: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:49, 15 August 2011

Chicago C‑class

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Film: American C‑class

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Science Fiction C‑class

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction 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.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Source Code article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

References to use

Source Code Edit Bay Visit, comingsoon.net

References to use. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Physicist Jim Kakalios discusses the seeming paradox of the ending. Probably nothing useful but if an analysis section develops eventually it might come in handy. Millahnna (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Groundhog Day?

"Colter re-lives the incident over and over again, gathering clues each time, until he can solve the mystery of who is behind the bombs and prevent the next attack, but he eventually falls in love with one of the passengers." - Sounds like Groundhog Day. 71.90.29.110 (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New information indicates that he's crossing over into near-parallel timelines ala quantum mechanics and not able to influence his prime timeline. He needs the info from another timeline to find the bomber MikeSims (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a rip off of "Deja Vu".74.100.60.53 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source Code (film) → Source Code — Per WP:PRECISION, we do not need to disambiguate if the topics are in different cases. The film is in title case, so when readers explicitly search for "Source Code", they will arrive at the film article. WP:PRECISION mentions red meat vs. Red Meat. Film examples include panic room vs. Panic Room and pulp fiction vs. Pulp Fiction. We can add a hatnote to point readers to source code just in case, but it is much more likely than not that they will be looking for the film. --Erik (talk | contribs) 23:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment or we could just build a dab page at Source Code, since most likely links here will be for "source code", and people enter title case into the search box as well. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dab pages are for when there are several possible targets. When there are only 2, as here, hatnotes suffice and are much preferred. A dab page would only create an unnecessary extra step for readers to reach their intended target. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support and hatnote each, per my above comment. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support with hatnotes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support – not really a disambiguation issue as such, since Source Code is not really an alternative name for "Source code". The film should get the title page. Betty Logan (talk) 07:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - with hatnote per above. Gatoclass (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree with Erik (no relation) and I think there probably ought to be a hatnote. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do find it funny that I run across you fairly often since the Fight Club discussion. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 19:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unique by means of capitalization. Hatnote will be required though. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Source Code/Source code distinction

Hi!

I interpret the previous discussion to indicate that Source Code should lead to the movie, but Source code should lead to the concept. Isn't this the case? If not, I'd seriously request a reconsideration. Merely typing "source code" should lead to the concept, not the movie.

Thanks. Kumar Appaiah (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation was correct. The reason is that the film is the more likely end result people are looking to reach (see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). If, at some point in the future, we determine that is no longer the case, we can always change it. Millahnna (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. Kumar Appaiah (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People will only think about this being the most common usage as it is currently in the cinema. Simply south...... trying to improve for 5 years 16:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do suspect that eventually we'll end up changing it. Could be a little bit of recentism but as long as all the dabs are done properly it shouldn't be a big deal; everyone should be able to get to the article they are actually looking for firly easily. Millahnna (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve Monkeys

I wouldn't know where to put it in the article, but this movie reminded me a lot of Twelve Monkeys.

Tyler Szabo 01:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler.szabo (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, your personal experience from the movie has actually no place in the article. If you can find a reputable source that makes the comparison, only then it could be considered for inclusion. --uKER (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just put it in "See also". :-P 71.84.199.50 (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't; the connection is not obvious (in fact it's escaping me entirely). If a source we can use makes the comparison then we could probably do something with it somewhere. Millahnna (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, of course, wouldn't add it without a reference - but I didn't want to leave it unmentioned. Tyler Szabo 07:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler.szabo (talk • contribs)

The REAL Sean Fentress

Does anyone know who the actor is that played the REAL Sean Fentress (the guy everyone in the Source Code sees, the picture on the wallet, Colter Steven's reflection)? I think it deserves a place in the article (Under Cast. Since the voice cameo got billing on WP, the body cameo should too). -The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found it. It's Frédérick De Grandpré. Source: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0214810/ -The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hero not really dead suggestion (for the plot summary)

At some point in the movie, it came to me that the hero might not be really dead (what a plot twist that would be...), given that his father speaks about getting just ashes back and we see him in the "incubator". Later this idea is rejected, given that the whole body is shown, but still, this seems to be a trick from the screenwriter and maybe worth mentioning in the plot summary. Adam Mirowski (talk) 03:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does "allowed to die in peace afterwards instead of being held alive as a military artifact" mean? That he was murdered? The plot summary (which is so long it is more like a condensed book) is very poorly written and confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

character section needs to go

trivial and OR. Not necessary at all and written in opinionated format. Example:

She says exactly the same thing at the beginning of every sequence, no matter what facial emotions Colter is expressing (fear, confusion), whereas real human beings react in microseconds. Furthermore, when the bomb goes off ahead, it does not faze her. She still wants to know what the hell is going on beating up a guy on a train bench. All of this may be explainable if it has something of a simulation aspect, which is not perfect.

Rather than adding a tag, I suggest the whole section be axed because it cannot be polished in any way. Important character facts should be merged into the plot summary. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. Just do it. Exok (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree and have removed the section. Actors and their roles should be discussed using secondary sources in the "Cast" section. The plot summary is adequate for describing each character's noteworthy actions in the process of describing the film. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Release

The artitcle's use of "overall" suggests that the film grossed only $14 million. In fact it made over $100 million. Doesn't final gross typicaly follow weekend gross in the Release section?

Revision as of 14:44, 15 August 2011 edit 99.146.35.163 (talk) →character section needs to go ← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:49, 15 August 2011 edit undo 99.146.35.163 (talk) →Release Next edit →
Line 89:		Line 89:
	== Release ==		== Release ==

	The artitcle's use of "overall" suggests that the film grossed only $14 million, ~~and~~ ~~there~~ is no ~~dollar~~ ~~figure~~ to ~~say otherwise~~.		The artitcle's use of "overall" suggests that the film grossed only $14 million. In fact it made over $100 million. Doesn't final gross typicaly follow weekend gross in the Release section?