Talk:Equinox (1970 film)

Budget

It clearly states on the back of the DVD and in the making of bonus feature that the budget for the movie was $6,500 USD and not $8,000. I am changing it in the article. Roguegeek (talk) 05:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Importance

Why is a film in the Criterion Collection rated as low importance? --Scottandrewhutchins 15:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Links

The link to Jack Woods leads to Oxleas Wood, a forest, and that to Robin Christopher leads to a different actress of that name, not even born when the film was made. I shall therefore remove them. Kostaki mou (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Expansion

This article is too short and needs to be expanded. The plot section is not that well developed and should be worked upon and expanded. Also information on the film's reception needs to be added in a separate section and the production section could be expanded a little bit more.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Infobox "uncredited"

No rule in either MOS:FILM, MOS:IBX, or Template:Infobox suggests you add a "uncredited" tag in the infobox. Where are you getting these rules from @Gothicfilm:? Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Multiple discussions on the subject. I was a participant in several, such as at Talk:John Wick#Director credit. Usually the consensus is that uncredited people should not be listed, which I agree with. But as I said then: Case-by-case judgment is necessary. In a situation where an uncredited writer or director is deemed to have contributed enough to also be listed in the infobox, below the credited writer and/or director, than the name should certainly be tagged with "(uncredited)" - as most are that I have seen. That is what I have done here. Numerous reliable sources list uncredited people in infoboxes, such as the AFI. But they are labelled as such. To not label them as "(uncredited)" would be misrepresenting the credits and misleading the reader. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

These are all individual. It doesn't matter what other website do, as the purpose of the infobox is to expand on information in the article. As per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, "key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content". In other words, if you explain it in the prose (which you should be doing), then you do not need to re-state that junk in the infobox. Just because AFI does that, does not really mean anything to me. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Side note

Adding "uncredited" in the infobox, makes it look like both directors are uncredited. It is not clear and not what infoboxes are for, remember "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose", adding extra details, makes it fail this rule Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

This is how it's done on numerous articles. If anyone is confused, they can read the article. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)