Talk:The Last Airbender (film): Difference between revisions
Montgolfière (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
I recently made a small edit, adding the word "parody" before the phrase "Golden Raspberry Awards" in the second paragraph of the lead section. I did this because, when I read the lead section for the first time, I personally found it confusing and had to click on the blue link to [[Golden Raspberry Awards]] in order to understand what was actually being said. But this edit was just reversed by an anonymous editor (109.77.209.211), on the grounds that "parody is not quite the right word," even though we currently call the awards a "parody" in the main [[Golden Raspberry Awards]] article. I think 109.77.209.211's reversal of my edit was rather silly and that the lead section reads better with the clarification. If there's no objection, I'll undo their reversal in the next day or so. [[User:Montgolfière|Montgolfière]] ([[User talk:Montgolfière|talk]]) 03:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC) |
I recently made a small edit, adding the word "parody" before the phrase "Golden Raspberry Awards" in the second paragraph of the lead section. I did this because, when I read the lead section for the first time, I personally found it confusing and had to click on the blue link to [[Golden Raspberry Awards]] in order to understand what was actually being said. But this edit was just reversed by an anonymous editor (109.77.209.211), on the grounds that "parody is not quite the right word," even though we currently call the awards a "parody" in the main [[Golden Raspberry Awards]] article. I think 109.77.209.211's reversal of my edit was rather silly and that the lead section reads better with the clarification. If there's no objection, I'll undo their reversal in the next day or so. [[User:Montgolfière|Montgolfière]] ([[User talk:Montgolfière|talk]]) 03:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC) |
||
: I'm surprised you don't already know what the Golden Raspberry Awards are, but even so the award titles such as "Worst Picture" should be more than enough to make the context and nature of the awards clear. Further details are better left to the [[Golden Raspberry Awards]] page. -- [[Special:Contributions/109.77.209.211|109.77.209.211]] ([[User talk:109.77.209.211|talk]]) 16:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:26, 9 August 2019
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Last Airbender (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
The Last Airbender (film) was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 10, 2009. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Template:WikiProject Nickelodeon Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Q1: Why isn't there a criticisms/controversies section?
A1: Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praise and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per the Criticism essay. In this case, the criticisms and/or controversy regarding casting has been worked into the casting section. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 March 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Imthinking101 (article contribs).
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on The Last Airbender. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060405040313/http://www.scifi.com:80/scifiwire/index.php?category=3 to http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=3&id=40610
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Unsourced production companies
The production companies were unsourced, so I added a citation for them (diff). This is to the American Film Institute. Crazybob2014 blanked the source and restored the unsourced production companies (diff). I reverted him (diff), and he reverted me back (diff). I would like to restore the reliably sourced production companies and remove the unsourced ones. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- This says, "A Paramount release presented with Nickelodeon Movies of a Blinding Edge Pictures, Kennedy/Marshall Co. production." Paramount was the major studio involved, but not sure about the extent of Nickelodeon's involvement. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- The problem with Variety's reviews is that they don't explicitly identify the production companies. One of them could be a production company, another could be a financier, another could be contractually obligated to appear in the billing block. We don't know exactly which ones are the production companies, though I often use Variety reviews when I can't find anything else. It's certainly better than nothing. AFI, Screen International, and The Hollywood Reporter all explicitly list the production companies, which I think is more useful than looking at the billing block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- The BFI credit it as a Paramount/Nickelodeon presentation that was produced by Blinding Edge Pictures and Kennedy/Marshall Co. Both Paramount and Nickelodeon are owned by Viacom, so I doubt Nickelodeon would have been involved in the film's production because that is what Paramount does for Viacom. It looks to me that the two independents produced it for Paramount who funded and distributed it; Nickelodeon is likely just in the credits for licensing reasons. It's really a question of how you interpret the credits: either just the two production companies should be included in the production company field or all four companies should be included. I favor the latter because it relies on less editorial interpretation. Betty Logan (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- The important thing is that it gets sourced. I think the AFI is a perfectly legitimate source for an American film, but if the BFI disagrees, fine, we can go with that instead. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think both sources are legitimate for any film regardless of the country they are made in, so the real question is how to handle the inconsistency? Betty Logan (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that's true. I think I was feeling a bit tired and grumpy when I wrote that. What you suggested sounds fine to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think both sources are legitimate for any film regardless of the country they are made in, so the real question is how to handle the inconsistency? Betty Logan (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- The important thing is that it gets sourced. I think the AFI is a perfectly legitimate source for an American film, but if the BFI disagrees, fine, we can go with that instead. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- The BFI credit it as a Paramount/Nickelodeon presentation that was produced by Blinding Edge Pictures and Kennedy/Marshall Co. Both Paramount and Nickelodeon are owned by Viacom, so I doubt Nickelodeon would have been involved in the film's production because that is what Paramount does for Viacom. It looks to me that the two independents produced it for Paramount who funded and distributed it; Nickelodeon is likely just in the credits for licensing reasons. It's really a question of how you interpret the credits: either just the two production companies should be included in the production company field or all four companies should be included. I favor the latter because it relies on less editorial interpretation. Betty Logan (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- The problem with Variety's reviews is that they don't explicitly identify the production companies. One of them could be a production company, another could be a financier, another could be contractually obligated to appear in the billing block. We don't know exactly which ones are the production companies, though I often use Variety reviews when I can't find anything else. It's certainly better than nothing. AFI, Screen International, and The Hollywood Reporter all explicitly list the production companies, which I think is more useful than looking at the billing block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I saw an IP editor screwing with the production companies and went back to the AFI's database entry, which was already in the article. I forgot about this discussion on the talk page, since there was no source for the production companies. Once I remembered, I cited the BFI source above for the production companies, which seemed to be the consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on The Last Airbender. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207041134/http://www.viacom.com/NEWS/NewsText.aspx?RID=1048320 to http://www.viacom.com/NEWS/NewsText.aspx?RID=1048320
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-airbender-20100625,0,1232454.story
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/06/09/new-last-airbender-casting-stays-on-right-side-of-racebending-debate/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120612072534/http://www.ugo.com/movies/airbender-casting-call-controversy-continues to http://www.ugo.com/movies/airbender-casting-call-controversy-continues
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/04/28/the-last-airbender-teaser-trailer-attached-to-transformers-2/
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/06/20/a-brief-first-look-at-the-last-airbender-teaser-trailer/
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/24/the-last-airbender-trailer-for-christmas/
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/12/03/the-last-airbender-trailer-delayed-until-february/
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://adage.com/superbowl10/article?article_id=141168
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Parts of the article read like promotional material for the production companies
The Special Effects section sounds like promotional material from ILM. Should be cleaned up and shortened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.10.80 (talk) 08:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Clarifying that the Golden Raspberry Awards are parodies
I recently made a small edit, adding the word "parody" before the phrase "Golden Raspberry Awards" in the second paragraph of the lead section. I did this because, when I read the lead section for the first time, I personally found it confusing and had to click on the blue link to Golden Raspberry Awards in order to understand what was actually being said. But this edit was just reversed by an anonymous editor (109.77.209.211), on the grounds that "parody is not quite the right word," even though we currently call the awards a "parody" in the main Golden Raspberry Awards article. I think 109.77.209.211's reversal of my edit was rather silly and that the lead section reads better with the clarification. If there's no objection, I'll undo their reversal in the next day or so. Montgolfière (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm surprised you don't already know what the Golden Raspberry Awards are, but even so the award titles such as "Worst Picture" should be more than enough to make the context and nature of the awards clear. Further details are better left to the Golden Raspberry Awards page. -- 109.77.209.211 (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Former good article nominees
- Wikipedia Did you know articles
- B-Class film articles
- B-Class American cinema articles
- American cinema task force articles
- WikiProject Film articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- Low-importance American cinema articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class Animation articles
- Bottom-importance Animation articles
- B-Class Animation articles of Bottom-importance
- B-Class Animated films articles
- Mid-importance Animated films articles
- Animated films work group articles
- WikiProject Animation articles