Talk:Broken City

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move[edit]

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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Broken City (film) → Broken City – There are two topics titled "Broken City": this film and Broken City (comics), a comic book storyline that may or may not be notable. Currently, Broken City is a disambiguation page with just these two topics, and I think this is needless because the film is already the much more notable topic of the two. For this term, it ought to be the primary topic. It is a Hollywood film is being reviewed by major publications. With the move, we can have a hatnote to link to the comic book storyline. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The proposer left outWe should add the redirects Broken City (song), and This Broken City (see the DAB page: Broken City). I would support the present arrangement, which immediately helps everyone and does no harm at all:
Help the readers, hmm?
NoeticaTea? 02:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine Erik, I have fixed that now. [We must have a long chat someday, when there is time!] Please prove that the proposed change would get people to their destination more directly or more reliably. If a reader types as far as "broken c" in the search box (at top right of the page), already the third prompt is the present title: "Broken City (song)". If a reader does a naive unformatted Google search on broken city, this article is number 5 in the results, highlighted this way: "Broken City (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". The DAB page is number 17 in the results. Please explain how any new arrangement would improve on this visibility for the present article, and help all readers to find what they are after without guesswork, and without clicking on some title without knowing what it is about. NoeticaTea? 03:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of readers are going to be looking for this primary topic. We can see this with elevating traffic on the disambiguation page here. When they search for "Broken City", they should arrive at the film article, which is the far more likely choice than the comic book storyline. If the film article is not sufficient, the hatnote will point them to the other article. In the search results, the blurb explains that it is a film. We do not disambiguate each and every topic on Wikipedia to try to identify it in the title. So why is this not "primary topic" enough? Is there an example of a set of articles where you accept one of them as the primary topic? I'm not clear when a given topic can primary and when it cannot. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Erik:
  • "When they search for "Broken City", they should arrive at the film article, which is the far more likely choice than the comic book storyline."
No, they don't arrive anywhere when they search; they arrive when they click on something – like the first prompt they see when they have typed as far as "broken c", even. Or in that Google search, on the fifth hit, which confirms in highlighted text that it's a Wikipedia article, and it's about the 2013 film. As the film is released, and gains more worldwide interest, Google will probably, by its obscure and ever-changing algorithms, elevate the WP article to the very top. That nearly always happens; and we'd want the topic to remain just as clearly highlighted and signposted then too, right? If not, why not? Most people find Wikipedia articles through Google – searching on three words or fewer, I'd say.
  • "Is there an example of a set of articles where you accept one of them as the primary topic?"
Sure! Many, not subject to recentism and particular interests that feature prominently on the web (usually for commercial reasons). Melbourne, Rome, and London are clear primary topics; so are Halley's comet, Asteroid, and Spider. See the hatnotes at those six articles. Easy! Where there is dispute, or where a topic is very new, ephemeral, or of sectional concern only, it is usually safest not to assume a primary topic. And once it has been determined that there is a primary topic (usually by stipulation or consensus), there is still a separate question: what set of titles will serve all readers most efficiently?
NoeticaTea? 04:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This film is too recent to be primary. I'm sure that the viewership will go down in 10 or 20 years. --George Ho (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2013 (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.

Cast[edit]

Regarding the "Cast" section, I originally added the actors and roles that were listed in the Variety review. These are also apparently listed on the poster as well. Bluerules (talk · contribs) is wanting to add the actors and roles as mentioned in the on-screen credits. Neither approach is the wrong approach; the goal is to list discriminate roles per MOS:FILM#Cast, and there are different rules of thumb to this end. For what it's worth, I think it is fine to mention the actors and roles not in the review or poster, at least for the sake of cross-navigation. The order is not quite that critical for me, though on screen credits may not be weighted for encyclopedic importance. (Some base it on first appearance, which I know is not the case here.) Erik (talk | contribs) 21:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception[edit]

Regarding changes to the "Critical reception" section, it is inaccurate to state that the film "received negative reviews", full stop. The reception certainly was not positive, but because it was not universally panned, we need to be more nuanced in defining the reception. That is why The Hollywood Reporter is cited upfront per MOS:FILM#Critical response: "Commentary should also be sought from reliable sources for critics' consensus of the film." It also helps to put this commentary before Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic because it is more generalist. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I guess there are different reasons for the negative critics involved. Correct N.Y. history is vice versa changed, the republican Guiliano

won the election after the democrat D. Russel Crow acting on an Italian profile lost his power and image of the go(o)d mayer, in corruption. His wife Michelle undermined his interests. And in so doing, mixing political position and motives, the film deals with facts in a wrong manipulating way. Legal borders in fiction are a nescessity for realism or pschyorealism aesthetic. Amercian values like truth and duty, or truth and responsibility are common shared. Sold ice...--87.79.146.152 (talk) 08:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page title[edit]

Why is the word "(film)", after the movie title, the colour grey? Just wondering... - thewolfchild 02:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a stylistic approach since disambiguation terms are just used for organizing topics. It basically makes the term less prominent than the title of the actual work. It's a step beyond having italicized the film titles and a kind of trial run. Not a fan? Erik (talk | contribs) 14:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 September 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


– The film is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. 31.53.108.231 (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC) --Relisting as there was a former RM above that was closed as no consensus. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 14:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. No rationale at all by this nom, and little in the previous RM above. No evidence that the film has made much of an impact. Will it? Who knows? Better to leave the DAB at the base name for now. Andrewa (talk) 04:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is easily the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term "Broken City". It gets 94.4% of the pageviews of the three things on the dab page,[1] and is the only one of them that's really notable. The Batman story article has no reliable sources, and the Audioslave song has no article, and is only mentioned once in the track list of the album it's on.--Cúchullain t/c 14:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

About the plot[edit]

I don't know who wrote the plot paragraph but it was made by IP user. Here are two strange descriptions that I have deleted.
  1. The story mentions that Taggart picked up a phone and he was rushing into a crime scene. It's not police chief wants him to be there. [2]
  2. The candidate Valliant was in Andrews' apartment. It wasn't true they're lovers. [3] No evidence shows they're homosexual. As I watched the movie again, I can't find any reliable clue that shows they're gay.

--Beta Lohman (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beta Lohman, you either fixed incompetent edits or vandalism. :) I never saw this movie, so I can't help. If you have any more questions, you can ask editors at WT:FILM. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Broken_City&oldid=1206444667"