Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Star Wars: The Force Awakens article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|This was the most viewed article on Wikipedia for the week of December 13 to 19, 2015, according to the Top 25 Report.|
I think it's worth mentioning in the "Talk" section that the user reviews for this movie on imdb are almost universally, highly critical, especially those reviews that have the highest number of "useful" reviews. Below is a link to the imdb user reviews, sorted by "most useful": http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2488496/reviews?start=0 A very quick scroll through reveals that it is pages and pages and pages of highly negative reviews before any positive review is offered, and then pages and pages and pages of negative reviews before another one is returned. In fact, with this sort, as of December 26th, 2016, there is exactly one positive review in the first 16 pages of reviews under the "most useful" sort. Said positive review is the only one in those 16 pages with a user rating of more than 5 stars out of 10, offering a rating of 9 stars out of 10; the vast majority of reviews offer a rating of just 1 star out of 10. I personally think this fact should be at least mentioned in the "Critical Response" subsection of the article, especially in light of the otherwise very favorable critical response, but the merits of user reviews are not something I will explicitly defend. I will leave this note up for discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- IMDb is generally not a WP:Reliable source. See Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Would this constitute an exception, given that "Critical Reception" is about matters of opinion, and the source provided tends to indicate negative opinion? I.e. the pertinent information is not how accurate the opinion is but how accurately the opinion reflects its critical reception among users, especially on this scale? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's 2-point-068 billion, i.e. just over 2 billion. I realize different countries use different digit separators, but Wikipedia uses '.' as the decimal point exclusively. See MOS:DECIMAL and MOS:DIGITS. --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Star Wars: The Force Awakens. 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/20151230043857/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/937e730fac6f463f96ff46e4f1079c26/force-awakens-becomes-fastest-movie-1-billion to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/937e730fac6f463f96ff46e4f1079c26/force-awakens-becomes-fastest-movie-1-billion
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- 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.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.
I don't know why Star Wars: The Force Awakens was just rated C-class?? I've translated this article in Vietnamese and I nominated it for featured articles in viwiki, but somehow people here protested because of the C-class in enwiki. Please someone tell me why! Mintu Martin (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)