Talk:Dunkirk (2017 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Netherlands

Once again, I changed "Holland" to "the Netherlands". This source (in Dutch) is perfectly clear about the location where filming will take place, and in Holland it isn't. Since Holland is an archaic name, the Netherlands would be correct anyway when referring to the country. Fnorp (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Content in the infobox

IP editors were changing the production companies in the infobox without sources (for example, diff), so I added a citation a Variety Insight, Variety' database (diff). I also sourced the country of origin. An IP editor has once again changed the country of origin without a source and changed the production company (diff). I don't see how Movie Insider is a reliable source, and a company's Twitter feed is at best a primary source. I think we should stick to what Variety says for now, at least. And, of course, the country of origin should be properly sourced. AllMovie, the best source that I've seen so far, says it's an American film, not British. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

according to the sources from Hollywood.com, The film is made by a British production company Syncopy, directed by a British director, written by a British, based on a British war story, produced by three British filmmakers (including Emma Thomas) The film was shot exclusively in England, according to the filming section of this article. The film is classified as British — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.174.85.170 (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd go with Variety Insight over what Hollywood.com says, but Hollywood.com is reliable enough that we could at least discuss adding what it says are the production companies. I think right now, as an upcoming film, we should stick to what the most reliable and authoritative sources say, and that's Variety. When the film is released, better information may become available. The British involvement is original research and unsourced. AllMovie clearly says it's American. I haven't yet seen a source that says it's a British film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

At the very least, we should definitely list the United States as a country because the American studio Warner Bros. is making this film. They are involved with the production and handle the distribution. They are not merely leaving it up to Syncopy to make the film. There are absolutely British elements, but nationality is based on funding. It is a falsehood to label this film as explicitly British. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Erik. If other reliable sources indicate that US entities are involved in production, then the article should reflect that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Concur with Erik and Cyphoidbomb. We got with reliable secondary reportage over primary sources, and we don't synthesize from sources to draw conclusions.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

American company Warner Bros is only being a Distributor, not a production company for this film. This film is made by a famous British production company "Syncopy Films" owned by British Christopher Nolan and Emma Thomas Who directed, written, and produced this film. Plus, This film is a British war history film. It would not make sense if it was American. and Hollywood.com is reliable, been working in hollywood for 20 years, when Allmovie is not. and I haven't yet seen a source that says it's a American film. I have only seen sources from so many sites, including page from Syncopy Films, All say it's a British film, known as being made by a British production company, and British filmmakers, staring British actors and actress, and filmed in England. as being a British war story film — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.174.85.170 (talk) 12:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

No, major studios like Warner Bros. are heavily involved in the production and distribution of their films. This is not a case of Fox Searchlight buying distribution rights for a well-received film at a film festival. Furthermore, the fame of Syncopy is being exaggerated. It is Nolan's production banner, and there has been very little substantial coverage about it. Ultimately, according to this, "Following the conventions of international film distribution, the assignment of nationality to a film is normally based on the criterion of economically acquired rights to that nationality. Given that nationality rights can be effectively 'bought' by any nation providing a large enough percentage of the production funding for a feature film, the conventional economic definition of nationality is clearly not congruent with the supposed role of national cinema as a cultural export emerging from, and representing, a national cultural identity." The last part is what you are trying to argue, but this is not appropriate to do in the opening sentence because it is not a primarily British-financed film. You can mention the British elements throughout the lead section, but it is outright false to ignore the Warner Bros. production involvement and claim the film as entirely British. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I've removed British-only claims from the article as unsubstantiated, especially ignoring WB's involvement. For example, The Martian is filmed by a British director, but it is identified as an American film per the major-studio involvement (based on sources). Here, we should leave out country claims until we start seeing sources identify what it is. It could be a US production or a US-UK production. Not likely that it is going to be a UK production. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Just like Nolan's The Dark Knight Trilogy is a UK production. SYNCOPY so it's classified as British. Warner Bros promoting and selling this film doesn't make this film American. Also there a Company Called Warner Bros UK. Registered as a UK company based in London England. What are you trying to do? Trying to change the film's nationality because you don't like it being a British film, when the film is produced by a British production company, and British filmmakers. I've seen you do that so many times on many pages trying to calm it American when it's clearly British film. Stop doing that. I'm reporting you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.24.43.66 (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

IMDB lists six production companies: [1]. It's nearly always correct about production companies, especially for unreleased films, because usually only the studio(s) submits them. I don't know why people think such a massive film only has one or even two production companies. It would be fairly easy to Google each of the companies along with the title and re-confirm each. IMAX also seems involved [2]. Films can also be cross-nationally produced -- that's also fairly common now, especially with epic films that have international locations. Lastly, one aside I'd like to make is that the filmmakers have been very secretive and closed-mouth about this film. They've seemingly placed the cast under gag orders too, as I can find very little info outside of fangirls raving over the 1D guy. Softlavender (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The Dark Knight Trilogy is absolutely not a purely UK production. The British Film Institute identifies both the UK and the USA for Batman Begins as seen here. It is the same for the next two films. I did not change the article to say just American/US. I took British/UK out until we have better sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Per Template:Infobox_film#Country sources are explicitly required to identify the nationality of a film. Extrapolating nationalities from production companies is original research because in most cases we do not not know the extent or nature of a company's involvement, and funding isn't necessarily a good indicator any more because it can be pooled from anywhere these days. If quality sources are inconsistent—or unavailable—then just leave it blank and wait and see how the AFI/BFI label it, but there is a long-standing tendency (see http://lumiere.obs.coe.int/web/director_info/?lum_id=1982) to regard Syncopy produced/Warner financed films as British-American and I suspect that will remain true in this case. Betty Logan (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Country of origin

according to the sources from Hollywood.com, The film is made by a British production company Syncopy, directed by a British director, written by a British, based on a British war story, produced by three British filmmakers (including Emma Thomas) The film was shot exclusively in England, according to the filming section of this article. The film is classified as British http://www.hollywood.com/movies/dunkirk-warner-bros-60585879/credits/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.174.85.170 (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Nolan moved to the United States almost twenty years ago, spent significant parts of his early life in both London and Chicago, and for a duel British/American citizen currently living in the United States, he is hardly ideal for proving that this movie is exclusively British. That link you provided says nothing about the classification of the film. Dustin (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

it is not Nolan, its the production company, Syncopy is a British based company headquartered in London — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.151.98 (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

and How did Nolan move to USA 20 years ago? When He was educated in England, went to College in London, married his British wife and founded his company Syncopy in London in 2001

Page protection

I've requested page protection in order to try to bring an end to the edit war. At this point, too little is known about the film to make definitive statements about its nationality -- but the fact that this is a British subject does not make it a British film. There needs to be more discussion and fewer reversions. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

So What does a film that was produced by A British Production company make it Amecian? So Stop trying to steal and take credit for American, when it is Not even American war film. It's a British production film about British war history, No Amecian involved in this film. Get over it Don't be double standards and ACCEPT THE TRUTH. it's disgusting, disgrace and pathetic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.24.84.125 (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 December 2016

This film is also financed by an American company so it should be British-American 148.74.253.149 (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

This film is produced by British Production company. And Being sold and Finaced by American company does not make it American — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.24.88.22 (talk) 05:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Country of origin... again

A citation to AllMovie, which explicitly states that the film is solely American, was removed. It was replaced by a source that identifies the production company as British. Screen Daily is definitely a reliable source, but it does not identify the film as British, only one of the companies involved in its production. I believe it is original research to identify the film as British based on this source. Thus, I think we should reinstate the AllMovie citation and call it an American film until we have a source that explicitly says different. In their review, Screen Daily will identify the country of origin, and we can see what it says then. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. And the Hollywood.com source that keeps being mentioned is useless, as it never states that the film is British. I also suggest that the SPA anon. who has posted multiple times on this talk page be ignored. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

How could you Avoid the other sources that say its solely British which from Hollywood.com [3] only one single sours from no where like Allmovie doesn't make it American. I'm sure there will be other over 10 sources that say its British film coming,when the film is nearly released, since it's Produced By a British production and about British war history. So Don't be double standards and Get Over IT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.24.88.22 (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd just like to remind those in this discussion that where production takes place on a film, the place where the narrative of the story is set, and the nationality of the directors or writers of the film have no bearing on the nationality of the film itself. Saying that Dunkirk was filmed in Britain, was shot by a British director, takes place in Britain, or is about British history is unhelpful. The lead section of the Film Manual of Style suggests that if a reliable source refers to the film as American, we should do the same. If we have sources claiming both American and British nationality, we should cover it later in the lead and refer to the film with BOTH nationalities. -RM (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

it is a British filmbecause it is Produced by a British Production company Syncopy. not because it was filmed in the UK or starring all british actors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.149.21 (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Being produced by Syncopy does not result in the film being considered British. It's a very simple process, actually: find a reliable source claiming the film is British. Don't infer its nationality based on the production company, etc. Just find a reliable source that says "Dunkirk is a British film." Do that, and we can talk. Until then, these comments are unhelpful. By the way, if you want to get technical, not every actor is British: Cillian Murphy is Irish. -RM (talk) 07:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

oh really? "Being produced by Syncopy (British Company) does not result in the film being considered British" So It has to be produced by a Potato to be a British film? right? The Fact is It is British Production, Get over it. and Stop talking about the actors. Talk about the British Company Syncopy that produces this film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.149.21 (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

You brought up actors, I was just making a point about generalization. It is all, still, besides the point. It's very simple: show us a reliable source claiming Dunkirk is a British film. Not Syncopy, it's well established that Syncopy is British. It's OR to say that makes Dunkirk British, as stated above. I'm an American and I would be thrilled to mark Dunkirk as British-American or even just British. No problem with that at all... but I do have a problem with information on Wikipedia that is not reliably sourced. -RM (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

oh when? When did i bring up actors? I never brought up actors. It was you who brought up actors. and I've always been talking about the British Company Syncopy that produces this film. All you do is try to take credit for American, When the reality the fact This film is made by The British Production company, directed and produced by British Director and his British wife. The source already says that this film is produced by British company Syncopy. You never mention that. you just don't like the film being British huh? Get Over it This Film is produced by British company, history and biological about British war story. No American involved. so Stop trying to take credit for American. It's automatically classified as British production film, since it is produced by British production company. It's simple it's common sense. Do not you understand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.174.119.100 (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

In regards to when you brought up actors, review your comment from 03:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC). You said, "not because it was filmed in the UK or starring all british actors." It's not important, move on. We agree that actors don't matter anyway. Let's talk about the nationality again: I'll repeat myself... I 100% acknowledge that Syncopy is British. I'm an American, and I don't care if Dunkirk is British! If it is, great! Let's say it's British! There are no patriotic or nationalistic motives here. Literally ALL you have to do to make this happen is provide a reliable, credible source that says Dunkirk is British. Saying Syncopy is British is not enough. Saying Nolan or Thomas is British is not enough. That's OR. Please don't unnecessarily perpetuate this discussion. Just provide the source so we can move on! -RM (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It's British production. According to the provided source

And Because

1. Produced by Syncopy

2. Syncopy Inc. is a British company, based and headquartered in London. British Origin

3. Dunkirk is based on British war history Dunkirk evacuation. It's all about British War, there no American involved

4. Directed and produced by British filmmakers

5. American company Warner Bros distributing and marketing this film does not make this film American, and There is a company in the UK called "Warner Bros UK" registered as a UK based company distributing this film for the UK too.

6. The country origin of the film is classified by country of the company production, Not by the company that distributes the film

I feel like a broken record, repeating myself again and again and again. But I'll go for it. PLEASE read this and don't reply with points that are insignificant. I'll address each point: 1 and 2, produced by British company Syncopy: I agree. Syncopy is British. Dunkirk produced by Syncopy. Saying Dunkirk is British according to ONLY this is WP:OR. We CANNOT use that to claim Dunkirk is British. 3, the narrative is based on a British war story: take Blood Diamond (film) as an example as to why this doesn't matter. The film is German-American, but takes place at no point in either Germany or America. It's entirely set in England and Sierra Leone. The setting of the film has NOTHING to do with the nationality thereof. 4, directed and produced by Nolan: same dilemma we see with Syncopy. Using Nolan's British nationality to claim Dunkirk's British nationality is OR. 5, an American distributor doesn't make the film American: agreed, THAT doesn't affect nationality. Accordingly, the fact that Warner Bros. UK exists is irrelevant. 6, The nationality is classified by the country of the production company: this is NOT true! Please read this section of Wikipedia's Film Manual of Style. We are to cite a reliable source claiming nationality of the film. Not the production company or the director. Please read the MOS, the rules about OR, and my comment, and reply with a RELIABLE SOURCE claiming the film is British. If you're just going to reply with the same arguments you've already made, please don't bother. -RM (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Per the AllMovie source, I agree it should be cited as American. The only reason I reverted User:TheOldJacobite's edit was because its summary argued it was an American production, which upon reviewing the Screen Daily source was not true. However, the AllMovie source trumps the Screen Daily one. Cognissonance (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

here are the sources for Only UK production and more sources coming, http://film.britishcouncil.org/dunkirk http://cineuropa.org/nw.aspx?t=newsdetail&l=en&did=306293, not that no-name website called Allmovie which has no clue about and the film, and those americans wiki editors who loves to steal and take credit for american because allmovie says its american and only want believe one single source no-name website Allmovie because it says american. even if the director and official production company say its British, these americans wiki editors still won't believe it because they are butt hurt and don't like it being British — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.20.113.102 (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

AllMusic is a reliable source for movie soundtracks; AllMovie has the same brand. What was it you said again? No-name? Cognissonance (talk) 08:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

British Council is more reliable source than that broke allmovie. and if nationality of the production company is not nationality of fiolm then what is?? answer

First, you are not the arbiter of what constitutes reliable. Neither am I, but at least I've got a guideline to cite. Further, AllMovie states Countries - USA. That refers to the film itself, NOT the production company, which is appropriate because this is an article about the film and not Syncopy. Cognissonance (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I can not understand your English. Tell me why British Council is not reliable source? Just in your opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.172.0.46 (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Gah... It's not about being reliable, it's about the information

British Council says the production company is British

AllMovie says the film is American

This article is about the film, not production company

Cognissonance (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a British film, that is why Dunkirk 2017 has been listed on the British Films Directory (only British films can be listed on that site British Council. Look at another film articles which are classified as British such like Carol because of the British production

• Rather than blocking some of you for edit warring, I've protected the page for a week. Please continue to discuss this on the talk page and figure it out before changing it again. Perhaps get some other eyes on this as well. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

AllMovie refers to Carol as British-American, so does British Council. Dunkirk should be referred to as British-American because the same sources are subject to contradiction. Regardless of your opinion, AllMovie is a reliable source and should be taken into account. Cognissonance (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Allmovie says Carol is British-American, because Allmovie probably had read Wikipedia page "Carol" in the first place, so Allmovie used reference from Wikipedia page "Carol" to put up on their website saying Carol is British-American. I would rather trust the company that has been around for almost 100 years and worth about $1 billion such like British Council, than a new little website called Allmovie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.172.0.46 (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

"Allmovie probably had read Wikipedia page" and "Allmovie used reference from Wikipedia page" goes straight from conjecture to conclusion. These are not arguments. You do not know the editorial process of this "new little website", which invalidates your conclusion. Also, Wikipedia does not rank reliabilility on how long the source has been around. It is gauged from its history of being reliable. Daily Mail is 120 years old and is not regarded as the pinnacle of truth. Cognissonance (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no even one single source from Allmovie in Carol page to claim its British-American. and British Council Film is a film organization not like Daily mail which is a newspaper, Search Dunkirk on http://film.britishcouncil.org/british-films-directory/in-production — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.172.0.46 (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to once again remind the IP user(s) that the nationality of Syncopy does not determine the nationality of Dunkirk. However, I'd like to point something out: the British Council link you provided [4] explicitly states "UK, France, US coproduction." I'm glad you brought this to our attention, I figured that it may also be French considering the historical significance of the events depicted in the film to the French, but I had no idea until I read the link you provided! I would like to suggest we alter the lead to reflect that the film is, in fact, a British, French, and American production. -RM (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Fuck's the matter with you. I did not claim AllMovie was used in the article and Daily Mail was used as a reference point to show how irrelevant it is to doubt an 18 year old website's credibility because it isn't 82 years old like British Council. You strike me as someone who does not just have trouble understanding my English, but who understands no English, period. There's only so much time I'm willing to waste on illiterate IPs. Google Translate just ain't gonna cut it. Cognissonance (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

So, any objections to British-French-American? -RM (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

According to what source? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

According to the user who wants to claim British nationality, the British Film Council is a reliable source. It appears to be reliable. In any case, it states that the film is a UK-France-US coproduction. See this link for more info. -RM (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems good. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

There only 2 production companies Syncopy Inc.(UK) and Warner Bros(US) that are credited as seen on the official trailer and poster. so It is only British-American — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.174.122.64 (talk) 06:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

As discussed above, the nationalities of the production companies and distributors have nothing to do with the nationalities of the film. -RM (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

So What does have to do with the nationally of the film? Since this film is listed on the "British Film Directory" on British Film Council — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.24.126.178 (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The film itself is the only thing that has to do with its own nationality. This entire discussion has hinged on one thing: a source that claims nationality on the film. We previously had a reliable source claiming American nationality, but this newer, still reliable source from the British Film Council explicitly states "UK, France, US coproduction." Accordingly, when protection is lifted from the page tomorrow, I'll make the change, rather than bogging down an admin today. I believe this satisfies everyone... sourced reliably and references British and American (and French, though no one was vying for that) nationality. -RM (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd also be happier if the language used is British English; it currently is on this page, but not on the article. Why it would be in American English is completely beyond me, regardless of how much American involvement there is in the film. Thanks. The joy of all things (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with preference or appeasement of any editors. However, given that "UK" is listed first in the source, I would tend to agree that the article should be written in British English. Can another editor do this? I'm American, and unfamiliar with some of the changes that would need to be made. Again, let's just wait until protection is lifted tomorrow. No need to bog down an admin. -RM (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

It is not about my preference; it's the subject matter. The Film Deepwater Horizon is about an (ostensibly) British owned oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. You wouldn't expect that to be in British English because of its setting. Likewise, the funding of Dunkirk will be 100% Hollywood but it largely focuses on a mainly British embarrassing evacuation from a beach back to Blighty.

Fully concur with not bothering an admin until tomorrow though. Hope the weather is ok with you; it's flipping freezing here. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no such thing as 'American English'. There is only "English" (spoken by English people). And there are mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.20.115.214 (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

That is neither funny nor helpful.The joy of all things (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty chilly here too (New England region), you're not alone! -RM (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 December 2016

"a seven-minute preview will be displayed prior to select 70mm IMAX showings of Rogue One" is now outdated. Past tense is needed. Cognissonance (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Cognissonance (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Done uncontroversial — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 December 2016

Fix cite error. Cognissonance (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC) Cognissonance (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Canadians at Dunkirk

There were no Canadian Troops at Dunkirk. The First Canadian Division, which was in England at the time of 'Operation Dynamo,' did not travel to France because its Commander, General A.G.L. McNaughton (after visiting Dunkirk,) thought it would be a futile exercise. The Canadians landed in France at Brest in mid-June but returned to the UK soon after as the Wehrmacht were quickly advancing and there was little support from other troops, French or British. Individual Canadians serving in the Royal Navy (Commander Clouston was the Piermaster) performed heroic service and there was an RAF Squadron of Canadian pilots which fought over Dunkirk. Oviously there were Canadian citizens and members of British regiments who served at Dunkirk.

CBC documentary film produced in 1990 entitled "We Shall fight on the Beaches."

Cast order

The British Council source gave us a cast order. Should we use it? It's not a billing block, but it is an order provided by a reliable source. -RM (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Rmaynardjr: It neglects a few of the other sourced cast members. A source like British Council might be all we have to indicate who the stars of the movie actually are until the theatrical posters give confirmation, but I think it's best to wait. Cognissonance (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary redirects

NinjaRobotPirate, in overhauling the "Cast" section, there are three actor links that redirect to film articles. I think this is inappropriate and that they should be red links. Would you mind deleting the redirects?

• Fionn Whitehead
• Barry Keoghan
• Tom Glynn-Carney

If you don't want me to make this kind of request, let me know. :) Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Nah, I don't mind. I don't have a lot of experience with redirects, but I think these would probably need to go through discussion at WP:RFD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I thought this was a straightforward case. I'll put these up, then. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Redirects now listed here: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 24. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

English language not needed

The English language part isn't needed. If there is more than one country and the primary production is from English speaking nation, we don't need the nationality in the lead part of the article. --Warner REBORN (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It's needed, especially if France is involved. A passerby will not recognize that the primary production is from "English speaking nation". Dunkirk is even set in France. There's nothing wrong with having it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

ii. The Sea

I'm unable to edit the section in question but would suggest the final sentence be rephrased from 'Peter later takes a photograph of George' to something like 'Peter later presents a photograph of George', lest we want readers to misconstrue George's dead body as being photographed by Peter. 92.19.191.236 (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Great minds think alike; I had edited that sentence before reading your note. You're right he did not "take a photo". Peter K Burian (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Genre in opening sentence

I'm opening a discussion about the genre in the opening sentence. I thought that "epic war thriller" was based on the Warner Bros. press release, but it says "epic action thriller" where the second reference says "gritty war film". It is synthesis to combine the two because there is no source that says "epic war thriller" directly. Per WP:FILMLEAD, we should use "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". In this case, "war film" appears to be the simplest label used by many sources as seen here, even if the director recently denied that it was one. (He is not the final authority on this, being a primary source; secondary sources have greater authority.) So we need to determine if we want to reference the press release correctly or call it a war film or some variation of it, instead of mashing up sources to create something that only Wikipedia is calling it. Pinging TheOldJacobite, Okungnyo. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion, Erik. I never liked "epic war thriller," which always seemed like a silly compromise. It's nice that Nolan says it's not a war film, but, as you say, his opinion is not definitive. I also find the press release unacceptable as a source because it is, by nature, promotional, not objective. Your search indicates the majority of sources call it a "war film," so that is what we should go with. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

We could write "war film" but perhaps at the end of the first paragraph, state that Nolan does not consider it a war film and briefly explain why (especially since multiple sources report on this). Not sure if it will be a permanent detail to have, but we can always revise that later, based on all the information available post-release. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The studio classifies the film as an "action thriller" and the director has explicitly come out and said "Dunkirk is not a war film". Why do you think they are going to such lengths to say that Dunkirk isn't a war movie?

Because it's not a war movie, yet sites like The Verge continue to call it a "gritty war film", because of cultural assumptions that that's what it must be, when there has been zero evidence to support such a case.

Case in point: http://www.slashfilm.com/christopher-nolan-explains-dunkirks-pg-13-rating-its-not-a-war-film-wait-what/

That article's author: "this ["Dunkirk is not a war film."] is the most informative piece of info I’ve heard about the film’s tone thus far, and it totally resets my expectations for the film. I was going in expecting to see Nolan’s take on the brutality of war, his spin on Saving Private Ryan’s opening sequence".

I have provided two proofs that this isn't a war film, a quote direct from the studio and a quote directly from the director's own mouth.

TheOldJacobite, you haven't provided any proofs in return, other than a condescending "don't start this again", like you own this page or something.

Okungnyo (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Okungnyo, genre classification is not objective. This shows Nolan preferring to call it a "survival story" and a "suspense film". If future secondary sources follow Nolan in describing the film in this manner, then we can cite them. However, it is too early to tell if they will do that. Such sources were comfortable using "war film" and variations even after the press release, the synopsis, production details, and previews to date, so it is acceptable to go with that. We have space in the article body to sum up Nolan's comments and whatever direct responses may be had. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Couldn't that same logic be applied to the second line of the article?: "Set during World War II, it concerns the Dunkirk evacuation."

That line is enough to inform readers that the film is set during WW2, without misleading them into expecting a different type of movie.

Because in the post-Saving Private Ryan world, "war film" has become heavily associated with and has come to automatically mean "R rated, bloody, gory, battle-focused war drama".

When in reality, Dunkirk is a PG-13, not bloody, not gory, evacuation-focused thriller.

If you look up articles/forum posts about Dunkirk being rated PG-13, you'll see a lot of disappointed people who were expecting an R rating, even though it's been obvious from day 1 that Dunkirk was always going to be PG-13.

That's why I feel that "action thriller" is a more accurate genre for the film, and less likely to disappoint people who go in expecting a Saving Private Ryan-type experience because they see the "war film" label.

Edit: oops, forgot to tag you: Erik. Do you get a notification if I don't tag you?

Okungnyo (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

What you "feel" is irrelevant, as are what Erik and I feel. Erik has provided a link above which indicates the majority of articles are calling it a war film. That it's different than Saving Private Ryan is interesting but irrelevant. That Nolan wants us to have different expectations when it comes to this film is also interesting and should be mentioned in the article – but that is not relevant to the definition of the genre. This many end up being one of those films that simply defies easy genre classification. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 20:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have the page on my watchlist anyway. :) While I understand that we can articulate localized reasons to support one genre or another, we have to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Secondary sources are preferred over primary sources, so we have to follow these. Among these sources, if there are several possibilities, we would need to need to go with the most common one per WP:WEIGHT. We are not writing this Wikipedia article to shape people's opinions of the movie. We are only summarizing what has been written about the movie, and in this case, we would follow sources in what they say, including their reports on Nolan's statements. If the film comes out and there is commentary from secondary sources about how it is not really a war film, then we can see how to include that. That could mean definitely calling this something other than a war movie, or it could just be commentary analyzing what it means to be a war film (as secondary sources will be calling it up to release), and how Dunkirk fits (or doesn't fit) in that genre. 20:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

All right, that makes sense. Sorry for causing trouble. Keep up the good work, TheOldJacobite and Erik.

Okungnyo (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I never assumed you were causing trouble, but I appreciate the conciliatory attitude. You keep up the good work, as well. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Glad we could talk it out! For what it is worth, I revised the lead section's first paragraph to use the "war film" label but also followed it with Nolan's commentary. We can pay attention to this particular element to see if sources will continue calling it a war film, or if there is any discussion about how to classify Dunkirk. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see what critics say once it's finally released. I respect that Nolan is trying alter people's perceptions and expectations – i.e. that he's not attempting a British version of the beach scene from Saving Private Ryan – but this is a war film in at least it's basic structure and story. What he does within that could be quite surprising and new. As I say, I am eager to see what critics make of it. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 19:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. In this discussion, The Bridge over the River Kwai came to mind. It seems like it is called a war film by sources even though no warring actually happens. Nolan seems to be going with the definition of war film as something combat-oriented, which is true of most such films, but considering the elements—wartime period, wartime setting, warriors, a war-related campaign—it is a difficult label to escape. Anyway, that is my OR take on it. We'll see what those who actually get published will say going forward! Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming

Do we want to put "upcoming" or "2017" in the opening sentence of the lead section? While both the word and the release year have probably been used in different film articles, I would argue that "2017" is more appropriate per MOS:CURRENT and MOS:RELTIME. The release year is obviously the more permanent component, barring a postponement (for which we would make the adjustment). In addition, "upcoming" is going to be relative. If it comes out in the U.S. first, it is still "upcoming" for other territories. The lead section can (and often does) reflect the specifics of when a film will or has come out (and where). Can other editors weigh in on this? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I prefer to simply state the year. It isn't going to be "upcoming" for very long and I think it is just needless. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

We generally keep it as "upcoming" until it has been released in one territory or has premiered. Until then, it's possible (however improbable) that it will be delayed to a later year. To say 2017 right now is inaccurate, but once it's been released anywhere, it is a 2017 film. -RM (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I think keeping it to the year is simpler. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay so I'll reiterate that it's NOT a 2017 film YET. It doesn't really matter who thinks which format is simpler. It's not a 2017 film until it's released in 2017, and since that has yet to happen (however soon it may happen), it's still an upcoming film. It will be changed to 2017 when it has been premiered or released in one territory. -RM (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

English-language

Can we remove the "English language" from the opening sentence? Makes it sound like a foreign film done in English. Being set in Dunkirk doesn't justify the English language inclusion, Midnight in Paris and a hundred other films don't do it. 2.102.186.194 (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

We use English-language because it is the next common characteristic of the film after nationality since we have four countries involved with this film's production. To exclude it implies that a global reader "should" know what the film's language is if we do not mention one. Also, "other stuff exists" is not a reason. Midnight in Paris is actually going against WP:FILMLEAD with its false equivalence of calling itself "American-French". It turns out that BFI and AFI actually identifies it as a co-production between the United States and Spain. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if it technically involves 4 countries due to production companies, virtually nobody knows that and so nobody is under the impression it could be in anything other than English. Saying "English language" is confusing, makes it seem like a foreign film. Simply put, we don't specify films are English language just because one of several production companies come from France or wherever. Look at every other film article on Wikipedia and you'll see. 2.102.186.194 (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Other stuff existing does not mean it is a good practice. Sometimes we have to guard against systemic bias, in this case the assumption that a global reader should know that a film is English-language. For example, Wolf Totem (film) is a Chinese-language film that is a Chinese-French co-production. What if we have a Chinese-US co-production that is only one language or the other? We cannot go with "virtually nobody knows that" as a rationale because we cannot cite current social assumptions. We have to think about the description being understandable and accurate years down the road. Do you want to use WP:3O to get a third opinion? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I Don't know about a hypothetical Chinese-US production, depends on the film. For Dunkirk it is unambiguously an English-language film, nobody coming to this article is under any other impression, so putting "English-language" in the opening sentence is confusing, making it seem like a foreign film done in English. I've asked the film talk page what the rules are in general. 2.102.186.194 (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

You have no idea what other people reading the article are thinking. You are simply making assumptions. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm a human being, I'm assuming it's only humans who are reading the article, I therefore have some idea of what they're thinking. This whole "we don't know anything and there's no such thing as common sense or understanding" is nonsense. 2.102.186.194 (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Dunkerque is a city in northwestern France. I'd say that's reason enough to clarify that the film is an English-language film given that its namesake is French. -RM (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The film is given in the English spelling and who, other than historians, think "French city" when they hear Dunkirk? And the film is on the British evacuation anyway so not even historians would be under the impression it's in French. I'd also note Midnight in Paris doesn't say English-language in the first sentence, neither does The Hangover Part II even though it's set in Thailand. 2.102.186.194 (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Midnight in Paris is only missing "English-language" because you removed it out of systemic bias. It was "French-American" for the longest time, which was misleading as well. In addition, The Hangover Part II is an "American" film. Furthermore, an editor at WT:FILM is fine with having "English-language" here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

That article has been without "English-language" in the opening sentence for over 7 years. You added it when I pointed it out as an example of how Wikipedia film articles with multiple production companies are done. Hangover was in response to the suggestion that because this film is set in France we need a PSA that it's actually in English. Again, lots and lots of films have production companies from non-English speaking countries, but we don't put English-language in the opening sentence because of it. 2.102.186.194 (talk) 13:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why you're so against this. To some people, it may seem redundant, but it's not wrong. I would just let it go and move on to arguing about some other trivial detail, like whether the list of countries should be in alphabetical order. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

My concern is that it's misleading, making Dunkirk look like a foreign film. 2.102.186.194 (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I must agree with our anonymous IP user here. The infobox already makes it clear that the film's primary and only language is English, so having the lead open with "...is an English-language War film" is redundant and bloated. If we were to keep it, it would set a precedent that any editor can add "...is an English language film..." to any article, i.e. "Star Trek Into Darkness is an English language science fiction film..." or "The Dark Knight is an English language superhero film..." etc. Like I said, the infobox already makes it crystal clear that the film is spoken and shot in English. Why should we bash readers in the head with this fact twice? Armegon (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

My two cents here is saying "English-language war film" is a bit excessive, if that's the right word here. For films like Lucy if makes sense because the leading line is "English-language French film", implying that although most French films are in French, this is not. Because Dunkirk is produced by two countries that speak English (and made by a director everyone only knows for American films) I think just saying "2017 war film" is sufficient. TropicAces (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with TropicAces. Opening with "English-language war film" does seem excessive given that all the characters seen on the film are British & only speak English. With that said, it's already obvious it's an English-language spoken film, so there's no need to open with "English-language war film" when the infobox makes it clear that the film's primary and only language is English. Armegon (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Put me down as another editor who sees no need for this. The language of a film isn't important enough to mention in the first sentence; in fact, I wouldn't mention it in any film article unless it was particularly notable for some reason. Popcornduff (talk) 09:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

+ 1. When I read in the first sentence that "Dunkirk is a (...) 2017 war film written, co-produced and directed by Christopher Nolan. The film stars Fionn Whitehead, Tom Glynn-Carney, Jack Lowden, Harry Styles, Aneurin Barnard, James D'Arcy, Barry Keoghan, Kenneth Branagh, Cillian Murphy, Mark Rylance, and Tom Hardy", I don't need to be told that this is an English-language movie... And the language is the least important thing about this movie, since it contains almost no dialogue. Seudo (talk) 09:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Erik, can you explain why you think mentioning the language in the lead is important in the first place? Popcornduff (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I feel I must reiterate this again but the infobox already makes it clear this is an English language film. Under "Language", it states "English". So again, there's no need to open with "Dunkirk is an English-language War film". Armegon (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Seudo, Popcornduff, Armegon, we need to get past what we personally know about the film and consider long-term reading. We almost always include nationality in the opening sentence, which indicates that country's predominant language. E.g., if it is American or British, we don't have to say that. However, since there are multiple countries here, it is not clear what it would be. To use a similar example, Blindness (film) wrongly starts out as calling itself a "Brazilian-Canadian film". So does that mean it's in Portuguese or French or English or what? (I put English-language before but I guess someone screwed it up.) Another example is Out of the Dark (2014 film), which is a Colombian-Spanish co-production but is English-language. So in this case, like these cases, we need to consider global context. A reader from anywhere should be able to come here and understand what the film is. The absence here presumes that everyone present and future anywhere should know the film is English-language, which I find to be presuming too much for a global Wikipedia. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question - reader assumptions aside, why is it important to state the language in the lead? To put it another way, why is it so important that the reader know what the language of a film is that we not only put it in the lead but make it literally the first thing we tell them about the subject? Popcornduff (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Same reason it is important to state the nationality whenever we can. When we state the nationality, we often indicate the predominant language. WP:LEAD says the lead section should identify the topic and establish context. We would identify a foreign language for a film that was produced in yet another non-English country (can't think of an example offhand, haven't had my coffee), so we should be consistent in maintaining that. It is like a hierarchy of key descriptors. We would normally invoke the nationality, but failing that here with four countries, we would invoke the language (and not leave it out because it happens to match the Wikipedia we're on). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

To add on (since you edited your comment), do you not feel like we should tell the reader if a film is American or British or whatever? Why does the value in that not apply to language as well? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

One example I found was Amour (2012 film). It is a co-production between France, Germany, and Austria, and it is called a French-language film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

But the infobox already makes it crystal clear that the film's primary and only language is English. There's no need to repeat this information in the lead's opening. If establishing the nationality is important, then we can establish it later on in the lead. After all, WP:FILMLEAD states If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section. Armegon (talk) 06:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Is the duration source acceptable?

I've never seen the website. Obviously if it's acceptable we can keep it, but Google Translate has duration listed twice, one at 1:47 and one at 2:02, and I'm not sure who edits the site. Not to mention, it's unusual for a Nolan movie to be that short (not impossible, but unexpected if true) -RM (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo doesn't have a runtime listed (link). I think it would be best to wait until known reliable sources like that have something to say. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Invariably all articles of Nolan's films where the runtime is sourced defer to the British Board of Film Classification. Keep an eye on it. Cognissonance (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Many of those citations were added by a prolific sock puppeteer. There are many sources that one can cite for the runtime, including Box Office Mojo and Variety. It will be reported widely once the film is released. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

TheOldJacobite, I think this was accidentally an attempt to restore the runtime by reverting to a previous version. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, you could be right. I didn't think about that. All I saw was a large unexplained deletion. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 19:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Red links

Per WP:REDLINK, red links should not be removed unless there is absolute certainty that there should not be an article on that subject. There have been red links since mid-March for three people, and this past week, I created Fionn Whitehead. I highly doubt that the other red links are being removed because of a true evaluation of the subjects' notability. Red links help Wikipedia grow, so either write articles to make them go blue, or leave them alone for someone else to do that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Erik: I was notified of your revert of my removal of the redlinks, and it seems that you've got a bit of an edit-war going on concerning them with multiple editors? (This seems to include whoever originally added them before your first "revert", 189.209.30.179, Rusted AutoParts, TropicAces and now myself.) That's now six edits: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Do you think that there might be more support to remove them than to have them? If not, and if you continue to war over the edits, I may find myself having to go to WP:AN3 -- Alex^TW 04:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

All I really have to say in regards to this really is if the redlinks are going to become an article soon, fine. But if not, delink. Rusted AutoParts 04:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:INFOBOXUSE says red links shouldn't be in infoboxes, but, other than that, I don't see what the problem is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, see this discussion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

YouTube views

Okungnyo, Cognissonance: We need a secondary source highlighting that Dunkirk is the most-watched war film trailer. It is puffery on our part to do that without such a source. We as editors need to follow secondary sources to make such claims. We are not trailblazers in highlighting such items, especially when it verges on being promotional. Similarly, for Wonder Woman, per WP:FILMMARKETING, we need to avoid indiscriminate detail. If it is noteworthy, then we should be able to find a source to warrant inclusion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem with YouTube as a source.

It's not like I went out and interviewed somebody, and then edited in what that person said with no evidence to back up my claims.

That Dunkirk has the most viewed war film trailer is easily verifiable by searching "trailer" and then sorting by view count.

What information can secondary sources provide that wouldn't be just a repetition of YouTube itself is already telling us?

And I disagree that "If it is noteworthy, then we should be able to find a source to warrant inclusion".

No news sites reported on the Cinetransformer tour and yet, if you look on Twitter, there are plenty of tweets about it, signifying its noteworthiness.

Also, I don't think it's puffery or promotional, but useful to provide context to the number.

Is "over 20 million views on YouTube" supposed to be impressive, average, or low?

Adding in "the most watched trailer for a war film" provides the necessary context to the reader to give meaning to the number.

Okungnyo (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be based on secondary sources. We only use primary sources with care, like using the film itself to describe the plot in a basic manner. We have to consider WP:INDISCRIMINATE too: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." That is why while we can see ourselves at this time that Dunkirk has many views, this can change with no anchor in time. What if another war film tops it, then how do we verify that it was ever at the top before? And why are we applying the "war film" label ourselves? It could easily be called the top Christopher Nolan film too. We as editors have to defer to what secondary sources deem noteworthy and summarize these details in Wikipedia articles. In this particular case, the detail can be seen as promotional (even if we do not intend it) without the backing of a secondary source. If someone like Deadline.com makes this kind of concrete observation, we can point to that. Otherwise we are engaging in original research, "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." The reference does not directly match what was written here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Then we can use archive.org to archive the first seven pages of the search results, thereby proving that it was the most viewed war film trailer at the time of archival.

Would that be a good solution?

We are applying the war film label because that that is the genre stated in the first sentence. It is not the "top Christopher Nolan film"; that would be Interstellar with 24 million views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSWdZVtXT7E

Again, I point you to the Cinetransformer case, where there have been no articles about it despite its noteworthiness.

Journalists miss plenty all the time; doesn't mean Wikipedia has to.

And I don't agree that it's promotional. As I already explained, it provides context to a number that is meaningless to a reader who does not understand what is large, average, or small in terms of YouTube views.

Again, what if we referenced all first seven pages of the search results and then archived them?

It is not original research. As I already explained, I did not go out and interview somebody, and then edit in what that person said with no evidence to back up my claims.

The search results are concrete, and there on youtube.com for anyone and everyone to to look up and verify.

Okungnyo (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Okungnyo, you ignore guidelines like WP:YTREF with this edit, which I summarised in my first revert. WP:PRIMARY states YouTube is restricted in use to videos "that have been reputably published ... to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source". The Warner Bros. YouTube channel falls in line with this; a search result does not. WP:VIDEOLINK says that "If the material in a video only available on YouTube includes content not previously produced or discussed in other reliable sources, then that material may be undue and inappropriate for Wikipedia", so trailers can be used because the content has been discussed in reliable sources as part of marketing. A search result is clearly undue weight since it cannot be discussed in reliable sources in the first place. –Cognissonance (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

As I already explained in my edit summaries and in this very thread, I didn't ignore any guidelines.

The first article you linked is talking about "YouTube videos as references", not YouTube search results pages.

It's warning against using unverifiable videos like "Proof (i.e. Clickbait Blurry Photos) These 5 Conspiracy Theories Are Real!" as references.

Not only is the YouTube search results page that I cited not a video, but it is 100% concrete truth, there on youtube.com for anyone and everyone to look up and verify.

The full quote reads "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge".

A list of the most of viewed trailers in descending order by view count is a straightforward, descriptive statement of facts.

And it absolutely can be "verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge".

A search results page absolutely falls in like with that. Nowhere in any of those pages does it say that YouTube search result pages are disreputable.

It is not "undue weight" to provide context to a number that is meaningless to a reader who does not understand what is large, average, or small in terms of YouTube views.

And again, I point you to the Cinetransformer case, where there have been no articles about it despite its noteworthiness as evidenced by the numerous tweets about it.

As I said before, we can use archive.org to archive the first seven pages of the search results, thereby proving that it was the most viewed war film trailer at the time of archival.

Would that be a good solution?

Okungnyo (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

This is original research. We need independent secondary sources to do this kind of analysis for us. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Original research would be if I went to YouTube's headquarters and got the numbers from them with no evidence to back up my claims.

How is using an official youtube.com page that lists out the most viewed trailers as a reference unreliable?

Why is a primary source insufficient in this case, and yet when it comes to plot summaries, primary sources are sufficient? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okungnyo (talk • contribs) 04:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Simply put: did you read in an article somewhere that it had the hightest Youtube views or did you determine this on your own? The latter is WP:OR. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 09:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The very article you linked says, ""original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist".

And such a source does exist. YouTube publishes a list of most viewed trailers in the form of search results for "trailer".

I have provided a reliable source, a rationale for wanting to include it in the article, and have suggested a reasonable solution.

Okungnyo (talk) 10:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I did answer your question.

The very article you linked says, ""original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist".

And such a source does exist. YouTube publishes a list of most viewed trailers in the form of search results for "trailer".

Therefore, it is not OR.

If I may, I believe you have lost perspective on what exactly "OR" is.

What Wikipedia considers OR is: Back to back film production, Film editing, and Pick-up (filmmaking) where entire paragraphs are lacking references, and it is obvious that they have been written by someone speaking from personal experience, i.e. doing original research.

What I did was clearly not that.

I cited an official youtube.com page ranking the most viewed trailers as a reference, which fits into the definition of a "reliable, published source".

Okungnyo (talk) 06:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

You didn't even come close to answering my question. It was a very simple question. Instead, you're trying to convince me (and the three other editors here) that your misinterpretation of WP:OR is correct. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Let me try to explain this in a bit more detail to avoid you from repeating yourself. Did you (A) read a news article from a reliable source that explicitly states that this is a top viewed trailer? Or did you (B) conduct your own search on YouTube to determine this? Your answer is B, isn't it? This is where you are wrong. Therefore, you need to find someone else who did the searching and came to this conclusion. Search results of a reliable source does not mean the results are reliable. If you can find a NYT article that states this or even if YouTube had some sort of "news" section where they publish an article with "Top Ten 10 Movie Trailers for May 2017", then you have a legitimate argument. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

"You didn't even come close to answering my question. It was a very simple question."

For the last time, I did answer your question.

And my answer is an unequivocal no. No, I did not conduct original research, for the reasons I already stated.

"Instead, you're trying to convince me (and the three other editors here) that your misinterpretation of WP:OR is correct.

I don't know what purpose the "three other editors" part serves other than to imply that you're right just because you have more people on your side...?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_is_consensus%3F#Not_a_majority_vote

Second, if my understanding of what OR is a "misinterpretation", then please show me where it says that.

I am not here arguing just to argue. I hate antagonizing people and creating conflict.

I would gladly stop arguing if you could just show me where exactly it says in the guidelines that using an official youtube.com page as a citation for view counts on youtube.com is wrong.

Until then, please stop and consider whether or not it is you who is misinterpreting what OR is.

Because as I have stated countless times, what I did is not OR according to the very article that you linked.

"Let me try to explain this in a bit more detail to avoid you from repeating yourself. Did you (A) read a news article from a reliable source that explicitly states that this is a top viewed trailer? Or did you (B) conduct your own search on YouTube to determine this? Your answer is B, isn't it? This is where you are wrong."

You are still making me repeat myself.

What Wikipedia considers OR is: Back to back film production, Film editing, and Pick-up (filmmaking) where entire paragraphs are lacking references, and it is obvious that they have been written by someone speaking from personal experience, i.e. doing original research.

I cited an official youtube.com page ranking the most viewed trailers as a reference, which fits into the definition of a "reliable, published source":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources

published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form"

"Therefore, you need to find someone else who did the searching and came to this conclusion."

The YouTube page is a reliable, published list ranking the most viewed trailers.

"Search results of a reliable source does not mean the results are reliable. If you can find a NYT article that states this or even if YouTube had some sort of "news" section where they publish an article with "Top Ten 10 Movie Trailers for May 2017", then you have a legitimate argument."

When it comes to determining the reliability of ranking YouTube view counts, YouTube is absolutely reliable and more reliable than any third-party site could ever be.

I already have a reliable argument.

Okungnyo (talk) 05:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

You still have not answered and the last question was merely A or B. That's amazing. I'm done. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

"You still have not answered and the last question was merely A or B."

I answered it in the first two lines.

"That's amazing. I'm done."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_is_consensus%3F#How_not_to_achieve_consensus

Don't simply state your position over and over, without explaining your underlying concerns and interests.

It's frustrating to write logical arguments and you refuse to respond to any of them, instead simply repeating the same thing about OR again and again.

Okungnyo, it is original research. You are not convincing anyone else. Please realize that we have years of experience on Wikipedia and have seen how Wikipedia's policy of no original research is applied in many cases. We understand how you see it, but it is not correct. Please consider dropping the stick. We've all had to do that in the past. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

"Okungnyo, it is original research. You are not convincing anyone else."

Then show me where, please. Show me where in the Wikipedia guidelines it says that citing a youtube.com page as a citation for YouTube views is original research.

"Please realize that we have years of experience on Wikipedia and have seen how Wikipedia's policy of no original research is applied in many cases."

Then you should have no problem showing me how that is.

Is there not a possibility that you misinterpreted the definition, and have been misinterpreting it all these years?

"We understand how you see it, but it is not correct."

Then please, show me how. As I said before, I am not here arguing just to argue. I hate antagonizing people and creating conflict.

I would gladly stop arguing if you could just show me where exactly it says in the guidelines that using an official youtube.com page as a citation for view counts on youtube.com is wrong.

"Please consider dropping the stick. We've all had to do that in the past."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_is_consensus%3F#How_not_to_achieve_consensus

Don't give up when people disagree on a specific proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okungnyo (talk • contribs) 09:14, June 15, 2017 (UTC)

Okay, final thoughts. Your answer was "No." It was not "A" or "B" as I asked. My question was NOT asking if you believe you conducted OR (which you keep repeating in your answer), I'm asking you to answer a response of either A or B. That's it. It's really simple, but you never did it. Read this part carefully: The act of searching YouTube and drawing a conclusion on the search results is the very definition of WP:OR. That's what research is. You did an original research. You don't even need to read further into the policy to understand that. You have to let a reliable source do the search and draw that conclusion. Doing it on your own (no matter how obvious the answer may be to you) will not work. This not the same as doing a Google search to find a source. It's like using Google to find the top result from your searching. Jauerback^dude?/_dude.

"Okay, final thoughts. Your answer was "No." It was not "A" or "B" as I asked. My question was NOT asking if you believe you conducted OR (which you keep repeating in your answer), I'm asking you to answer a response of either A or B. That's it. It's really simple, but you never did it. Read this part carefully: The act of searching YouTube and drawing a conclusion on the search results is the very definition of WP:OR. That's what research is. You did an original research. You don't even need to read further into the policy to understand that."

No, because the search results page is a published webpage. It's not personal experience. It's not an unrecorded interview. It is a published, public webpage that anyone can access, therefore it does not fall under the definition of original research as defined by Wikipedia.

"You have to let a reliable source do the search and draw that conclusion."

Why doesn't this argument apply to the plot summary section of every film page?

"Doing it on your own (no matter how obvious the answer may be to you) will not work. This not the same as doing a Google search to find a source. It's like using Google to find the top result from your searching."

No, because the subject of the discussion at hand is the ranking of view counts.

The page I linked is a published webpage from YouTube ranking the most viewed trailers on YouTube.

It falls under Wikipedia's definition of a reliable, published source, as I already explained above.

Okungnyo (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are high-level, so they cannot detail every situation in which they apply. The simple point is, we need to summarize what others have said. Nobody has said what you are trying to say. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

"Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are high-level, so they cannot detail every situation in which they apply."

So you admit that your own interpretation are just that--your own interpretations.

Just because you've been here longer and you've gotten used to your interpretations doesn't make them right.

"The simple point is, we need to summarize what others have said. Nobody has said what you are trying to say."

Sorry, I don't understand.

Okungnyo (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Please go ahead and ask WT:OR. There's no point in continuing this thread since the consensus is against the inclusion of that passage. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_is_consensus%3F#What_consensus_is_not

Okungnyo (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

"Consensus accounts for dissent and addresses it, although it does not always accommodate it." Consensus does not mean that everyone has to be on the same page. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

That's after showing good faith and actually addressing the opposing side's arguments, which you haven't done.

Every time one of you brought up a new argument, I addressed it.

Conversely, however, none of you have shown any signs that you bothered to even skim anything I wrote; not my rationale, not my proposed solution, nothing but constant focus on the "OR" point (when the guidelines say not to argue like that: "Don't simply state your position over and over, without explaining your underlying concerns and interests.") even after I repeatedly pointed out that it is not OR as defined by Wikipedia itself.

Okungnyo (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

article to use

Great interview with Nolan by the DGA: http://www.dga.org/Craft/DGAQ/All-Articles/1703-Summer-2017/WWII-Dunkirk.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.176.244.88 (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Fionn Whitehead

I ask editors who follow this article to also follow Fionn Whitehead. There have been numerous acts of vandalism in the last few days, and this will probably continue through the film's release. If it gets bad enough, I will request page protection, but I'd rather keep the article open and just have extra pairs of eyes on it so vandalism doesn't linger. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Production companies

I'm opening a discussion regarding production companies in the infobox. NinjaRobotPirate brought up Variety Insight in another discussion, and I've found it useful to reference for company credits. (Though it requires archiving since the listing is dynamic.) Per Template:Infobox film, secondary sources are preferred. The billing block of a poster can help, but it is a primary source. This does not mean it is the end of the discussion. We can pay attention to other sources to see what they report for company credits. The Variety reviews tend to identify them at the end (though not sure how much they reference Variety Insight). Pinging Okungnyo, though others are welcome to weigh in. If the list seems long, an alternative approach is to make a note out of it, especially to indicate that RatPac-Dune is a financier among this set. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Variety Insights lists every production company without distinguishing major and minor ("in association with").

I thought that was excessive. We don't list associate producers, executive producers, line producers, in the [Producers] section, for example.

And the cast order is determined by billing block which puts the younger actors first, even though numerous secondary sources put the older actors first.

I thought the same logic would extend to the production companies list as well.

Those are my thoughts.

Okungnyo (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Variety Insight is a fact-checked, professionally-maintained database that is sourced in part directly from the studios themselves. This is why I've been favoring it so heavily on Wikipedia. Making your own determination of who is a "major" vs "minor" production company would be original research. There is a consensus in this discussion to favor secondary sources that explicitly identify production companies to avoid this kind of original research. The Hollywood Reporter and Screen Daily explicitly identify production companies in their reviews, but Variety' reviews replicate the poster's billing block. Some editors really, really want to go by that, but then you end up a bunch of eventual arguing over which companies "deserve" to be listed, much like the above post. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that it is original research.

Using a billing block to determine which companies make the list is no different than doing the same thing with the actors list.

But I don't mind it either way, I just felt that it looked quite cluttered and unnecessarily detailed.

Will the listing of the companies in the closing credits of the actual film be taken into consideration?

Okungnyo (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Erik, the embargo has lifted and all three reviews from Screen Daily, The Hollywood Reporter, and Variety mention only Syncopy.

Okungnyo (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Okungnyo: Thanks for the update! I made the adjustment. NinjaRobotPirate, thoughts? Weight appears against the larger set of companies. Perhaps we could put it in as a note? I did this somewhat with Out of the Dark (2014 film). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, like I said, Variety Insight's database is fact-checked and sourced in part from the studios themselves. Variety's reviews replicate the billing block and don't identify production companies. I haven't looked at the other sources, but if they only list Syncopy, it might be worthwhile to consider going with them. That's not what I personally would do, but the important thing is that it's sourced. Anyway, I've already remove this article from my watchlist (films in general release are too busy and hectic!), so I'm not going to complain. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Critical response tab

Think it should go without saying the Critical response tab should in fact have the response of critics, which would include quotes from reviews. Also the RT/Meta format should be same as every other mainstream release, not placed and worded in random order. Thoughts? TropicAces (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

MOS:FILM does not warrant one specific section an abundance of quotes. WP:QUOTEFARM is written to apply to all articles. –Cognissonance (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Cognissonance so should we go through every film page on Wikipedia and clear out the Reception sections of everything besides RT and Metacritic? Like this just doesn't seem logical... TropicAces (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

Paraphrasing is preferred over quotations. This is very simple. –Cognissonance (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Critical_response repeatedly assumes critics will be quoted.

Checking the first 10 films of the 2010s in Wikipedia:Good_articles/Media_and_drama#Film, all of them have fairly extensive quotes from critics. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Then what's the difference between critical response sections in video game and film articles? Because this is not allowed in the former. –Cognissonance (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Erik and NinjaRobotPirate: I would really like a definitive consensus on this, so we can move on. Seems just effortless to copy and paste these quotes onto a section, but it is also true that many Good Articles are subject to this. –Cognissonance (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I remember reading a recommendation once in some style guide that you should paraphrase a quotation once it's longer than seven words. I don't remember where I saw that, though, and I sometimes ignore it when I think a quotation is useful. Overuse of quotations ("quotefarms") is definitely a problem, but if quotations are used judiciously, I personally don't see a big problem. It's when people copy-paste an entire paragraph that really bothers me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

It is worth noting that WP:QUOTEFARM is not a policy or a guideline. MOS:QUOTE is the one that has actual weight here. In this case, we care about the "Point of view" section in which we can quote with attribution so-called "emotive opinions". I think it is more frowned upon to quote one source at length as opposed to several briefly. It's not grounds to expunge multiple quotes from the article body, though. Some quotes may be a good summary sentence from the review, but it can be difficult to paraphrase it because it approaches original research. I don't much like to write such sections because a good section requires some good interweaving. American Beauty (1999 film)#Critical reception is an example of decent interweaving, IMO, though it is very precise about weaving together a handful of reviews rather than putting forth a list of sample reviews in prose. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Erik: Please moderate a dispute between me and User:TropicAces concerning the Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and AlloCiné sources, and whether or not to move them into the reflist. Reverting my edits to do so (after which cite errors are created and not repaired), he explains that accessdate= needs to be updated with every change in scores. Is that really necessary? The scores are so volatile that the parameter becomes obsolete. I have left the section alone for the most part. Too many IPs and new accounts editing, can't keep up. But at the very least I want to maintain the source formatting consistent with the rest. –Cognissonance (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm no moderator, but I can share a third opinion. Others are welcome to weigh in. WP:CITEVAR seems applicable here to have the RT, MC, and AlloCine sources be in the reflist with the other sources to ensure consistency. As for accessdates, I agree that they are ever-changing as a film premieres. I don't find it problematic if someone else wants to constantly update that parameter, though. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Erik Cognissonance while I still believe the reviews should have accessdates because the figures will be updated daily for upcoming weeks (along with the impending BoxOfficeMojo gross in infobox), it's hardly the biggest issue with the page right now. The IP edits/vandalism have been out of control past 24 hours, and I think we should get all that taken care of and keep the review formats stagnant for now (as to say, whatever they are written as now, leave it to avoid further conflictions and launching edit wars). If you (Erik, or others reading) think the RT and Meta should have reflist citations then I'm fine with that consensus. TropicAces (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

'Nolan was also adamant that all of the cast be British.'

There seems to be somewhat of an obvious discrepancy here, in that both Cillian Murphy and Barry Keoghan are actually Irish, not British (I'll leave aside Branagh for now). Perhaps either qualify, noting their actual nationalities, or else remove? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maoltuile (talk • contribs) 00:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Distinction without a difference. The source says British. –Cognissonance (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Please. A 'distinction without a difference'? I can direct you to the Wikipedia pages explaining how British and Irish are two different nationalities, if you're that confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maoltuile (talk • contribs) 23:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Note that at this time A:Irish Free Stateers could enroll in the British military and B: He could have come from Northern Ireland, or been born in pre-partition Ireland. We know nothing about the charactar, but it is not impossible that a "British Irish person" would be in the RAF at that moment.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hell, John Vereker, 6th Viscount Gort, the BEF leader had an Irish peerage. At the time, the diction was not so clear cut.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Unless Cillian Murphy and the other actor, both reasonably young men, have somehow repudiated their Irish passports and taken out British citizenship then there's no relevance whatsoever in what you say to the central problem here with this passage - that clearly neither of them are actually British, making the statement entirely problematic.

Also, the 'Free State' ceased to exist with the Irish 1937 constitution, replaced with Ireland/Éire, as I'm certain that a quick Wiki search will illuminate. Maoltuile (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

British, as in 'from the British Isles' rather than from the UK. MapReader (talk) 06:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I am from Ireland, and (like several millions of my fellow Irish people) am not British. Please refer to Wiki articles on the subject, if your confusion continues. Maoltuile (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

"Universal" = a small part of the planet?

The article mentions that On Metacritic, the film has a weighted average score of 96 out of 100 based on 34 critics, indicating "universal acclaim". The last three words of the sentence do not look neutral to me, even if put between quotes, since these 34 critics actually come from 2 or 3 countries only. I think these words should be removed (96/100 is impressive enough...) or explained. I tried to do so but was revoked. What do you think? Seudo (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

According to Metacritic, a score over 90 indicates "universal acclaim". We write what the source says to stay neutral. –Cognissonance (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I concur that it is appropriate to quote that with in-text attribution. It avoids being a peacock term that way. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so I added AlloCiné's reference. I didn't mention that AlloCiné is limited to French critics since this "detail" is considered as irrelevant. But I still think it is necessary to explain the context of a source when it does not follow the same rules of neutrality as Wikipedia. Seudo (talk) 07:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

While it is appropriate to directly quote Metacritic (making it clear it is their terminology), it is not accurate to say (in Wikipedia's voice) that the film "received universal acclaim". Metacritic can say whatever they want. Wikipedia, OTOH, should not use language as carelessly.

"Universal" acclaim would be acclaim "of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases." In other words, to say this, we would need to be able to verifiably state that ALL critics in the world openly praised the film. In the best of cases, we simply do not have the opinions of every critic in the world available to us. In the present case, the 97% score on Rotten Tomatoes makes it clear that there are some critics that did not like the film. Anything less than 100% is not "universal". - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The way the sentence was worded, it looks like it was attributing the term "universal acclaim" to Metacritic's ratings. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Yet it was not attributing the incorrect claim. We can say "Joe Blow said, 'up is down, left is right'.<ref>Blow, 2017</ref>" We cannot say "Up is down and left is right.<ref>Blow, 2017</ref>"

Metacritic is a reliable source for what Metacritic's score is. Metacritic is not a reliable source for the opinions of every critic in the world. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Similarly, "The film received near-unanimous acclaim..." is a Wikipedia editor's opinion. We do not have a reliable source to say that nearly everybody on the planet agreed in their enthusiastic public praise. In fact, based on the numbers, it would be far closer to the truth to say that nearly everyone has not seen the film. ($220 million gross implies that well over 99% of the world's population has not seen the film.)

We cannot state that "all/nearly all/most" people or critics think, feel or believe anything. We can verifiably state that "On the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film received an approval rating of p% based on n reviews, with an average rating of s/10. The site's critical consensus reads..." If those numbers objectively mean one obvious thing, you stating it is unnecessary. If those numbers require your interpretation, that is synthesis. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing codified to ban effusive language as long as there is in-text attribution. WP:PEACOCK applies here. As much as there has been debating about this kind of terminology, there is no one right approach to take. If a reliable source says that a film received critical acclaim, then we can say that and quote if necessary if the wording is not of a formal tone. For example, we can't take Metacritic's use of "universal" and use it as-is, but we can quote them directly. I think it is unfair to argue that quoting them means misleading readers that no one at all disliked the film. As for "near-unanimous acclaim", I'm fine with its removal if unsourced, but I would also be fine with that term or a similar term if a reliable source states that (either through quoting or paraphrasing). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The context is different: Metacritic is clearly targeted at US people (see their FAQ, which mentions "the country" and doesn't even say which country they mean...), so a word that is explained by the context on their website is misleading when quoted in a more global context like Wikipedia. Many people don't know that Metacritic has such a limited range (I had almost never heard about that website before reading this). Besides, this word gives no information to the reader : the mention of a "weighted average score of 96 out of 100, based on 39 critics" says the same thing, but more accurately. So it's either misleading or useless. Seudo (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome to add clarifying language like "US-based". You could even add "among predominantly US film critics" after the "universal acclaim" quoting. I have no issue with that kind of basic adjustment since global context is hard to achieve, even with the most reliable sources. I still find the quoting acceptable as a prose-based summary of the numbers. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile, another editor seems to feel the same source is "widespread". I'm not sure if that's countering the "US-based" feeling or if it's supposed to mean something else. As none of the sources say anything of the sort, I've removed that as well. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it is worth listing all the summary-level phraseology here for consideration. Honestly, with RT and MC, this is one of these areas where other editors are going to constantly push words and numbers around. I've tried to maintain what I find to be better presentations of their information, but there are a few editors who go around pushing a standardized way of writing it despite the weaknesses. So like the plot summary, it's going to be in flux for the near future. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I did add such a precision but was revoked (as you were after me...). That's why I started this discussion, especially since I am not a regular contributor on the English Wikipedia. The current wording ("universal acclaim" among the sampled critics) looks OK to me. Seudo (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2017

Edit request to correct the statement about Nolan 'insisting' on the cast being British. As two of the principal actors are clearly not, why is this included at all, and without a qualifier? Should at least append something like '(note that two actors are actually Irish)' Maoltuile (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jd02022092: I added a note with a reliable source per WP:BOLD before seeing this. Not sure how that affects this request. –Cognissonance (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jd02022092: Sure thing, no problem. Here's the Wiki entries for Cillian Murphy and Barry Keoghan Maoltuile (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Already done per Cognissonance. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Branagh in Plot

I can't figure out how to incorporate Kenneth Branagh's character into the Plot section. He really is just expository window dressing, I guess. He should probably be in there though. Magic9Ball (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Um... I didn't include that tacked-on out-of-context mention of him because it makes no sense as part of a plot summary. Magic9Ball (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2017

In Production, Development, 5th line of the second paragraph. "in that the films' story is told primarily visually though present tense action," should be changed to "in that the films' story is told primarily visually through present tense action," Even then, the grammar feels a little off: I'd remove the 'visually' as it's redundant for a movie.

I'm new to Wikipedia and even though this small mistake doesn't really matter, I'd like to help people out. Supercon22 (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Already done Has been addressed by simpler text in first paragraph. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2017

173.20.155.120 (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

in one memorable sequence, Brannagh looks through the wrong end of his binoculars.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Col. Winnant

Was this a real historical character or based on a composite like Kenneth Branaughs character? If there was a real Col. Winnant, it should be blue linked.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The characters are all invented, albeit some were inspired by real individuals. Magic9Ball (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

French article

The article on French Wikipedia has a huge amount of well sourced information (mostly French language sources) about the filming process, locations and details of all the ships and aircraft used, and links to images on Commons taken during fiming. It also has information that contradicts this article, e.g. the boat that played Moonstone was actually named Revlis. FilmEpic (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Controversy

Hi all; I inserted a new section in the Critical Response heading which read as follows;

The film has been ridiculed in France for neglecting to show how almost 30,000 troops sacrificed their liberty to allow the British to escape the beaches at Dunkirk. Despite a handful of scenes showing the French troops, many are upset that they battled a rearguard action only to watch all the boats sail away and then, for them, several years of Occupation under the Nazis. The Russians have celebrated the film as an example of British cowardice.

Another user deleted it without an edit summary. I can understand if it was a controversial inclusion in the article, but I don't think it is as there are historical precedents such as the section in the U-571 film. Thoughts?The joy of all things (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Many American outlets picked up the Le Monde review via The Local, and now it has become "controversy". This has been blown out of proportion. Other than your edit being amateurishly written, this does not deserve its own section let alone a paragraph. –Cognissonance (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow; Don't pull any punches! Still, if that had been in the edit summary, at least I would have known where I stood. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the available sources, and something occurred to me. We don't have a "Historical accuracy" section at all, and this should exist as a reasonable place for the French criticism and other details about the history seen in the film. A stand-alone "Controversy" section just about the French criticism would be too undue of a structure. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Erik: Tried to start one with information from TheJournal, but was reverted to the point where I stopped caring. –Cognissonance (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Who the heck would have been against a "Historical accuracy" section? We have guidelines at WP:FILMHIST to encourage such sections and how to write them. Just Googling dunkirk film history shows numerous results that could be used for such a section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Erik: Added information from Slate, which was tough to decipher as it doesn't make absolutely clear what was in the film compared to their respective accuracies or inaccuracies. Maybe easier for someone who has seen the film. –Cognissonance (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I had already mentioned Mandelbaum's critic before (in the "Critical response" section, where it belongs). I don't think a "Controversy" section is justified, because, even in France, most critics don't insist on that issue and only say how much they loved the movie. So it might be included in the "Historical accuracy" section, but a historian would be a better source than a film critic. Seudo (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Mr. Dawson / Charles Lightoller

Mr. Dawson and his son appear to be based on Charles Lightoller, former second officer of the Titanic, and his son, who were the only father and son duo who took part in the evacuation. It's a cool story that may warrant a mention in the 'Sea' subsection of the plot section.

Sundowner (yacht)

Natedogg787 (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

It does not belong in the plot section, and would need a reliable source nonetheless. –Cognissonance (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Benjamin Wallfisch

I attempted to add Benjamin Wallfisch's contribution. Clearly the official YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUpvEgJEn94, displays it, as do online musical stores. It is unclear to me why @Cognissonance: would call it "original research" and remove it. Isn't that an error on that user's part — fnielsen (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Reinstated the information per WP:YTREF. It is not an ideal source, so when available, it should be replaced by a reliable secondary source. –Cognissonance (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Marketing

• How Warner Bros Beat The Period-Film Curse At The B.O. & Positioned ‘Dunkirk’ As A Summer Tentpole at Deadline.com

The above is quite the detailed article about marketing Dunkirk. This is the kind of thing "Marketing" sections are intended for. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done –Cognissonance (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2017

In section "Music" add the words ", as well as his 2008 movie The Dark Knight and its follow up The Dark Knight Rises." when referring to Shepard's Tone. 66.56.176.134 (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

historical accuracy

Very poor this section. There is a lot wrong with the film. Have a look at the review of James Holland (author) here. 157.203.176.138 (talk) 06:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2017

I would appreciate it if the historical accuracy section was improved with the James Holland (author) review which can be found here. The criticisms about there being no destroyers for six hours is not true, the harbour/mole was full of ships. The role of the little ships is also exaggerated. It can be quoted, copied and pasted from that website. Just those specific points. Thanks. Dunkirk101101 (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC) Dunkirk101101 (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

consensus is not required. Holland is an acknowledged authority on the subject. 157.203.177.191 (talk) 09:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

RAF Radio Chatter

How authentic does the RAF radio conversation sound? I noticed "I have eyes on ... ", seems like an Americanism to me.Wrolf (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Dutch Airspace blocked for Bodega Bay

http://www.darpas.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/16.49735-instelling-TGB-IJsselmeer.pdf Made possible by Remco Borsch (pilot B737) after questions about Urk and The Netherlands as a location by Christopher.

Six beats per minute ( ! )

Although it is acceptably sourced (from a transcript of an interview with Hans Zimmer) the claim that Elgar's "Nimrod" was slowed to six beats per minute is mostly false- that would be one beat every 10 seconds, which might be appropriate if the melody from "Nimrod" was playing as a background harmony to other music, but is definitely not the tempo at which it is played when it is clearly heard within the film.

So does anybody have a source for the correct tempo (which I'm guessing would be 60 bpm, still very slow by modern standards) or would it be safest to omit the information altogether without further clarification? 79.75.238.113 (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

No, it's 6 bpm; go listen again. It creates an uneasy familiarity when you don't realise it's a well known series of notes being played through very very slowly. Once you realise, you'll hear it there right from the beginning.MapReader (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Important aspect: Minimal use of Computer-generated imagery

This is an important aspect, covered in many news articles and reviews about the film. Someone deleted that content; I added it again in the post-production section.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/dunkirk-christopher-nolan-neil-andrea-mark-rylance-cillian-murphy-pirates-of-the-caribbean-winston-a7845376.html Where most films use the magic of CGI to fill in backdrops, Nolan and his team actually filmed on location in Dunkirk with real war ships and fighter planes.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2017/jul/26/bloodless-boring-empty-christopher-nolan-dunkirk-left-me-cold: Another flaunted absence is CGI. Scale is the essence of the Dunkirk myth. There were more than 330,000 soldiers on the beach, and 933 British vessels, naval and private, plying the waves. It is for this kind of situation that computers were invented, but according to Nolan CGI counts as giving up.

https://www.australianetworknews.com/christopher-nolan-shuns-cgi-new-film-dunkirk-use-real-wwii-naval-destroyers/ : ENTERTAINMENT Christopher Nolan Shuns CGI; New Film ‘Dunkirk’ to Use Real WWII Naval Destroyers

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/q/blog/dunkirk-11-things-about-what-some-are-calling-the-greatest-war-film-ever-made-1.4210704 : Those are real ships Nolan used real navy destroyers for the battle sequences instead of CGI. At one point there were 62 ships in the water during filming. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

This Is Confusing

In The Making of Dunkirk, it says that they used a Piper Aerostar to film aerial battle movement, with IMAX cameras in the front and back. I am worried that there is miscommunication between the sources, because it is also sourced that the fighter planes were equipped with IMAX cameras in the back and the front. –Cognissonance (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

TV Tropes

Michael Dorosh added an external link to TV Tropes here, but I reverted him here. I never see this added as an external link, and while I am not certain, I do not think it meets WP:EL criteria. It seems to be like blog and/or an open wiki. What do other editors think? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

External links are to provide illumination, magnification, etc. of the subject that would not be appropriate for WP. I don't doubt it's not common on WP to see this link, but given the growing popularity of TV Tropes, it would probably be nice to see it. As well, I don't think there has to be one single set of external links to which all films and shows must conform, that seems unnecessarily limiting.Michael Dorosh^Talk 13:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Open Wikis are to be avoided and exceptions are hard to determine. The link was unnecessary in the first place. –Cognissonance (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Michael Dorosh, we do have to limit external links per WP:LINKFARM. The usual external links that you see have consensus to be included since they meet EL guidelines and provide resources beyond what an ideal Wikipedia article would offer. For example, Rotten Tomatoes lists many more reviews than a Wikipedia article would have, and Box Office Mojo provides more box office detail than a Wikipedia article would have. In regard to TV Tropes, it is based on user-generated content, which I do not find to meet WP:ELYES #3, "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject..." Content from layperson users, especially going beyond mere descriptions of in-universe elements, does not seem warranted. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Countries

John4051 has twice now tried to remove the sentence that states the film is a international co-production between four countries. The source in the film infobox and seen here says, "Netherlands, UK, France, US coproduction". We can compare sources or figure out the wording (like would dropping "international" help?) but we should not remove content supported by a reliable source. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

This mentions the film being "a French-British-U.S. co-production". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

This discusses Dutch involvement in "ramping up their co-production activities". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

"international" shouldn't be removed. Dunkirk fits the description of an international co-production. This editor must be confused. -Cognissonance (talk | contibs) 07:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I think they are under the impression that co-production requires creative input from all countries. From what I can tell, co-production is synonymous with co-financing, though the Wikipedia article does not say that and is not sourced for anything besides costs. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

None of what you have cited establishes an "international co-production." More importantly, nobody who has anything to do with the industry is talking about this film as an "international co-production." You sound like you don't know what you're talking about. If you want to soften the sentence and perhaps talk about the British Film Council claiming that the film is an international co-production or something with a footnote to a proper source, that might be academically supportable, but what you have done here - relying primarily on sentence fragments from random websites - is not. John4051 —Preceding undated comment added 13:32, August 8, 2017

The "random websites" are reliable sources. Whoever you talk to is not applicable offsetting here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

"Moviemaker.com" and "Screendaily.com" are "reliable" industry sources? Since when? That's laughable. Find me an authoritative film and television industry source that concludes, with evidence, that this film is an "international co-production" and then cite it if you're so confident. I'll concede that you might have more of an argument with the British Film Council website source, but that would require a significant softening of the sentence fragment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John4051 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, these are reliable sources. Not sure what to tell you if you don't think they are. In regard to presentation, I find that there should be a sentence and not a note because a superficial impression of the film can make it seem like it is American, British, or even American-British. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I can assure you with 100% confidence that they are not authoritative industry sources. And what is a "superficial impression of the film"? Look, you can ultimately sit in your basement in Europe or wherever and do what you want to this or any other article, but it's things like this done by people like you who clearly do not know what they are talking about that make Wikipedia itself an unreliable source. That, to me, is sad. John4051 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Pinging editors who have worked on this article for their input: Okungnyo, TropicAces, TheOldJacobite, MapReader, NinjaRobotPirate. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:FILMLEAD, "If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section." This warrants the sentence previously removed by John4051. As for the "international" part, it has already been established that it is a co-production between international production companies. This should make it evident that it is an international co-production. -Cognissonance (talk | contibs) 17:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

That has not been established. That aside, the vague sentence you just copied from WP:FILMLEAD needs to be cleaned up significantly - it is simply not the case that every film produced by company x in another country becomes an "international co-production" by virtue of having been produced in that other country. John4051 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

If you want to provide alternative wording to reflect multiple countries' involvement in a film, please do so. We use reliable sources to determine sets of countries. We don't mash up countries through original research. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I have protected the article for the rest of this evening so everybody can calm down and come to an agreement about the sources. John4051, you have violated 3RR, be grateful you didn't get a block, Erik and Cognissonance, you're on two reverts each and it wouldn't have been devastating for the article to be put on the wrong version while we get the people you've pinged to comment and hopefully get a consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I took a look at the two sources that Erik provided, in regards to this dispute, and I have to state that I'm afraid the first one doesn't provide clear evidence to support the notion of "a French-British-U.S. co-production". The second source is questionable; it may be reliable, but I can't say for certain. However, I don't think we should discount this film as being a production of a single country. For example, the source for the countries listed in the Infobox - can that be used as a source to prove this, per {{WP:RS]]? Can Wikipedians involved in this article do some research to find evidence that further supports this notion? Until these can be answered, I will say one thing - leave the sentence in place as "international co-production", when the protection expires, but add a "Citation Needed" template. Then you can provide a reasonable amount of time to find what is needed, otherwise you can remove it from the lead. Does that help? GUtt01 (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The sources I provided were in addition to what is already in the film infobox. MovieMaker here calls Dunkirk "a French-British-U.S. co-production", so what does not providing "clear evidence" mean here? The British Council (referenced in the film infobox) here says, "Netherlands, UK, France, US coproduction". The Screen International source here validates the Netherlands role. The editor was not willing to change any wording of that. To call it co-financing, a collaboration, or whatever, would have been worthwhile attempts--not blanking because of their POV. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry mate, but I must disagree with that first source. From what it looks like, it's mainly a news article about US Film commissions, and comparing it to those in Europe. The fact is, the mention about co-production between France, Britain and the United States is regulated to one section of a paragraph:

"Film France is in charge of monitoring the tax rebates for films shooting in France and connecting filmmakers to the right people—for example helping the makers of Dunkirk, Christopher Nolan’s new film, find producers, technicians, locations, performers and more."

And a caption on a photo:

"...a French-British-U.S. co-production assisted by Film France..."

There isn't enough information here to make this source a reliable one. The second source is questionable, so in order to prove the claim, it needs additional evidence to prove that. I will agree that the other user was wrong to blank and make Edits on a single point of view, their own, but on the other hand, to ensure that this sentence in the Lead can be verified, the sources need to provide a good amount of information to do so. Hence the issues I'm stating here. Now at the moment, an admin has protected the page to bring calm and to allow a civil argument, which you are providing here (GOOD FOR YOU TOO! That's what I like to see in a Wikipedian!). If you have concerns, don't hesitate to ask other Wikipedians what they think, okay? GUtt01 (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

All of these sources are absolutely reliable. They all have reliable publication processes. There is no need to seek out more (unnecessary) information from a reliable source when we are not stating anything more than the countries being involved with the film's production. The British Council source is also clear-cut about why these countries are named. Below the set of countries, it states, "A Warner Bros. (US), Dombey Street Productions (UK), Kaap Holland Film (NL), StudioCanal (FR), Syncopy (UK) production in association with RatPac-Dune Entertainment." It is a production with these various companies from different countries involved. We can repeat the citation from the film infobox in the lead section itself, but it would not have stopped the editor's disruptive edits anyway. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The point of referencing MovieMaker and Screen International was to further reinforce the British Council source already used in the article. Clearly there is a basis for mentioning all four countries. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I would not have made the edit and taken so strong a position about this had I been able to find independent support in authoritative secondary sources. What has been cited clearly does not meet the definition of reliable one - and despite what I said above, I'm even questioning the British Film Council now that I see that this is not independently sourced. Have to be very careful when throwing around terms like "international co-production" that have specific meanings - otherwise, for example, every Columbia Pictures production becomes a Japanese-American "international co-production" by virtue of Sony's ownership of Columbia Pictures. I'm fine with resolving this on the basis suggested by GUtt01, that is to "add a "Citation Needed" template. Then you can provide a reasonable amount of time to find what is needed, otherwise remove from the lead." comment added by John4051 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 8 August 2017

That's exactly why I asked if you would want to drop "international" because the British Council source technically just says "coproduction". (The Wikipedia article on international co-production is unsourced other than the "Cost" section anyway.) The Columbia Pictures example does not work here because Japan is not identified as a production country for Columbia Pictures films. I'm fine with repeating the inline citation for British Council in support of the sentence, and I am fine with rewording it to say just "coproduction" or a synonymous approach recognizing the four countries' participation. Is there any similar wording that would suffice? Do we want to name the companies involved, e.g., "Netherlands-based Kaap Holland Film", etc.? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, I think GUtt01 has the right approach here. I will say, however, that you're missing the point about Columbia Pictures - using terms like "international co-production" loosely, as you have here, makes virtually everything an "international co-production" given the way that major films are produced and financed. I will also say that "countries" did not produce this film. Companies - multinational companies - did. Talking about the "involvement" of "countries" here is problematic at best. comment added by John4051 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 8 August 2017

Like I said, I am open to wording it as "coproduction" or something synonymous. There's also nothing problematic about identifying the multiple countries involved. It is commonplace for sources to recognize production companies. Per WP:FILMLEAD, we encourage covering different national interests later in the lead section instead of calling Dunkirk an "American-British-Dutch-French film" in the opening sentence, something that has been much abused in the past. You're still not providing any alternative wording. You could even say that companies from so-and-so countries produced the film under Warner Bros. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I just reviewed the edit history and think the whole nationality war that has gone on with this particular page for over a year now - ending with the nonsense of terming this an "international co-production" - is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. To be clear, I already provided preferred language that you decided you didn't like and then reverted three times. As my edit demonstrates, my preferred approach would be to simply say that "The film is distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures," which is 100% true and completely supportable. If we must go down the nationality road, you could say that "The film's production involved entities from [list countries]," ending with a citation to a reliable source. Or you could prefix the language I deleted with "The British Film Council's website lists the film as a [insert sentence fragment that I deleted]," with a citation to the British Film Council source, before saying that the film is distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures. John4051 (talk • contribs).

This whole debate strikes me as bizarre. I probably would have just blocked John4051 instead of protecting the article. Comments about "sit in your basement in Europe" strike me as trolling. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Simply put, you can't resolve a debate when you're blocked, although the protection is short and if he (or indeed anyone) carries on reverting, there will be a block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I've read through this feed 1.5x and still don't fully get what the actual issue here is, but here is my two cents: "co-production" looks better/cleaner than "international ____" in my opinion. Also, by definition Britain and the US (via Syncopy and WB) are only "genuine" producers, although since its "in association" with two French companies they deserve their hat in the ring, too. In a five second Google search, most sources I can find list this as a U.K.-US or U.K.-US-France production, few mention the Netherlands. So I think the best option is leading off a sentence with "a co-production between the United States, United Kingdom and France, Dunkirk was distributed worldwide by Warner Bros." (or something). But I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm just a fan who came to say hi. TropicAces (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

Like Tropic, I don't have too much to add. I have read most of the material and reviews here in the UK, the majority of which assume the film is British with occasional grudging recognition that Americans may have had something to do with it, rather reminiscent of the war itself. The 'international co-production' formula returns a lot of Google hits, but in the same formulation from multiple blogs, which suggests a common cut-and-paste source, which may indeed be WP. I guess it depends on what you mean by co-production: British and Americans had most of the creative and managerial input (noting that the music guy is actually German) and Nolan is both, of course. Given the extensive filming in France, French co-operation would have been essential to produce the film. I am not sure what the Dutch involvement was; the fisherman claimed to be "Dutch" but then in the 1940s Dunkirk as a town was still majority Flemish speaking. Normal WP practice appears to be to claim national involvement for putting up a bit of the money, providing a location, or for at least a grandparent of the director, so on that basis all these countries were involved - but does that qualify as "co-production", or just the normal co-operation you would expect nowadays for a film made in several countries? MapReader (talk) 03:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Ample evidence has been provided for the "international coproduction" wording. I fail to see what the counter-argument is, other than John4051 doesn't like it, which is utterly meaningless. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

That's a pretty outrageous misrepresentation of the extensive discussion above. There is certainly no consensus that "ample evidence has been provided" for that wording. John4051 (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

No, I do not think it is a misrepresentation. What is is your argument that there is no consensus because you continue to disagree, as though we should all bend to your will. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

To paraphrase what you said above, what you "think" is "utterly meaningless." The evidence speaks for itself: multiple editors have issues with that language. There is no consensus. Your claim to the contrary is a gross misrepresentation. John4051 (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Your own bias should not enter into it. You deny the reliability of reliable sources, and trespass the three-revert rule from that ignorance. British Council, a reliable source, describes the film as a co-production. The job of an editor is to write The film is a co-production. Cognissonance (talk | contibs) 18:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

"Your own bias should not enter into it."

What bias? The implication that you're raising - that my edits come from "bias" - is a clear violation of the presumption of good faith.

"You deny the reliability of reliable sources."

"Reliable sources" is your own personal conclusion, unsupported by evidence and unsupported by the editors who have commented here.

"Trespass the three-revert rule from that ignorance."

You mean the exact same thing that Erik did? And let's not forget that you were warned for your two reverts that themselves were violations of principles of courtesy, among other policies.

"British Council, a reliable source, describes the film as a co-production."

It does no such thing. That content has long since been removed. An archived version of the British Council website dating from December 30, 2016 did so without providing any information to back up the assertion. Not a reliable source.John4051 (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

"Netherlands, UK, France, US coproduction". This is the current version. Cognissonance (talk | contibs) 21:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Search "Dunkirk" on the British Council site and it will not come up. Even if it did, the British Council is not claiming that these countries produced the film - which is what the sentence says - they are saying that the entities that were involved in the production of the film came from those countries. Thus, the sentence does not match the source. But do what you want; I'm done. Honestly - this is a prime example of why people can't rely on Wikipedia for serious research.John4051 (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Collins' RAF rank - Pilot Officer or Flying Officer?

The article lists Collins as a Pilot Officer, but I would argue that he is a Flying Officer, although it doesn't help that the insignia (bars) for each is very alike. This chart shows the RAF ranks and how they are displayed on the cuffs of the uniforms (https://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/486348B7_F6AE_FDFD_508A59BB08EB2B08.jpg). This picture shows Jack Lowden on set, with his insignia visable (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/07/13/14/363B84BC00000578-3687002-image-a-14_1468417470413.jpg). This picture shows a present day Flying Officer cuff insignia (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uplo). To me they look spot on, and would support Collins being a Flying Officer rather than a Pilot Officer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttfreck (talk • contribs) 02:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

You might be right, but your demonstration constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS, and perhaps WP:OR, on Wikipedia. We need one reliable source confirming it. In the absence of that, I will simply change it to British Airforce pilot. Cognissonance (talk | contibs) 12:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Dawson and Lightoller.

It's beyond question that Dawson is based on Lightoller. The entire part depicts Lightoller's deeds during the evacuation, including his use of his late son's advice on how to take evasive action when under air attack. I assisted Pat Stenson with the writing of Lightoller's biography in the early 1980s, and as soon as I saw "Moonstone" and Rylance I wondered if he would turn out to be Lightoller. It crossed my mind that I was likely to be the only person in the cinema having such thoughts. Unfortunately, Nolan doesn't mention any influence specifically, and I can't find a source that does. Lightoller/Rylance's connection with Titanic has no direct relevance to Dunkirk, but it would make a worthwhile footnote if a source could be found. Hengistmate (talk) 10:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

From what has been published the position appears to be both that Nolan has both avoided having any factually-based characters in the film and used extensive research to ensure that the various actions depicted stay reasonably close to recorded events. Given that Nolan has said the characters are all fictional, it would be OR to make a link in the article between a particular character and a real life person; nevertheless it is clear that very many of the individual happenings in the film are drawn from recorded events, including the schoolboy who went to Dunkirk, the soldier walking into the sea in desperation, etc. Doubtless the same is true of the actions of the Moonstone and its owner.MapReader (talk) 06:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I rang Pat Stenson yesterday. He said that, in the cinema, when Dawson, Moonstone, and the crew appeared he wanted to stand up, point at the screen, and shout, "I wrote that bit!"

Be that as it may, we have again encountered one of Wikipedia's greater nonsenses, which is that one cannot state what is as plain as the nose on one's face. Dawson is based on Lightoller. By whom, we have not been told by a reliable source, but we know Nolan did the research and wrote the script. Of course all the characters are fictional - it's not a biopic - but Mr. Nolan can hardly claim in the case of Dawson that "Any Resemblance to Actual Persons, Living or Dead, is Purely Coincidental".

However, there is a way round it. We may not state that Nolan based or may have/appears to have based Dawson on Lightoller. But we may say that there are numerous parallels between the part of Dawson and the real life actions of Lightoller, and point to the sizeable number of sources that say so and describe those similarities. I don't see anything wrong with that. Lightoller is certainly notable.

Of course, in the fullness of time, someone might ask Nolan and report his answer, which would make life a lot easier. Hengistmate (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Please keep editing to a minimum

I have requested a copy edit at the Guild of Copy Editors and would prefer there not to be another rejection because of editing traffic. Pinging regular contributors MapReader and TropicAces. This applies to other editors as well, or rather, especially other editors. As a courtesy, do not edit the Plot or Reception sections, with the exception of the necessary box office update. Thanks in advance. Cognissonance (talk | contibs) 21:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@MapReader: Did you read this and figure you'd just not do it? Cognissonance (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't recall any attempt to obtain consensus that this represents a sensible approach? Whilst the film remains high on cinema billings we are inevitably going to get new fans wanting to add things to the article, and having experienced editors including yourself watching the page is helpful. If the eventual end product needs copy editing by an uninvolved experienced editor then surely the time to do this is further down the road - as the experts appear already to have advised? MapReader (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hideo Kojima on Dunkirk

Noted video game designer Hideo Kojima wrote an article for Rolling Stone in which he compared Dunkirk to his own work, and praised how it convincingly depicted war.

http://www.rollingstone.com/glixel/features/kojima-death-stranding-aims-to-be-a-new-sort-of-game-of-war-w499148

Noteworthy enough for it to be featured in "reception"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.176.244.88 (talk) 11:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

This sounds like self-promotion by the individual concerned, rather than a noteworthy comment on the film? MapReader (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Highest Grossing World War II Movie

Is there some other source I can use other than Flickering Myth for this? Not sure if it is all that reliable. Cognissonance (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Historical accuracy

Should they include that in one scene on the destroyer was actually filmed in a French one instead of a British one Malcolm Mak (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it's enough that the French destroyer was mentioned in Filming, to avoid repetition. Cognissonance (talk) 05:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Beginning copyedit

I'm beginning a long-requested copyedit and, barring unforeseen circumstances, should be done in three days; I'll leave a note when I'm finished. All the best, Miniapolis 17:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Since the request was made, the article has already been copy edited extensively. MapReader (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Mostly the Plot. I still think someone else needs to take a look at the Reception. Cognissonance (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Cognissonance The newly edit plot section looks fine. I went over the Reception section and made some punctuation and wording fixes. I have now archived the request as the rest of the article appears to be in good shape. Regards Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The following is the discussion on the GOCE talk page prior to my c/e of the two sections requested by Cognissonance so there is a record of the request's history. Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Dunkirk (2017 film)

I requested a copy edit last month, which was rejected because of the editing traffic. It has died down since then. The specific sections that need professional help are Plot and Reception. Thanks. Cognissonance (talk | contibs) 14:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Still more than 10+ edits per day. Perhaps it will actually be stable by the time this reaches the top of the list.Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

 Note:: Still pretty much in flux, as of today. – BroVic (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

 Note: - Nine edits already today, October 12, should this not be declined? It's been on the list for seven weeks and the edits show no signs of abating.Twofingered Typist (talk) 11:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The last 19 edits (about three days) are pretty trivial (as are the last 38 edits over 6 days), mostly updating numbers and some copy editing. The article looks pretty stable to me. I recommend putting a note on the talk page letting watchers know that a copy-edit has been requested and will be in progress for a day or two, and then posting again when you are done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

 Working, and I'll follow Jonesey's suggestion. Miniapolis 16:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

 On hold, since it's still being actively edited despite my note on the talk page; looks like it'll be a while before this article (about a recently-released film) settles down. Miniapolis 15:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Amazon

@MapReader: If we do not allow YouTube search results as sources, Amazon search results are no different. The remaining ComingSoon.net source does not confirm anything else but what was there, which makes your added content WP:OR until further notice. Cognissonance (talk) 08:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The appropriate course for good faith edit likely to be accurate but not fully sourced is to add a tag. I am disappointed that you feel repeated reversion is justified. The reasons why a retailer citation is not appropriate are to do with advertising and commercial advantage, not accuracy - the retailer is almost certainly going to be accurate, and indeed is probably the original source for any third party comment on the web that would provide an appropriate citation. As it stands the article is wrong, since it gives 19 December as the universal release date, and I have had to edit this out to avoid misleading information remaining in the article. MapReader (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Estimate?

In the last paragraph of the Plot section it says that “ten times more than estimated” (300,000) British soldiers were evacuated. The figure of 30,000 troops was Churchill’s target, not his estimate. This is from the screenplay published by Faber & Faber:

“REAR ADMIRAL We need our army back.

COLONEL WINNANT How many men are they talking about?

REAR ADMIRAL Churchill wants thirty thousand. Ramsay’s hoping we can give him forty-five.” EighteenFiftyNine (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I think this meant "estimate" as in "Churchill estimated that they could evacuate around 30,000", but I've edited the article to be specific. Popcornduff (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Re: List of awards and nominations received by Dunkirk

Most of the traffic that comes to the article goes to the Accolades section. Given that the table is getting longer and longer, and that the article needs to be stable to reach GA status, shouldn't we funnel that traffic onto another page? Cognissonance (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

As there was no reply, I made a WP:BOLD edit and moved the table to the aforementioned article. Cognissonance (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dunkirk (2017 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ribbet32 (talk · contribs) 01:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I've been drafted for this review, if you forgive the terminology. Soon to come Ribbet32 (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Well-written:

1a Generally good, the Guild has reviewed. However, in lede "boats that participated in the evacuation" is confusing. If they were the real boats in the real evacuation, say "historic boats". Also, "participated" in unusual for non-living things- "used in"? Plot makes sense even tho I haven't seen this; it should say Winston Churchill was U.K. Prime Minister Release, in an oddly coincidental way, repeats Following Following. Why not, "Following in September 1998. Following"? Critical response moves back and forth from spelling out numbers ("four") and not ("4") and "four out of four" seems incomplete to me- stars are what's counted. 1b Top ten subsection is rather messy and unappealing in appearance. Consider tabling, perhaps, though not necessarily, the same as I did with my 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days For organization as well, the Cast section randomly includes bits and pieces of Casting information and it should me moved to Casting.

Changed lead. Established Churchill as prime minister. Changed "Following" to "After". Changed numbers to prose, mentioned stars. A table would be too long (that's why I moved the accolades table to another page); the rate of list inclusions warrants columns. Moved info to casting. Cognissonance (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

"Stars" removed by copy editor, whose edit summary makes sense. Cognissonance (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong with giving the reader a little context and noting it was Sept 1998? Also, the Critical section still mixes, saying "3.5three and a half out of four". Cast still includes Casting information ("Whitehead was cast in the lead after a secretive auditioning process lasting several months", etc) Ribbet32 (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Added "nineteen years prior" instead, as the source didn't specify an exact date. Typo has been redressed. Cast info moved. Cognissonance (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Also preferred format for numbers one to nine is as words; MOS:NUMERAL refers MapReader (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Re 2b layout: in addition to tabling the critics' list, I would also suggest converting the Cast section into an infobox placed adjacent to Casting per WP:CASTLIST; you saw how I did this with Wings of Desire Ribbet32 (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I previewed the cast list table, and it looks terrible, even after several tries to make it look better. It pushes the prose into ugly shapes, and since it isn't obligatory, I would prefer bullet points, which make the list look more like horizontal spires. Cognissonance (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphans, they're called, what the table shoves the paragraphs into. Cognissonance (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Verifiable with no original research

2a Thoroughly referenced 2b Major publications are used 2c. Review pending . 2d. No concerns

Broad in its coverage:

3a. It's not missing any sections that a film article should have, but some subsections are extremely stubby and would qualify for tagging (Template:Expand section) This is particularly true of Home media (which may as well be merged with the main Release section) and Accolades, which may change quite drastically once Oscar nominations are announced, and again after the ceremony- see #5

Merged Home media with Release. Accolades will not change drastically, it will expand by one line. The section is there to justify awards mentions in the lead, as the main article is elsewhere. Cognissonance (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Accolades is still extremely stubby. The subarticle includes more of an introduction, and can be copied and pasted from Ribbet32 (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Cognissonance (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

3b. Not a lot off-topic.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

4. I'd cut down on the use of the word "praise" in Historical accuracy- particularly since sources in the opposite direction have been omitted ‘Dunkirk’ is full of inaccuracies. And then there are omissions Why the lack of Indian and African faces in Dunkirk matters

Changed wording. What was omitted did not count as historical inaccuracies. Cognissonance (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources still regarded those as important. NPOV requires balance. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

OK Cognissonance (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

5. stability is a big concern here, with Oscar nominations not even announced yet and the theatrical run not even completed. Box office has a Template:As of outdated by a month. If it sweeps the Oscars, even the lede would have to look drastically different. I suppose it's less of a challenge than Barack Obama being featured before he even became President, and maintaining his bronze star throughout all eight years, but can the nominator justify why this had to be nominated now?

The theatrical run ended on 23 November, per Box Office Mojo. The film is simply in its re-release to create buzz for the Oscars. The lead would expand by one line if it wins / gets nominated. I have funnelled a lot of traffic to List of awards and nominations received by Dunkirk, and that's where it will remain during awards season. The article is nominated now because it addresses the main aspects of the topic, awards are ancillary information, like home media, which does not complete an article but simply adds to it. Cognissonance (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

6. Poster is attributed, this is an easy one for free images

Just a small point, but as per the MOS please note that the correct abbreviation is 'UK', not 'U.K.' MapReader (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Criteria 2 review "Nolan researched as tho it were a doc"- should change to "Nolan said he researched as tho it were a doc", since the source doesn't verify his self-congratulatory claim. Would recommend using Template:Sfn for book footnotes. Debruge, according to both the live and archived ref, is misquoted with ""Nolan has found a way to harness that technique in service of a kind of heightened reality, one that feels more immersive and immediate than whatever concerns we check at the door."- the actual quote doesn't 100% match up with that. With Travers, "that genre" he refers to as raised to art-level is the survival film, not the war film. Yorkshire ref does not seem to support the bit in Historical accuracy about the RAF dogfighting with the Germans on limited fuel. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Changed wording. WP:CITEVAR says it stays, but I will consider it for the future. Replaced Debruge quote with better one, used brackets to clarify what was not in the original quote. Clarified Travers quote. It was Slate that substantiated that claim, moved source to right place. Cognissonance (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Just an observation, but there are so many citation numbers now that some of the sections are getting harder to read. For example Filming. Most articles don't seem to need quite so many references, nor to repeat the same citation so many times? Citations halfway through sentences, sometimes not even preceded by punctuation, compounds the problem. MapReader (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

An example: I read in one source that they used snorkel lenses, and in another that they also used periscope lenses - that's two sources right there. With the information that cameras were in the front and back, the sources accumulate, but there's always a reason for it.

As to citations in the middle of sentences, this helps the reader find exactly which source substantiates what. Cognissonance (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Fine, but WP citation policy is that this is only done where the word or point is likely to be particularly contentious. Otherwise citations go at the end of a phrase or ideally sentence. There is also a trade-off between readability and thoroughness of citation, and article is (in my opinion) getting close to off-balance. In particular it isn't obvious why some phrases need multiple citations. MapReader (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Noted. Cognissonance (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't personally wrinkle my nose at footnotes, and don't regard that as a priority, but the reference section is still a little untidy and would reiterate using Template:Sfn for book sources. If critics' lists are tabled, you could probably place the ref in one field instead of the messy a-av in ref 171 as well. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I still think a critics' list table would be too long and unwieldy. It's not unheard of to keep with bullet points on a GA. Cognissonance (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

That was six years ago, and the bare list is unwieldy, and WP:GOFISHING. There are a few more outstanding issues- reference formatting, updating box office. Ribbet32 (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ribbet32: I was fishing, but doesn't WP:STYLEVAR still apply? And regarding the reference section, WP:CITEVAR? What about the box office needs updating? It says in the source what it made and when it ceased its run, both of which are in the article. Cognissonance (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Those guidelines refer to not edit warring over style or citations. No edit war is taking place; if it were, the article would be auto failed for stability. They don't preclude a discussion on what would look/function best. We'll see what Mapreader thinks; in the meantime, the box office, as I said, includes a Template:As of referring to a month ago. If the info in the source hasn't changed, updating would be a simple matter of replacing it with {{As of|2017|12|23}}, and updating he URL retrieved in the web citation template. Ribbet32 (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

So next month we need to change it again, and then again after that? Why change it at all when we know why the date in Box Office Mojo hasn't changed? It marks the end of the theatrical release, which resulted the cited gross. Cognissonance (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

When its theatrical run finally ends, the template can simply be removed completely, and the article can state it completed its theatrical run. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Updated then. I will spend some time previewing a table of the critics' list, but length was the very reason I put it in columns, and a table cannot be done the same way. Cognissonance (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@MapReader: What is your view on the issue? Cognissonance (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The top ten list section, and the references that point to it, are horrible, and I am not sure why it is there at all. MOS:FILM says Do not add critics' top-ten lists on which a film appears, except on a case-by-case basis subject to consensus - I don't recall any suggestion that Dunkirk is a special case, or any consensus on this? On the technical details of which template to use I will pass, not having the detailed knowledge, unless someone can point to an example of how it might look. MapReader (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ribbet32: I'm convinced. You both agree it is cluttering, and I just want to stop going in circles arguing about it. I could just delete the list altogether, based on the guideline, which I wasn't aware of until now. Cognissonance (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I would just junk the whole section. It shouldn't be there - it's a hostage to fortune as editors will find more and more obscure lists to add; once we accept one, it becomes open season - and I haven't seen anything like it on another film page. There was quite a discussion about top tens during the recent MOS:FILM wikiproject review, and the consensus amongst the long-time film editors was strongly opposed. Hence the wording in the revised MOS MapReader (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Closing comments I still hate cast sections and rue the day when they became accepted and then even expected parts of film articles, and still think that this article could be subject to important updates, but then, so could all articles on Wikipedia. Barack Obama was a major case, and even Augustus could require massive updates if tomorrow researchers discovered five previously unknown biographies written about him by Tacitus while archaeologists dig up his secret chamber filled with his state documents and personal journal. Other concerns have been addressed, and I can appreciate if the author feels nixing the top 10s was a sore sacrifice (for the record, I was willing to compromise there and simply have the section beautified). Passing. Ribbet32 (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Ribbet32, and thank you MapReader for copy editing the article over the months, to where it is now. Cognissonance (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for passing and congrats to Cognissonance for doing the boring bit and getting us over the line! I think there are enough regular editors following this page that we'll be able to keep improving it and update after the award ceremonies etc. One advantage of cast sections is that people don't need to litter the rest of the article with actors' names in brackets. And much better without the top ten section, which was a spam invitation par excellence! Happy Crimbo to one and all... MapReader (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

More historical accuracy

Hitler personally ordered his military to allow the British army to escape. Hitler was a supporter of the British Empire, unlike Roosevelt who stated he wanted to destroy it. Hitler stated to General Blumentritt that peace could not be achieved with Britain if he destroyed the British Army. Moreover he wanted Britain to be ready when Stalin began his attack on Europe.

Is the truth relevant to this site? The aforementioned information has been known for many decades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.109.66 (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

In this article, what independent reliable sources say about the film is relevant. Whether or not Germany bombed London is some strange attempt to save it from Stalin and was just visiting France for lunch would only be relevant here if independent reliable sources discussing the movie spelled out those theories. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)