Talk:Kate (film)

D.O.A.

Can anyone say D.O.A? 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 04:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Many reviewers have pointed to DOA. Some editors have tried to highlight this in the aritcle,[1] but there's a big difference between reviews saying it and the filmmakers saying it.

I was looking for other information but I found interviews with the director, and when asked if he was inspired by DOA he replies "No, not at all, actually."[2] Although he is aware that the film has been compared to DOA and Crank he talks about how anime has influenced his work, and his interest in yakuza films.

The director has clearly stated that it was not one of his influences, but we don't yet know what the writer Umair Aleem has to say about it. -- 109.78.193.127 (talk) 12:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

All Female Band

We never EVER point out that a band is all male, or even mixed gender. Why do we still make such a fuss over a band that happens to be all female? Band-Maid isn't notable just because of their gender. They are very talented people who are making really good music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:1245:3600:FC2D:7655:8C0F:9670 (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

List formatting

SomeGuyFromSouthCarolina (Correction: User:Some Dude From North Carolina) screwed up the list formatting [3] Learning how markup actually works can be dull, so understandably many editors don't know that they should not mix different list types like that edit did, see the documentation Help:List. I kept the visible formatting change and corrected the bad markup with a minor edit.[4] My edit was reverted along with several other edits, and I hastily and mistakenly thought the erroneous markup had been restored, but the revert went further back than I realized and removed that mess too. So it should all be good now. Sorry for the misunderstanding User:Sundayclose. -- 109.79.166.207 (talk) 03:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not from South Carolina. No, YOU screwed the list formatting. Please link the policy for what you consider the "correct" formatting, but not Help:List because that does not address the issue of how a "See also" list should be formatted. Otherwise, your preferred formatting is just based on your personal preference and is contrary to the way almost all "See also" sections are formatted. Sundayclose (talk) 03:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I submitted my edit too soon and there was an edit conflict before I finished submitting my comment in full.

Again apologies to Sundayclose, another user entirely made a mistake and Sundayclose reverted it and my edit back to an old version, and I can see the article is fine now. -- 109.79.166.207 (talk) 03:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Poster image

An editor changed the poster image from JPG to PNG. He gave no explanation for this change. (File:Kate_(film).jpg to File:Kate_(film).png) The poster image is sourced from a JPG image originally http://www.impawards.com/2021/kate.html and anyone changing from one format to another should be able to explain why. As the image is largely photographic and was in JPG format in the first place there is no reason to change format, using PNG an option but certainly not a requirement. If the editor wanted a higher quality image they could have uploaded a higher quality JPG, to the same location (File:Kate_(film).jpg). (Take the original image, edit it, resize it to the desired dimensions but with the JPG quality settings set at a very high level.) No format change necessary, no edit to this article Kate (film) even necessary.

When asked to explain his change he did not explain it and instead responded negatively.[5] This hostility is consistent with what I experienced with this editor before, he does not like to follow the simple rules and provided meaningful edit summaries, which might have avoided this problem from the start. He seems to take disagreements very personally, and gets hostile instead of discussing the matter. He continues to incorrectly assume that as an anonymous IP editor I cannot possibly be editing in good faith. His user page states that he is "No longer here" I wish that was true and I could continue edit this article like I did before he got here and made his unexplained changes. Mistakes happen, but other editors know how to disagree and discuss without so much hostility.

He eventually wrote the edit summary: "There is no such thing as using "JPG is better than PNG" when it comes to film posters. PNG is uploaded because it features the correct saturation and sharpness with reduced pixels (common sense)."

None of the improvements he wants require an image format change, all can be achieved while still using JPG. None of this was necessary, better explanation of his changes in the first place, or not making them at all could have avoided this. I strongly suggest he make any changes he believes are necessary to the existing image File:Kate_(film).jpg directly.

The guideline WP:PIFU says "JPEG for photographic images" and "PNG for everything else".

-- 109.76.198.55 (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

From the eventful edits on Music (2021 film) and its talk page to the recently shown signs of anti-transgender behavior on Hard Candy and its talk page, this user has been constantly aiming to disrupt encyclopedia while violating multiple guidelines and discussions to make his preferred opinions and thoughts visible. Numerous editors warned and distanced themselves from this person (you can see examples by just looking at the Music (2021 film)'s talk page), including me, but they do want to draw attention and I was one of the unlucky ones that had to deal with this user's actions more than once before. Instead of good writing, providing reasonable edit summaries and constructive contributions, I think they enjoy targeting and hounding a specific editor before they stop editing for a while and come back with another unregistered account.

In this specific case, they claim that "JPG is better than PNG", which is not true. I replaced old JPG files with worse quality than this file with a PNG and mostly had no issues. I even got a supporting message from someone who uploads files frequently, and there are other editors who upload PNG film posters besides me. It's not that they came here before, which they didn't, it's that they got bored again and have been in an attack mode wherever they see me. If we look at their actions and comments, it can even be said that they think they have the right to interfere with my user page and my talk page, and that they own all the articles they have edited. I don't have more time to spend for the shenanigans, so I appreciate the page protection. ภץאคгöร 07:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Not fully understanding the details of file formats is a minor issue, failing to recognize that they might have more to learn is a bigger problem. The above editor cannot seem to understand or admit that they might be the in the wrong, and that they might be failing to explain properly, and overreacting to criticism.

I asked User:Some_Dude_From_North_Carolina who uploaded the image in the first place for their opinion, they told the User:Nyxaros/User: Sebastian James that their edits to this page were not constructive.[6] -- 109.78.193.127 (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

"I even got a supporting message from someone who uploads files frequently, and there are other editors who upload PNG film posters besides me." If you have links to relevant discussions then post them. There are cases when PNG can be used but when the original image was in JPG format and when another editor uploaded a JPG then there should be a good reason given for changing the file format. (There are important differences between JPG and PNG, between lossy formats and lossless formats, but it is entirely possible to have high quality JPEGs and low quality PNG files.)

If you want a higher quality image you should have said that in the first place. But getting a higher quality image can be achieved without needing to change the file format. -- 109.78.193.127 (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Budget

Deadline says the budget was $25 million.[7] The source is already referenced in the production section, but the budget figure has not been added to the text or the Infobox yet. -- 109.78.193.127 (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Article unlocked again so I went ahead and added the budget. -- 109.79.73.154 (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Character descriptions

WP:GOODFAITH. An anon ip editor made a good faith effort to improve the article, specifically the character descriptions.[8] I looked at that edit and I looked at the cast section and thought "lets try and improve the article".

The character descriptions could be better, or they could be left out entirely (as many film articles do, and this article did until quite recently). Please improve the character descriptions. Even if things that happened in the plot are a "neutral fact" that does not make them good character descriptions, and it is better to keep the plot in the plot section. Please take the edits of the other anon and my edits as good faith suggestions that the Cast section could be better. I urge Sundayclose (talk · contribs) to take a closer look and please do something, anything at all, to move the article forward in some he thinks might be an improvement. -- 109.76.206.80 (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Brief character descriptions are quite common in the cast lists in film articles. They allow the reader who doesn't want to spoil the plot for themselves to get an idea of something about a character. On a personal level I have found them useful, particularly in films with a lot of characters and keeping up with names interferes with my enjoyment of the film. Wikipedia is written for readers and is not restricted by arbitrary rules that are not policy. I objected to the use of the phrase "handsome stranger" for a character description because it is a subjective interpretation. I don't see a problem with the character descriptions as they are now. I don't see any need to "do something, anything at all, to move the article forward" just for the sake of change. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Sundayclose (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes WP:FILMCAST can include character descriptions, but is not a requirement, and the guidelines emphasize real-world context rather than character descriptions. It wasn't about something being "broke" or not, the edits were about the possibility that the descriptions could be better, and more about describing the characters. "I don't see a problem with the character descriptions": Who poisoned who is a plot point not a character description. -- 109.79.178.97 (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I never said character descriptions are a requirement. I said that they are allowed and are frequently used. The WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS for this article is that they are used. You can't remove them without a new consensus simply because you don't like them. And I don't think the descriptions as they are now need to be changed. But if you want something changed, feel free to discuss here, but without the WP:OR "handsome stranger". Sundayclose (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Sundaclose went and added Plot the Cast section.[9] Plot is still not a character description. -- 109.78.202.228 (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)