Talk:Runner Runner

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Unsourced information

I have been told twice to leave unsourced information in this article.

Before we go there, IMDb is not a reliable source for unreleased films. The other sources do not give the information I've just tagged.

Lady Lotus asserts, "if a cast list is unsourced, just leave a {cn} not delete the entire cast list". Well, no. I am challenging the unsourced information. If you have a reliable source for the information, please cite that source. Otherwise, please explain how you came about this information. Heck, if we don't need to cite all of it, why cite any of it.

Oakshade informs me, "This is all verifiable." Well, no. "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." Other than going out a finding a reliable source, I cannot check that the information came from a reliable source. If someone will cite one, I will be able to. As it currently stands, the full cast list (and character names) may as well have come to you in a dream.

I have tagged the info as needing a cite for now. Tomorrow, "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."

If there is a particular reason we should ignore verifiability here, please explain, as I would like to add that Marilyn Monroe plays a talking fish named Larry in the film. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SummerPhD, you're just being disruptive. You do believe the cast list but just being a pest because you don't see non-IMDB citations. This is confirmed because you even placed a notability tag on the article. [1] Either you're extremely ignorant on some of the biggest stars currently in show business or you thought it was notable but placed the notability tag there anyway. It was one of the two. You are not credible. Start a RfC if you don't like your disruptive edits being reverted. --Oakshade (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for assuming good faith. Do you have a reliable source for the cast? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go delete the Argo (2012 film) cast list since there are no citations at all listed there. Of course more people are watching there and your disruptive editing will be exposed on a mass scale so you'll never do it. --Oakshade (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source for the cast? (As for your red herring, 1) I am talking about this article, not some OTHERSTUFF. 2)Argo is a released film. The consensus is that IMDb is a reliable source for cast lists of released films.) - SummerPhD (talk)

By this point you've obviously seen my question. Still no source. I'll remove it tomorrow unless you have a reliable source or can explain why WP:V doesn't apply here. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 9 is "considered fall"?

I am rather surprised to hear that September 9 is "considered fall". Here in North America, fall starts on the Autumnal Equinox -- September 22 or 23. To remove the biases here (North America & Europe vs. East Asia and Northern Hemisphere vs. Southern), this should read "third quarter of 2013". If anyone would care to argue that Spetember 9 is "considered" the fourth quarter of 2013... Comments? - SummerPhD (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You're seriously arguing about this? Really? I was generalizing when I said "September is considered fall", I never gave a date. Pick your battles. Lady Lotus (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There you go, doesn't matter now. :) Lady Lotus (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) The second source is dated September 9, when the movie was "currently filming". While you might consider that fall or assume the filming continued for a couple more weeks or... or... or... whatever. Yes, the end of September is "fall" in the north. So what? I could have just reverted that, but we're apparently in a twilight zone where unsourced information is verifiable so, not surprisingly, we also have the claim that September 9 is "fall". I half expect to hear that Puerto Rico is part of South America and filming in late fall (December 17) 2012 in New Jersey means they filmed in Puerto Rico in the winter of 2012... oh, wait, we already have that. Hell, let's just say they filmed in Aruba in 2016 and be done with it. I'd correct this, but I'd probably be reverted because, oh, take your pick: unsourced is verifiable, summer is fall, fall is winter, New Jersey is Puerto Rico. I won't question you, though, because I'm not supposed to disagree with you when you disagree with me.

Here's a suggestion: I will edit this article to follow what reliable sources say to the best of my ability. If you disagree with my interpretation of what a source says, feel free to revert and discuss. If I change anything anyone else adds or changes, I'll discuss it as well. If you'd like to feel that is absurd, go right ahead. If anyone would like to include unsourced info, please explain why you feel WP:V need not apply here. Deal? - SummerPhD (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Winter starts around the December 21, the article was written on the 13th, maybe JUST maybe they filmed for another week and into winter. Most people consider December a "winter" month, I really REALLY didn't think it was hurting anything by putting winter. I figured it would help resolve the ridiculous "fall" debate but I was wrong. And the things that you are claiming are "unsourced" are character names, most of the articles I've ever seen on wikipedia don't have or need the character names referenced therefor I think you are nit picking or trying to find things to prove a point. You have plenty of reliable sources saying that those actors are in the film but that isn't good enough, you need a source saying who they are playing too. Whatever. Why not just wait til the movie comes out and if we're all wrong about the names then delete your heart out. Lady Lotus (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, adding a source for fall resolves the "ridiculous 'fall' debate". It does not, however, allow for "winter". If I find a source showing winter 2012 would that support winter 2013? Maybe, JUST maybe, they're still filming right now. Should we add "summer 2013 or do you now consider this something else? What is wrong with reporting what the sources <gasp!> actually say? We know actual -- real world not what some may consider^{[weasel words]} -- dates for when they were filming. By the way, thanks for fixing the locations of filming. I'd have fixed it myself but I'm getting a lot of flack for going with sources.

As for your suggestion that I simply allow the unsourced character names -- and, presumably, the unsourced actors as well -- and make any corrections in a few months, well, hmm. Why don't you simply allow me to remove unsourced info and -- once reliable sources actually report them -- add the rest in when we can verify the aditions?

Yes, as previously mentioned, most released films do not include sources for their cast lists. Released films have cast lists that are easily checked against the film itself. Who played Luke Skywalker? Check any of the 30 billion DVDs. Additionally, because of this, IMDb is generally accepted as a reliable source for cast lists of released films.

Long story short: Instead of all of this "why don't you wait" and "do you really doubt..." stuff, how about if we go with verifiable info? - SummerPhD (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More unsourced information

Regarding this: "Reverting all edits because you don't believe that's the theatrical poster? Seriously? This is really disruptive." No, I have not "reverted all edits" and what I have reverted is not because I doubt it is the "theatrical poster". Read my edit summary. The one edit I reverted added five more names with no hint of a source. My edit summary: "-unsourced".

I hesitate to ask but, do you have a source for these names? - SummerPhD (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A vast majority of those names were covered by Daily Variety which was already in the article, but you removed those names anyway simply because you didn't see a citation next to every one of them.--Oakshade (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All, looks like this is the new poster. We can look at the bottom of it to confirm credits, too. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You must be looking at a different Variety article than the one cited in this article. The new names added were: Arnon Milchan, Brian Koppelman (as a writer), David Levien (as a writer), Mauro Fiore and Jeff McEvoy. NONE of them are in the Variety source cited. I removed them because they were unsourced. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're partially correct. It was a Hollywood Reporter article that was already listed in this article that a vast majority of those names were covered (sorry to get the HR and DV confused). Again, you just reverted all the content just because you didn't see a needless citation next to every name listed. Let the real contributors do their work.--Oakshade (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were 100% wrong. And "real" contributors understand that WP:V is kinda important around here. It should be fairly obvious that unsourced names added to this article are "likely to be challenged" and, as a result, "must include an inline citation". Incidentally, Hollywood Reporter doesn't include Arnon Milchan, Mauro Fiore or Jeff McEvoy. Of the 5 new names, it included 2. Is that your "vast majority"? - SummerPhD (talk) 02:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"likely to be challenged"? Seriously?? You actually think the addition of cinematographer Mauro Fiore somebody will happen on the article and think, "Mauro Fiore directing this film? I don't believe that! I'm challenging that." Seriously, let the contributors do their work. If there's something actually contentious, fine, place a citation tag on it. If it's unlikely to be challenged, use common sense and let editors do their work. --Oakshade (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, WP:V is to ensure verifiability. That's what WP:V is called: Wikipedia:Verifiability. Verifiability means the ability to verify. You truly didn't think it was possible to verify Mauro Fiore was the Director of Photography on this film? You didn't know it took a one second google search to find an source to verify he is?--Oakshade (talk) 04:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Lotus added a source for Fiore. Personally, I think that's a good thing. (Erik's also stepping in with sourcing.) - SummerPhD (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please exercise civility here? WP:CIVIL says, "Participate in a respectful and considerate way." I do not think any of you are completely wrong. The business of identifying the cast and crew for upcoming films can be tricky. For released films, we usually do not require inline citations unless names are likely to be challenged. For upcoming films, it can depend on the circumstances. While I am sure cribbing from IMDb is common, I prefer to make sure that another source has named someone (and does not appear to just reference IMDb itself). Some cast and crew information is disclosed upfront (like in a press release), while other names may hardly be mentioned. I think if it is hard to find good sources for cast members (like the remaining handful in the article), we can do without them until the film is shown to critics. We can then see if they are named. For what it's worth, it's completely possible for someone to wind up on the cutting room floor, like Johnny Knoxville in Killshot. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now showing in Denmark

http://www.scope.dk/film/8715-runner-runner

Probably showing in many other places. Can't be bothered researching it and editing the lead, but the lead should be changed to indicate some of the international premiere dates, and then finish with "USA premiere is ...". RenniePet (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shavers or Shafers

Could the article be updated to correctly display the surname of the FBI agent in the film, as throughout he is referred to jointly as Shavers and Shafers - Which one is correct?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.87.185 (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Move (2013)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

On what grounds do we have a comma in the title of this film? It doesn't appear on the official site or any of the promotional materials. Nor is it on IMDb or any of the major review sites. Is there any reason this article isn't displayed under "Runner Runner (film)" with THIS page being a redirect? Krychek (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the article title to remove the comma. Seeing as it's normal to have a comma when repeating a word (and many spell-checkers put it in automatically) I'm guessing it was just a little oversight by whoever created the article. --Rushton2010 (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Requested move 24 April 2016

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

The result of the move request was: moved, dab page moved to Runner Runner (disambiguation). Strong arguments in favour of the move, while I found the arguments against lacking. Jenks24 (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Runner Runner (film) → Runner Runner – The film gets over 1,000 views almost every day, but the band averages less than 15 - and their album even less. Also, as the third topic is directly related to the band, I don't think we need a dab page.[2] Unreal7 (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose with 3 articles obviously we need a dab page, the sensible place would be for that dab page to be at the baseline, as now, so the dab-bot can pick up mislinks. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The page view stats show people are 32 times more likely to go to the film than either the band or the album. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and move Runner Runner to Runner Runner (disambiguation). Obvious primary topic. kennethaw88 • talk 00:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion of the disambiguation page. I see no reason to do that -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above -–Davey2010^Talk 22:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and move the dab page to Runner Runner (disambiguation) - clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by common usage, as demonstrated by Google hits and page views. — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by all evidence. It should be at the base name with the dab page at Runner Runner (disambiguation).--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Orphaned references in Runner Runner

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Runner Runner's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Metacritic":

From Metacritic: "Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing Critic Reviews for PC". Metacritic. Archived from the original on July 26, 2020. Retrieved April 11, 2022.
From The Wolf of Wall Street (2013 film): "The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)". Metacritic. Fandom, Inc. Archived from the original on June 16, 2019. Retrieved March 23, 2021.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]