Talk:The Man Who Killed Don Quixote

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: British / Spanish

	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 British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Spanish cinema task force.

Overkill in lede

Am I the only one who thinks it's overkill to have 17 references in the lede? Do these claims require 3-5 sources each? I'm not invested enough to start removing them, I'm really just asking the question. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is a little overkill. The lead section does not need to have inline citations if they already exist in the article body, as long as the material in the lead section is not controversial to warrant something more upfront. The references could be removed or replaced (since it looks like the lead section has the "main" reference with duplicate tags in the body). Hyliad, did you set it up this way? Any way to reduce the citation bundles? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm on it. I'm the one who set it up this way, because I believed the film's sort of infamous reputation was really worth a mention, but as it was not mentioned in the body I had to feature all those sources in the lead. So I think what I'm gonna do is add a mention to the film's reputation to the body with the sources, and as such there will be no need to feature all those sources in the lead. --Hyliad (d), 18:10, 8 March 2018 (CEST)

Alright, it's done. The lead is now source-free, but all the claims in it are supported in the body. --Hyliad (d), 19:29, 8 March 2018 (CEST)

Thanks! I think that's the shortest turn-around I've ever personally experienced between a talk page post and the fixing of the article. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 19:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FB homage to John Hurt

In the "later attempts" section, Gilliam is quoted paying tribute to John Hurt, cited to Gilliam's Facebook page. Clicking on the link, though, leads to Gilliam's tribute to Jean Rochefort. If the correct FB link can't be found for the quote about Hurt, it needs to be removed. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Hyliad (d), 15:11, 30 March 2018 (CEST)

Repetition in cast section

Do we really need to repeat the casting information in the cast section, when it's already covered in the production section? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed in the production section, but as this section is in chronological order, the casting informations are spread all over it. This is a good opportunity to sum up the casting history of those two characters. --Hyliad (d), 22:56, 19 May 2018 (CEST)

Sorry, but that doesn't explain why we need the repetition. The casting subsection is not that long. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Female lead

Kurylenko's character is repeatedly referred to in the article as the "female lead". To me, Angelica is by far the most important female character in the movie. The plot could do just as well without Jacqui, the boss's wife. So what does the term "female lead" really mean? Is it the actress who gets paid the most or what? — Kpalion^(talk) 11:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is admittedly debatable. The reason why she is considered the female lead probably comes from the fact that Kurylenko is credited before Ribeiro, but it's true that it might make sense to change that. I believe I was the one who originally added that mention, because the name of Vanessa Paradis' character in the original production was never mentioned (hence her being referred to as "female lead"), and as Kurylenko who is a well-known name was the only female confirmed in the film for quite some time, it made sense to assume that she would have Paradis' part. I agree that it doesn't really make sense given the final movie, so I'll just remove it. --Hyliad (d), 15:22, September 17, 2018 (CEST)

Plot section

I believe the plot section references a version of the movie that's not the actual one. Toby is not "an advertising executive", he's the director of a movie (actually, two movies) with the same title of Gilliam's movie. And the film is his story, not the self-deluded Don Quixote's. And they don't jump back and forth in time, the parts that look like the 17th century are either dreams or fakeouts. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]