Talk:The Next Three Days/Archive 1

removed irrelevent text as next sentence

Pleas discuss before reinserting irrelevent text. Uncle uncle uncle 20:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove sourced material with zero discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello - I added the out of date tag - I think that will help. Uncle uncle uncle 20:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

See [1] for suggested material to be removed Uncle uncle uncle 20:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:MOSFILM. -- Cirt (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is not out of date, and I see no reason validly sourced material should be removed. It is noting the production history of the article, which is relevant. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Out of date tag

Nothing in this article is out of date. The addition of the {{Out of date}} tag is inappropriate. The wording is such that the article presents historically the Production info of the film in its stages of production. The tag should be removed. -- Cirt (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is starting to look better - see diff of before my edit and current state of article [2] I think that without my edits, the article would not have been improvedUncle uncle uncle 20:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs), for this edit [3]. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) Originally I removed the incorrect statement:"It is currently in the principal photography filming stage of production. The film is scheduled to be released in 2011." I believe that it is better to have no statement than an incorrect statement. And the statement: "As of October 4, 2009, filming of the movie is set to complete on December 12, 2009." - It is now past both dates as in fact the next sentence correctly states: "On December 14, 2009, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that filming of The Next Three Days was going to wrap that day," Since then Cirt has fixed the article in accordance with my initial edits. Looks O.K. now Uncle uncle uncle 22:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. In the future please do not make unsourced changes to articles. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect statements should be removed which is what I did - It is better to have no statement at all than an incorrect statement - at least in an encyclopedia.

In the future - instead of stating: "The film is scheduled to be released in 2011." you should of course state "In October 2009, the film was scheduled to be released in 2011." That way the statement would still be true if events changed.

and instead of stating: "Filming of the movie is set to complete on December 12, 2009." you should state "On October 4, 2009, filming of the movie was ongoing and was set to complete on December 12, 2009." - That likewise would still be true if events changed.

But I think you know that and are just teasing me! :) Uncle uncle uncle 03:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You did not back up anything to your claim that it was incorrect. The standard is verifiability. -- Cirt (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course - and there was nothing that would verify that on March 23rd it was true that "Filming of the movie is set to complete on December 12, 2009." or "The film is scheduled to be released in 2011." but plenty of sources to verify the opposite. The information was wrong and should have been removed. Articles are improved by removing wrong information. Someone had short-sightedly written the article so that while those statements may have been verifiable back in October 2009, by March 2010 the facts had changed. Heck the sentence in the article stating "On December 14, 2009, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that filming of The Next Three Days was going to wrap that day, after 52 days of shooting" - that certainly verifies that the statement that "Filming of the movie is set to complete on December 12, 2009" was no longer correct. Whoever added that statement should have known that - but what the heck we're all volunteers anyway (I think we are, I know I am, do you know any way to get paid? :) <- smiley face ) I'm just glad to see that the article is all fixed now.

Only 2 more days until friday in my region so I can go out to see "The Wimpy Kid" movie Uncle uncle uncle 05:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Per policy, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." -- Cirt (talk) 05:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

IMDB

IMDB is not a suitable WP:RS source for this type of info, such as release dates. -- Cirt (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Plot

Plot felt wordy, did a quick rewrite, but still coming across as clunky and confusing. Ereteshka (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

IFTA Awards

According to imdb Russel Crow just got nomiated to the award. the picture underline is wrong. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1458175/awards 80.141.36.227 (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The source quoted gives nominees in alphabetical order- may have led to the confusion; have updated the caption — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.24.70 (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The plot section

the plot section of this entry spoils the whole movie for anyone trying to look up general info on the film before deciding to see it.

71.56.114.90 (talk) 03:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

See WP:SPOILER Millahnna (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of the plot, it's not consistent: overly-detailed in areas and too vague in others. Needs work. --Limxzero (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see the whole of the film - but is that button really significant enough to warrant such detail - when the drug-dealers aren't even mentioned  ? -- Beardo (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

yes, the button was the key to her claim of innocence, the final scene is entirely about the button. --16:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyNair (talk • contribs)

Agreed. it is too important for the article. so keep it. 117.198.132.107 (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe this statement is inaccurate: "Using his forensic skills, he manages to put together what really happened." All he really did was sit in the garage and think about the story she told him. He didn't discover anything new. And he never found out what really happened. I suggest removing the entire sentence. Or... replace with a statement that the audience finds out what really happened and that she was innocent. Bdbluesman (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)