- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 11:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
One Dangerous Night
Created by Bonkers The Clown (talk). Self nominated at 09:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC).
- The long 'plot' section still has no citations at all. This needs to be put right before the article can be considered for the main page. Moonraker (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- More than half of the text of this new article is in its 'plot' section, and for that no sources are given. If there is a supplementary rule for DYK articles about films which gives an exemption from criterion 4, could you please give me a link to it? Moonraker (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Plot sections for literary works (whether performing art like films, or written artistic stuff like books) generally don't get inline citations. This is because such sections are summaries of the works themselves, so all you'd be doing is citing the original work. There's no good way to cite a specific spot in a film or book because films don't have little divisions and fiction books come in multiple editions with different pages, thus negating the benefit of citing page numbers. Nyttend (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly the point. Since it seems you aren't well acquainted with film articles, go take clue from any random film article, be it Cutthroat Island, Now You See Me, Skyfall or The Great Ziegfeld. You'll see that it is only cited when the point is not explicit and is disputed. Other than that, no sources are needed for the plot because the film itself is already the source. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is all very well, Nyttend and Bonkers the Clown, but this is DYK, the rules are the rules, and most of this article is not verifiable. Having to watch the whole of a film to verify a few paragraphs of text is not what WP:V is about. Whatever the general practice may be for film articles, or for "stuff like books", for what you are saying to fly there would need to be a supplementary DYK rule which supports your line, and I don't believe there is one. If you think there is one, please link to it. Moonraker (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think there is a fundamental flaw in your argument, Moonraker. It boils down to the correct understanding of what WP:V is about. The rules have not been broken at all! WP:V still is adhered to. Of course one has to watch the film in order to write the plot, right? Even if one refers to a book talking about the movie, or any other source, the source still has to get its plot info from the actual film! Hence, it is pointless and redundant to cite a film's plot because the source is the film itself. In reference to WP:FILMPLOT: "citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary (my emphasis)". We should only cite a film's plot if it is a future film or if it has been "lost". This has always been the case for film articles running for DYK (such as the many film articles I have successfully gotten to the mainpage here), GA, or FA. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- All the same, the DYK rule quoted above says "Nominations should be rejected if an inspection reveals that they are not based on reliable sources..." and more than half of this article is not based on reliable sources, so it seems to me to be a non-runner. Moonraker (talk) 03:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- The general convention here at DYK is that plot summaries don't need citations since the work of art itself is assumed to be the source. Whether or not this should be the case is debatable, but that's how things stand ATM, so a nomination should not be rejected just for having uncited paragraphs in a plot summary. Gatoclass (talk) 09:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, Gatoclass. I don't know what a "general convention" is, and you haven't given me a link. Could we please have it stated somewhere where we can all refer to it? One difficulty which strikes me is that an obscure work of art could be massively misrepresented and none of us would be likely to spot it. Moonraker (talk) 12:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Do we need to state somewhere that it is general convention to add water when boiling potatoes too? There are no obscure inferences in this article's plot section. It's only a summing up of what is explicitly presented in the film. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- The issue of citing plots has actually been debated many times. To have a glimpse of "convention": ,  ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the links, Bonkers the Clown. Clearly, quite a number of DYK contributors have stated that plots don't need summaries. When Gatoclass says this is a "general convention", I think what he means is that it is an unwritten rule known to many of us. However, DYK has written rules which so far as I can make out do not include this unwritten one. I am going to leave a note for Gatoclass to ask him to take over reviewing this nomination, because I do not agree with giving so much weight to unwritten rules. It would help all of us if Gatoclass could also draft an amendment to the Eligibility criteria to turn the unwritten rule into a written one. Moonraker (talk) 01:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Moonraker, there is a longstanding DYK rule about plot summaries not requiring citations at WP:DYKSG#D2: "The article in general should use inline, cited sources. A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the intro, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content." I'm sorry that no one managed to point you to this before now, but it is a longstanding written rule, and it is clear. I will call for a new reviewer as you asked Gatoclass to do:
- New reviewer needed for this nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- I can review it. Article creation date okay, article size okay. Hook length okay, hook fact verified using Google Books, hook interest not great but passable. Image use okay. The citeless plot summary is standard operating procedure, so that is not an issue. However, the article has some other problems. Gerald Mohr is given as the actor for two different parts in the plot summary, but isn't listed in the infobox – what is the reality here? The infobox list of actors is missing links in several cases. Somewhat bizarrely, there is no link to Ann Savage anywhere in the article. The "who played Vivian" clause either needs explanation of who Vivian is in the story, or Vivian should be added to the plot summary. Does "described the film as 'modest'" mean in terms of box office, artistic ambitions, artistic quality, what? The article is missing any reviews from when the film was released - you can get pointers to some with searches like this one. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- I wrote the list of actors in the infobox based on the poster, as that is the way it should be. The poster does not credit Gerald Mohr, so so's so. I have no idea who Vivian is. Neither does the book state who Vivian is. It just notes Ann as Vivian, her debut film role. That's that. I will not be inferring from the Blockbuster Guide review as that is OR. It does not specify what on Earth is "modest", so I shall leave it as it shall be. Unfortunately, I am seeing reviews, but unable to access them as my pockets do not reach that deep. However, I believe it to be not much of a problem. Very kindly have I listed three reviews penned decades after the film's release. Wouldn't that suffice? Reviews are still reviews. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- Okay on "modest". Frustrated on not using old reviews - it always puzzles me why WP editors are happy to sink countless hours of their time into editing, but balk on paying a few dollars to find valuable sources in news archives – but I guess it's not material for DYK. Disagree with your reasoning about Mohr in the cast list – plenty of infoboxes have greater or fewer cast members than the film's poster, and WP:FILMCAST says nothing about there being a connection between the two. As for who Vivian is, since you watched the movie in order to write the plot summary, just include whoever she is in that summary. It is definitely needed, since the hook is directing people to read the article with her in mind; you can't just say nothing about her role. You did not respond to three other points: why is Mohr named for two different roles in the plot summary; why are links missing for several actors in the infobox; and why is there no link to the Ann Savage article anywhere. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- I read through a couple of the sources (Google Books is your friend, even with missing pages), and I think one of them called the movie a "modest mystery". (As a general rule, if you don't know the context behind a word in the source, you shouldn't use it or even quote it, because it's meaningless without context.) One of the sources summarized Savage's character Vivian (I think she was said to be a possible old flame of the protagonist, and it was either this movie or the next one in the series, where Savage plays a different character altogether, where she's working with/for two hoodlums, and she holds a gun on the protagonist while he gets tied up). There's also a plot summary of the movie that includes mention of Vivian, so there's information there for paraphrasing. (I think it was the Savage bio that had the better movie summaries.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- You most likely read the one by Blotnner, which I have cited. Yes, Ann Savage played another character in another Lone Wolf film. Exactly which one, that escapes me. In this film Vivian is just an old friend, and appears briefly to give the Lone Wolf and his friends a car ride. Has no impact on the plot. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- I wish I could subscribe to the archives, but to honestly face it, I have no official income. I have no working job to begin with. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Is it a requirement in DYK to list down his name in the infobox? It's getting too long, the cast list, so I'd rather not. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Your external link to the TCM database needs to be fixed - this is the working one. It says that Louis Jean Heydt played the Arthur role, not Mohr as the article states. And it lists Mohr pretty far down in the cast, so it isn't necessary to add him to the infobox. The TCM "full synopsis" display also gives some description of who Vivian is in the film that you can use. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- ?? I wrote Gerald Mohr as Harry Cooper from the start in the plot! Fixed the link ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Let's reset. Here are the things that need to be done:
- Be consistent with the linking of the cast list in the infobox. Either unlink Warren William or link all the others who have articles.
- Replace "Arthur (Gerald Mohr)," with "Arthur (Louis Jean Heydt)," in the plot summary.
- Link Ann Savage on first mention in the article.
- Add a description of the Vivian role - who she was and what she did. The TCM page full synopsis includes her as part of the plot, but if you don't think it belongs there, include it in the production section where you talk about Savage's first role.
If these are done, which are really pretty minimal effort, I will approve it. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- Done! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, we are done here. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)