Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

I took painstaking measures (over 3 hours of measures) to make sure all my information was very concise, notable, and relevant in making an article for offensive horror comedy production company Hack Movies. It was up on the site for over two months and was deleted by user DragonflySixtyseven. Thanks to a helpful admin, the article was put back in the sandbox at User:Erkman27/Hack Movies and I need help garnering links as to what Wiki considers "notable." Any help you can provide is appreciated. —Erkman27 (talk - 19:03, 27 October 2009 (CTC)

I have nominated Sound film for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

There are currently two discussions going on regarding the naming of the Twilight film articles that could use some further views from more neutral voices. The first, looking at renaming New Moon (2009 film) to The Twilight Saga: New Moon is at Talk:New Moon (2009 film)#Requested move. The second at Talk:Eclipse (2010 film) proposes a similar move of that article to The Twilight Saga: Eclipse. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad you brought this up. I've about had it with one person over there (see canvassing comments on talk:New Moon). If he keeps it up and when I figure out how to report him (lol), I am. For what it's worth I'm not even fan of Twilight (never seen any of it) either... But onto THIS discussion, if the consensus is to rename, will there still be a link to the films on the "New Moon" and "Eclipse" disambiguation pages? --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 22:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I see no reason there wouldn't be. They are the common name for the actual novel versions, and short names of the films. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I left my neutral opinion on the "New Moon" talk page, hope it helps....Ricardoread (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Further views could also be used regarding the formatting of the cast list of this and the other articles, which I tagged for clean up. Talk:The Twilight Saga: New Moon#Cast Section (s). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

The title of the article The Messenger is in italics. I seem to recall a discussion a while back in which the consensus was article titles should not be italicized. Is this format now acceptable? LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 19:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, we do not have a consensus to use it, so it should be without the {{italic title}} template. I removed it. Judging from what links to the template, it should be used for science articles. Any easy way to cross-reference pages using this template with pages using the {{Infobox film}} template to make sure there aren't any stragglers? Erik (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

This won't be all of them, but I've found the following using AWB if someone wants to sort them out:

1. Casino (film)
2. Duck, You Sucker!
3. In Which We Serve
4. No Country for Old Men (film)
5. Pan's Labyrinth
6. Persona (film)
7. Ran (film)
8. Suck My Dick
9. Winged Migration
10. Feel 100%
11. Old Master Q
12. Maple Palm
13. Red Velvet
14. Detective Dee

PC78 (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Fixed I didn't fix them (credit goes to Garion96). --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 01:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks to all! Erik (talk) 13:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Inchon (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have worked very hard on this article and I nominated it for consideration for WP:GA. Concerns have been raised at the talk page for the article Inchon (film), about the size of the lede. I directly implemented the suggested wording changes to the lede given by the editor who posted to the talk page [1]. I then worked to significantly trim down the overall size of the lede, from this [2], to this [3]. I'd love to get some more input on my quality improvement efforts, at the article's talk page. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 10:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Besides the fact that the lead is still too long, I'm wondering why there are so many references cited in the plot. Since when is a film's plot referenced? I've never seen that before. 209.247.21.77 (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's not available on home video, so the plot summary cannot be verified by a mere watching. That's why the summary relies on secondary sourcing. Erik (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just on cursory reading, a great deal of the lede is actually part of the production and background of the film. I would suggest making a sub-section on the development of the film project if you want to ensure that the information stays "close to the top." Otherwise, the lede could be substantially altered with details shifted to the production of the film. FWiW. the plot is an author's precis of the salient points in the film narrative and rarely requires referencing although that is not a hard-and-fast rule. Bzuk (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC).Reply

Another question - why do people keep spelling it lede when it's correctly spelled lead at [4]? 209.247.21.77 (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Comment: I'd appreciate it if this sort of discussion could take place on the article's talk page, as opposed to here on this page. Cirt (talk) 14:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why would I ask why people keep spelling it lede when it's correctly spelled lead at [5] on a film's talk page when it's a general question that could be answered here? 209.247.21.77 (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Good point. The fact is, both are appropriate spellings. :P Cirt (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's an anachronism from editors (in the real world of publishing), more insider jargon, and cuteness than not, but it served to differentiate the meaning from the standard definition of "lead." Meanwhile, "back on the ranch," the terms, "lead" and "lede" are interchangeable. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC).Reply

Thanks for the explanation. I can't find lede in any dictionary, so it just looks like people don't know how to spell it. Isn't an encyclopedia supposed to use standard English instead of "insider jargon"? 209.247.21.77 (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

You can't find "lede" in any dictionary? How about Webster's? [6] Cirt (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

"Lede" is still found in dictionaries: From WordWeb Dictionary: "Noun: lede, 1. The introductory section of a story. e.g. "It was an amusing lede-in to a very serious matter"; also - lead, lead-in, Type of: section, subdivision, Part of: news article, news story, newspaper article The term is also found in TheFreeDictionary as "Obsolete spelling of lead, revived in modern journalism to distinguish the word from lead, strip of metal separating lines of type." Merriam-Websters, Random House and Wiktionary also have definitions. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

FWiW, thanks. :P Cirt (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

If "lede" is "part of news article, news story, or newspaper article" and an "obsolete spelling of lead, revived in modern journalism", why is it used in what's supposed to be an encyclopedia? It doesn't seem like it belongs here if it's a spelling used in journalism but nowhere else. 67.78.143.227 (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just really noticed the above named category today, which was created on December 12 by User:TMC1982. Just curious, to most films get this degree of attention? John Carter (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is a perfect example of dumb categories! 67.78.143.227 (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Do you think there would be much objection to proposing it for deletion? John Carter (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would say to remove the category from articles that are not sub-topics of the film, particularly the musical pieces. It should reduce the number of entries further, and it can be put up for CFD because it cannot be significantly populated. Erik (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

An editor there is going against WP:Consensus regarding Rotten Tomatoes being a reliable and acceptable source here at Wikipedia. Some assistance in explaining to this editor that this source is perfectly fine for relaying the reception of films is needed: Talk:Avatar (2009 film)#Rotten Tomatoes. Flyer22 (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

The backlog at GAN is starting to get out of hand, with 50+ pending noms in the film, music, and theatre section. I doubt the ordinary reviewer body could handle such a huge backload speedily so I'm wondering if some of you guys could help bring it under control. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Could a more experienced movie article editor run their eye over this for me please? Particularly the plot section, which I found quite hard to write. I'd be most appreciative, as I want to nominate it for DYK later in the week. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 21:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

The quality of an article is not taken into consideration for DYK. The only thing that matters is the length (it must be at least 1500 characters long) and whether or not the hook you select is interesting and referenced properly. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 15:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually, DYK does also require it to be fairly complete (in terms of having at least most major expected elements there and not looking like its "in progress") and that every paragraph (except the plot) have at least one RS. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think it's just about good enough for DYK as stands, apart from the production section needing expasion. But if someone could read the plot section and give me an opinion on whether it makes sense to someone who hasn't seen the film, I'd be grateful. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I have vetoed DYK nominations for articles that were barely stubs and have been overruled by other editors. The guidelines at [7] specify 1) a nominated article must be new or expanded fivefold or more within the last five days; 2) articles must have a minimum of 1,500 characters of prose; 3) the nomination's hook must contain a fact with an inline citation; and 4) articles and hooks which focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided. The guidelines further state, "Many submissions are made which fail to satisfy one or more of these points. Nominators should ensure that their submissions meet all these criteria or their submissions will fail DYK eligibility." Note there sadly is no mention of quality being a requirement. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the input to the article, it reads better now. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 16:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is a discussion occurring here about the use of cast/crew members in navigation boxes, including film navboxes. Comments would be greatly appreciated. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 17:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 07:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Could someone please take a look at what's happening with the addition of the Variety review to the article on the recently-opened film Yesterday Was a Lie? An editor added the review here, with what was perhaps a slightly POV description ("otherwise positive" for what was, in fact, a mixed review). I expanded the section by adding more quotes from the review, provided the full text of the bolded lede paragraph of the review in a footnote for support, and moved it up in the "Response" section as the most important review the film has received. I also altered what I had added when I thought it was a bit unbalanced on the negative side by inverting the section so that the review's positive remarks came first. The other editor, after a brief talk page "conversation" with an IP editing from a mobile device (the 166.x range), removed some of the quotes and addding a positive qualifier, and then moved the review back down into the middle of the "Response" section, thus giving pride of place to periodicals such as Film Threat magazine over Variety, the newspaper of record for the film industry. Rather than "avoiding bias" these changes served to introduce bias by misrepresenting the Variety review and attempting to bury it in the article.

I'd appreciate it if someone uninvolved could take a look and do whatever is necessary to present the judgment of the Variety article in a NPOV fashion. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Inspired by the fine example set by the MilHist folks, I've thrown together a brief guide on copy-editing and good prose in film articles. The guide can be found here; any comments and suggestions are of course welcome on its talk page. I realise that it might be a little presumptuous of me to include it right away as a subpage of the project's Manual of Style, but there isn't anything in the guide that conflicts with or adds to the MoS. Feel free to disagree. :-) All the best, Steve ^T • C 14:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I have a small question regarding the use of flags in film infoboxes. A while ago, I noticed a lot of film articles have flags in the infobox, but they almost always used the present flag, even on old films before that flag was used, something I found a bit confusing and annoying. I started editing several film articles to add the flag used when the film was made instead. After doing this on quite a few, however, I was told by User:Lugnuts that flags should not be used in infoboxes and referred me to this and this. Although after reading both of them, I haven´t found anything written there that says anything against the use of flags in the described way in particular. The Film Manual of Style says that flags should not be used instead of country names, nothing about using them together with the country name (which I did). The Icon Manual of Style is very unclear about the question too; also saying that they should not be used instead of country names (but nothing about using them together) and not be used to indicate a person’s place of birth.

Am I missing something here? I would really like to get a definite answer as this issue has made me a bit confused. Lugnuts seems to be a respected editor of Wikipedia and I trust his/her word, but the manual of style seems to have no definite answer on this and there are a lot of film articles at present that use flags, so it does not seem to be a prioritized issue. It may be a trivial matter, but I would really like to get this question resolved, and perhaps it can be put in the Manual of Style more clearly. I don´t want any other users to repeat my mistake, and I also would like to see it resolved so we can have consistent film articles instead of some having flags, some haven´t. Either way is fine by me. Hope to hear from you! Ding Chavez (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree that guideline not very specific (well, a lot of guidelines aren't). But my understanding was it is currently discouraged to use those flags in the film infobox, period. So when I see them I promptly remove them. They are also very unappealing. Very. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 00:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Template:Infobox film itself specifies "Do not use flag icons, as this places an unnecessary emphasis on nationality; see MOS:FLAG for a detailed rationale." I try to clear out flags whenever I see them. --Intractable (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. The problem with flags is that is isn't always clean what is meant with the flag, (some flags are regional) and also the flag is thought to be too nationalistic. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 01:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your replies! Yes, the Film infobox template does specify they should not be used at all. Perhaps that can be put on the Film Manual of Style as well (right now, it only says they should not be used instead of country names)? Thank you again for clearing that up to me, I guess I should have understood it from the way the guidelines are written, but I just wanted to make sure. I didn´t really care whether they are used or not, but having no flags is definitely the best way to handle it for a lot of reasons.

While we are at it, I have another question: Should the country of origin be listed as the current definition of the country or as it was at the time the film was made? For example; let´s say there is a film made in 1955 in what is today Azerbaijan, should it be listed as a film from Azerbaijan or the Soviet Union? Ding Chavez (talk) 09:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think you should credit the original country, but link it to the appropriate article so readers can understand what that means. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 12:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

This reminds me of the debate we had about flag usage on the Snooker Project. We came to the conclusion that flags shouldn't be used unless you can demonstrate the real-life usage of the flag in that particular context. Most of the problems derived from the Ulster banner, and I'm sure there are many inflammatory flags - for instance, do you use the Nazi Swastika on films made by Germany under the Nazi regime? A real life context that would justify flag usage in this context would be if a production company regularly used its national flag on distribution literature about the film, because then you could demonstrate a real-life usage. As for the country of origin, I imagine this runs along similar lines to people's nationalities, and historic geography is always used. Betty Logan (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

The problem with flags is that they are not so much helpful, as ornamental. Nearly anybody who can read English can read "New Zealand", "Philippines", or "Hong Kong". But the majority of readers will not recognize the flags for all three, or perhaps any of them. For the majority of readers, then, they are simply graphic noise, imparting no meaning to the topic of the article. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Additional input is requested at Talk:Avatar (2009 film)#Mainstream critics in association with Metacritic about if the word "mainstream" should be used in the passage about the consensus as report by Metacritic. Erik (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated V for Vendetta (film) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Can the article just be restored to the version that passed the original criteria? Lugnuts (talk) 09:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Highly likely not; it passed three-and-a-half years ago. Articles coming to WP:FAC today are—for the most part—held to a higher standard than they were back then. (That's not intended as a slight against anyone who crafted a now-old featured article, btw, just as an honest reflection of current practice.) Steve ^T • C 09:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'd say no. I looked at the old version and it really isn't much better, as it had even more non-free images, used spoiler tags, and still has some of the same issues with organization and what not. Also, as Steve notes, the FAC are must tougher than they were back when it passed, so the old version wouldn't pass today's standards either. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure what to do regarding The Strugatsky Brothers' original 1960-s novel matter at the Avatar (2009 film) article. The brothers' stories are not related to the film in any way, other than as similarities/comparisons, since James Cameron has not commented on using any of them as themes or inspirations for his film Avatar. Despite that, mention of them is currently in the Themes and inspirations section of this article...as if Cameron did use them as themes or inspirations. I ask should this stuff really be in that section? I say no, as did other editors in their removals of this information from that section, but additional opinions are needed about this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is also another issue at Avatar (2009 film) being discussed about if Avatar is an American film or an American-British film. Discussion is here. Erik (talk) 14:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

And yet another Avatar issue over the creation of Characters and wildlife in Avatar‎, which has been redirected back to the main by multiple editors. The discussion at Talk:Characters and wildlife in Avatar#Need for this page? already clearly supports the redirect, but a certain ARS member has found it and is now likely to edit war over it if he follows his usual MO. So additional views would be useful. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

The article Characters and wildlife in Avatar is now at AFD. Discussion can be found here. Erik (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

...to move Sideways (movie) back to Sideways after it was erroneously moved. See User_talk:Entertainer91#Problems with your page moves for a full rationale. Viriditas (talk) 06:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

For now, I've restored the redirect to Sideways (movie) and put on a CSD which may get a faster result at this time of night. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

But, it's only 8:44 PM...here! :) Viriditas (talk) 06:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

LOL, its almost 1 am here ;-) But looks like its all done -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

The article was moved back to Sideways, but the talk page was never fixed; It's still over at Talk:Sideways (film). Could someone move it back to Talk:Sideways? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Done. Garion96 (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yet again, a discussion has started at Talk:The Lion King#Merge proposal to discuss merging the character articles into a recreation of the already removed character list (removed by consensus from a not too old discussion about the same thing). Additional views would be useful -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Are Yahoo! Movies critics aggregate scores considered reliable and appropriate for inclusion, like RT's and MetaCritics? According to their site "Yahoo! Movies converts each critic's published rating into a letter grade. If the critic's review does not include a rating, Yahoo! Movies assigns a grade based on an assessment of the review." It then averages those grades into a Critics assessment. This generally seems to be from 10-15 critics that they link to. Some examples[8][9] Previously, consensus seemed to be that Yahoo! Movies should not be included. Thoughts? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would think it appropriate for inclusion into an article, but I do see flaws. If the article Yahoo gets their rating from does not give a letter grade and the review is bad, the letter grade should be on par with this (meaning it should be a bad letter grade). But they could make it a good grade then. In which case, it should not be used. But what I've read on there so far, it seems to be acurate. I personally like seeing letter grades, rather then percentage grades. I know my sister who uses wikipedia, but does not edits it, likes the letter grades on here better than the percentage grades also. (Also, Collectonian thanks for handleing the situation in the right manner. And I'm sorry I misspelled your name ;P )ChaosMaster16 (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16Reply

So if the initial review doesn't have a grade, Yahoo takes it on their own and assigns what they think the grade should be? Eeek. When doing film series/franchise article's reception tables, I have included the Yahoo! Movies scores (the critics), since it has been done on just about all articles and FA's. Would like to know if this is changed also. --Mike Allen 01:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I dunno. Metacritic converts review ratings to a score in a similar way, assigning points. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

As does Rotten Tomatoes. The Yahoo Movies external link template was deleted because the site is not as comprehensive as IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, hence it was redundant. But is there a consensus that Yahoo! Movies aggregate scores should not be used in articles? - kollision (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

But MC and RT doesn't have a grading system like A, B , C , D etc? --Mike Allen 04:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Some film series articles use Yahoo! like at Batman in film#Critical reaction. For me, though, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are sufficient enough to reflect a film's reception. Adding the grade from Yahoo! feels like piling on, especially considering that its "grade" is not as common. Erik (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Could we receive some opinions here about some fishy reviews supporting a biased review? BOVINEBOY2008 :) 20:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm new to the project, and just thought I would introduce myself. Sean (talk || contribs) 04:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Sean! Welcome aboard. Feel free to check out the WikiProject's various pages. If you have any questions about the WikiProject, film articles, or editing in general, feel free to contact me on my talk page. There are other editors here at this WikiProject that you can probably contact as well. Again, welcome! :) Erik (talk) 04:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I echo what Erik said. All contributions to the film project are grately welcomed. Have a merry Christmas! Lugnuts (talk) 10:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Merry Christmas! And sorry if I'm treading the ground of old arguments, not being a member of the project. I noticed there's a argument over whether the critical reception for The Twilight Saga: New Moon should be called "mostly negative" or "mixed." The film's scored a 28% "rotten" rating on Rotten Tomatoes, with a "weighted average score" of 4.7/10. The argument has been going on for about a week, with lots of reverting, but has happily been civil. So, are there some sort of practices or do members of the project just wing it? If it's the latter, could you please bring enough manpower on that article to bring the matter to a conclusion? Thanks, Kizor 19:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

From a glance, the mistake both sides seem to be making is attempting to interpret those 28% and 4.7/10 scores for themselves; this borders on original research. Why not simply find reliable sources that say "negative" or "mixed" or whatever, and include the Rotten Tomatoes score as a supplement to that? Here's a version based on how we've done it at Hancock, Changeling and a bunch of others, where we've used more than just one source to determine the consensus:

New Moon received mixed reviews from film critics.^[1] Rotten Tomatoes reported that 28% of critics gave the film a positive review, based on a sample of 199, with an average score of 4.7 out of 10.^[2] At Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the film received an average score of 44 based on 32 reviews.^[1]

All of the above is cited; none is editor interpretation. Of course, the problem you might have is that seemingly equally reliable sources might label the reception everything from "negative" to "mixed" to "alright" :-) But at least that narrows the focus of the dispute down to what the sources say, rather than what we think they imply. All the best, Steve ^T • C 21:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why don't we just stop citing Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic data and simply quote the reviews and allow the critics to speak for themselves? LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)Reply