Talk:Equinox (1970 film)

Budget
It clearly states on the back of the DVD and in the making of bonus feature that the budget for the movie was $6,500 USD and not $8,000. I am changing it in the article. Roguegeek (talk) 05:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Importance
Why is a film in the Criterion Collection rated as low importance? --Scottandrewhutchins 15:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Links
The link to Jack Woods leads to Oxleas Wood, a forest, and that to Robin Christopher leads to a different actress of that name, not even born when the film was made. I shall therefore remove them. Kostaki mou (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Expansion
This article is too short and needs to be expanded. The plot section is not that well developed and should be worked upon and expanded. Also information on the film's reception needs to be added in a separate section and the production section could be expanded a little bit more.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Infobox "uncredited"
No rule in either MOS:FILM, MOS:IBX, or Template:Infobox suggests you add a "uncredited" tag in the infobox. Where are you getting these rules from ? Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Multiple discussions on the subject. I was a participant in several, such as at Talk:John Wick. Usually the consensus is that uncredited people should not be listed, which I agree with. But as I said then: Case-by-case judgment is necessary. In a situation where an uncredited writer or director is deemed to have contributed enough to also be listed in the infobox, below the credited writer and/or director, than the name should certainly be tagged with "(uncredited)" - as most are that I have seen. That is what I have done here. Numerous reliable sources list uncredited people in infoboxes, such as the AFI. But they are labelled as such. To not label them as "(uncredited)" would be misrepresenting the credits and misleading the reader. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * These are all individual. It doesn't matter what other website do, as the purpose of the infobox is to expand on information in the article. As per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, "key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content". In other words, if you explain it in the prose (which you should be doing), then you do not need to re-state that junk in the infobox. Just because AFI does that, does not really mean anything to me. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Side note
Adding "uncredited" in the infobox, makes it look like both directors are uncredited. It is not clear and not what infoboxes are for, remember "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose", adding extra details, makes it fail this rule Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is how it's done on numerous articles. If anyone is confused, they can read the article. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because other articles do it, does not mean this is a preferred method. if the infobox is unclear, (which it is to me), then we have a problem. By your reasoning of "if anyone is confused", we could leave out the "uncredited" tag and they could just "read the article". You are kind of not helping your case here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The uncredited tag would cause anyone confused to look for the reason why it's there in the article. How is it not obvious to you that would not be the case if it's not there? - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "uncredited tag would cause anyone confused to look for the reason why it's there in the article". There's the problem, because it should be clear from just reading it, as ""The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose"". By adding this brackets, you are making it less clear, and causing them to research more. Do you see what I mean? Do you understand now why it doesn't follow the infobox rules? Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And yet that's how it's done on numerous articles, in some cases after much discussion. The infobox cannot concisely explain everything. The important thing is not labeling such names as "uncredited" would be misrepresenting the credits and misleading readers. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Other articles doing it, is not an excuse. Several articles don't have sources/formatting/illegal images. Your reason is super weak. Our infobox never promises to follow credits from film prints anywhere. So how are we misleading people? Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , if there are no further comments, I'll change it as suggested tomorrow. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Nothing has changed in the last eight days. To repeat: ''Usually the consensus is that uncredited people should not be listed, which I agree with. Case-by-case judgment is necessary. In a situation where an uncredited writer or director is deemed to have contributed enough to also be listed in the infobox, below the credited writer and/or director, than the name should certainly be tagged with "(uncredited)" - as most are that I have seen.'' That is what I have done here. Numerous reliable sources list uncredited people in infoboxes, such as the AFI. But they are labelled as such. To not label them as "(uncredited)" would be misrepresenting the credits and misleading the reader.

No one has supported your position here or at the Talk:John Wick page. If you want to go against the way uncredited names are handled in most WP film infoboxes, you need to get consensus. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You can repeat what you want, but have not shown me any rules and are not engaging me in discussion. I asked you a question, you left it blank for days, so I assumed you either a) didn't care and you aren't addressing my issues. So if you want to discuss, reply to my issues, (you aren't). The way the AFI is set-up is now how ours looks and can be misleading. From your previous actions on other pages, I am really finding you do not want to discuss things, and as soon as your edit is in place, its okay, then you just repeat non-sense. I'd tag it for discussion but then you'd say "nah, i hate those" (as you did on the Terminator article). So I'll bring it up WP:FILMS, if there is still no consensus, then we'll ask for someone else to come in. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

A List of Tasks
After giving this article a long hard read, I've started to notice quite a few problems that need to be fixed. I'm making a list of said problems so editors here know just what needs to be accomplished in order for this article to meet GA/FA class standards. I'm currently working on resolving at least one of the issues so I will add a not that I'm working on that particular issue. Here is the complete list of tasks that need to be accomplished before this article can be nominated for GA/FA status:--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Production section needs to be expanded in greater detail than what it currently is at. This can be accomplished by finding interviews with the people involved, and other sources. The section should at least be split into several sub-sections detailing the film's development, casting, filming, and special effects; with every piece of information given proper citations from reliable sources.


 * The citations in this article is for the most part, quite bad. This includes half citations, link citations, and poor literary citations; all of which are unacceptable for ANY Wikipiedia article. I am currently working on resolving this issue so that all the sources are in the proper format and meet Wikipiedia's citations standards.


 * The article is missing important information on the film's Themes/Analysis which needs to be added to the article with proper citations from reliable sources. The article is also missing important information on the film's multiple theatrical and home media releases which should be included in the Release section of the article via respective sub-sections.


 * The article detailing the film's critical response is extremely short and needs to be expanded in far more detail than what it currently has. If there was a notably mixed/negative response during its initial release, then the section should be split into two different sub-sections detailing its initial response and reassessment.


 * The "Legacy" section is way too short and only has one (ambiently unsourced) mention which should be given proper citations. Other information such as the makers moving on to greater things because of this film, and any influences the film has had over other works should be mentioned as well.