Talk:Falling from Grace (film)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fallinggraceposter.jpg
Image:Fallinggraceposter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

unexplained edits and others
With this edit on 5 May 2022 at 21:34, added uncited claims to the infobox, moved about parameters therein, removed wikilinks, deleted some of the lede, and changed cited facts under the edit summary of "Minor clean up." I removed the uncited claims, updated a source, repaired the sourced and cited claims, replaced the lede prose and wiki-linking, and moved some bits about IAW MOS:LAYOUT, all of which was explained in my edit summary.

In contravention of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, the same day at 22:29, QuasyBoy reverted every change I made, saying only,


 * First of all, the purpose of the infobox is to summarize the cited material in the article. If the information that QuasyBoy has added to the infobox can be cited to reliable secondary sources, the process is: (1) add sources and prose to the body of the article, then (2) copy those factoids into the infobox.
 * Secondly, Red link says "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject." Larry Crane was listed in the prose because the British Board of Film Classification considered him among the film's principal actors, and the link was added after a brief internet search appeared to evidence sufficient material that "an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable."  (WP:REDLINK)
 * The phrase "it was met with more positive reviews than not" is clear, concise, and scarcely embellished. At worst, it could be argued that "it received more positive reviews than not" is marginally less florid, but the original prose was hardly  by any measure.

Furthermore, QuasyBoy made many other changes that went unexplained. The use mdy dates variable was changed back to February 2022 from May. The phrase "Rotten Tomatoes showed a 78-percent positive view" was changed to "Rotten Tomatoes showed a 78% positive view" in contravention of MOS:PERCENT. The citation for the length of the film was removed from the prose. The source formatted with cite BOM was changed from dead to live, despite https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt2186315265/ giving the error "The requested page was not found." The category Country music films was added, despite neither the prose nor sources describing the film as such. The Films shot in Indiana category similarly has no basis in the cited sources.

I don't wish to incur the wrath of this other editor. If anybody could explain to me their edits, convince them to discuss IAW the WP:BRD cycle, or even mediate our edits, I would absolutely appreciate it. Thanks much, —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 23:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For the infobox edits that I made, I was simply taking information from the film's poster with the producer, cinematographer, film editor information etc, which is pretty customary for almost every film article on Wikipedia. Would it be really necessary to add a reference after each person's name?
 * As for de-linking Larry Crane's name, going by his IMDb page, he is not a very notable actor, his name was only Wikilinked in this article. If he had more than six acting credits to his name and was linked in more Wikipedia articles, I would've left it alone.
 * "it was met with more positive reviews than not" sounds like something a fan would write. If you want to highlight the film's positives reviews, just say "the film received generally positive reviews" and mention it further in the article not in the opening sentence.  QuasyBoy  (talk)  23:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For the uncited additions, the policy at Verifiability says, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. […]  Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is  to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."  As for where to source such, MOS:IB concedes that it's technically acceptable to place the citations there, but prose in the article body is the preferable place to do so.I don't agree that Mr. Crane "certain[ly …] should not have an article", but that's of lesser concern than the wholesale removal of his name when the cited source lists him among the principal performers in the work.The phrase  and  convey the same information equally professionally.  Either is perfectly acceptable, though changing one for the other seems unaccountable.  Removing the information from the lede altogether has absolutely no rationale that I can see.Since you're here discussing, now, I'm going ask again: (1) why was use mdy dates reverted by three months, (2) why is your edit discordant with MOS:PERCENT, (3) why shouldn't the length of the film be cited, (4) do you see https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt2186315265/ as a live source, and (5) why was the article categorized in non-compliance with WP:CATV?  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 00:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)  P.S. In the future, needn't link participants' userpages et al. when it's literally the most-recently linked preceding text on the page; I only linked yours in my initial paragraph because it wasn't already present on the page for other editors.
 * For the uncited additions, the policy at Verifiability says, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. […]  Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is  to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."  As for where to source such, MOS:IB concedes that it's technically acceptable to place the citations there, but prose in the article body is the preferable place to do so.I don't agree that Mr. Crane "certain[ly …] should not have an article", but that's of lesser concern than the wholesale removal of his name when the cited source lists him among the principal performers in the work.The phrase  and  convey the same information equally professionally.  Either is perfectly acceptable, though changing one for the other seems unaccountable.  Removing the information from the lede altogether has absolutely no rationale that I can see.Since you're here discussing, now, I'm going ask again: (1) why was use mdy dates reverted by three months, (2) why is your edit discordant with MOS:PERCENT, (3) why shouldn't the length of the film be cited, (4) do you see https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt2186315265/ as a live source, and (5) why was the article categorized in non-compliance with WP:CATV?  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 00:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)  P.S. In the future, needn't link participants' userpages et al. when it's literally the most-recently linked preceding text on the page; I only linked yours in my initial paragraph because it wasn't already present on the page for other editors.

Instead of continuing to discuss their edits, QuasyBoy has added an entirely unreferenced new section, created two additional one-sentence sections, and not addressed any of the previous changes they introduced and were being discussed above. If anyone can help me understand the edits and non-discussive actions of this editor, I'd really appreciate it. I'm wary of making reparative edits and drawing their ire. Thanks all, —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 15:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Autumn 2023
Continuing to disregard this talk-page discussion, QuasyBoy has again added uncited material to this article in contravention of Verifiability on 26 October 2023 at 06:13 UTC. I removed this material 11.05 hours later, saying (in part),. This user then replaced their claims 15 minutes later, saying, I don't understand what they mean by "nothing wrong", when Verifiability and No original research clearly explain what's wrong. I also disagree with the application of policy equalling a violation of Ownership of content; that policy says,, and I would think that the core content policies of the project would constitute 'good reason'. Anybody's assistance in explaining/understanding this other user's edits and accusations would be greatly appreciated! —  Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 17:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

In accordance with Verifiability, I've removed the  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 20:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It's quite amazing that you point to this rule and that rule, to negate your ownership of the article. This is what the article looked like before you hijacked it:, outside of the long plot summary and the unnecessary table for the cast, the structure of the article is no different from any other film article on Wikipedia. You also revert any little edit that anyone makes on the article that is unsatisfactory to you, keeping the article exactly the same for nearly three years now. I have no other choice than having to report you to an administrator for your actions. QuasyBoy (talk)  18:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Your amazement aside, applying the policy instruction of, "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed", may be done to any article, including those previously edited by the same contributors.   Firstly, that isn't an appreciated accusation.  Secondly, you're correct: after 15.66 years of existence, this article was 97.44% uncited before I rewrote it with 100% cited verification to reliable sources as required by policies.    Excepting yours and my back-and-forth, which is documented on this talk page, fifteen registered accounts and one IP-user have made edits to the article since my rewrite in 2020.  Of those, I reverted six IAW policy for adding uncited material (which all later returned to the article once sources were provided and cited), and one over six characters IAW the manual of style.  This article and this article are not, and that's thanks to the contributions of ten other editors aside from ourselves.    Okie-dokie; if you need my input as part of that process, please let me know!  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 05:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There was no reason to completely delete the plot summary that was previously there, a small concise summary wold have sufficed. I've never seen Falling from Grace, but I think the fact the film is not very popular, you are taking advantage of that with your domination of the article. If the film was relatively popular you wouldn't be getting away with this. Wikipedia is collaborative website, if there is uncited material in the article, if it is not too egregious, add a maintenance tag and move along. I will contact an administrator or another Wikipedia higher up to properly mediate this situation very soon. QuasyBoy (talk)  15:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Previously, 70.77% of the article was plot synopsis, which ran contrary to Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, which says, "The length of the prose should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections, as well as the length of the story itself". It's now 14.15% of the article's prose and cited to a reliable source.    I'm "taking advantage" and "getting away with" enforcing policies because this is a low-traffic article?  Be that as it may, if this were a high-traffic article, I wouldn't need to keep an eye on it because it would have a reliable flow of many experienced editors who're all making sure that uncited material isn't added or kept.  I didn't seek out a low-traffic article to own; I found an article that was in bad shape because it was low-traffic, and after bringing it to par, I've just stewarded it to prevent back-sliding.    That is one option, but when there're over 630 thousand such tags already in place, and some of them are 14% older than many of our productive contributors, I rely on Verifiability to improve articles with a modicum more expediency: "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed".    Given your consternation with my application of the verifiability policy as written, you may have success at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 17:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

%
Rotten Tomatoes reviews are frequently, if not nearly always, given with the % symbol, rather than the words "-percent", and the Wikipedia Manual of Style stipulates that either is acceptable. I suggest we use % in this article for consistency's sake. OGBC1992 (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's correct: the manual of style allows for either in non-scientific/non-technical articles.As for consistency, the only prescription I'm aware of is MOS:VAR, which says,  Now, I don't understand how readers are benefitted in specifically reading about Falling from Grace with a symbol instead of a word, but I'm certainly willing to hear your rationale.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 14:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Just my two cents, but I think the symbol % is more appropriate. Just off the top of my head, I don't think I have ever seen it spelled out like that in a film article, it looks weird. Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 10:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The allowance of "%" in non-technical articles is only 6.2 months old, and only 103 days old when the above discussion began, so every film article should've been using "percent" or "per cent" before then. Given that history of longevity, MOS:VAR, and MOS:NUM compliance at the time it was written, I don't think changing it would suit readers or editing SOP.  I could certainly be wrong; if consensus is that the outright changing of words to symbols is now shown to be less obfuscative to readers, I'm definitely sanguine to a change.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 20:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In comparison, these top films of 1992 - A Few Good Men, Batman Returns, The Distinguished Gentleman, Home Alone 2, The Last of the Mohicans, 3 Ninjas, The Muppet Christmas Carol, Encino Man, White Men Can't Jump, Reservoir Dogs, The Bodyguard, Wayne's World, A River Runs Through It, My Cousin Vinny, Terminator 2, Howards End, Scent of a Woman, Unforgiven, Bram Stoker's Dracula, The Crying Game, Aladdin, Sister Act, Alien 3, The Hand That Rocks the Cradle - all use the % symbol, and have for at least the last 10 years, according to their article's histories, so the usage of the symbol has been allowed for quite a long time, despite what that "6.2 month old" discussion says. Like I said, it looks weird to me that this article is the odd man out, and the usage of "percent" hasn't been in this article very long, so I plan on changing it. Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 15:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)