Talk:Fuck (2005 film)/Archive 2

Notice of posting to TFA nominations
I've added Fuck (film) to TFA nominations, discussion is at Today's featured article/requests. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Rotten Tomatoes score
This article page now incorporates the template Rotten Tomatoes score, with this edit modification, diff.

This template incorporates information from Template:Rotten Tomatoes score/0486585.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"notes", "points out" and other suggestions
One of the TFAR commentators has said that the article uses a lot of "X notes that", "X points out that". Such formulations fall foul of WP:SAY (part of the "words to watch" section of MOS). I'd also add that the article names a lot of people (in the lead and throughout the article) but doesn't always tell us who they are - the first paragraph of the main body of the article, for instance, lists 14 names on the trot without explanation and expects the reader either to know who all of them are, or to click a wikilink away from the article to find out who they are, or not care. (Perhaps American readers will be more familiar with them, but I recognise only 4 names on that list). Perhaps something like "includes commentary from comedians X and Y, journalists P and Q, actors B and C, and musicians V and W" or something like that? And I'd suggest checking the first mention of every name in the lead and the article to see whether a one/two-word introduction to that person is given, and add one if not. BencherliteTalk 23:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you, yes, I was going to deal with these soon. I will get on responding to these. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you,, for these helpful suggestions. I think the article's quality is improved for them. Much appreciated, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

TFAR discussion archived
WP:TFAR discussion was archived to Today's featured article/requests/Fuck (film).

A note was also added to Today's featured article oddities, at Today%27s_featured_article_oddities.

Cheers,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Fuck (film)
This is a note to let the main editors of Fuck (film) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 1, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/March 1, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Fuck is a 2005 American documentary film by director Steve Anderson, which argues that the word is key to discussions about freedom of speech and censorship. The film provides perspectives from art, linguistics, society and comedy. Linguist Reinhold Albert Aman, journalism analyst David Shaw, language professor Geoffrey Nunberg and Oxford English Dictionary editor Jesse Sheidlower explain the term's history and evolution. The film features the last interview of author Hunter S. Thompson before his suicide. It was first shown at the AFI Film Festival at ArcLight Hollywood; it has subsequently been released on DVD in America and in the UK and used as a resource on several university courses. The New York Times critic A. O. Scott called the film a battle between advocates of morality and supporters of freedom of expression, while other reviews criticized its length and repetitiveness. Law professor Christopher M. Fairman commented on the film's importance in his 2009 book on the same subject. The American Film Institute said, "Ultimately, [it] is a movie about free speech ... Freedom of expression must extend to words that offend." UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Above was posted to my user talk page, posting here as well. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Good job getting this as a featured article today!
Never heard of this one before. Nice work24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is my favorite featured article ever. The Wookieepedian (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much,, that's so kind and most appreciated! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This featured article is going to cause a shit-storm. AWC 3117 (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't even seem to have been an inordinate amount of vandalism. It's almost as if people are acting like adults. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 20:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: For those crying, "Think of the children!!!", I suggest you read the American Library Association-recognized-award-winning-book, Not in Front of the Children: "Indecency," Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth by Free Expression Policy Project-director Marjorie Heins. I hope you enjoy it, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Featuring this on the main page does make me "think of the children". After all, isn't it rather childish to do something simply to shock and offend others? Everyking (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Was it?. Have you ever played Call of Duty, GTA Online, LoL, WoW, etc., with kids. Many kids do know the word and use it, it is more childish to assume kids have a pre-K mentality. ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 01:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course they do. That was precisely my point. Everyking (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And complaining its Main Page appearance after it has been posted will change...? (Please, complete). ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 02:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's pointless. I just worry this may have brought some discredit to the project. We have lots of great articles to feature and we don't need to do things for the sake of shock value. Everyking (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thankfully no one did anything for shock value, as that entire discussion showed, and the page wasn't even vandalized any more than any normal TFA page and everyone acted like adults who have heard a "bad word" before, so it looks like you should be very happy that everything went exactly as you hoped. Didn't bring any discredit to the project (if anything it brought some credit to the project because it shows we can be adults about something like this) and no one did anything shocking. We're all winners. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 02:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree,, it seems that the perceived potential for negative impact prophesied by some at Today's featured article/requests/Fuck (film), did not come to pass. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page - Today's Featured Article discussion
Permalink of Talk:Main Page discussion about Today's Featured Article, at Talk:Main Page - Today's Featured Article discussion. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, permalink of version prior to archival. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional permalink to discussion about censorship of the film title in links to recently featured article pages. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Notification of a TFA nomination
In the past, there have been requests that discussions about potentially controversial TFAs are brought to the attention of more than just those who have WP:TFAR on their watchlist. With that in mind: Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article. If you have any views, please comment at Today's featured article/requests. Thank you. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)