Talk:Money Heist/Archive 2

Content support
, this may still need to be addressed. While the word "subvert" is used twice more in the body, the first instance has a ref attached that is in Spanish, and the Spanish version of "subvert" isn't used. The second instance has a ref that though paywalled, I was able to see that the word "subvert" is used to differentiate this film, where the heist starts immediately, from other films that show the heist being planned and the 'gang' being assembled (ie: Ocean's 11-style). As for the usage of "subvert" in the lead, it's still not clear how it correlates to the film being "told from the perspective of a woman ... and having a strong Spanish identity, where emotional dynamics offset the perfect strategic crime., nor how it's supported "". That's why the tag was added. -  wolf  14:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you suggest? Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I would suggest putting the tag back, unless you want to do a rewrite that is supported by sourcing. -  wolf  17:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't exactly agree with your assessment, so unless you want to offer a suggestion, I don't see a glaring fix necessary. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 17:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagree... how? Are you saying the assertions made in that sentence from the lead are supported by those refs in the body? If I've missed something, please enlighten me. Thanks -  wolf  22:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you've looked at the sources, then you should have an idea of what you think needs changing in the lead, and should be able to offer a change. But just because it may not be 'clear' to you, doesn't mean the wording is not supported in the body. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 12:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the sources. The statement is not supported. I am not obligated to fix problems, but I can certainly tag them when found. If you wish to remove the tag, then the WP:BURDEN is on you to show that content is reliably supported. I don't see why this needs to be dragged out, or why you seem to making this contentious (over a simple tag!), but if you believe the statement is supported, then list which quote(s) from which source(s) support each part of that statement and as I said, I will say 'thanks' and move on. Otherwise, the tag should be placed back. -  wolf  14:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Added "...by the heist starting straight after the opening credits..." The body explains in more detail why the heist starting straight after the opening credits and being told from the perspective of a woman contributes to the subversion of the genre. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 14:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

So now it reads: "The series subverts the heist genre by the heist starting straight after the opening credits, being told from the perspective of a woman, Tokyo (Úrsula Corberó), and having a strong Spanish identity where emotional dynamics offset the perfect strategic crime." - Aside from the clunkiness of having the word "heist" twice, and so close together, where in those refs are the other claims supported? That's what I asked about in the first place, as I already acknowledged that at least one source does mention the bit about the heist starting immediately (and, again... is not played out ie: Ocean's 11-style). Your edit is not an improvement and does not address the issue that originally led to the tag. -  wolf  21:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I see you've since edited the page without a response. If you don't have an improvement, to suggest here, then the tag will be re-added and we can move on to other things. -  wolf  03:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources are there. It's not our job as writers to spell everything out. This is a problem you raised that I tried addressing, but that was not good enough for you. So I suggest you suggest something else, or move on. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 13:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It is our job however, to ensure all content is reliably sourced, and not original research, nor a synthesis of sources. You say the sources are there... which ones? Show me which sources support each claim in that sentence and I'll move on. If you can't, then since you removed the tag, it falls to you to offer a solution, here on the talk page. If you can't, (or won't), do either, then the tag needs to be restored. I'm not sure why you're digging in here, with circular arguments and a battleground mentality. This is a minor issue, one that should easily be resolved. -  wolf  20:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources that are sourced beside the sentence... the majority of the article was written by a respected editor that has gotten many TV articles to GA and FA, including this one to GA, so sorry if I can't see your dilemma here. Maybe you should seek comment at WP:TV, or if it's so easily resolvable why don't you give it a crack? <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 20:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Again... this just another circular argument, further dragging this out, and needlessly so. I'm going to restore the tag. If you like, you can post your concerns with the tag at "wp:tv", or even ping the "respected editor" here to respond. Failing that, feel free to pursue any other form of wp:dr you like. I found a problem and tagged it as such, but I'm not obligated to fix it. And again, the wp:burden is on those seeking inclusion to show content is properly supported. I'm not going to debate this with you in endless circles. Have a nice day -  wolf  22:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)