Talk:Moneyball (film)

Team
Which A's team is this film about, the 2001 team, or the 1992 team? Both made the playoffs, but I can't find out which team this book/film is supposed to be about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.32.234 (talk) 00:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2001. And 2002. Moneyball talks mostly about the 2002 season and draft. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Peter Brand
I was trying to find more information about the actual person Peter Brand, but he doesn't exist. Maybe the first paragraph could say "[...] GM Peter Brand (a fictional character played by Jonah Hill), faced [...]"; maybe even a reference to the Cast notes there? --82.171.13.139 (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Brand's character evolution should be clear by now. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Cast notes now mention Brand is a composite character; thanks. --82.171.13.139 (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

GA
Anybody mind if I nominate this for GA in a few days, after I make some final improvements? Let's promote this. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Late reply, but I am about to do so right now. Rusted AutoParts  19:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , well, I clearly forgot all about it, so have at it! – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Moneyball (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130917183239/http://www.wpbf.com/entertainment/29275448/detail.html to http://www.wpbf.com/entertainment/29275448/detail.html#ixzz1mVShQ8lJ

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

"Bold" edit needs some discussion
Complete removal without any discussion is a little bit too much. There were many references there and Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so we have space for accuracy issues like that. CABF45 (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it was appropriate to remove content that was unsourced or did not reference the film (like baseball-reference.com), but content that assesses the real-life portrayals and other details in the film should be included. It seems like there are articles like, , that should be referenced. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Happy for content along those lines to be included if someone wants to integrate it properly with proper sources, context, encyclopaedic prose, etc, and not just an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. (Nb.: CABF45 seems to have arrived here after auditing my recent contributions following a disagreement at Uncut Gems.) Popcornfud (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I do see a pattern in your edits of too many barely explained deletions.
 * I was just questioning the complete removal of a section, which definitely helps readers better understand the movie. We have "citation needed" tags before resorting to complete removal. CABF45 (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I delete things that don't meet Wikipedia policy. I think I was clear about why in the edit summary: boldy deleting. much of this is uncited original research or WP:SYNTHESIS. some is clearly trivia. none is placed in a context that makes it apparent why any of it is important or encyclopaedic. And Wikipedia doesn't typically advocate to keep things without citations - see WP:CITE and WP:BURDEN. Popcornfud (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned, I find the section valid and have restored the content that was supported by reliable sources. Additional sources are available to work into this section too. I'm fine with excluding the other content. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for that, great improvement over the previous version. Popcornfud (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

If every sentence needs a reliable source, we could remove much of Dutch Empire or nitrogen (and we have a lot of less referenced articles than these). Just give the original editors a chance to add sources, that's all I was suggesting. Wikipedia also has Template:Better source needed for a reason. BTW, thanks for your input. CABF45 (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: American Cinema
— Assignment last updated by Isabella.mitrow (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)