Talk:On the Job

Original research in reception
, what is your source for the statement, "Critical reception for the film was mixed to positive upon release, with most reviewers noting its thrilling action sequence and production values, but criticizing the plot for being convoluted." I don't see anything in RT and RC that says this explicit consensus exists. Is this your own personal interpretation of the review aggregators? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , I read through all the reviews listed in RT and Meta and it's supposed to be a lead-in summary of all these reviews. So technically yeah, they're mine. Blue  sphere  09:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's what we call "original research", and it's disallowed by policy. Unless you can cite a reliable source that has come to those conclusions, it needs to be removed from the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , okay. It appears that two reliable sources from top Philippine media conglomerates say that it's a "critically acclaimed" movie. So I just rephrased the sentence and supported it with references. 11:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

What happened to the reviews that pointed out flaws?
I can't help but notice several mixed/negative reviews. Why is that? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Restored it, sorry about that. I thought I was giving more weight with the positive reviews, didn't catch that there were mixed ones I added. Blue  sphere  06:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Screen International and Film Biz Asia (though it's defunct now) are major trade magazines, so I'd kind of expect to have their input. It just seemed kind of weird to remove them, I guess. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Film Business Asia Review
We will have to get rid of the review as the ref supporting it is dead and nowhere to be found by a Google search. Slightlymad (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, we don't have to get rid of it. See WP:KDL. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So just reinsert it and delink the url inline? Slightlymad (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Why delink it? The URL was valid at one point, and someone may locate an archived version of it.  That will probably not happen if the citation is delinked.  There are other search engines besides Google.  Also, Film Business Asia was a print magazine, which means someone may find a copy of the review in a library.  If we keep all the metadata intact, it's easier for people to locate archived versions.  Sources don't have to be available online. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. But you see I'm about to submit the article for GAR and this single linkrot may raise concern during the process. Slightlymad (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't. As a print magazine, the content is still verifiable, and the link worked at one point; I read the online review myself.  Dead links are explicitly allowed per the GA criteria if they are more than just a bare URL. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * NRP, may I request an archive of refs 26 & 46? The IAbot tool tends to skip them when I run it. Thanks Slightlymad (talk) 10:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Think I got it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * @Slightlymad i understand give me any job i will do it Sailendra dubey (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Distributor
, I advice you to go to the source's link and read page 3, where it states that the movie is produced (the production companies) by Star Cinema and Reality Entertainment and presented (distributors) by Reality Entertainment and Well Go USA. You will not see anywhere that the movie is also distributed by Star Cinema; most production companies don't necessarily distribute films that they fund. Patience,  Slightlymad  (talk &sdot; contribs) 13:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is clearly stated in the third-party source that I provided (which by the way unlike the production notes you provided as a source is much more reliable and verifiable) that Star Cinema distributed the film locally. Hollyckuhno (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , the author of that piece said that the movie will be released by Star Cinema in July (even though it's actually August), which is why I'm hesitant to use it as a source. And could you explain what makes the production notes unreliable? The author of that dossier is actually Well Go USA, the North American distributor. Patience,  Slightlymad  (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To be considered reliable, it has to come from a third party source, it has to have a date of publication, it should have an author, and it should have the name of the publisher. Now all of these characteristics are non-existent in your press released productions notes. As for the inconsistency in the given release date, the article was written before the actual release so it doesn't matter. Release dates can be moved from its original date. Hollyckuhno (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A matter of opinion. The article is a FA and its sources are examined to be reliable as well as high-quality since it passed the criteria (See the review page here). Patience,  Slightlymad  (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Having been a featured article does not justifies the reliability of all of its sources/references, at least not for the reference provided in the distributor info because it was clearly written by someone employed by Well Go USA. Hollyckuhno (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, that's your two centavos. The article underwent an extensive featured article review; the sources were examined, and editors deemed them reliable and high quality. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm done with your BS. I've decided to keep your revision even though I feel violated, considering I'm collaborating with a lightweight such as yourself. Adios. Patience,  Slightlymad  (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Then let's have a consensus of who's source is more reliable. As simple as that. I just hate to see wrong info that are being treated as if they are facts. Hollyckuhno (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 16 June 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc . talk  07:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @Extorc i like it's job Sailendra dubey (talk) 13:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

– Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that gets a vast majority of the views for "On the Job", only seconded by the miniseries based on the very same movie. There is no particular reason it needs to be disambiguated. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * On the Job (2013 film) → On the Job
 * On the Job → On the Job (disambiguation)
 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Showiecz (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as Wikipedia is WP:NOTADICT. cookie monster   755  03:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.