Talk:Ploy (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spoilers Tag[edit]

I added a "future film" tag and "spoilers" note to this article. I am under the impression that other articles on films, books, plays, stories, etc. contain spoiler alerts when revelations are present... But my change was reverted. Am I mistaken?

Some plot descriptions do not reveal major turns in the story and therefore do not contain spoilers. An example of this would be a summary provided on the back of a DVD.

Bottom line is if it's standard on Wikipedia, then it should be there. If not, then it should not... Any insight? Cheers. ask123 18:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, a section labeled "Plot" automatically indicates spoilers. The standard, as far as I can tell, is that spoiler tags are placed where readers won't expect spoilers to pop up. (Also, in the future, you may want to use {{spoiler}} for marking spoilers.) —The preceding signed comment was added by Cadby (talk • contribs) 20:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I went on the article and I saw a "quite ugly" disclaimer, I remembered the guideline of the manual of style not to include disclaimer (especially those who create some sort of "ugly" code line).
I also thought that the title of the section "plot" was self explanatory about what was inside. Well perhaps I should change it to "plot summary" to warn more that this summary is not the synopsis that goes in the press package of the film but contain element that could be considered as a surprise. – Esurnir 18:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
As for the attractiveness of the tag, there isn't anything in the manual of style that covers subjective elements (e.g. what one finds attractive or ugly). Parts of the guidelines cover simplicity and succinctness, but not "ugliness." Nonetheless, if you are concerned with the superficial aspects of a page, you should deal with them alone -- not the content as well.
I am concerned with the disclaimer itself and if it's standard in Wikipedia articles when describing a story in great detail. Simply, there are two types of descriptions that can be given. One is a detailed one, from the beginning to the end of the story. This reveals every pertinent turn of the story in an objective manner (a la the story description in the press pack one receives at a premiere or junket). The other is a merely a summary of how the story begins and gives the reader an idea of what the plot is about without delving too deeply into the second and third acts (a la the story description on the back of a DVD).
Also, there's no need for nastiness. AGF, my friend... ask123 19:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Well first thing is that I did not made a revert, I deleted the mention which happen (or not, I didn't checked the history) to be the exact opposite of your precedent edit but it's in fact a pure coincidence. And I ask you to believed that there was no intent whatsoever that this edit was made in the intent of reverting a change, to push a pov of the ongoing debate about WP:SPOILER that I personally did not took part in it and I didn't really read; that wall of dispute bored me to hell .
Second thing the process was as follow : There was a verry ugly disclaimer that subjectivly reppelled me and objectivly distracted me from the content of the section. I pressed the edit button and thrashed that mention whose aesthetic was to say politely "not artistic". I could have rewritten this disclaimer the same way that I could rewritten this article and push it forward to Featured Article status . I was lazy and I thought "if it's ugly I will toast it".
As for the "standard" I really would like to make you point toward the talk page of WP:Spoiler. Last time I heard in the village pump it was still a battleground , so the consensus about the standard is perhaps not entirely reached.
I appologize if you thought my comment were "nasty" I sometimes need to rewrite my comment to make them appear less "aggressive" and authoritative which was not I assure you their original intent, the fact is I made an edit that I considered quite minor. And minute after that I was "stalked" by someone that considered that I deleted his contribution, remembered that there was an ongoing "debate" in which some spirit are going berserk and immediatly thought "oh oh, I think I just walked on the tail of a WikiWarrior" and engaged the protocol "Walk back carefully, launch a smoke grenade, run away don't come back" content dispute resolution protocol (approved by the cabal) . Honestly I won't make a big deal about the disclaimer, if you want to do a disclaimer or revert my edit, go ahead, I just advise that you should try to make it less flashy next time. – Esurnir 19:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
No, rest assured, I am not a WikiWarrior. I, too, dislike "ugly" features of Wiki articles, such as misplaced images, poorly laid out sections and grammatical and spelling errors.
As for the attractiveness or "artistry" (as you put it) of my disclaimer, I only put it in that hash-mark box because I thought that was how I saw it done on other pages, and I wanted to remain consistent. Consistency is one of the most important aspects of Wikipedia, more important that attractiveness in fact. For example, sometimes an infobox of an article covers up some of the words in a section title. Or sometimes an infobox pushes the succeeding section way down, creating a big blank space. These things are certainly "ugly," by most people's opinions. Nonetheless, they remain, and if you try to change it, someone eventually reverts it. This is to maintain consistency in how each page is edited.
As for the manner of your change, I really don't care if it was a revert or an edit. The result is the same. No matter though. I will check out WP:SPOILER for the discussion on the topic and proceed accordingly. ask123 20:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Future film tag[edit]

As this article is on English Wikipedia, it should have a "future film" tag until it is released in (an) English-speaking region(s). Since it has not, I re-inserted the tag. ask123 15:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, it has been released. Please do not reinsert the tag. Just because this is English Wikipedia does not mean it limits its view to only what is happening in English-speaking countries. There are likely thousands of "foreign" films made since the beginning of cinema that were never released in English-speaking territories. By your rationale, all would need to be reclassified as "future", which would be ridiculous. Anyway, the film was shown at the Cannes Film Festival with a lot of English-speaking people in the audience, and is now playing in Thailand, where a good many English-speaking people have seen it as well. — WiseKwai 16:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Cannes is an extremely wide venue. Although, if you can name a foreign film that has never been translated into English and/or never had any type of English language release (be it theatrical, on tape, on DVD, etc.), and that film has an article on English Wikipedia, I'd be surprised. I have found many foreign films that meet these criteria, and none of them have English pages on this site. ask123 20:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most Thai films in Thailand are released with English subtitles, which is helpful. And, you've got me - at this moment I can only think of Miss Suwanna of Siam as one of those mystery films. But it was silent, and made by Universal Pictures, so probably it had English title cards. So you've got me - I can't name "thousands" of films - though I was thinking primarily of Indian cinema, which produces tens of thousands of films per year, and has some active editors writing articles about them. But those, I guess would have English subs when they are eventually released to DVD, even if the release is only in India. At any rate, I've never seen the future tag applied the way you wanted to apply it here on Ploy. One of the notability guidelines for Wikipedia holds that a film must have had a general release in the country of its origin - a release is a release - there's nothing in the {{Future film}} tag or in the future-class for the talk-page {{Film}} template that I can find that stipulates it should be applied to when it is released in English-speaking territories. It's as if the release in Thailand wasn't real. — WiseKwai 21:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need for explanation, WiseKwai. By and large, I agree with you. Especially in this day in age with the world film festival circuit and global distribution (and translation) markets as pervasive as they are, there isn't much need for the tag. What you say makes sense. ask123 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ploy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ploy_(film)&oldid=1198905001"