Talk:Red Sparrow

Russian names
Whoever did the cast list doesn't seem to understand Russian name conventions, which vary by gender. The main character's uncle's surname is given as "Ergorova". It should be "Ergorov". 2001:558:6011:1:9975:DAD7:61C2:1D96 (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Film Ratings...
Hi!

It's Neateditor123 here, and there's something on this page I need to point out: the inclusion of what the film was rated in all these different countries.

Now while this may be important for some, what a film was rated by the MPAA does not belong on a Wikipedia page. It is simply irreverent. I see the good intentions here, but unless the film rating was changed, amended, appealed, or edited in some way, please don't include it here.

Warmest Regards, --Neateditor123 (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123
 * There is no guideline or policy regarding its exclusion. Many other articles include ratings, such as The Hunger Games (film), Fifty Shades Darker (film), and so on. There is no consensus on not including film ratings in film articles. I find the ratings notable to mention.  Callmemirela   &#127809; talk 16:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And for the sake of this discussion, please leave the status quo up until something is established.  Callmemirela   &#127809; talk 16:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, OK, OK, I'll leave it up then. Truth be told, the only reason I did that was because I got the same response when I added the same thing to the Isle of Dogs (film) page.

Sincerely, --Neateditor123 (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123
 * I agree with Neateditor123. There are plenty of movies that has similar ratings to Red Sparrow; do we start to add them to their respective articles, too? Film ratings should only be reported if they're significantly relevant to the topic. Take I Spit on Your Grave as precedent. Slightlymad 16:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, there is nothing against adding film ratings. And I only added very few that I could find. If you wish to add film ratings to film articles, I'm not stopping you. I've included them in other articles to no objection. I find them relevant and notable, just as many people find mentioning the release date for a trailer notable to mention.  Callmemirela   &#127809; talk 20:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:FILMRATING. We typically don't report on film ratings as that would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The only time we would discuss ratings would be when secondary sources are discussing the impact of the rating, not simply listing the rating itself. Slightlymad 09:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I also agree about not reporting on film ratings unless secondary sources discuss it. It is indiscriminate material otherwise. The common thread in the material is violence and sex, so that itself could be written about directly, like with this. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Some material was cut from its UK release so that it could get a 15 rating from the BBFC. That might be notable, though I don't think it was that much. Anywikiuser (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, it looks like the film ratings have officially been deleted from this Wikipedia page, so it looks like all this chaos is over. Right?

Oh, and as a brief FYI, I added the MPAA rating back to the Isle of Dogs (film) page as it was amended from PG-13 for "thematic elements and violent images" to PG-13 for "thematic elements and some violent images". Is that OK to put on a Wikipedia page? Another good example would be The 15:17 to Paris page, where I noted that the film originally received an R rating for "a sequence of violence and bloody images", but managed to appeal to a PG-13. Are all of those examples OK to be on a Wikipedia page? Please let me know all your thoughts!

Sincerely, --Neateditor123 (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123
 * I don't know where and to who to reply, so I am putting it here. I spent hours looking a guideline/policy but was unsuccessful, so thank you. I wasn't aware of that. My apologies. While I personally disagree, I concede.  Callmemirela   &#127809; talk 17:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

All right then. Oh, and sorry if I seemed a little harsh beforehand, or if it seemed like I was contradicting myself by first saying I deleted that section only because somebody else did the same to mine and then making the case for my statement again. It's just that I didn't really know how to react when you made your statement at first and I really wanted to keep myself out of it even if I didn't agree with what you had to say. Again, I thoroughly respect your opinions and what you are trying to do here, but even so, unless it's for some special purpose (like the examples I gave above), please try to keep film ratings off Wikipedia.

Warmest Regards Forever, --Neateditor123 (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123

I Comment About Page Title.
There Exist Red Sparrow Disambiguation Page. Then There Is This Page. Only Difference Is Capitals In "Sparrow". Maybe One Of Two Pages Should Have New Name. IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

i suggest perhaps it is good idea to move to red sparrow (film). IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I know you're new to Wikipedia, but the fact that there's a disambiguation page does not mean that this article can't be named Red Sparrow. We have a concept of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The film is already bigger than the book of the same title with 1,110,000 hits to the book's 8,790 Google News hits and 5,190 Google Book hits. Other subjects on the disambig page aren't known as "red sparrow"- Red fox sparrow; or wouldn't get an article- "a fictional character created by Charles Bukowski from the 1994 novel Pulp". The article should not be renamed. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * i suggest then disambiguation become red sparrow (disambiguation). what you think ? IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, per WP:SMALLDETAILS. Ribbet32 (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2018
In the fourth sentence, Dimitiry doesn't attempt to rape Dominika, he is actually raping her when he is killed. Just because he didn't finish doesn't make it less of a rape. It should be changed to something like "As Dimitiry rapes Dominika, he is killed." 97.81.103.2 (talk) 03:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you! Slightlymad 06:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Dominikas "injury"
I would suggest that you replace "Injury" with the word assault which occured when her dancing partner deliberately landed on her leg, breaking it. The first of many violent acts portrayed throughout the movie.The portrayal of the injury as an accident is disproved when Dominikas uncle gives her a recording of her dance partner talking with his lover (a competing dancer) saying that he thinks Dominika knows he purposely fell on her leg so that another dancer (his lover) could get the part. Which raises the question of why he would do this during a performance rather than during a rehearsal. This movie poses a lot of questions that are not easily answered. Ipedialyte (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Uh, yeah, here's another one. Ballet fans are hugely devoted and any prima in a prestigious company like the Bolshoi is going to be internationally known at least among balletomanes. They employed her as a SPY and did nothing to hide her identity!! They didn't even change her hair.
 * I mean, come ON, people, they would never employ someone known on a prestigious stage, or if they did they would make sure she looked appreciably different. Can't believe the novelist and advisor wouldn't have known this. Maybe he knows espionage but he doesn't know the ballet world. I mean, good grief, I'm only a casual ballet fan and I know who Julie Kent, Isabella Boylston, Sarah Lane, Ethan Steifel, and Kathryn Morgan are. Oy. 100.7.252.82 (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)