Talk:The Black Swan (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article upgrading needed: You can help.

WP:IA

Stub to Start-Class Upgrading Instructions To contribute in upgrading this stub article to start class, the following requirements must be met: Significant intro (list the title, alternate titles, year released, director, actors starring in the film, summary of headings, etc.) Film infobox ({{infobox film}}) Picture: Consult WikiProject Free Images for freely released images from a film shoot, opening, or other relevant free image; non-free and unlicensed images are to be avoided if at all possible Plot summary Cast section At least two other developed sections of information (production, reception (including box office figures), awards and honors, references in popular culture, differences from novel or TV show, soundtrack, sequels, DVD release, etc.) Categories (by year, country, language, and genre(s))  Helpful links: WP:BETTER, WP:LEAD, WP:REF Once this article has fulfilled these requirements, the film can be reassessed to start class and this template will be removed automatically.

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

[edit] DVD Cover

Why was the DVD cover of this film deleted. It is well established in other articles that DVD covers are acceptable in demonstrating the films availability in this medium. I think this needs to be discussed if people are objecting to this. FrankWilliams 16:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think it was a major enough change to warrant talkpage discussion. DVD covers are indeed perfectly acceptable as representation for a film, but I thought it would be preferable to have something more contemporaneous with the film that represented more of its character than the standard Fox DVD cover which looks exactly the same for all Fox releases, and moreover smacks more of advertisement than illustration to me. Ford MF 18:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages are for anything anyone wants to talk about; there is no set criteria for this. FrankWilliams 20:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

True. And on the other hand... Ford MF 20:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia Section

Folks really need to learn to not be so POV and opinionated. Trivia information is perfectly acceptable in Wiki Articles. Furthermore it is not often that recent information can be accessed to old movies such as this. Also, Ms. O'Hara is up in age and accounts of the filming and making of the film could be considered valuable, as once she passes her unique perspective will be lost. Anyone who really loves this movie would be delighted in hearing the commentary and this is a way of letting folks know. FrankWilliams 20:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The trivia merely says that there is commentary on the DVD, which isn't exactly unusual nowadays. If you have info about the actual anecdotes, that might warrant a trivia entry. Clarityfiend 00:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Audio commentary on older films is unusual; most of the new commentaries are with newer films. I don't understand what the big deal is with mentioning the commentary it exist and people should know about; leave it alone for goodness sakes. FrankWilliams 03:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Casablanca has commentaries on DVD, but no mentions in the FA class article.
• Citizen Kane has DVD commentaries; content of Ebert commentary is incorporated in the article.
• The Maltese Falcon has commentaries; no mentions.

etc. etc. I repeat: simply mentioning that there is a commentary is not noteworthy in itself. Clarityfiend 06:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they should be mentioned. I can't believe such a big deal is being made about this. FrankWilliams 12:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Clarityfiend. Nothing especially notable about this commentary (unless some important info in the commentary is cited in this article, which it isn't), and it should go. Ford MF 21:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Captain, there be barnacles on the hull. Scrape 'em off, matey! Aye, aye, captain, but they keep growing back. Arghhh! Clarityfiend 21:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ford MF your are contradicting yourself. You said above "unless some important info in the commentary is cited" that is exactly what was done. Also, your other comment was that the section is too "unencyclopedic". I think a good contributing editor would just make the changes and improve it; but simply getting rid of it because it is easy is not a satisfactory answer.FrankWilliams 08:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There is very little info; it's mostly just your opinions. The place for that is in a review on Amazon.com, not here. Clarityfiend 17:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There is enough info to let others know what is there. Your comments are also your opinions. FrankWilliams 10:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

FrankWilliams, the clear but small (2-to-1) consensus here is against including that section in the article. I wish other people besides the three of us gave a crap about this article so we could get a more sizable sample, but this is what we got. Wikipedia is edited by consensus, not stubbornness, and I know it sucks when something you dig about an article gets deleted, but it happens. Pretty much all three of us are now guilty of 3RR, and asking for arbitration seems silly given how minor a matter this is, but I don't really know what else to do. Ideas anyone? Ford MF 15:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you other editors just change it around however you'd like it to read. My objection is to simply discard the information is not satisfactory; it needs to be there. Don't really care how it's written (to a point). Also the darn article is so short I don't understand what the big deal is. But, seriously one of you should just write it up how you see fit. FrankWilliams 17:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

We have changed it the way we'd like it, but you keep changing it back. So why make an offer you won't honor? Also, what difference does it make how long the article is? If it doesn't meet official guidelines, it doesn't belong here. Clarityfiend 21:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)