| Revision as of 01:25, 8 January 2019 editHijiri88 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users37,389 edits →Close paraphrasing← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 22:39, 23 November 2024 edit undoAdamstom.97 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers43,382 edits →Undefined footnote: ReplyTag: Reply |
| (173 intermediate revisions by 73 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
⚫ |
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
|
{{Article history |
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|action1date=16:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC) |
|
|action1date=16:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC) |
| Line 6: |
Line 8: |
|
|action1oldid=849679627 |
|
|action1oldid=849679627 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=GAR |
| ⚫ |
|dykdate=2 February 2017 |
|
|
|
|action3date=18:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Black Panther (film)/1 |
|
|
|action3result=delisted |
|
|
|action3oldid=906979948 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action4=GTR |
|
|
|action4date=02:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured topic removal candidates/Marvel Cinematic Universe Films/archive1 |
|
|
|action4result=demoted |
|
|
|action4oldid=926555366 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action5=PR |
|
|
|action5date=22:13, December 15, 2019 |
|
|
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Black Panther (film)/archive1 |
|
|
|action5result=reviewed |
|
|
|action5oldid=930843505 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action6=GAN |
|
|
|action6date=14:32, April 26, 2020 |
|
|
|action6link=Talk: Black Panther (film)/GA2 |
|
|
|action6result=passed |
|
|
|action6oldid=953137313 |
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
|dykdate=February 3, 2017 |
|
|dykentry= ... that ] had been interested in portraying the ] in film for more than 20 years, before Marvel Studios officially announced ''''']''''' in 2014 with ] in the role? |
|
|dykentry= ... that ] had been interested in portraying the ] in film for more than 20 years, before Marvel Studios officially announced ''''']''''' in 2014 with ] in the role? |
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus=GA |
|
|currentstatus=GA |
|
|topic=media and drama |
|
|topic=media and drama |
|
|
|
|
<!-- |ftname=Marvel Cinematic Universe films --> |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|1= |
|
{{GTCadd|Marvel Cinematic Universe films|4}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Comics|Marvel=yes|Film=yes|importance=mid}} |
| ⚫ |
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Film|American=yes|Comics=yes|mcu=yes|mcu-dyk=yes|mcu-importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell |1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Comics|Marvel=yes|class=GA|Film=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Africa|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Film|American=yes|class=GA|Comics=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Disney|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Africa |class=GA |importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States |importance=Low|USfilm=y|USfilm-importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Twenty-Tens decade|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject AfroCreatives|importance=mid}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
⚫ |
{{Copied |from= Black Panther (film) |from_oldid=848765617 |to= List of box office records set by Black Panther |to_diff=848765172 |date = July 4, 2018 }} |
|
⚫ |
{{Copied |from= Black Panther (film) |from_oldid=849110731 |to= List of accolades received by Black Panther (film) |to_oldid=841974933 |to_diff=849109980 |date = July 6, 2018 }} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100k |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100k |
|
|counter = 2 |
|
|counter = 3 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
| Line 30: |
Line 58: |
|
|archive = Talk:Black Panther (film)/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Black Panther (film)/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Top25 | place = | week = ] and ] | multiple = y}} |
|
{{Annual report|]|21,229,590}} |
|
|
{{Top 25 report|January 28, 2018|until|April 8, 2018|August 23, 2020|until|August 30, 2020}} |
| ⚫ |
{{Copied |from= Black Panther (film) |from_oldid=848765617 |to= List of box office records set by Black Panther |to_diff=848765172 |date = July 4, 2018 }} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{Copied |from= Black Panther (film) |from_oldid=849110731 |to= List of accolades received by Black Panther (film) |to_oldid=841974933 |to_diff=849109980 |date = July 6, 2018 }} |
|
|
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/Las_Positas_College/LIBR_1_Working_with_Sources_(Fall_2018) | assignments = ] | start_date = 2018-08-22 | end_date = 2018-12-14 }} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
== Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2023 == |
|
== Starring == |
|
|
|
|
|
Considering the article is in process to being Good Article, I have a question; I added ], ] and ], but they were removed. I confirmed that they are credited among the rest of the main cast before adding them. Or my understanding of a billing block is very different from everyone else? The films billing block was the one that credited major crew members and cast, not the one with a detailed list of actors and other crew members. Thank you all. — <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0em 0em 0.8em,#FF4500 -0.3em -0.3em 0.9em,#90EE90 0.3em 0.3em 0.8em;color:#696969">] : ]</span> 07:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:The billing block, as referred to here, is the section of text at the bottom of the film's poster that details the main cast and crew for the film. Those actors are not included in that listing. There are obviously lots of different cast listings for films out there, so the consensus is to generally stick with this one across film articles. - ] (]) 12:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::Now I'm enlightened. I used the top-billed actors from the screen credits. I have read the ], now I get it. {{ping|Rusted AutoParts}} thank you for removing the information, it was purely unintentional.—<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0em 0em 0.8em,#FF4500 -0.3em -0.3em 0.9em,#90EE90 0.3em 0.3em 0.8em;color:#696969">] : ]</span> 13:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== One of the best reviewed movies == |
|
|
|
|
|
Can we add that Rotten tomatoes lists it has the best reviewed film. |
|
|
Also best reviewed superhero film in both Rotten tomatoes and metacritic. ] (]) 15:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
== Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2018 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Black Panther (film)|answered=yes}} |
|
{{edit semi-protected|Black Panther (film)|answered=yes}} |
|
|
the box office should be changed from 1.350 billion dollars to 1.349 billion dollars ] (]) 11:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
black panther is no longer the highest rated superhero film on rotten tomatoes, as it is beaten by spiderman into the spiderverse. |
|
|
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spider_man_into_the_spider_verse/ ] (]) 19:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC) |
|
:{{Not done}} $1,349,926,083 round to 1.350 bn. ] (]) 12:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC) |
| ⚫ |
:I have adjusted the wording so we are no longer saying that it {{em|is}} the highest rated. - ] (]) 21:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Close paraphrasing == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Ike and Kevin feud. Chadwick's cancer == |
|
I took a look at the "Cultural importance" section (apparently the "post-release" section that ]) of , which does not appear to have changed much, and found the following closely paraphrased text: |
|
|
|
1. Many movie news outlets have reported on Marvel CEO Ike Perlmutter not wanting to make BP movie, thinking it'd flop, and how much Kevin Feige struggled until BP was greenlit. No info on that in the article |
|
|
2. Chadwick was already diagnosed with cancer when production on this film began, but it also isn't in the article. |
|
|
Can someone find trustworthy webpages and add aforementioned info into the article? ] (]) 20:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Missing data from RottenTomatoes == |
|
*{{tq|''the film's way of endorsing the crushing of armed revolt against oppression''}} |
|
|
**: {{tq|''a politically “woke” film that straight-up endorses the crushing of armed revolt''}} |
|
|
*{{tq|''the film avoided black pain, suffering, and poverty, usual topics in films about the black experience.''}} |
|
|
**: {{tq|''We’re not dealing with black pain, and black suffering, and black poverty” — the usual topics of acclaimed movies about the black experience.''}} |
|
|
*{{tq|''Child development expert Deborah Gilboa felt the film would make a huge impact on children's spirits by offering positive role models.''}} |
|
|
**: {{tq|''Child development expert Dr. Deborah Gilboa told TODAY Parents that seeing "Black Panther" could indeed make a huge impact on children's spirits. "Kids need role models''}} |
|
|
*{{tq|''This was the most diverse audience for a superhero film ever, for which African-Americans generally make up 15% of audiences.''}} |
|
|
**: {{tq|''Black Panther drew the most diverse North American audience ever for a superhero film. Generally, black consumers make up around 15 percent of the audience for such fare.''}} (Note that the critical phrase "North American" has been removed, changing the meaning in a fashion that violates V, but putting it back would make its wording even closer to that of the source.) |
|
|
*{{tq|''Joseph said the film was a rare opportunity for underserved children of color to see a major black comic character brought to film.''}} |
|
|
**: {{tq|''Joseph calls the release of "Black Panther" a "rare opportunity for young students (primarily of color) to see a black major cinematic and comic book character come to life."''}} |
|
|
*{{tq|''encouraged others to create similar campaigns for their communities''}} |
|
|
**: {{tq|''calling on others to start similar campaigns in their own communities''}} |
|
|
*{{tq|''GoFundMe created a centralized page for anyone wishing to create a campaign for the challenge.''}} |
|
|
**: {{tq|''GoFundMe has also created a centralized page so that anyone, anywhere can create a campaign for kids in their region to watch Black Panther.''}} |
|
|
*{{tq|''Women in Entertainment Mentorship Program, which is executed in partnership with Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Los Angeles''}} |
|
|
**: {{tq|''The program, now in its ninth year, is executed in partnership with Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Los Angeles.''}} (This is obviously not from the reviewed version -- I accidentally closed the tab with the July permalink and collected the quotes before noticing the anachronism resulting from my mistake.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Under the heading "Critical response" the first sentence states "<i>The review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reported an approval rating of 96%, with an average score of 8.3/10, based on 532 reviews</i>". However, looking at Rotten Tomatoes' website shows more: the "Tomatometer" rating is indeed 96% based upon 531 reviews, but next to this is "<i>Popcornmeter: 79% at 50,000+</i> votes" . Is there any reason why that data should <u>not</u> also be included in the "Critical response" section? ] (]) 21:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
Some of these could probably be fixed easily, or are very minor and could probably be overlooked if it wasn't for the overall presence of so much closely paraphrased text (the last quoted example, for instance, is short enough that it probably couldn't be paraphrased all that much better than we currently do, and even if it could no one would notice if it weren't for things like us taking a source that says {{tq|''Child development expert Dr. Deborah Gilboa told TODAY Parents that seeing "Black Panther" could indeed make a huge impact on children's spirits. "Kids need role models''}} and using it to write {{tq|''Child development expert Deborah Gilboa felt the film would make a huge impact on children's spirits by offering positive role models.''}}I'm tagging the section as including an excessive amount of close paraphrasing, and the tag should not be removed<!-- I hope I don't need to explain why this warning is needed --> until all the close paraphrasing has been removed. I will also be looking at the other sections, and if I find they have similar problems to this one, I will be opening a GAR (since, frankly, even just the above should be enough for the page to be delisted automatically). Hopefully this article -- which is, honestly, on my favourite film in my favourite film series -- can be saved, but it will require cooperation and consensus-building, not to mention serious critical source-checking, which was apparently lacking in the , which doesn't appear to have noticed this at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:The Popcornometer is a new name for that site's audience reviews, which have always been unreliable per ] as they cannot be verified. ] (]) 22:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
] (<small>]]</small>) 16:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Undefined footnote== |
|
only returns two sources with an elevated risk of COPYVIO and one of those is an Misplaced Pages mirror, the rest are within the acceptable range. That said, the examples you listed can easily be corrected l.—] (]) 18:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Hello {{u|Favre1fan93}}! In {{diff||1257842657|1257501731|this edit}}, you added a footnote dependent on a citation named "TVLineAug2024". Thing is, there's no such citation in this article. Are you able to provide the required citation so that this article can be correctly referenced and fix the error? -- ] (]) 08:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
::You can't rely on automated tools for this stuff. Any educated human can read the above quotes and see the close paraphrasing. "within the acceptable range" is an interesting turn of phrase, given that just yesterday an entire paragraph was lifted near wholesale (from a primary source published by one of the production companies) by {{user|Favre1fan93}} (who it turns out was copy-pasting text onto the site as far back as 2012) and needed to be revdelled almost immediately. And there's the stuff that I found at ]. When 80% (?) of the article body is primary-sourced plot summary or a quote-farm, and the rest contains a significant amount of close paraphrasing, that is a very, ''very'' serious problem. ] (<small>]]</small>) 18:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
:The reference was there, it was just missing the opening '<'. - ] (]) 22:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::That is the automated tool suggested for use during GA reviews. If you removed a paragraph yesterday, then the tool wouldn’t have picked up on it today. Also I have no idea what is going on in The Defenders article.—] (]) 19:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::{{re|TriiipleThreat}} {{tq|''That is the automated tool suggested for use during GA reviews.''}} I went through a whole lot of abuse from Adamstom.97 and JohnWickTwo, the latter of whom I'm convinced was either a ] or a troll deliberately trying to undermine the GA process, for saying the article definitely had problems and should not pass GAN until those are addressed. Now I find out that the article had obvious plagiarism problems that should have caused an autofail, and you are wikilawyering over the fact that the doesn't recognize it? Were you guys (I don't know who originally added each of the above) ''trying'' to trick the tool by moving the words around so we use all the same words as the source but in a different order? The tool also seems to ignore segments that are only a single sentence long (?), making it useless for articles that cite a different source every other sentence. Segments of text like the above "Child development expert..." are clearly unacceptable, regardless of whether an automated tool recommended at GAN recognizes it. (apparently a more reliable, semi-automated tool) attributes it to F1f93 with ; if he's responsible for all of this (and -- thank you for asking, and sorry for not explaining up front; I saw you had edited the page 37 times and assumed you were following the GAN) then I think this might need to go to ]; I hope I can count on your assistance in tracking down all the plagiarized text -- F1f93 has made almost 46,000 mainspace edits, and while reverts and edits marked as minor are probably the vast majority of those (I'm estimating about a quarter are marked as minor, and a quick search of very recent non-minor ones indicates about 40-50% include "revert" or the like in the edit summaries, but I can't find an efficient way of checking more comprehensively) this is still a very '''''BIG''''' problem for the project, particularly for the articles he edits a lot -- his are all MCU-related. ] (<small>]]</small>) 02:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I can't even look at my edit now since it was removed, but I'm pretty sure it was not as dire as you're making it out to be, because everything was basically in my own words or quoted when I pulled exact phrases. But sometimes there's only so many ways you can word something. An example, if a source said something like (for the VFX) "Our team contributed to ''Black Panther'', working with the production team on the visuals of the opening prologue and main-on-end titles" are you going to make an issue out of it if the article stated " worked on the opening prologue and main-on-end titles for the film" because six of those words are "directly pulled" from the reference article? I'm feel like you're trying to make an issue where there isn't one, especially in singling me out for no apparent reason. Taking specifically one of your example you're claiming is an issue: {{tq|Child development expert Deborah Gilboa felt the film would make a huge impact on children's spirits by offering positive role models.}}. To start, you're saying "Child development expert" is "{{tq|clearly unacceptable}}". Well, Giboa needs to be identified so doing "Child development expert Deborah Gilboa" or "Deborah Gilboa, a child development expert", is virtually the same thing (and something I'm guessing you'd take issue with too). The only directly pulled piece of info from that source is {{tq|make a huge impact on children's spirits}}, essentially 5 words. I'm not denying there may be a few sentences that could use adjustments, things fall through the cracks sometimes, but at least this "Child development...." one doesn't seem to be an issue. - ] (]) 21:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::{{re|Favre1fan93}} {{tq|''I can't even look at my edit now since it was removed, but I'm pretty sure it was not as dire as you're making it out to be, because everything was basically in my own words or quoted when I pulled exact phrases.''}} The exact quote is on TonyBallioni's talk page, as . It was every bit as bad as I say, and worse still than any of the stuff cited above. {{tq|''An example, if a source said something like (for the VFX) "Our team contributed to ''Black Panther'', working with the production team on the visuals of the opening prologue and main-on-end titles" are you going to make an issue out of it if the article stated " worked on the opening prologue and main-on-end titles for the film" because six of those words are "directly pulled" from the reference article?''}} A single noun phrase is generally not a problem, but what you did was different. ''Most'' of the text was lifted word for word, and any changes were along the lines of changing {{tq|''Our team contributed to ''Black Panther'', working with the production team on the visuals of the opening prologue and main-on-end titles''}} to {{tq|''The visuals of the opening prologue and main-on-end titles were worked on by in cooperation with the production team''}} It has come to my attention that, apparently, the copyvio detection tool doesn't notice changes like this, which would not be a serious issue if we could assume that you were going to learn from your past mistakes and ''never'' plagiarize text again, but you don't seem to be listening. {{tq|''I'm feel like you're trying to make an issue where there isn't one, especially in singling me out for no apparent reason.''}} You've made this complaint about me in several places now, so I've taken it to your talk page. Basically, no; if I wanted to target an editor with trumped up copyvio accusations, you would not be the one I targeted. {{tq|''Giboa needs to be identified so doing "Child development expert Deborah Gilboa" or "Deborah Gilboa, a child development expert", is virtually the same thing (and something I'm guessing you'd take issue with too)''}} No, if the rest of the sentence was appropriately paraphrased, I would not have a problem with you not changing the description of who Gilboa is. I actually went through the whole section, found other parts that ''were'' like that, but decided not to cite them here since they would be acceptable if it weren't for things like these ones. {{tq|''The only directly pulled piece of info from that source is "make a huge impact on children's spirits", essentially 5 words.''}} No, that is unacceptable. There are plenty of ways you could paraphrase that sentence, and if you are not going to do so then it needs to be marked as a quotation. ] (<small>]]</small>) 01:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
1. Many movie news outlets have reported on Marvel CEO Ike Perlmutter not wanting to make BP movie, thinking it'd flop, and how much Kevin Feige struggled until BP was greenlit. No info on that in the article
2. Chadwick was already diagnosed with cancer when production on this film began, but it also isn't in the article.
Can someone find trustworthy webpages and add aforementioned info into the article? Gevorg89 (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
Not done $1,349,926,083 round to 1.350 bn. Indagate (talk) 12:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)