Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:29, 4 August 2015

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Film: Comic book / American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the Comic book films task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Comics: Films Bottom‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Misplaced Pages. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics Bottom This article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Comic book films work group.

Sweden not Scandinavia

The Swedish prime minister and princess are referred to as such. There was a reference to Scandinavia as well, but they were clearly meant to be Swedish, not the vague "Scandinavian".Royalcourtier (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The anal sex gag at the end of the film

Why is this being kept out of the plot description? The only reason I can think of is some sort of moral objection. It is not just a throwaway line in the film, but a joke that is referenced multiple times (the princess saying "If you save the world, we can do it in the asshole" or whatever, Eggsy returning to the seductively seated princess at the end of the film with Champagne, Merlin view of the Princess' ass and then his embarrassed behavior). The way it is written now, "Merlin congratulates him for his success, but Eggsy chooses to visit the princess" is vague and doesn't really describe how the film ends. Jb 007clone (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Grow up: this is not a plot point, but something for 14-year-olds to giggle behind their hands at and is waaaaaaay to far away from encyclopaedic for grow ups to reference. It's not a plot point: it's minor fluff that doesn't belong in a plot summary, which is the key term here. - SchroCat (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

If it's not a plot point, describe what happens to Eggsy after he defeats Valentine? You can't, because what happens is he goes back to the Swedish princess and has anal sex. To simply state he "visits with the princess" is disingenuous and utterly vague. The film makes a big point/joke of the scene and it being anal sex, so I argue that makes it relevant as well. The plot, as is, is awfully long for just a "summary". Why go into so much detail to just gloss over this point if it isn't a matter of moral objection? Jb 007clone (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem is, the joke at the end of the film has not context. As it is written now, the "anal sex" joke comes out of nowhere, and just looks like an immature way of putting an irrelevant gag into the plot summary. There is no mention of it prior, and since you're not missing it up to that point, so you won't miss it at the end of the summary. I don't see a reason for keeping it. The reader isn't going to lose any understanding of the film by it not being there. If anything, it currently will only add questions as to why this is there in the first place. We're supposed to summarize the film, and identifying specific jokes in a film does not help a reader to understand the film as a whole.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

To state "Eggsy chooses to stay to visit the Swedish Princess" doesn't accurately summarize what happens. That is also a problem.Jb 007clone (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

No-one (except you) is claiming its moral objection. It's unencyclopaedic and juvenile to even think this is worth adding. Ask yourself what a grown up would write in a proper encyclopaedia: this isn't a fan-driven Wiki: it has the aim of being mature, not pandering to the 14-year-old market, as you are trying to force it to. The Fil makers do not make a "big point" about it, and it's one joke in the film, certainly not weighty enough to justify inclusion. Tis plot isn't "awfully long" for a summary. The MoS proscribes 300-700 words, and it is (last time I checked) under 700 words. - SchroCat (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to force the wiki to "pander" to anyone. I'm trying to have it be accurate, which you seem to have some sort of objection to. Again, I didn't create the gag, but it is IN THE FILM. It isn't just a single line or shot, but part of the resolution and a something the protagonist does. Like it or not, it's relevant and fair game. Again, to simply state he "visits with the princess" doesn't make much sense. What would that mean to someone who hasn't seen the film? It is so vague it could mean he travels to Sweden and has tea with her? That's not what happens, is it? Jb 007clone (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

To state, "Eggsy chooses to stay to visit the Swedish Princess" isn't a problem. It's only a problem because you are aware of the joke. With no knowledge of the joke, as I didn't have before coming here, it isn't a problem. It just appears that the film ends with him staying with this princess. If I'm watching the movie, then I'll realize "why" he is staying with the princess, but summaries are not meant to outline every minute detail. The average reader does not lose anything by not knowing this is an anal sex gag.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You say you had no knowledge of the joke prior to coming here. Have you seen the film? What position are you in to determine whether or not the scene is relevant? We shouldn't be censoring this for the average reader. If we are, why include the line "Eggsy then grabs one of Gazelle's prosthetic legs and plunges it through Valentine's heart, killing him"? Why such a vivid description of the violence? Why not just say Eggsy kills Valentine? Eggsy choosing to "visit the Swedish Princess" just seems like a moral euphemism which doesn't accurately describe what happens. As previously pointed out, to just state he visits with someone, could mean lots of things to different people. Jb 007clone (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

An alternative is to remove the line "Merlin congratulates him for his success, but Eggsy chooses to stay to visit the Swedish Princess." it doesn't add much anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Prior knowledge of the joke doesn't make any difference if someone comes here and says it raises more questions than it answers. That shows a problem. The description of the death of Valentine is hardly vivid. As I've already suggested, get rid of the whole sentence: it adds nothing of benefit, let alone "a moral euphemism". – SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Jb, I haven't seen the film. Seeing the film is not a prerequisite for editing. It actually puts him in a unique position to read the summary with no knowledge of the film and determine if something makes sense or not. In this case, the mention of a joke at the end makes little sense because there is no context for this joke anywhere. Not having it there does not dampen my understanding of the basic point of the movie. As for your comment about descriptive violence, I would agree with you on that. It shouldn't really be that descriptive. I write a lot of horror film articles, and the ones I write don't have the details of every character's death. They have the basic idea that the character was killed, but the fact that they received a machete to the face or their head exploded is not essential to understanding the plot. In this case, the anal gag and the specifics about how a character died are not essential to understanding. What purpose does it truly serve to the reader?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

So if the line about Valentine's death is inappropriate, why haven't you removed it? Jb 007clone (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't gone through the whole summary to change anything. That specific line isn't up for debate. If you and Cat want to go through the summary and trim out the unnecessary details, be my guest. Don't take me not fixing everything on the page as justification for including something else that clearly shouldn't be there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Have we determined that it "clearly shouldn't be there"? I thought the whole point of this page is to come to a consensus on that. The line may not be up for debate, but that shouldn't preclude you from removing it. You certainly removed the anal sex line without debate. Jb 007clone (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Have "we" determined that? I don't know what "we" have determined, but my opinion is that it clearly does not belong. I removed the anal gag because I was returning the page to the stable version, which was the version before the edit war. So, yes there was a debate and that debate had extended to edit warring on the page. Pages that have contested information should not be left as the last person that used their 3rd revert, but should be returned to the stable version before the war happened in the first place. My removal was based on that. My opinion is that it should stay that way. If consensus becomes something different, then it can go back.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's the issue though, the information isn't "contested", it's FACT. That's what happens in the film. The debate is about whether or not it is relevant. I argue that it is, because the current line in the wiki isn't accurate based on omission. You haven't even seen the film. You may think that the current line is fine, but you are simply basing that on the way it reads and not what ACTUALLY happens in the film. Jb 007clone (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

So what of it appears in the film? We don't even try to cover everything - see WP:FILMPLOT, and take note of the bit where it says "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail." The gag is pointless fluff - certainly not even close to a plot point and its inclusion is unencyclopaedic nonsense. - SchroCat (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This is just a general observation, since I intend to watch the film and obviously I don't want to read the plot summary. We rarely summarise "gags" in the plot summary because they very rarely reveal anything about the storyline, which is basically what we are describing. Unless the gag also serves as a "twist" (i.e. something that casts a different complexion on the preceding events) then I don't see a reason to include it. Is the reason for including it simply because it is a "gay" joke? Would we include a fart gag? I think not. Betty Logan (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Betty, the gag is setup prior to the film's climax, "If you save the world, we can do X..." then is call-backed when the protagonist returns and is shown to one of the characters on camera. It's not a gay joke, the individuals involved are male & female, but that doesn't matter anyway. The point is the line "Eggsy chooses to stay to visit the Swedish Princess" is inaccurate. Jb 007clone (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• So as you've described it, the line/gag means nothing in terms of plot or character development. For the third time (at the point of boring myself, let alone others), get rid of the whole sentence: it adds nothing. – SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the gag isn't set up in the film. I'm saying it isn't set up in the plot summary, thus it has no context at the end of the summary. It's nothing more than a gag. The fact that the gag pays off in the film is irrelevant to the reader, because we're not here to make them laugh. It doesn't impact the actual film, nor does it impact the actual summary. The statement that he stays with the Princess is accurate. It might not contain every minute detail of the interaction, but that's not the point of a summary.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I would say that a character "staying with" someone and engaging in anal sex with them are not just minor, minute distinctions. The statement is inaccurate by omission. Jb 007clone (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

What makes it something other than minor?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It is setup and depicted, that's what makes it more than minor. If it was a throwaway line in the film, that would be something else, but it's not. If the summary were less detailed, it might be fine to leave out, this is actually pretty thorough though, especially in the description of Valentine's killing, but then just conveniently glosses over the final moments of the film. It's an cognizant omission. Jb 007clone (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

If you think removing that line somehow spoils the plot summary, then I think you may not quite have grapsed how to properly put together a good film summary. It's a piece of trite nonsense that doesn't affect anything else in the film. If the gag were removed, the film would not follow a different course, or have a plot hole. That's a pretty good sign of it being unimportant. - SchroCat (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

JB, setting up a joke and delivering on it later does not make the event itself major. It's a joke, nothing more. You're placing undue weight on this single aspect of the film. Again, the fact that I haven't seen the film makes me a more neutral party in recognizing the minor importance of the joke. I know what the film is about, and it isn't about anal sex. The fact that a gag exists in the film does not mean that it impacts the overall plot of the film. Your desire to somehow increase the importance of said joke is the part that we are all having trouble with. Yes, again I agree with you on the level of detail in killing a character, and the simple fact that I haven't seen the film keeps me from fully rewriting the plot (should that actually be necessary). I can see that the anal joke has no context (which I've stated repeatedly) in this plot summary, and becomes nothing more than a throwaway gag. They made a mention of it in the film and they "followed through" on the gag. That's wonderful, but what does that have to do with the overall film? Very little. I don't understand your insistence on the importance of this one peace of the movie, and how not including it has somehow crippled a reader's understanding of the plot summary.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, it is glaringly apparent that this is a futile discussion. I am outnumbered and can be easily reverted and blocked at will. I will make the suggested change by SchroCat of removing the line, and also removing the unnecessarily vivid depiction of Valentine's death. Jb 007clone (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Schro and Betty. Betty explains it well in that we don't generally relay dialogue from the film in the plot section. It's supposed to be a general overview. If the anal joke has had extensive coverage in reliable books and sources though it might be worth mentioning somewhere in themes or reception or whatever.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You're missing the point, Blofeld, it's more than just a verbal piece of dialogue. It's the final scene of the movie before the credits and the way it reads now, with the line "Merlin congratulates him" or whatever doesn't actually reflect how the movie ends. Jb 007clone (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Glad the information has been included. It's great to see sanity prevail in the face of willfully blind suppression and censorship. Jb 007clone (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• If you could please try and remain civil: there is no "willfully blind suppression" here, much less censorship: much of a film's content is left out of summaries, bucasue they are just that: summaries, not fancrfut, packed with minutae. This is the way we do things on Wiki, and it would probably be best if you learned that, rather than try and foster an aggressive stance just because something has not gone the way you want it. Besides all that, the information isn't in there at all, as no new consensus has been reached. - SchroCat (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 17 February 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn as WP:COMMONNAME applies, and this film is not part of any type of media series. (Either way, at least this discussion now serves as a note of which policy takes priority in the naming of this article.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Kingsman: The Secret Service → Kingsman (film) – Per WP:SUBTITLES. Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose It's not the movie's name, and it's not the movie's common name either. Plus the subtitle serves as natural disambiguation. Note the first example on that page, which states to use Orlando: A Biography over Orlando (book). Nohomersryan (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per the above. This is the film's formal and WP:COMMONNAME. I'll also point out the obvious, that SUBTITLES is a guideline for books, not films. - SchroCat (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• @SchroCat: I respect your oppose vote, but I disagree with your interpretation of the scope of WP:SUBTITLES. Back in 2013, that section was amended to cover films, TV series, and video games as well (see the related move discussion); there were plans to spin off WP:SUBTITLES into its own policy separate from Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (books) so that its scope was clearer, but that policy has yet to be created. Steel1943 (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• If it hasn't been created, then we're under no compunction to follow it then! (And added to that, it's a guideline that states that the "only exception to that is short article titles, for disambiguation purposes": this is such an exception, I think to avoid it pointing to the disambig page Kingsman). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose since the subtitle is short enough per WP:CONCISE, not to mention more natural per WP:CRITERIA. Erik (talk | contrib) 20:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per SUBTITLES, which says "the only exception to that is short article titles, for disambiguation purposes." -- Calidum 21:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rancid Tomatoes

Nightscream, STOP EDIT WARRING. There is no set pattern for the wording relating to Rancid Tomatoes, and certainly no reason why we unthinkingly follow the wording of some other pages (see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS for unthinkingly copying formats across pages). As I have explained to you, there is no reason not to phrase it the way it currently stands in the article ("Rotten Tomatoes sampled 157 critics and judged 73% of the reviews positive, with an average rating of") This is accptable, is seen in some other articles, including GAs etc, and is correct as it stands. You are basing your choice entirely on ] and nothing else. If you can stop the patronising tone you tried to adopt on my talk page, I will be happy to discuss it with you, but try and be open minded in your aproach, not just come here to demand a slavish adherence to poor writing elsewhere. - SchroCat (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the version that does not use the "Fresh" label because it goes against WP:SLANG. However, it would be better if we sought out high-level assessments that summarize reviews of this film (e.g., Googling kingsman "critics" "reviews"). This way, we can have a prose-based and sourced summary sentence instead of having the numbers so upfront. This is especially appropriate since Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are vastly differing in assessment. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm extremely happy to see those labels removed: they add little. (Which is my opinion of the rest of RT as well, but there you go). - SchroCat (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I did not engage in "edit warring". We were having a discussion on our talk pages, in which we were each leaving messages on each other's talk pages, and you did not respond to my last message, so I thought you abandoned the discussion. Had I known that there was a discussion on this talk page, I would not have edited the section, and would have joined the discussion. I usually alert other editors when I've started a talk page discussion in matters in which they are involved, and provide them a link to it. You offered no such thing until a few hours ago, for some reason.

And the name of the website in question is Rotten Tomatoes. Not Rancid Tomatoes.

I admit I hadn't noticed the deprecation of the "Fresh"/"Rotten" labels. In light of that, perhaps dispensing with them on Misplaced Pages is reasonable after all.

However, it's wrong to say that that RT "call the film "stylish, subversive, and above all fun", because this wording implies that RT presents original reviews or opinions of its own. It doesn't. It summarizes a consensus of reviews from those it counts, and this needs to be clarified for the reader. SchroCat has indicated:

As to RT's self-claimed "consensus", there is no such thing. What RT shows to is not a consensus: it is a summary of some key points. The OED defines a consensus as "Agreement in opinion; the collective unanimous opinion of a number of persons". That is a long way from what RT call a consensus.

Consensus refers to general agreement, not absolute agreement, which is likely non-existent in day-to-day parlance. Another example of this is Misplaced Pages's own definition of consensus, which also implicitly refers to the general and not the absolute. If you dislike the word "consensus", then we can use another word like "summary" as a compromise, which I suggested earlier. But stating that RT "calls" films this or that is false, and therefore inappropriate. Nightscream (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The correct place for a discussion about article content on on the article's talk page, not elsewhere: if you're trying to force something back onto a page that has been removed by a couple of editors, then its obviously contentious and the talk page is the place to go to discuss. It's certainly not up to me to leave messages on your talk page

Yes, Rancid Tomatoes calls the film something: this is not a quote from a critic, or something someone else has said, so - in plain English - they call it stylish, just as they describe it as stylish, judge it to be stylish, or (incorrectly) summarise it as stylish, etc: it's just a plain basic use of English, and certainly a long way from a consensus. Even when RT "summarizes a consensus of reviews" it still calls the film something: that's neither false nor inappropriate - whereas consensus is false, no matter how one company tries to redefine the term. As to your two definitions: one is American, and therefore inappropriate for an article in BrEng (the OED is the far superior judge of British English) and one is a working practice to manage usr behaviour for this website, so hardly appropriate.

Despite all that, even if Rancid Toms call their summary a consensus, it dpoes not have to make one iota of difference to us. We do not have to slavishly follow their MoS or their names for anything: it's probably good practice to avoid sticking too close to their terminology to ensure we at least look independent and neutral. - SchroCat (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I would be fine with changing "calling" to something else. We could break off that fragment into its own sentence and instead say something like, "It said critics found it 'stylish, subversive, and above all fun'." Still, per MOS:FILM#Critical response, I'd prefer to open the section with non-numerical prose of what critics thought of the film. Like I mentioned above, Googling for sources will show some possibilities. That way, we can convey to readers very directly what critics thought of the film, then report how Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic broke down the numbers. Erik (talk | contrib) 20:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of how the section is introduced (and it is one of those difficult ones where the aggregators disagree) I can confirm SchroCat's position that Rotten Tomatoes makes qualitative judgments about films. Apart from reviews that do not provide a rating, there is occasionally discord between RT and Metacritic over reviews where ratings are provided. It is basically a survey: it has criteria for the reviews it accepts, and then produces its own conclusions based on its own interpretation. I also agree we should try and stay away from its own unique nomenclature. Someone not familiar with Rotten Tomatoes may not know how to interpret a "fresh" rating i.e. is it good or average? is there a "ripe"? Rotten Tomatoes does qualify what the tomatometer score indicates on its site: "It represents the percentage of professional critic reviews that are positive for a given film or television show." Betty Logan (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Date

I see the opening line has been changed yet again from "Kingsman: The Secret Service is a 2014 ..." to 2015. As this was first shown on 13 December 2014 at Butt-Numb-A-Thon I think this falls into a 2014 listing. Does anyone have any other thoughts (based on a guideline or consensus elsewhere would be best, but we can settle on something suitable otherwise...) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the lead summarises this as well as it can. I can understand why editors change the date, but obviously if the public was able to watch it in 2014 then it is technically a 2014 film. The lead does stress that it was released theatrically in 2015 so it covers both bases. Betty Logan (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I intended for that addition of info to discourage more editors from changing it. We'll see how well it actually works. Sock (tock talk) 22:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The spoiler in the description

I don't see why we need to have such a huge spoiler right in the second sentence of the article. It stands to reason that a person that wants to see the film will read the description on wikipedia, but not the plot summary, and it will spoil it for them. It would appear that another user tried to do this revision but both of our edits were reverted, so I would like to discuss it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megadeoxys (talk • contribs) 08:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

We do not censor our articles and it is a long-standing practice, based on a firm consensus, to outline the full plot summary. We do not include teasers in the lead, which should adequately reflect the remainder of the article. – SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see any other movie page that has such a big plot point in the first few sentences. They all have a one sentence summary of the plot, not unlike the ones you see in the TV guides. I didn't ask to censor, but to leave this part out as it does not fit the meaning of the description. Megadeoxys (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, SchroCat, this is not the same ballpark as that. The entire film's plot does not revolve around Harry's death, it occurs more than three-quarters of the way through the film. The information is a completely unnecessary spoiler, and isn't an accurate plot description to boot. Sock (tock talk) 16:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't just delete the whole bloody summary: re-work it slightly if you want, but deleting it is pointless and ridiculous. It is accurate as far as it goes, which is to give a summary of the film in a line or two. Trying to claim we can't have it just because there is a spoiler is pointless: we do not hide details just because someoen hasn't seen the film - that's just ridiculous and entirely against every discussion about spoilers I've seen on Wiki. - SchroCat (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, how about the summary from IMDB then? "A spy organization recruits an unrefined, but promising street kid into the agency's ultra-competitive training program just as a global threat emerges from a twisted tech genius". Seems fitting. Would that be alright by you?Megadeoxys (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

IMDB have an entirely different set of rules and guidelines to us, and shouldn't be taken into consideration here: we do things our own way - not theirs. We would also not use that summary as it would be a copyright infringement. - SchroCat (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The guidelines have nothing to do with it, if the description is fitting. We can also link to the IMDB page, just like any other quotation.Megadeoxys (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

No, no no! We don't just lazily cut and paste sub-standard prose: we write to a much higher standard that IMDB (which is classed as an unreliable source). The IMDB text is not fitting: it is unencyclopaedic and informal - nowhere near where we should be. - SchroCat (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Megadeoxys, pointing out that he doesn't make it into the spy organization is a huge spoiler and shouldn't be one of the first lines you read. It does not ADD to the encyclopaediac context of the article at all, and only serves to ruin a fairly large part of the plot for people coming here who haven't seen the movie yet. As stated above, the IMDB description is fitting and appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.201.73.10 (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You're a little late to the party as the intro line was re-written five days ago and is fine as it stands. As has also been said above, the IMDB line is far, far, far from either fitting or appropriate. (See WP:NOTCENSORED). - SchroCat (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Just cut out the brief synopsis of the film entirely from the top box! What is it with you Brits and thinking that spoiling a movie is ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B162:46D9:2C98:7E42:ADD2:D6E7 (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what the nationality of any editor has to do with anything, but having a summary in the lead of an article is entirely standard and normal. - SchroCat (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

SchroCat, like Sock indicated above, we have to ask ourselves if the spoiler is needed. WP:Spoiler is also clear about that. At Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler, I've argued against unnecessary spoilers, especially as far as the lead is concerned. I don't see that the "Although he is not recruited for the Kingsman organisation" part is needed. In some regard, it clearly is not helping our readers. Flyer22 (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

And now we say he is recruited. Noooo - spoiler alert! Spoiler alert! If the previous wording is put back in 6 months, absolutely no-one will complain: as it is people are complaining because they haven't seen the film, so we're censoring it for a mi notify only. Now that doesn't help our readers. - SchroCat (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Sock dropped the "Although he is not recruited for the Kingsman organisation" part, and I obviously agree with that. As for stating that he is recruited, that is basic summary material, something that is known from the trailers and other basic summaries of the film. Readers expect basic summaries; they don't expect to be unnecessarily spoiled. And there will always be someone who is unnecessarily spoiled by the "Although he is not recruited for the Kingsman organisation" part, so I feel that wording should remain removed. If we are censoring, I feel that it is better than unnecessarily spoiling. Flyer22 (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it's a terrible thing to do, and in 6 months with the previous wording, no-one will make any comment, so it's a ridiculous, short-term view to take. - SchroCat (talk) 07:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree to disagree on this matter, for reasons I stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I see we're ignoring BRD now Sock? Is there any reason for forcing your version onto things against the wishes of other editors? I took the names out because they are fairly non-standard in leads (although you'll find them if you look), but mostly because it anything in brckets stops the flow of the prose. What there is there is now stilted as a result. - SchroCat (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

SchroCat, it's strange that you're claiming that I'm forcing a version of anything. It seems that my edit has been largely agreed upon, as I've removed an unnecessary spoiler while maintaining the integrity of the summary. And no one but you has made any comment on the actor's names being in parentheses, you just removed them. The main "bold" part of my edit was rewriting the lead, and I didn't consider the inclusion of cast members to be controversial. That was a mistake on my behalf, and I apologize, but you're being oddly aggressive over something so small. That, and you just removed it with no explanation. The one you left here makes a lot of sense to me, and I won't be reinstating the edit. I also admit to my mistake in removing the summary when Harry's death was mentioned. However, saying that no one will disagree with the previous wording six months from now is quite confusing, to say the least. People make comments on article spoilers years after a film is released, so when an event that doesn't occur until more than halfway through the film is in the lead, it's likely to become a topic of discussion in the future. I get that you don't agree with Flyer and myself, and I respect your opinion, but you're coming off as confrontational and it's quite discomforting. Sock (tock talk) 15:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing strange at all, and your edit had not been largely agreed upon. The current version (which is the one where you ignored BRD) is the one that was agreed upon. I'm also not being in any way aggressive, although I do get mildly annoyed when people ignore BRD, revert to their preferred choice, tell someone to go to the talk page, and then ignore the comment when it is made. In terms of spoilers, out guidelines are clear: we do not pull our punches with spoilers. It perplexes me why you think it's fine to do it, but the consensus here seems to be that we're going to ignore that particular policy and censor ourselves. I will accept that consensus, even if I fundamentally disagree with it. I stand by what I said that in six months the old wording will not be viewed as controversial: the same thing happened with people complaining about mentioning the Moneypenny character in Skyfall. All a big hoo-har at the time, but when it was put back in after six months, the consensus magically changed and absolutely no-one has mentioned it since. - SchroCat (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Censored scene in Latin America?

At least someone can prove the scene was cut, because I watched the church scene, maybe the violence could be somehow reduced, but it was not removed, adittionaly, as someone said, this scene is basic because of what happens at the end. In Mexico the scene was not removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.244.16.241 (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Character descriptions

Should we add character descriptions to the Cast section like we do with the James Bond 007 film articles? Some details such as Valentine's lisp are vital to the film, but not necessary on the Plot section. - Areaseven (talk) 04:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Request revert for the following edit: (cur | prev) 14:12, 4 March 2015‎ Areaseven (talk | contribs)‎ . . (33,549 bytes) (-392)‎ . . (→‎Cast: Rm minor characters)

I disagree with the above edit to remove certain actors from the cast list.

I propose that the following actors and characters be included in the cast section: Bjørn Floberg ... Scandinavian Prime Minister Hanna Alström ... Princess Tilde

With respect, I would offer the following arguments in favor of their inclusion:

(1) the characters are at least as consequential to the plot as Professor James Arnold played by Mark Hamill who also appears on the cast list.

(2) they are central to the gag ending which is of considerable interest (both positive and negative) to viewers.

(3) individual editors may not agree with the merit of the gag ending, but is nevertheless of significant public interest, and the names of the actors & actresses involved should be a part of the wikipedia article.

Thank you for your consideration.

73.180.170.160 (talk) 03:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.. Betty Logan (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Homage

Valentine's last word "perfect" is an homage to The Last Samurai (2003) where Katsumoto (Ken Watanabe) utters this word in his last breath after committing seppuku with the assistance of Algren (Tom Cruise). Psudaddy (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Cast and Starring

I made an addition to the cast list adding Samantha Womack. I see that addition was reverted. I wonder whether the person who reverted this understands the difference between a cast list and starring. I made no attempt to alter the starring list. I would have thought anyone with a Misplaced Pages entry who was cast into a film is fully entitled to be listed in the cast regardless of the extent of their role. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kingsman:_The_Secret_Service&diff=650523848&oldid=650512226 . In this case whilst not a major role - a star - certainly not a bit part. What do others think? Robertforsythe (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

2014 vs 2015

If this was released theatrically in both the UK and US commercially in 2015 then shouldn't it be 2015 rather than 2014?Tibetan Prayer 13:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The first public showing was in 2014, so that's what we've gone for. (See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 55#Kingsman: release date question). – SchroCat (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Soundtrack info deletion

Why should the soundtrack info be deleted? - Areaseven (talk) 05:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class film articles
• C-Class comic book films articles
• Comic book films task force articles
• C-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• C-Class Comics articles
• Bottom-importance Comics articles
• C-Class Comics articles of Bottom-importance
• WikiProject Comics articles