Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
: "''I reverted your edit because it wasn't an improvement and it wasn't necessary.''" - So you now say, suspiciously vaguely and without any proper explanation as to how they are unnecessary or in what way the previous edit was an improvement.
: "''I reverted your edit because it wasn't an improvement and it wasn't necessary.''" - So you now say, suspiciously vaguely and without any proper explanation as to how they are unnecessary or in what way the previous edit was an improvement.
: "''Look I didn't revert {{'}}in hope that others would support me{{'}}"''" - That's not what comments such as "''You made an edit and you were reverted. It happens all the time. If there is consensus to support your edit, then it goes back in''", "''You made an edit, it was reverted, now how about you chill out and allow others an opportunity to comment?''", and your utter lack of explanation for the revert (not to mention the blatant ] of ] and now your attempts at ]) all seem to indicate. ''']]]''' 04:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
: "''Look I didn't revert {{'}}in hope that others would support me{{'}}"''" - That's not what comments such as "''You made an edit and you were reverted. It happens all the time. If there is consensus to support your edit, then it goes back in''", "''You made an edit, it was reverted, now how about you chill out and allow others an opportunity to comment?''", and your utter lack of explanation for the revert (not to mention the blatant ] of ] and now your attempts at ]) all seem to indicate. ''']]]''' 04:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
::Wow... more of the same. Is it at all possible for you to calm down, even a little, and maybe lay off the insults and accusations? Like I said, it is accomplishing nothing. - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">'']''</span> 04:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Revision as of 04:19, 27 April 2018
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Seven (1995 film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Seven (1995 film) was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I don't know if the following is appropriate content, but the video game "Borderlands 2" has small cardboard loot boxes spread throughout the game and in one area, a box appears randomly with a pistol in it called "Gwen's Head". When you open the box, you hear what sounds like Pitt's mournful cry: "Aaaah. What's in the b-o-o-o-ox?". See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-lSBQs5RpQ47.214.183.73 (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like an interesting little easter egg, but to add it the article would necessitate creating a "Pop culture" sub-section and this doesn't really seem significant enough for that. Just imho though, other may see it differently however. - WOLFchild19:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Edit
Someone wants me to explain on talk why I removed a useless section. I removed it because it was useless. Happy now? Boredkarla (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
It's not useless, but I will agree a section that is just a block quote without context is not our best work. More details should be pulled out of the quote and the Art of the Title article to give context and then use the quoted material where appropriate. --Masem (t) 23:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
That looks better now, but either way we definitely want to keep something about the opening credits in the article. They were notable on their own for their style, which has since been copied by other directors for other films. I believe that section has been in the article for many, many years, so it was certainly the better move go improve it instead of just removing it. - WOLFchild01:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually, to be fair to Boredkarla, she did post lengthy edit summaries with her initial edit removing the section and also with subsequent reverts. But, yeah she is somewhat... blunt with her comments here. It could just be frustration, but taking into consideration some of her summaries and other talk page comments, maybe that's just her way... - WOLFchild02:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
The section obviously was useless - how can a lengthy quote without any context about something not even mentioned in the rest of the article be anything else? I am glad to see that something not useless has been put in its place. However, it still does not clearly explain what the title sequence consists of, and it does not make any mention of any how the title sequence was perceived as a piece of film making. I also find it bogged down in minutiae.
It was indeed very frustrating to make a clearly explained and necessary edit and find it undone without any meaningful explanation. WP:REVEXP nicely summarises why people feel aggrieved when someone does that to them. Boredkarla (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Boredkarla - Ok, I have to ask; if you think there is an issue with some content, why don"t you improve it? You talk about your "edits" when really, "deletions" is a more precise label. Out of your first 50 or so edits here, other than a half-dozen or so (complaints on user talk pages about being reverted) all of your edits are deletions. How about contributing...? And why do you seem to get so irritated by... everything ? It seems like all your comments and summaries are mostly scathing criticisms and snarky complaints. You just joined, don't you a) want to get something positive from this? and b) want to help build this project? I don't see how you can enjoy something if it constantly frustrates you and you can't really build anything by only taking away. Just saying'... - WOLFchild07:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, that looks like a whole lot of misconceptions.
if you think there is an issue with some content, why don"t you improve it?
I did.
You talk about your "edits" when really, "deletions" is a more precise label. Out of your first 50 or so edits here, other than a half-dozen or so (complaints on user talk pages about being reverted) all of your edits are deletions.
None of my edits are deletions; anything I removed is still in the article history. All of my edits are edits. Editing can involve adding material, removing material, or rearranging material. There is no obligation to do any one type of edit more than any other.
How about contributing...?
I do, and I do not appreciate the insulting suggestion that I do not.
And why do you seem to get so irritated by... everything ?
You have certainly irritated me, by undoing my edit twice without giving a reason. Also see below. But you are not everything, you know.
It seems like all your comments and summaries are mostly scathing criticisms and snarky complaints
Who exactly would be well served if nobody criticised substandard content here?
You just joined, don't you a) want to get something positive from this? and b) want to help build this project?
Yes, and yes, and again I do not appreciate the insulting suggestion that I don't.
I don't see how you can enjoy something if it constantly frustrates you and you can't really build anything by only taking away.
Do you criticise a sculptor who chisels away stone? Do you criticise a doctor who removes a tumour? Do you criticise a gardener who pulls out weeds?
Just saying'
I've never seen anyone use that phrase attached to something that wasn't obviously intended to be irritating.
It seems that basically, your problem with my edits was that you think any edit that removes material is inherently bad. I think that's a huge misunderstanding of the nature of editing. Boredkarla (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, that looks like a whole lot of rage. Look "Doc", while you're out there trying to "sculpt" some kind of "garden", keep in mind that every article here didn't start as a big chunk of marble with a masterpiece contained within, it started as a blank page. The only way they get created, expanded and for the most part, improved, is by adding content. What have you added? How is gutting this page of a significant amount of sourced and relevant content making it better, as opposed to taking that content and making some changes? Also keep in mind that everyone here is volunteer editor, and no one appointed you as a managing editor, and no one is "well served" by demeaning criticism and insults. You are no great artist here, it's easy to swoop in afterwards, carving away at everyone else's work and mouthing off while doing it, but that doesn't make you any kind of a savior of this project. Now, are we done here? I think we're done here. Try to cheer up and have a nice day - WOLFchild03:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
How is gutting this page of a significant amount of sourced and relevant content making it better, as opposed to taking that content and making some changes?
"Sourced" is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for inclusion. "Relevant" was the very problem - it was not relevant. It was a lengthy quote about something not mentioned anywhere in the rest of the article. And yet you can't grasp that that was a problem? I took the irrelevant material out. Removing substandard content makes articles better. What is there now bears no relation to what I took out and is better than what I took out. My edit helped to improve the article and I am disgusted that you chose to attack me for making it. You really do seem to misunderstand the nature of editing in a big way. Boredkarla (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
You've moved from 'rage' to 'disgust', congrats! You are making your way through the five stages of 'Wiki-grief' (1: cluelessness, 2: rage, 3: disgust, 4: indifference, 5: acceptance). Once you reach stage five, you'll realize that "reverting" is not "attacking". Now, take a look a look at Masem's comments below; he makes a good point about "working collaboratively". Still hoping your day gets better... - WOLFchild17:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Hmm... now that creates quite the 'pot-kettle' scenario, doesn't it? I don't know where you're from, but in my part of the world you can be an adult and have a sense of humor. You just don't seem like a particularly happy person. Good luck with that. - WOLFchild17:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
As a matter of working collaboratively, removing sourced content is generally a last step that should be taken over trying to edit to improve/expand it, or to open discussion related to problems. As it stood, I agree it didn't seem significant here, but when I started poking for sources, "Seven"'s title sequence is one that is highly praised (which I still have to find the original sources to be able to include that but one should include a New York Times Magazine article). Thus, discussion of the title sequence is noted in sources and could be expanded upon, starting from the quote and its source that was provided. Deletion should only be the case if you can find no other compelling means to improve the content - eg if the only discussion of the title sequence was from that source and nothing else, then by UNDUE there might be a valid reason to remove it. --Masem (t) 13:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Masem - Unfortunately, because the movie is from 1995, that may make sourcing more difficult, but the opening title sequence is a significant component of the film and, as I recall, was much discussed and as you say; "highly praised" by critics, industry types and fans alike. In this review, it is described as "the beginning of a new renaissance in title design" and notes it as being ranked by IFC in 2011 as "the third greatest title sequence of all time". So, it is certainly worth noting in this article. Thanks for for your efforts to improve it. - WOLFchild17:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
To some extent yes, sourcing will be harder, but my point to non-deletion as the preferred method is that when I did a first search to expand on sourcing, it was very clear that the title sequence was significant beyond just the film, to give enough reason to explain why we have a section on it - a section to be improved but a section nevertheless. I do hope the NYTMag quote is not a case of citogenesis since I've yet to solidfy when that was even published, but once we can source those directly, they should be included. --Masem (t) 21:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Plot
Thewolfchild seems intent on reverting my valid correction to the plot for some completely unexplained reason. As it stands, the plot can't stay the way it is, because any reader who hasn't seen the film for themselves is going to assume that Tracey is envy. The current plot is unclear and far from "fine the way it is" (as wolfchild put it). It is a requirement that plot summaries be accessible to all readers (not just those who are already familiar with the article's subject matter), so some substantial elucidation is needed to justify their reverts. DarkKnight214922:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh relax. You made an edit and you were reverted. It happens all the time. If there is consensus to support your edit, then it goes back in. If not, then it doesn't. AFAIC, the plot was fine the way it is. It's been that way for awhile and it's not as if people have been struggling to understand it. Hope your day gets better... - WOLFchild23:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
You say that as if you are entitled to have your preferred edit in the article just because you made a revert. That's not how Misplaced Pages works. Honestly, if you can't provide a genuine argument as to how it's "just fine", then your edit will be reverted by default. In the meantime, I would suggest you read our policies on articles and plot summaries. Sometimes, problems in articles will go by unnoticed or unfixed for years at a time. Just because no one has spoken up about it (until now) doesn't mean the plot summary was clear. Hell, it isn't even the only part of this frankly poorly written article that will confuse the vast number of readers not already well versed in the subject matter. Shrug my genuine points off all you want, but you do not own the article and talk pages are for actual discussion. DarkKnight214901:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Also, I suggest you read WP:BRD-NOT, "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense exists, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle. BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD." Please avoid wiki-lawyering, as your very arguments (and lack of a valid one) are against policy. DarkKnight214901:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
You should read WP's policies & guidelines yourself before you try preaching them to others. I don't claim to have the to final say here and don't, but neither do you. And, simply reverting you does not imply ownership, but accusing someone of ownership without the basis to do so is considered a personal attack. You made an edit, it was reverted, now how about you chill out and allow others an opportunity to comment? If you're going to get this bent outta shape every time you get reverted, you might want to consider another hobby other than editing Misplaced Pages. In the meantime, if there is support for your changes, then in they'll go. If there is isn't, then they won't. I think you already know all this, so calm down and hopefully your day will get better. - WOLFchild02:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
There is no personal attack given that your very arguments are a violation of the policies I just named, and you still have not provided a valid reason for the revert. In fact, your only argument can be chalked up to "'Eh, as far as I am concerned, the previous edit was fine. No one has said anything before, so whatever." As previously stated, you need a valid reason to revert someone. And with your comment "You made an edit, it was reverted, now how about you chill out and allow others an opportunity to comment?", you have pretty much confirmed that you only reverted me on the off-chance that someone might support you. You are in direct violation of WP:BRD-NOT, WP:LAWYER, WP:OWNERSHIP and, with your unsubstantiated WP:NPA accusation, WP:GAME. I will once again quote WP:OWN for you, "No one "owns" content (including articles or any page at Misplaced Pages). If you create or edit an article, others can make changes, and you cannot prevent them from doing so. In addition, you should not undo their edits without good reason." I would suggest that you (yes, you specifically) provide a valid reason for your revert. Otherwise, it will be reverted by default and attempting to edit war without actual elucidation will be met with a report (and any attempts to file a report on me would be an automatic WP:BOOMERANG given your statements on this post). DarkKnight214903:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
You really expect a response to these increasingly hostile and uncivil rants? Look I didn't revert "in hope that others would support me", I reverted your edit because it wasn't an improvement and it wasn't necessary. Get over it already. This constant bitching and whining isn't accomplishing anything. Take a break, give others a chance to contribute (others usually do here) and if there is support for your changes, then so be it. But jeez, relax already. It's like you're so pissed off that you can't type out your retorts fast enough and then you need to make another six edits to correct your mistakes because you don't even bother to use the preview button. Calm down, take the night off and come back to it tomorrow. The article isn't going anywhere and it will survive another day without your edit. Have a good evening. - WOLFchild03:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
The only thing hostile and uncivil here is your increasingly condescending responses. My posts were very straightforward, but they are hardly emotional. You simply didn't like what I had to say. And with "Get over it already. This constant bitching and whining isn't accomplishing anything. It's like you're so pissed off that you can't type out your retorts fast enough and then you need to make another six edits to correct your mistakes because you don't even bother to use the preview button", you can (ironically) add WP:NPA to the growing list of policies you are violating.
"I reverted your edit because it wasn't an improvement and it wasn't necessary." - So you now say, suspiciously vaguely and without any proper explanation as to how they are unnecessary or in what way the previous edit was an improvement.
"Look I didn't revert 'in hope that others would support me'"" - That's not what comments such as "You made an edit and you were reverted. It happens all the time. If there is consensus to support your edit, then it goes back in", "You made an edit, it was reverted, now how about you chill out and allow others an opportunity to comment?", and your utter lack of explanation for the revert (not to mention the blatant wiki-lawyering of WP:BRD and now your attempts at gaming) all seem to indicate. DarkKnight214904:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Wow... more of the same. Is it at all possible for you to calm down, even a little, and maybe lay off the insults and accusations? Like I said, it is accomplishing nothing. - WOLFchild04:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
