Talk:Independence Day (1996 film): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 21:05, 14 May 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Independence Day (1996 film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Independence Day (1996 film). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Independence Day (1996 film) at the Reference desk.

Independence Day (1996 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 6, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

Film: German / American

	Film portal 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 German cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Science Fiction Mid‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

20th Century Studios High‑importance

	20th Century Studios portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 20th Century Studios, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 20th Century Studios and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.20th Century StudiosWikipedia:WikiProject 20th Century StudiosTemplate:WikiProject 20th Century Studios20th Century Studios
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 1 July, 2016.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by when more than 6 sections are present.

"of unknown origin"

If it is of unknown origin, how do we know it is extraterrestrial? Couldn't it be subterranean? marine? etc--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Partially-known origin" doesn't have much of a ring to it. If there's only one place we know it's NOT from (Earth), you can probably round up to "unknown."

Title dispute

The title dispute described in the article doesn't compute. You can neither copyright nor trademark a title, least of all a title that is the name of a holiday. Only in cases where a person could reasonably be misled, by using the specific title of a known franchise or a movie coming out at the same time, could there be any real dispute. Warner Bros could have said or done nothing, no matter what Fox chose to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.186.125 (talk) 05:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You most definitely can trademark a title. In fact, that's the main thing trademarks are used for. The title being the name of a holiday is completely irrelevant. And if you really think there can't be any real dispute unless the movie is coming out at the same time, try releasing a movie under the title "Star Wars" or "E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial" and see what happens.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Independence Daysaster

Should Independence Daysaster be mentioned? It might not be an "official" sequel but it is clearly referential.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a sentence about it under Legacy, as it has no direct connection to this film. Ideally with a source that notes the connection between the two. DonIago (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Independence Day (film logo).svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: English 465 Post-Apocalyptic Science Fiction

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NRobinson22 (article contribs).

Mixed reviews?

According to the article the film got "mixed reviews", but then in the "Reception" part it says:

"Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator, reports that 68% of 81 surveyed critics gave the film a positive review; the average rating is 6.6/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "The plot is thin and so is character development, but as a thrilling, spectacle-filled summer movie, Independence Day delivers." On Metacritic, the film has a score of 59 out of 100 based on 19 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews"."

Isn't a 68% rating on Rotten Tomatoes quite high? Too high to say it got only "mixed" reviews? Dornwald (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not when MC says "mixed or average reviews". That said, one option would be to let the sources speak for themselves and remove the overall summation unless a secondary source can be provided. DonIago (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a source that says reviews were "mixed or average" isn't really proof that they were "mixed". Also since there's another source that kinda says otherwise (Rotten Tomatoes), I think the option you brought up would be a good move.

Edit: I'm not sure if "mixed or average" is supposed to mean that those two words are synonymous. It seems to be a pretty broad category to me, ranging from 40 to 60. To me, "mixed" has more of a negative connotation than "average".

Dornwald (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{skip to talk}}
+{{Skip to talk}}
-{{talk header|noarchive=yes|search=no}}
+{{Talk header|noarchive=yes|search=no}}
+{{Not a forum}}
-{{ArticleHistory
+{{Article history
 |action1=GAN
 |action1date=15:25, 6 September 2008
@@ Line 10: / Line 11: @@
 |topic=film
 }}
+{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|1=
-{{WikiProjectBannerShell|
- {{Film|class=GA|German-task-force=yes|American-task-force=yes}}
+{{WikiProject Film|German-task-force=yes|American-task-force=yes}}
- {{Science Fiction Project|class=GA|type=Article|importance=mid}}
+{{WikiProject Science Fiction|importance=mid}}
+{{WikiProject 20th Century Studios|importance=High}}
+{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|user=Twofingered Typist|date=1 July, 2016}}
 }}
-{{notaforum}}
 {{User:MiszaBot/config
 |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
 |maxarchivesize = 100K
-|counter = 3
+|counter = 4
-|minthreadsleft = 4
+|minthreadsleft = 6
 |minthreadstoarchive = 2
 |algo = old(180d)
 |archive = Talk:Independence Day (1996 film)/Archive %(counter)d
 }}
-{{Archives|auto=short|collapsible=yes|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=180}}
+{{Archives|auto=short|collapsible=yes|search=yes|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=180}}
-{{User:WildBot/m04|sect={{User:WildBot/m03|1|Star_(classification)#Movie.2C_TV.2C_theatre.2C_and_music_classification|five-star rating}}|m04}}
+== "of unknown origin" ==
-== Claim about most model work used in a movie ==
+If it is of unknown origin, how do we know it is extraterrestrial?  Couldn't it be subterranean? marine? etc--[[User:Richardson mcphillips|Richardson mcphillips]] ([[User talk:Richardson mcphillips|talk]]) 00:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
-The article claims that this movie's "model-making department built more than twice as many miniatures for the production than had ever been built for any film before" and it has a source but I'm terribly afraid this info might be outdated. Miniature effects were used heavily in Batman Begins, LOTR trilogy, and it's said that the miniatures used in the earthquake scene in 2012 would cover a football field. Someone might want to check some sources around the web to see if this claim in the article still holds up.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.178.185.47|24.178.185.47]] ([[User talk:24.178.185.47|talk]]) 00:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+:"Partially-known origin" doesn't have much of a ring to it. If there's only one place we know it's NOT from (Earth), you can probably round up to "unknown."
-:Hence the qualifier "before" in the mentioned statement.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.75.182.232|74.75.182.232]] ([[User talk:74.75.182.232|talk]]) 05:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+== Title dispute ==
-== SEQUEL to Independence Day get's green light and May 2015 shoot date; Emmerich not locked as director (yet) ==
+The title dispute described in the article doesn't compute. You can neither copyright nor trademark a title, least of all a title that is the name of a holiday. Only in cases where a person could reasonably be misled, by using the specific title of a known franchise or a movie coming out at the same time, could there be any real dispute. Warner Bros could have said or done nothing, no matter what Fox chose to do.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.72.186.125|75.72.186.125]] ([[User talk:75.72.186.125#top|talk]]) 05:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-I've already added it to the page, but <i>just</i> in case, I'll leave [http://deadline.com/2014/11/independence-day-sequel-fox-green-light-1201298276/ this] here. The film will not be split into two parts as it was earlier said to be, noted in Deadlines article and noted on the page itself, turning the "sequels" section to "Sequel". [[Special:Contributions/2601:C:780:234:FDD2:EA5D:A9AB:EF0F|2601:C:780:234:FDD2:EA5D:A9AB:EF0F]] ([[User talk:2601:C:780:234:FDD2:EA5D:A9AB:EF0F|talk]]) 07:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
+:You most definitely can trademark a title. In fact, that's the main thing trademarks are used for. The title being the name of a holiday is completely irrelevant. And if you really think there can't be any real dispute unless the movie is coming out at the same time, try releasing a movie under the title "Star Wars" or "E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial" and see what happens.--[[User:Martin IIIa|Martin IIIa]] ([[User talk:Martin IIIa|talk]]) 21:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
-== Dean Devlin confirms Emmerich as director for Independence Day sequel.  ==
+== Independence Daysaster ==
+Should Independence Daysaster be mentioned?  It might not be an "official" sequel but it is clearly referential.--[[User:Richardson mcphillips|Richardson mcphillips]] ([[User talk:Richardson mcphillips|talk]]) 00:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
-Here's the [http://www.nerdreport.com/2014/12/04/independence-day-2-exclusive-why-theyre-not-doing-2-sequels-at-once/ source]. Hope to see it added to the page [[Special:Contributions/2601:C:780:234:8DC9:DA35:5440:A919|2601:C:780:234:8DC9:DA35:5440:A919]] ([[User talk:2601:C:780:234:8DC9:DA35:5440:A919|talk]]) 23:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
+:Maybe a sentence about it under Legacy, as it has no direct connection to this film. Ideally with a source that notes the connection between the two. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 04:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
+== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion ==
-== Plot summary issues ==
+The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
+* [[commons:File:Independence Day (film logo).svg|Independence Day (film logo).svg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: speedy | 2021-07-11T13:54:11.581710 | Independence Day (film logo).svg -->
+You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 13:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
+==Wiki Education assignment: English 465 Post-Apocalyptic Science Fiction==
-Lately, there's been an edit war circling around the plot summary. Well, let me give my two cents on it. Placing cast members on the plot summary is completely unnecessary, as the article already has a Cast section below it.
+==Wiki Education assignment: English 465 Post-Apocalyptic Science Fiction==
-Now feel free to agree or disagree. And for those who disagree, please give a clear explanation on why plot summaries should have character references. - [[User:Areaseven|Areaseven]] ([[User talk:Areaseven|talk]]) 00:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
+{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/San_Francisco_State_University/English_465_Post-Apocalyptic_Science_Fiction_(Spring_2022) | assignments = [[User:NRobinson22|NRobinson22]] | start_date = 2022-01-22 | end_date = 2022-05-13 }}
-:Agreed. I believe it was at [[WT:FILM]] where a loose consensus was established that when the length of the plot summary is a concern, removing the actor names from it should be one of the first steps if there's already a Cast section. It's unnecessary duplication at that point. I also have to say, as someone who was trying to trim the summary down to a point where including the names might have been a non-issue, that it's frustrating that my edits were being reverted wholesale. Putting aside including actor names, I think my other edits not only have merit but were intended to ''help'' those looking to include the actor names. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 02:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
+== Mixed reviews? ==
-::My particular issue isn't with the cast members, (but I do agree they're unnecessary,) rather the plot details themselves, which are just a bit silly:
+According to the article the film got "mixed reviews", but then in the "Reception" part it says:
-::*''"rejoice in their true Independence Day"''
-::*''"unleash their devastating primary weapon"''
-::*''"White House is destroyed in spectacular fashion"'' - phrases like these read as though they're from a comic book.
+"Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator, reports that 68% of 81 surveyed critics gave the film a positive review; the average rating is 6.6/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "The plot is thin and so is character development, but as a thrilling, spectacle-filled summer movie, Independence Day delivers." On Metacritic, the film has a score of 59 out of 100 based on 19 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews"."
-::Just because filmplot says 700 words, doesn't mean we should try to bring it to that many, just that we shouldn't exceed it.  [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 08:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::Those are some of the additional issues I tried to address in my edits. I would find this whole situation less problematic if the only revert was re-adding the actor names, but I think a wholesale reversion of my cuts was particularly unwarranted. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 12:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
+Isn't a 68% rating on Rotten Tomatoes quite high? Too high to say it got only "mixed" reviews? [[User:Dornwald|Dornwald]] ([[User talk:Dornwald|talk]]) 17:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
-::::I can't believe we're arguing over a film synopsis — but since we are, there are a lot of problems with this article, beginning with the cast list, which includes a bunch of trivia that belongs in the "production" section, if it belongs anywhere. I'll fix that at some point, as time allows — we all have a finite amount of time to devote to this project.  As for the synopsis, removing all descriptive phrases — leaving the summary toothless, gutless, and crotchless — isn't encyclopedic.  It's just boring.  Sure, some phrases "read as though they're from a comic book."  Have you seen the movie?  It's a comic book! Leave the synopsis alone. [[User:DoctorJoeE|<font color="green">DoctorJoeE</font>]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/DoctorJoeE|<sup><font color="maroon">review transgressions</font></sup>]]/[[User talk:DoctorJoeE|<font color="maroon"><sub>talk to me!</sub></font>]] 13:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::::Commands such as ''"Leave the synopsis alone"'' tend to have the opposite effect.  And while the film may be a comic book - Wikipedia isn't:  The plot can be perfectly engaging and descriptive without those turns of phrase - as [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] demonstrated with his edits.  [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 14:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
-::::::He or she demonstrated exactly the opposite, actually. But now that an admin has locked it up, it will have to remain as is. Not that it matters, it's only a movie synopsis. [[User:DoctorJoeE|<font color="green">DoctorJoeE</font>]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/DoctorJoeE|<sup><font color="maroon">review transgressions</font></sup>]]/[[User talk:DoctorJoeE|<font color="maroon"><sub>talk to me!</sub></font>]] 14:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::::::For the record, I requested full page protection after a notice was posted at [[WT:FILM#Additional editors requested|WT:FILM]] about the activity here. One or two reversions is completely normal when there is a mild dispute, but this was clearly crossing another threshold. It is only locked for 4 days, so hopefully that's enough time to sort it out here and form a working consensus. I haven't looked too deeply into the proposed edits to the plot section, but I agree with others here that the current state needs some work. Per [[WP:FILMPLOT]], the summary should describe events "as basically as possible" and "avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail". Clearly, this part of the guideline is being ignored. There is more than one way to improve the summary, and we should be open to suggestions at this point. --[[User:GoneIn60|GoneIn60]] ([[User talk:GoneIn60|talk]]) 16:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
-::::::::I'm glad others agree that the article needs work, which is impossible at present, due to page protection, which was an over-reaction, IMHO. "As basically as possible" does not mean "as boring as possible" -- and certainly does not mean removing cast references, which started this whole thing.  When I rewrote the synopsis, months ago, no one objected at all.  For the record.  [[User:DoctorJoeE|<font color="green">DoctorJoeE</font>]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/DoctorJoeE|<sup><font color="maroon">review transgressions</font></sup>]]/[[User talk:DoctorJoeE|<font color="maroon"><sub>talk to me!</sub></font>]] 16:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::::::::I would be curious to see [[WP:DIFF|diffs]] for the changes you made, as I see edits made by you to the Plot in March, but nothing earlier. I'm assuming by "months ago" that you mean farther back in time. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 16:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::::::::Of all the points you could have taken away from my post, the most important one is being "open to suggestions". There are now quite a few editors that believe a change to the plot section is warranted. Stating that there were no objections months ago is irrelevant, as [[WP:CCC|consensus can change]], especially when "previously unconsidered arguments" are raised as they have been above. --[[User:GoneIn60|GoneIn60]] ([[User talk:GoneIn60|talk]]) 17:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
-::::::::::I have no problem with a change of consensus, if there is one. (Several editors also believe the status quo is fine, apparently, judging by recent reverts by users other than myself.) I do have a problem with an editor leaving a template message on my talk page, accusing me of "adding a significant amount of unneeded detail" to the synopsis -- which is both uncivil and untrue, given that I'm the one who eliminated most of the nonsense already, and brought it down under 700 words. Once this tempest in a teapot has subsided and the page protection expires, perhaps we can get back to improving the article.  Or at least you all can; I'm moving on. Have a nice day. [[User:DoctorJoeE|<font color="green">DoctorJoeE</font>]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/DoctorJoeE|<sup><font color="maroon">review transgressions</font></sup>]]/[[User talk:DoctorJoeE|<font color="maroon"><sub>talk to me!</sub></font>]] 19:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::::::::::On the contrary, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Independence_Day_(1996_film)&oldid=717284265 your version of the Plot summary] was over 700 words. And I have to say, this is the first time I've ever heard that particular phrasing called uncivil, and that template has been in use since 2010. I see ''one'' other editor reinstating your changes, and I note that they haven't presented an opinion here yet, though I acknowledge there could be a variety of reasons why that would be the case. If you're moving on, then we can contact an admin to have the protection lifted in any case, as it was only invoked because of the edit-warring. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 19:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
-{{outdent|11}}
-I think leaving the page protection intact is a good thing, as it could very well take a few days or so to reach some sort of consensus. The discussion here needs to [[WP:FOC|focus more on content and less on the contributor]]. Some of the issues have been identified above, but so far, there haven't been any concrete proposals on how to fix them. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]], perhaps you and/or someone else can write up a draft in a sandbox and submit it here for review (or provide a diff, if you prefer to stick with your previous attempt). I'm sure we can all weigh in more easily with suggestions if we're all looking at the same thing. --[[User:GoneIn60|GoneIn60]] ([[User talk:GoneIn60|talk]]) 19:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
-:I'm fine with the current version. I'd even be fine with adding cast names back in if the total word count of the Plot section remains under 700 words in the process, though I consider their inclusion redundant. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 20:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
-::Ah, I didn't realize your changes were reinstated before page protection set in! Well in that case, if anyone has any objections to the changes made ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Independence_Day_(1996_film)&diff=717317075&oldid=717313664 diff]), here's your chance to speak up. Please be specific when explaining your position. --[[User:GoneIn60|GoneIn60]] ([[User talk:GoneIn60|talk]]) 20:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::I've made my opinion clear as well - I think that the current revision is the one to keep, sans cast, sans comic book.  [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 21:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
-::::As have I; I prefer most of the pre-change version.  If you make a change from the status quo and others object, the onus is on you to explain, as it is assumed the status quo is the consensus view, else it wouldn't be the status quo. These were small changes, not worthy of warring over, but worthy of discussion.  And if the initiating user doesn't understand why leaving a template message on an established editor's talk page is uncivil, perhaps someone will explain; it seems pretty obvious to me. [[User:DoctorJoeE|<font color="green">DoctorJoeE</font>]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/DoctorJoeE|<sup><font color="maroon">review transgressions</font></sup>]]/[[User talk:DoctorJoeE|<font color="maroon"><sub>talk to me!</sub></font>]] 05:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
-{{od}}You may make an assumption that the status quo is the consensus, but (to quote a phrase) ''it seems pretty obvious to me'' that when your insistence on the previous version is reverted by three different editors - consensus has changed.  Whilst you are correct in that those promoting change need to justify change, (as we have above) that doesn't mean you get to sit back and relax - you would do well to justify your own position, as saying "it's the current version" is not really enough - ''why'' are our changes not good enough, and ''why'' is it essential to the plot section to include the cast members when there is already an excessive (as you point out) cast section?  [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 10:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
+:Not when MC says "mixed or average reviews". That said, one option would be to let the sources speak for themselves and remove the overall summation unless a secondary source can be provided. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 19:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
-In addition, we have moved past the edit history of the page as our only indicator of consensus. Now we have this discussion, which is currently trending in favor of the changes that were made by Donlago. So far, no one has provided a specific reason as to why the changes should be reverted. On the contrary, specific reasons justifying the change have been provided above. If no one steps up to the plate, the status quo is likely to change. --[[User:GoneIn60|GoneIn60]] ([[User talk:GoneIn60|talk]]) 17:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
+::I think a source that says reviews were "mixed or average" isn't really proof that they were "mixed". Also since there's another source that kinda says otherwise (Rotten Tomatoes), I think the option you brought up would be a good move.
+Edit: I'm not sure if "mixed or average" is supposed to mean that those two words are synonymous. It seems to be a pretty broad category to me, ranging from 40 to 60. To me, "mixed" has more of a negative connotation than "average".
-:It's not ''my'' assumption, it's a basic WP premise: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor [[Wikipedia:Silence and consensus|can be assumed to have consensus]]."  Another basic premise, once again, is that the onus is on the editor making the changes to justify them.  You mentioned that 3 different editors reverted to the changed version, but failed to mention that 3 ''other'' different editors reverted it back, so your new consensus is shaky at best. I've stated my objections already, more than once.  If, once the page is unlocked, you are interested in working toward a mutually satisfactory compromise, great.  If not, we will need to get an admin involved. I know it's only a film plot, and who cares, really -- but the principle is important.  [[User:DoctorJoeE|<font color="green">DoctorJoeE</font>]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/DoctorJoeE|<sup><font color="maroon">review transgressions</font></sup>]]/[[User talk:DoctorJoeE|<font color="maroon"><sub>talk to me!</sub></font>]] 19:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
+ [[User:Dornwald|Dornwald]] ([[User talk:Dornwald|talk]]) 20:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
-::To which three editors (other than yourself, presumably) are you referring, and why are they not speaking in defense of your edits? I have to ask since my review of the history for the article shows ''one'' editor reverting to your version, and they have yet to participate in this discussion. My advice would be that you consider [[WP:PING|pinging]] them.
-::Part of the issue I have with this entire situation is that, in my estimation, you keep making claims for which I cannot find supporting evidence. I'd still like diffs for the edits that you claimed you made months ago. Or did you mean the ones you made in March? You claimed you brought the plot down, but the only edits I'm seeing you having made actually increased the word-count.
-::Thank you in advance for providing the information to back up your claims. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 19:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::Okay, weeks ago, not months ago -- I rewrote a poorly written synopsis, and the edits stuck. I saw 3 reverts and didn't notice that one editor reverted twice; but you are deflecting from the central question: Are you or are you not willing to work out a compromise on this, or is it your way or the highway? [[User:DoctorJoeE|<font color="green">DoctorJoeE</font>]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/DoctorJoeE|<sup><font color="maroon">review transgressions</font></sup>]]/[[User talk:DoctorJoeE|<font color="maroon"><sub>talk to me!</sub></font>]] 19:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
-::::Given that current consensus seems to favor my edits, my advice, if you want a compromise, is that you offer one while replying to the comment(s) below. My view is that I already tried to offer one when I trimmed the plot in an attempt to bring the word-count to a point that the cast names might have been able to be included, and that you implicitly rejected that compromise at the time by reverting my changes wholesale and by coming across as less than receptive in your comments to me here and on your Talk page. Cheers. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 20:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::::I'll probably work on a compromise, time permitting, once the page is unlocked -- but I see two misunderstandings here that should be addressed: (1) The basic guideline in question is [[WP:BRD]] -- you made some changes, you were reverted; the third stage is to discuss.  "Discuss" does not mean "take the revert personally, restore all changes in a huff, brush off the objection with a generic warning template, don't explain, just dig in your heels." Once again, the onus is on the editor making the changes to justify them, and favorable comments from a couple of editors doesn't absolve you of that responsibility. (2) You need to be careful about issuing templated messages to experienced editors; it's insulting, and implies that you can't be bothered to explain your edits with a personal message. I may have overreacted slightly -- and your "diss" may not have been intentional - but it was still a "diss", and it triggered contention that could easily have been avoided.  Fortunately, it's just a plot summary, and this minor content dispute has gone on long enough.  I think we're done here. [[User:DoctorJoeE|<font color="green">DoctorJoeE</font>]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/DoctorJoeE|<sup><font color="maroon">review transgressions</font></sup>]]/[[User talk:DoctorJoeE|<font color="maroon"><sub>talk to me!</sub></font>]] 16:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
-::@DoctorJoeE: The fact of the matter is that we are forming a new consensus right here in this discussion. The onus to explain the proposed edit was initiated by Areaseven and addressed by Chaheel Riens and Donlago, who are attempting to resolve the issue on the article's talk page in accordance with [[WP:DR]]. You say you've stated your objections already, but looking above, this is all I see:
-:::1) {{tq|"...removing all descriptive phrases — leaving the summary toothless, gutless, and crotchless — isn't encyclopedic. It's just boring."}}
-:::2) {{tq|"I prefer most of the pre-change version."}}
-::The first statement isn't specific enough. You haven't stated exactly what descriptive phrase was removed that you want back in. You should start by quoting some examples. The second statement is basically saying, "I prefer X over Y", which is not helpful to the discussion. You need to elaborate. --[[User:GoneIn60|GoneIn60]] ([[User talk:GoneIn60|talk]]) 19:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::Once again, the onus is on the editor making the changes to justify them! What part of that is not clear?  I don't see any specific justification from you of your edits, other than that they "have merit".  Why did you take out that the White House was destroyed "in spectacular fashion"?  That scene was the most famous teaser of that decade.  Why take out that the force field was "impenetrable"? It's an important plot point. What's wrong with "ruthless" as a descriptor of a ruthless invader that plans to exterminate the entire Earth population? Why did you take out that Hiller and Levinson were presumably going on a suicide mission, when that point is made more than once in dialog? Other changes were fine -- "their true Independence Day" is something I contemplated taking out myself, when I did the original rewrite, and I probably should have.  But once again, you're supposed to be justifying your changes, so ''you'' are the one who needs to elaborate.  And for a third time, are you or are you not willing to work out a compromise?  [[User:DoctorJoeE|<font color="green">DoctorJoeE</font>]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/DoctorJoeE|<sup><font color="maroon">review transgressions</font></sup>]]/[[User talk:DoctorJoeE|<font color="maroon"><sub>talk to me!</sub></font>]] 20:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
-::::Might I suggest that, rather than asking us whether we're willing to work out a compromise, you propose one? It seems that everyone other than you is happy with the version we have right now, so if you want us to favor a different direction, why not suggest one? [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 20:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::::"Everyone" is you and a couple of others?  I'll be happy to have a go at crafting a compromise once you agree to it and the page is unlocked. Meanwhile, you're not making any effort to specifically justify your changes, nor answer any of the specific questions I just asked, in response to your request for specific objections. [[User:DoctorJoeE|<font color="green">DoctorJoeE</font>]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/DoctorJoeE|<sup><font color="maroon">review transgressions</font></sup>]]/[[User talk:DoctorJoeE|<font color="maroon"><sub>talk to me!</sub></font>]] 21:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
-::::@DoctorJoeE: Just a disclaimer that you responded above as if I made the edits to the article. I have not, nor have I given a final opinion on the matter. I was simply encouraging you to be more specific with your objection, and it looks like in your last post, we may finally be getting somewhere. There appears to be some middle ground that you and Donlago can work on getting to. --[[User:GoneIn60|GoneIn60]] ([[User talk:GoneIn60|talk]]) 21:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::::Apologies, that was my mistake -- but it doesn't change the fact that the responsibility for justifying proposed changes lies with the editor making those changes. I elaborated, just the same. So far, no response to my questions, other than "current consensus seems to favor my edits". [[User:DoctorJoeE|<font color="green">DoctorJoeE</font>]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/DoctorJoeE|<sup><font color="maroon">review transgressions</font></sup>]]/[[User talk:DoctorJoeE|<font color="maroon"><sub>talk to me!</sub></font>]] 16:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
-{{od}}(e/c) You misunderstand my comment - I meant that whilst you may have had consensus in the past, you do not have it anymore.  I accept that the changes have been reverted by multiple editors on both sides (although I only count two keeping the material, not three,) however, the fact remains that three different editors now dispute the "old" plot.  At the very least, the plot is now disputed - but that still means that the old version is no longer the preferred version.
-I have justified my reasoning - this will be the third time I do so:  I see no point in having the cast members in the plot section when they are also listed in their own section.  I am also of the opinion that much of the removed phrasing was in poor tone, and (my choice of words) "like a comic book" - not an encyclopedia.  The resulting changes were entirely adequate, and not "toothless, gutless, and crotchless".
-It is an important point that the force field was impenetrable - I agree on that point, but it's not necessary to say that it was impenetrable, when saying "the craft is protected by a [[Force field (fiction)|force field]]" does exactly the same thing.  If the craft is "protected", then by definition the force field cannot be broached, and thus is impenetrable - it's duplication.  Much of the rest of the removed detail (that isn't Batmas-esque Kapow! Blammo! in style) is similar - the inclusion makes no real change to the plot.  "Ruthless" - the same is true here.  The descriptions used "like locusts", and "destroying all native life" are adequate to portray the aliens without the "ruthless" qualifier.  [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 21:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
-:I agree. I don't think we need to include unnecessary adjectives. An encyclopedia doesn't need to build up the "wow" factor in the plot, as [[WP:PEACOCK|peacock]] terms like "spectacular" represent an opinionated [[WP:POV|POV]] and should be left out. On the other hand, DoctorJoeE does make a decent point about the mission being suicidal from the characters' point of view, so perhaps that can be reinstated in some form. Other than that, I don't see much else that needs to be looked at here. --[[User:GoneIn60|GoneIn60]] ([[User talk:GoneIn60|talk]]) 13:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
-::Well, then we just disagree. There's a difference between "peacock" and "colorless and boring".  Fortunately, it's just a movie synopsis, and I just don't care enough. I guess we're done here. [[User:DoctorJoeE|<font color="green">DoctorJoeE</font>]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/DoctorJoeE|<sup><font color="maroon">review transgressions</font></sup>]]/[[User talk:DoctorJoeE|<font color="maroon"><sub>talk to me!</sub></font>]] 16:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::I'm beginning to suspect [[WP:IDHT]], and even [[WP:OWN]] here.  You're ''still'' bleating on that the changes need justification to your satisfaction, despite the fact that much of this thread revolves around it.  Just because you don't agree with or see the justification does not mean it hasn't been done.  Compromise has been mentioned, yet you are claiming that all the work will be done by you, not us, as if this page is your province:  ''"I'll fix that at some point", "I'll be happy to have a go at crafting a compromise once you agree to it and the page is unlocked"''
-:::Is it not possible that ''you'' accept the (very small) majority change, and then ''you'' suggest changes to bring it into line with what you'd like?  Instead of just saying ''"Yeah, it'll get done once the protection is over"'' - ''What'' would you like done?
-:::Can you please bring something to the table that doesn't include the phrase "You've got to justify yourselves" in any shape or form, because it's getting so boring now that even you're getting sick of it.  [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 17:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
-::::"Bleating"? Really? I've been doing this a long time, I'm well past personal attacks, so we'll let that pass.  Funny how people automatically invoke [[WP:OWN]] anytime someone challenges their changes.  Read what I've written above. How much more clear to I have to make what I wanted done? That's in the past tense, because I'm outta here. You want a mediocre summary, you got it. Live with it. Cheers. [[User:DoctorJoeE|<font color="green">DoctorJoeE</font>]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/DoctorJoeE|<sup><font color="maroon">review transgressions</font></sup>]]/[[User talk:DoctorJoeE|<font color="maroon"><sub>talk to me!</sub></font>]] 15:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
-== Independence Day (franchise)  ==
-Proposal for a new article for Indepenence Day series [[Talk:Independence Day (book series)#Independence Day (franchise)]].--[[User:NeoBatfreak|NeoBatfreak]] ([[User talk:NeoBatfreak|talk]]) 02:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)