Jump to content

Talk:Captain Marvel (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Comatmebro (talk | contribs) at 03:25, 19 January 2021 (→Can a freely accessible source be used to support a statement also sourced to The New York Times?: Vote yes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 June 2019 and 24 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kiriat Monterroso, Cecybueso (article contribs).

Highest-grossing and peak positions

@Davefelmer: here is the archived version to see the film's peak position, listed there as 22nd, but afterward changed to 23rd in the list given an update of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King's box office total. It's all already referenced in that article. The inclusion of this information is common practice in articles on highest-grossing films, see Spider-Man: Far From Home, Avengers: Infinity War, Captain America: Civil War, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2, Star Wars: The Last Jedi, and many more. El Millo (talk) 05:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a peak position, that's just an old version of the highest ranking movies list, evidenced by the likes of Joker not being on there and Aladdin being shown to still be playing in theatres. And what about Frozen 2, Spider Man Far From Home and Lion King which also overtook it? The information you pitch for is pure WP:SYNTH. And as previously discussed as well, something being wrong elsewhere doesnt mean it's fine to include it in other places. You've seen plenty of other examples where it isn't included such as Dr Strange (2016 film) and Thor: Ragnarok. Davefelmer (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doctor Strange grossed $677 million, Thor: Ragnarok grossed $854 million. Doctor Strange's peak position was 94th, as seen here; Ragnarok's peak position was 60th, as seen here. At List of highest-grossing films, which is a featured list by the way, only the top 50 are shown. Hence, neither of those films is nor was included in the list, so they do not serve as examples. All articles cited above except for Star Wars: The Last Jedi are GA-status, it's hard for five (and many more) good articles to have the same "mistake". Whether right or wrong, it's still common practice and thus consensus. In order to make a change, the existing consensus needs to be overturned.
"Joker not being on there and Aladdin being shown to still be playing in theatres. And what about Frozen 2, Spider Man Far From Home and Lion King which also overtook it?" Do you not understand what peak position means? It's the highest rank a film has been on the list. Captain Marvel came out on March 8, and all those films were released later. Aladdin came out on May 24, Spider-Man: Far From Home on July 2, The Lion King on July 19, Joker came out on October 4, and Frozen II on November 22. Hence, it's completely right for Aladdin to still be playing and for Joker not to be playing yet. And those who overtook it had no influence on its peak position at all, precisely because they overtook it. El Millo (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, what on Earth are you talking about? Who cares about how many movies are listed in the wikipedia article for highest grossing films? Wikipedia isn't a source for itself and that information tells us absolutely nothing. From your own sources here; and here, both Dr Strange and Thor Ragnarok appear in the same top 100 list that you link for Captain Marvel to show that movie's peak position, hence by that logic the same source can be likewise used to find dates to list peak positions for those 2 as well as any other movie that's ever been in the top 100, as per that source. Should I do that? Also, again, just because it is written somewhere else on wikipedia does not make it correct. There are also plenty of places where it is not written. And your second point is pure WP:SYNTH, you can't ultimately find a random date to say this was a movie's box office peak as the sources themselves dont say that. It's WP:OR at it's finest. Davefelmer (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The featured list does that, that means Wikipedians decided to do that. There's an implicit consensus to include this information. If you think it is SYNTH, then you're against that Peak column existing in the first place, and you're against this information being included in all articles. That means you're against the established consensus. If you want to make this change you have to change the established consensus. You cannot eliminate this information before you change the established consensus. El Millo (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, just because something exists somewhere else does not make it correct. Plus, you're forgetting that SOME articles on the featured list appear to do that, others do not. See Zootopia for example. Yes, I am against the peak column as it's SYNTH and OR, no reliable sources outright state or discuss the movie's 'peak'. And there doesn't appear to be an "established" consensus on the matter, rather a somewhat implicit one at best where someone starting editing in the information on some of the movies in the featured list article and nobody noticed or decided to look into and debate its merits. It's clear that an actual discussed and established consensus on the matter needs to be set. Davefelmer (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Let me start off by saying a film's peak chart position can be useful information. Return of the King is a prime example of this, as it was once #2 on the list. That's a significant fact that deserves coverage in an encyclopedia. Captain Marvel's peak position, on the other hand, probably doesn't qualify. Exceeding $1 billion is no longer an extremely rare feat, and ranking #22 (or #23) isn't as significant. Perhaps a passing mention or two in the article body would suffice if sources reported that ranking, but I don't believe it qualifies for inclusion in the lead at this point. And that brings me to the next point. Captain Marvel's peak position needs to be mentioned in prose within the article body, and of course, backed by reliable source citations. I skimmed the box office section and didn't see this statistic specifically called out.

Two things probably need to happen at this point:

  1. We can continue the discussion here to gauge community-wide consensus on the matter, linking to it from WT:FILM to increase visibility. Or we can simply begin a new discussion there. This needs to be settled on a wider scale and it may ultimately evolve into an RfC.
  2. The lead section is a summary of the body's most significant points. If the information doesn't exist in the body, then it shouldn't exist in the lead. This should be remedied quickly by those who support its inclusion, or I will proceed to remove it from the lead. A snapshot of the film's ranking at Box Office Mojo isn't enough to stand on its own; we need secondary source analysis of the ranking to justify inclusion.

I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, but I think it's time we get a community stance on the subject. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update – Just noticed the discussion is being held at WT:FILM#Should we be listing a movie's "peak position" at the box office?. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Reception in the Lead

Hi. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so bare with me. I noticed in the lead that the critical reception for the film is quite brief, although the actual section says it received criticism for a "convoluted plot and lack of originality".[190]. I'm just curious if we can mention that in the lead as it is already backed up. What do you guys think? Thanks TrueFilmBuff (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed at length, see Talk:Captain Marvel (film)/Archive 2#Critic summary. The Hindustan Times article that you are quoting was based on early reviews of the film. It may not be representative of later reviews. The only thing that these "reviews of reviews" seem to agree on is Larson's performance.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using better sources than The New York Times where available as the sole source or a supporting source

Should we use better sources than The New York Times where available as the sole source or supporting source? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Favre1fan93: following this revert. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, The New York Times is HIGHLY reliable. There's no need to replace or supplement the sourced content as all of our text is covered by that source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm pretty sure it's their report/originator of the info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not sure why we need to discuss "better sources than The New York Times" when that's about as good as it gets. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emir, “personally preferring” doesn’t equal to the source being unreliable or disallowed. Don’t remove based off of a “personal preference”. Rusted AutoParts 23:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I said that we could add them as additional sources if we decide to keep The New York Times one. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little concerned with what could conceivably be taken as New York Times-bashing, as right-wing people often do when the Times reports something they don't like. I'm not suggesting this particular case has a political background — Emir of Wikipedia has always been a good and responsible editor, in my experience — so I'd just like to ask what Emir's particular concerns are about The New York Times, which has as good or better a reputation for accuracy and original reporting as any publication on the planet. I mean, when the Times wants some studio executive to verify what some director says, that studio executive calls back. That's true of very few publications.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, “better sources than The New York Times”.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can a freely accessible source be used to support a statement also sourced to The New York Times?

Can a freely accessible source be used to support a statement also sourced to The New York Times? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT article sourced is already freely accessible. The inclusion of a second source seems redundant. —El Millo (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It says you have to subscribe to view it for me and presumably other readers. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:PAYWALL. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about adding an additional source or two, not about removing paywalled source from The New York Times . Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It says you have to subscribe to view it for me and presumably other readers.
That's nothing new. It's been like that even before the internet. You can always go down to a library with a subscription for access. DonQuixote (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or, just log into your library's website and access the news source via them. There are fewer and fewer excuses for paywall concerns. There is, of course, a resource here within Wikipedia that you can request verification of a source from a help desk or something.
That said, if the statement is quite bold, then doubling up on the RS seems appropriate. As it moves towards GA and FA, one of them will eventually be deleted; its better for evaluative purposes to have more instead of less. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is the archive link not accessible for you? -2pou (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I was specifically hoping to add one of the two removed in this edit, but I understand other editors might have other suggestions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need an RfC for this. WP:V says that content must be verifiable, it doesn't say that sources must be free access - in fact, it explicitly states Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment ... --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above I am talking about adding an additional free source, not rejecting a paywalled source. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Captain_Marvel_(film)&oldid=1001307043"