Talk:Jingle All the Way

Criticised for satirizing everything that is wrong?

What? That makes no sense. I'm not even sure what whoever wrote that meant to say. (Not to mention the mixture of American and British spellings.) 67.22.194.36 00:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd actually like to see where it was criticized for this, as in a source.--70.187.173.227 18:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Guess someone wanted to write a novel!

Way too long-whatever happened to the term "synopsis"?!160.81.133.194 19:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

this has got to be a joke. someone either has too much time on their hands or really liked this movie Melander 02:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I wrote a much pithier plot. Dear, 69.122.155.216, I don't really think that such an enormous plot is necessary- do you? Bantosh 20:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

whenever

Whenever the edit ban is lifted please replace Twin Cities with Twin Cities. Thank you.--Appraiser 19:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Lawl

I'm kinda sad this page sucks because Jingle had probably the best and most scenes filmed within the Twin Cities compared to other films taking place in Mpls which featured generic stuff and sometimes actually in greater MN not here. I'm surprised no one has really done anything to that point which is why I come to Wikipedia for movie stuff in the first place. But yes please change it to Twin Cities .:DavuMaya:. 14:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Running time

Why is the running time listed as 103 min when it's really 88? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.64.213 (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Nosalgia Critic

I am removing the Comment regarding Nostalgia Critic's reaction to the movie from the reception section. NC is a funny guy, but I wouldn't put his opinion to the same level as that of Roger Ebert or any of the more widely known film critics. If his opinion is warranted in the article one could then also argue the opinion of countless internet-based critics to be used in reception sections of film articles as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.69.199 (talk) 05:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• The holiday movie blitz - Marketing offensive or offensive marketing?
• TOY STORY - ` JINGLE ALL THE WAY ' EMBODIES THE SAME CRASS COMMERCIALISM IT DECRIES
• Arnold's where the action is Even if that means a family film for Schwarzenegger
• A holiday toy story that doesn't work
• ` Jingle All the Way ': no bells or whistles
• I'll be back - for Christmas: Arnold Schwarzenegger delights in adding to family fun with his holiday movie
• Iron Range hearts good as gold - A Hollywood crew charms, and is charmed by, northern Minnesotans.
• JINGLE ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK - SCHWARZENEGGER'S NEW FILM BANKS ON COMMERCIAL TIE-INS, BUT SO DO THE REST
• SPOTLIGHT ON ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER - `JINGLE' STAR REFLECTS ON CHILDHOOD CHRISTMASES, RAISING THREE KIDS, AND SHOPPING FOR BARBIES
• ' JINGLE ALL THE WAY ' WON'T GET THERE AS A JOLLY HOLIDAY MOVIE
• `JINGLE'S' JERK// HARTMAN MAKES A CAREER OUT OF GEEKINESS
• JINGLE ALL THE WAY - The fight before Christmas
• Sunny Hollywood chills Twin Citians - Some metro extras from `Jingle' left out when it's time to mingle
• Awful ` Jingle All the Way ' gets a lusty `Bah Humbug'

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jingle All the Way/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Article is a great shape not much to fault it on, just a few minor issues on then it's a pass. I'll fix some of the issues myself, the following still need to be fixed:

• "During the chase, Howard keeps running into Officer Alexander Hummell" - Chase? What chase? Rephrase to something like "During his search for the action figure, ..."
• " Howard hooks up with a band of brand-spoofing crooks..." - Explain why he "hooks up" with them and why he fights with them. Also swap "hooks up" with something more professional.

• "Unused shops in the Seventh Place Mall area were spruced up to..." - Replace "spruced up" with something more professional.

• The Rotten Tomatoes figures have changed slightly. - Update figures and accessdate.

Reviewer: Kollision (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, I think I have fixed all of these issues. Thanks very much for the review. Gran² 10:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congrats, GA pass. - Kollision (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It might be nice to fix links to dab pages in an article (or asking for them to be fixed) before awarding a GA pass in future. The toolbox top right is there for a reason. Alternatively, installing User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js makes such links immediately visible, and I count five in this article (I've fixed one in the lead, but will leave the others for people who know which target is right). Bencherlite^Talk 11:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes I really should have. I simply forgot. - Kollision (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem; I'm a convert to the linkclassifier.js (for this and other reasons) now that I'm using it! Bencherlite^Talk 13:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Cast list dispute

For easy access: discussion on inclusion of a cast list between myself and BattleshipMan (talk · contribs), originally held largely between our talk pages. (If there is a fancier way of doing this, then someone can go right ahead) Gran² 22:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

History:

1. February 2, 2011 - Article is made a GA; no cast list included, merely mentioned in plot
2. December 25, 2012 - Savolya (talk · contribs) adds cast list
3. July 27, 2013 - I notice the cast list for the first time and remove it, stating in the edit summary that "it is superfluous as all main cast members are listed in the plot, adds nothing as a pure list, and is supplied by the external links"
4. August 18, 2013 - BattleshipMan restores it, stating "Brought back the cast section since it is unnecessary to remove them."
5. As above - I revert back, stating "No, it isn't. The list is trivial and superfluous. All of the actually important characters have their actors mentioned in the plot section. This is not IMDb. See WP:FILMCAST"
6. As above - BattleshipMan reverts back, stating "You don't get it. Do you? A lot of film articles have cast sections."

Discussion:

No I most certainly do get "it". Just because "most" film articles have something doesn't mean they all should. Most of them are not good articles. This is. As WP:FILMCAST clearly states: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film". This is already perfectly conveyed by the plot section, as the policy recommends ("actors and their roles may be placed in the plot summary"). A stand-alone list, in this case, is superfluous, trivial and adds nothing. This is not IMDb. Gran² 19:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

They are already a lot of film articles that have cast sections as is, no matter how trivial and redundant some of the editors see it and it isn't like IMDB.com at all. It's not like every credit cast member are on those articles. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't really see how that is a valid reason. 'Other articles have it' is, as I have said, not automatically a valid reason. There are plenty of articles which don't have one (like Sense and Sensibility (film)). I have also supplied clear support from the WP:FILM guideline stating it is not necessary. As is, it is frankly confusing, as well as totally pointless, as you've listed the characters which only appear in the opening show-within-a-show scene, with no explanation of this. Unless you can show me clear policy or consensus support for it, I'm going to remove it. Gran² 19:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You can't just like remove every cast sections in every film article, no matter how anybody would see how it is. They are already too many other film articles that have cast sections, despite how pointless some editors would see it. They are some cast sections that have brief characters descriptions on there as well. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, just because other articles have something doesn't mean they all should. I have supplied an example of another good article which doesn't. I have shown you, clearly, from the film guidelines, that it is not compulsory. When the article was passed as a good article, the cast list was not there. It was not there because it didn't need to be there. It still does not need to be there. It is not compulsory. Gran² 20:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

They are cast sections with actors that have reliable sources on an unknown number of film articles. That's another thing you should know about that. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

And again, I don't see what that has to do with this. I know. I know other articles have cast lists. That's fine. In a lot of articles, it works. They have nice cast lists with lots of real-world info. That's great. Other articles, like this one, don't do that, because they don't need to. As I have said, four times now, that other articles have something does not mean all articles must. For the fourth time, the policy says it is not compulsory. The policy says that including them in the plot is more than fine for cases like this and is much better than a simple, barren list. I'm sorry, but I'm really, really struggling to understand what your point is, other than that you like them. As said, they can be helpful, but not in this case. In this case it is pointless. And, again, as it is not in any way compulsory, it should not be included if it is pointless. Gran² 20:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Keep the cast section. It presents the information in a list that is easy to read and find. That way readers don't need to search around for links within the prose.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I see no need to restate my arguments from above. A bare cast list is in no way proscribed by any policy of style guideline and, indeed, is discouraged in GAs or higher. I'm sure many do, but that's not the point. If people want a cast list, they should go to IMDb. Gran² 18:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Do you have a reason why this particular article should not have a cast list? And besides, given the previous active editors argument in favor of a cast list, you do not have consensus to remove the list.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Because it is superflous. A bare list containing a bunch of unimportant roles adds nothing to the article which having the names in the plot section cannot sufficiently do, in a more informative way, not to mention the casting section as well. I'm still not entirely sure what the "previous active editors argument" actually is, beyond 'other articles have them so this should as well'. That is not what I understand the film style guideline to say, so I see no consensus to keep it either. I think I've been pretty clear as to why I think it is not necessary. The only argument beyond 'I like it' is your comment that some people find it easier for quick reference. That's all well and good, but that is what IMDb is for. While you're here, do you think you could respond to my actual concern with your edit to List of The Simpsons cast members? I understand that you think you're changes are in line with policy. I don't care about that. My problem is that you have left the article inconsistent and it is your responsibility to fix that. Gran² 11:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Readers have grown accustomed to looking for cast sections when they trying to find a link for an actor. The cast sections are not simply indiscriminate lists, as they provide useful and easy to find information, As a reader myself, I shouldn't have to skim through long paragraphs in order to find the link that I am looking for. It's too labor intensive, it's inconvenient, and it makes the Wikipedia experience less enjoyable.
        • In response to your previous comment about the GA status of this article. GA status does not mean that the article is perfect and that the article no longer needs improvement. It simply means that the article is well written, but GA articles can and should continue to be improved upon. If adding a "cast section" improves the article, which several editors clearly feel that it does, then a cast section should be added.
        • As far as the "Simpsons" article is concerned, there is no such thing as a former recurring character/cast member. All information is presented in present tense. In fact, I currently don't see any problem with how the information is presented the article at all.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
          • You changed the 'former cast members' section to 'other cast members' instead of redistributing them to other sections. Gran² 21:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
            • In my experience, the backlash against cast lists has been because it creates extraneous white space in Wikipedia articles. Editors have traditionally sought to address this by only mentioning the actors next to the roles in the plot summary or by expanding each listed item with details about each actor and their role. The former approach can work for films with small casts, and the latter approach can work with blockbuster films where there is plenty to write about each actor and role. Here, I think we should apply a rule of thumb to shorten the cast list a little more, perhaps using the Variety review for that. We could also apply multi-column formatting to the list so it fills the white space better. Everyone not mentioned in a rule-of-thumb list could be grouped in prose after the multi-column cast list. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jingle All the Way. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130524055753/https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/361/361.F3d.312.01-2721.01-2668.html to https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/361/361.F3d.312.01-2721.01-2668.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

"Put that cookie down now" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Put that cookie down now has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 9 § Put that cookie down now until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)