Talk:Christopher Nolan/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Headers adjust

Adjusted headers for a better view of the article, feel free to revert if it's a mistake. Rim sim (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Lead sentence

It's ridiculous to revert a completely reasonable edit.

1) "Filmmaker" is considered vague and therefore should be replaced by more specific terms, right?

2) Replacing the hyphen with "and" definitely doesn't affect the article's stability (see MOS:ETHNICITY). Thedarkknightli (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

It should be "and", and in fact the 'Short description' should be edited and changed from "British-American" to "British and American" as well. 2603:8001:5B41:3EBB:35F9:75EC:6564:464E (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2023

- ! Cillian Murphy TylerDurdenXXX (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

What's your point?$chnauzer 00:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Academy Award Of Merit Dedicated To Film Lab Technicians

Why there is no information about this?

https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/watch-christopher-nolan-accepts-academy-award-of-merit-dedicated-to-film-lab-technicians-88931/ Czarnybog (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Promotional tone

I am seeing instances of puffery here. Just a few examples:

• The lead section almost reads like a press release with idiomatic terms like "blockbusters", especially the last paragraph, about his work being "infused" and "permeated" with various attributes.
• Just reading the headings gives the impression that they were written by a publicist, using terms like "breakthrough" and weasel-word puffery like "widespread" recognition.

Did this really become a featured article with such NPOV problems? I am inclined to demote it. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing promotional about the use of "blockbusters" - it merely means that his films are commercially successful on a grand scale. Even Wikipedia has an article on it Blockbuster (entertainment). If an upcoming artist attracts great attention from critics and audiences for his work, I'm not sure what else to call it other than a breakthrough - it is an acceptable term. I'm not sure what you really mean by "inclined to demote it". It's not up to you to promote or demote FAs. It's a consensus-driven process, not up to one user who decides that they don't like the tone of an article. FrB.TG (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The point is, subjective opinions like the weaselly "widespread" are being expressed in Wikipedia's narrative voice.

And yes, I disagree that this is FA quality. By "demote" I meant to bring it up for a review of whether it still qualifies. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I’m not sure what’s subjective about "widespread recognition". For his work during that period, Nolan attracted a great deal of attention from audiences, critics, academics and award shows, hence making his recognition "widespread". It is not an opinion and is attributed to a great number of high-quality literary sources. FrB.TG (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist late on this discussion but 100% agree. Page reads like an advertisement, and I'm very curious about the timing on this FA... 75.164.178.36 (talk) 07:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Raised Catholic

My edit has been removed thrice now despite the source being a linked video interview with Nolan literally uttering the fact himself. The cause for the reverts went from "unreliable source" to "why include it" in a hurry. It's commonly included info in bios and in this case is about influences on his work. natemup (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The first source you cited is a dubious one that doesn't belong in a featured article that is supposed to represent the best of Wikipedia. And like I said in my other edit-summary, the YouTube source is an hour long and no reader is going to sit through a video that long just to verify a minor information. You would need to also include a timestamp. FrB.TG (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I cited the interview video being quoted in the "dubious" source. You could very easily verify it yourself by looking at the video transcript, like I did. You put the burden of proof only on me to improve the article while you just deleted an edit you consider "minor". I don't see a way to include a timestamp, anyway, which is something I've never even seen on a video source on Wiki.

Further, another editor deleted the video source again for a totally different reason, saying that the info (even with the cited source) shouldn't be included without special cause, which is bogus. natemup (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm assuming that I'm the "another editor" that you're referring to. Your behavior was my biggest concern. You ignored WP:BRD after you were reverted the first time. Instead of going to the talk page and discuss what you wanted to do, you instead decided to reinsert your change claiming that there was "no attempt to improve the page". This is not only a Featured Article, but it's a BLP, so there's a bit more scrutiny on adding information with less than clear reliable sources. Improvements to articles are always welcome, but they shouldn't be forced in especially when you meet some resistance from another editor. And, yes, you're right: the burden of proof does lie solely with you. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The burden was on me to provide a source, which I did. You reverted the edit anyway because I didn't use the talk page first. natemup (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

It's like you didn't read anything I said. Whatever. Have a nice day. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Because as the adder of the information, it lies within your responsibility to ensure the verifiability of the source and that includes leaving a time of the event's occurrence (and yes it is totally possible in Wikipedia - even this very article does this twice; use |time= parameter in {{Cite AV media}}). While the YouTube source seems okay since it is an official interview and channel with the information coming directly from the horse's mouth, byfaith.org is a poor source (especially for an FA and a BLP) regardless of what it is quoting or where it is getting its info from. Anyhoo, I have re-added the source with the time the event occurs here. FrB.TG (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

He went to Barrow Hills Catholic Preparatory School near Godalming, Surrey (no longer a Catholic school but still thriving) He was in the year above me. Paul Crisell (talk) 11:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Christopher Nolan's unrealized projects into Christopher Nolan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was Merge. Kautilyapundit (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

---

Given how short the page is, and how few sources it has, I don't think it needs to be separate at this time. Most other articles in Category:Lists of unrealized projects by artist have at least a dozen entries, and the next-shortest (Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's unrealized projects) has more than double this one with far more coverage. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• My question is, why should we list unrealized projects in the first place? Wiki is not an information depository, such as IMDB. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  Because they've received coverage from reputable sources and are of interest to readers, just like everything on this website. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  I understand, but Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  Fair enough, though I also don't see the point of discussing this here. This discussion is about one article, not a whole series of them. I think WT:FILM would be the more appropriate venue for what you're bringing up. Now if you have an opinion on my merger proposal above, I'd love to hear it, but otherwise please move on. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'll merge it if more people agree. Kautilyapundit (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support, for the reasons above. This is career-relevant information, and it has citations, but there's not enough of it to justify a stand-alone page. Moonreach (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support per above. It is relatively short to warrant a stand-alone article and one of the films is already mentioned in the main article. FrB.TG (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support per above. Though interesting and quite relevant, it is a subsection at best, not an article. Mia yun Ruse (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support Basically a stub. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• Merge Information on these can be in the main article. Cowlibob (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  Y Merger complete. Kautilyapundit (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Inception

Template:Inception has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)