Jump to content

Talk:Big Fish

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBig Fish 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
DateProcessResult
May 16, 2007Good article nomineeListed
June 13, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
October 29, 2009Good article nomineeListed
July 23, 2024Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Big Fish. 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:

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) 05:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Big Fish. 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:

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) 23:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Big Fish. 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:

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) 06:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Big Fish. 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:

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) 07:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes: Lead

[edit]

Hey everyone! I recently made a bunch of edits to this page, but was told by another editor that I should have posted them for review first. So I'll post them section by section, starting with the Lead. Please let me know what you think of my version below, compared with the version that currently exists on the page. I have omitted the citations to reduce clutter here.

Big Fish is a 2003 American fantasy drama film directed by Tim Burton. It is based on the 1998 novel Big Fish: A Novel of Mythic Proportions by Daniel Wallace. The film stars Ewan McGregor, Albert Finney, Billy Crudup, Jessica Lange, Helena Bonham Carter, Alison Lohman, Robert Guillaume, Marion Cotillard, Steve Buscemi, and Danny DeVito. It tells the story of a frustrated son who tries to distinguish fact from fiction in the life of his father, a teller of tall tales.

The screenwriter John August read a manuscript of the novel six months before it was published and convinced Columbia Pictures to acquire the rights. He began adapting the novel as a screenplay while producers negotiated with Steven Spielberg about directing the film. Spielberg eventually left the project to focus on Catch Me If You Can (2002). Tim Burton and Richard D. Zanuck took over and brought McGregor and Finney on board.

The film's theme of reconciliation between a dying father and his son had special significance for Burton, whose father had recently died. Big Fish was shot on location in Alabama in a series of fairy tale vignettes evoking the tone of a Southern Gothic fantasy. It was released in limited capacity on December 10, 2003, followed by a wide release on January 9, 2004. The film received various award nominations, including seven BAFTA nominations, four Golden Globe nominations, two Saturn Award nominations, and an Academy Award and a Grammy Award nomination for Danny Elfman's original score. A musical adaptation of Big Fish premiered in Chicago in April 2013. Wafflewombat (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Big Fish

[edit]

The following discussion 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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Reassessment retracted by nominator. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fails stability criterion due to massive number of edits (and users) playing around with the content over the last 30 days.[1] I have made a check user and sock puppet report, and discussed the issue with the primary editor,[2] but there is no sign of understanding the problem. As the original reviewer for the most recent review (2009), I recommend that the article be delisted because neither its stability, accuracy, or reliability can be guaranteed at this time. Viriditas (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that per WP:GAR, "instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article." What is inaccurate or unreliable in the article Viriditas? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that the community has been fairly good at reverting bad edits, so the article isn't in as bad shape as it could be. Earwig shows no copyvio, so that's good. The Accolades section shows awards attributed to the "Awards Circuit Community Awards" and "Argentinean Film Critics Association Awards", both of which are unsourced, and which can only be found on IMDb (Internet Movie Database), which is considered generally unreliable. Other than that, recent edits did violate criterion 1, but it's been reverted. The sock farm has not stopped creating accounts and its editing poses a continuing problem. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I blocked a pile of socks and also semi-protected the page for a month. Hopefully that will calm things down a bit. RoySmith (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! Viriditas (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Resource

[edit]

Hello again. As I mentioned in a previous thread, I made a number of edits which were reverted. I'm not going to post them section-by-section, as I first intended, but will instead link to the version of the page that includes all my edits.

I'm not requesting that my edits be restored at this time. Rather, I'm simply providing the link as a resource for future editors of the page. I worked hard on my edits and feel they could be helpful to others. Wafflewombat (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you linked to the wrong version. Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think this is what you meant. In other words, the version before my revert. Viriditas (talk) 04:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just at a glance, I'm seeing a lot of problems with the version you prefer. Viriditas (talk) 04:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also seeing some good edits. I think it will be easier if we go one section at a time. Can we agree to leave the lead out for the time being, and start by focusing on the plot? I've already said that I don't see that many issues with your version of the plot. Viriditas (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, we can start by focusing on the plot. How do you want to go about discussing it? Wafflewombat (talk) 04:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's your final version of the plot (and I really hope it is), I have no objection to adding it back in. However, if you are going to continually change it like you've been doing, and this has been a stable article, then I would encourage you to work in you sandbox. So, do you have a final version of the plot section in mind to go from, one that won't change from day to day? Viriditas (talk) 05:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the version right before your revert is the one I support. For some reason, when I click on the link you provided (above), I do not see my version, I see the version of the page after your revert. When I click the link I initially provided, I see my version (below the edits). I'm not sure why we would be seeing different versions of the page. Maybe it has to do with viewing it in Visual or Wikitext mode? Either way, I copy-pasted my version of the plot into my sandbox, so there's no confusion. Wafflewombat (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I really hate when people are breathing down my neck when I’m trying to work on an article, so I will show you the same courtesy. I will disappear from this article for 30 days while you work on it. Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please clarify how you would like me to proceed, after adding the plot summary? Wafflewombat (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Use your best judgment. Viriditas (talk) 08:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thank you for your graciousness, I really appreciate it. Wafflewombat (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Big_Fish&oldid=1236174553"