Jump to content

Talk:Manifesto (2015 film)

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

Financing / production companies

[edit]

Here are the cited sources crediting different organizations and companies (bolding the key words):

  • "Manifesto is a coproduction of the Ruhr Triennale with the Australian Centre for the Moving Image [ACMI], the Art Gallery of New South Wales, the Hamburger Bahnhof - Museum für Gegenwart, the Sprengel Museum Hannover, the Burger Collection Hong Kong, Bayerischer Rundfunk and the Medienboard Berlin-Brandenburg." [1]
  • "Manifesto has been proudly commissioned by ACMI in partnership with the Art Gallery of New South Wales, Hamburger Bahnhof - Museum für Gegenwart, Berlin and Sprengel Museum, Hannover, and Ruhrtriennale – Festival of the Arts … Our particular thanks are extended to the Verein der Freunde der Nationalgalerie, the Freunde des Sprengel Museum Hannover e.V. and the Medienboard Berlin-Brandenburg, as well as to the co-producers, the Burger Collection Hong Kong and the Ruhrtriennale, all of whom generously supported this project. Manifesto was produced in cooperation with the Bayerischer Rundfunk." [2]
  • "Manifesto was created in cooperation with Bayerischer Rundfunk [BR], supported by Medienboard Berlin-Brandenburg … Production: Julian Rosenfeldt and Schiwago Film GmbH in coproduction with BR, supported by Medienboard Berlin-Brandenburg." [3]
  • "The project was generously supported by the Verein der Freunde der Nationalgalerie, the Freunde des Sprengel Museum Hannover e.V. and the Medienboard Berlin-Brandenburg, as well as by the co-producers, the Burger Collection Hong Kong and the Ruhrtriennale. "Manifesto" was produced in cooperation with the Bayerischer Rundfunk." [4]
  • "The exhibition was made possible by the Friends of the National Gallery and a joint production of the National Gallery in Berlin, together with the Australian Centre for the Moving Image, Melbourne, the Art Gallery of New South Wales, Sydney, and the Sprengel Museum, Hannover." [5]
  • "Commissioned by the Australian Centre for the Moving Image … co-producer Bayerischer Rundfunk". [6]

The question is which of these qualify for inclusion in the infobox or if the parameter should be left blank. Lapadite (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC) The development section states, "The project was commissioned by the Australian Centre for the Moving Image, in partnership with Art Gallery of New South Wales, Museum für Gegenwart, Sprengel Museum, and Ruhrtriennale Festival of the Arts."[7]. Vmars22 added Bayerischer Rundfunk, Ruhr Triennale, Australian Centre for the Moving Image, and Schiwago Film to the infobox. Lapadite (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only because it seems that they are the main commisioners for the project, yet they are production companies, and they are listed as the production companies on IMDB. (although IMDB is not used for citing on here). There is another source, that also mentions them that isn't IMDB. Vmars22 (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Hollywood Reporter and Baseline both explicitly list production companies. I've found them to be very useful when there's a dispute. Variety is also a good source, though they aren't explicit about labeling stuff. I would probably just ignore anything that's on the IMDb. It's a good starting point for research, but it's too unreliable for anything else. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I was using the information listed on IMDB as a starting point to find sources, and what not. I'll look on Variety and Baseline for more information. Thank you :) Vmars22 (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NinjaRobotPirate, the project isn't listed in Baseline, or discussed in Variety or The Hollywood Reporter (beyond a mention of the actress playing different roles and director commentary at a tribute). Above are the sources that discussion production, including the Australian Centre for the Moving Image (ACMI), which commissioned it. The ACMI source says the project was "commissioned by the Australian Centre for the Moving Image, in partnership with Art Gallery of New South Wales, Museum für Gegenwart, Sprengel Museum, and Ruhrtriennale Festival of the Arts." There are many organizations/companies credited in different forms by these sources; should "in partnership with", "in cooperation with", "supported by", "made possible by" be given the same weight as "commissioned by" and "coproduction with"? Beyond the ACMI's primary involvement, we don't know how much of a role these organizations/companies had in financing - if they all had; some of these are art museums or festivals exhibiting the installation, and "in partnership with" "in cooperation with", "supported by", and whatnot, could be non-financing credit. We don't know if most of these actually contributed to the financing of the film/installation. The only certainty is the ACMI. Lapadite (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to the Notes section instead, where all the companies are listed, as suggested by Erik at WT:FILM. Lapadite (talk) 10:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move

[edit]

Why was the requested move at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests from 24 October 2017 never mentioned here? Why was that request acted on with undue haste and without further consideration? For a start, the disambiguator is not in line with Wikipedia's MoS. The words "film" and "art installation" ought to be lower case. Secondly, it's a very clumsy disambiguator. There was nothing wrong with the previous name, Manifesto (2015 film); it may have been an incomplete description, but disambiguators are not used to provide descriptions. If a new name was really required, why not Manifesto (Rosefeldt)? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Manifesto (2015 film). 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) 09:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Riley1012 (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Manifesto (2015 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Lapadite (talk · contribs) 00:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Riley1012 (talk · contribs) 19:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will complete an initial review within one week. -Riley1012 (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

1. Well-written

  • Write out the Australian Centre for the Moving Image the first time the ACMI acronym is used.
  • ...in Australia, Germany, United States,... "the" needed before United States.
  • ...in select cities in the U.S from... additional period is needed after the S in U.S. or just US (see MOS:US)
  • I would combine the two paragraphs in the plot section since they're so short.
  • Manifesto was commissioned by the ACMI, in partnership with Art Gallery of New South Wales,... Add "the" before Art Gallery
  • ...where it was part of a larger exhibition entitled "Manifesto:Art X Agency". Add a space after the colon
  • The first showing in North America was in December 2016/January 2017... The source does list the full dates instead of just the months, so I would add the specific dates to maintain consistency with the rest of the section

2. Verifiable
The violation highlighted by Earwig is the list of manifestos, so it is fine as it is. The primary source used here (Rosefeldt's website) is used for the plot description and other factual details rather than interpretation, so this is also fine per WP:PRIMARY.

  • Spot check- 4, 8, 15, 18, 21, 27, 29, 33, 37- no issues.
  • Ref. 7 does not seem to support that Rosefeldt and Blanchett met to brainstorm the project.
  • Ref. 3 can be removed as it does not add anything- that manifesto's title is already included in ref. 1.
  • The first paragraph of the development section has three inline citations of ref. 4 which is unnecessary per WP:OVERCITE since the one source supports the whole paragraph. There are a couple of other instances where two consecutive sentences use the same inline citation- the citation is only needed once.
  • For ref. 17- is it possible to find this information outside of the Facebook post and use that as the source instead?
  • Ref. 22 needs the access date parameter.

3. Broad
This article covers the major aspects of the film.

4. Neutral
No concerns regarding neutrality.

5. Stable
No concerns regarding stability.

6. Illustrated
The poster has a non-free use rationale.

@Lapadite: Okay, that is all I have! -Riley1012 (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of implementing some of Riley1012's suggestions. I didn't remove ref. 3, a link to the text of Tzara's Dada Manifesto, because I did not find that text at ref. 1. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Riley1012: thanks for the review, and Michael Bednarek for the fixes.
I didn't write out Australian Centre for the Moving Image as its article says it is the former name of the museum and its present name is ACMI.
Added the missing sources that support the two collaborating on the project. Removed the Facebook post as Michael Bednarek added the magazine website. Removed ref 3.
There are a couple of other instances where two consecutive sentences use the same inline citation- the citation is only needed once. In the other instances, the sentences end in quotations, such as those cited by the current ref 5 and 3 in the development section.
Added an image of the director. I didn't find a useable image of Blanchett from the project. I think an irrelevant image of the actress would be unnecessary here. Lapadite (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lapadite: Okay, that is all fine with me. I will pass this. -Riley1012 (talk) 18:25, 9 October 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.

GA follow-up

[edit]

I disagree with the removal of the citation of Tzara's manifesto: Tristan Tzara (23 March 1918). "Dada Manifesto" – via 391 archive.. It helps readers to contextualise the episode. Further, I think that every manifesto for which Wikipedia doesn't have an article, that is all except Marx/Engels, should have a citation of its text. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the table in my view is just to show which works were covered in the film rather than to provide context on every single work. All of them are listed in the further information section of the reference provided. That's why I asked to remove the one outlier citation just to maintain consistency. But if you want to add a citation for each one feel free. Riley1012 (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hilst talk 01:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • Reviewed:
Improved to Good Article status by Lapadite (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Lapadite (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.
Overall: A highly interesting hook about a film that looks quite intriguing! Many elements covered by the GAN. The hook technically isn't cited in the article due to WP:PLOTCITE; WP:IAR I'm fine with it. Earwig erroneously thinks there's a copyvio due to the number of works listed, but everything is clean. Sdkb talk 04:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manifesto_(2015_film)&oldid=1255069516"