Talk:Rob-B-Hood

Rob-B-Hood
Rob-B-Hood
Directed by	Benny Chan
Written by	Jackie Chan (story); Alan Yuen
Produced by	Willie Chan; Solon So; Benny Chan; Wong Zhonglei
Starring	Jackie Chan ; Louis Koo ; Michael Hui ; Charlene Choi ; Gao Yuanyuan ; Yuen Biao ; Cherrie Ying
Release dates	8 September 2006; (Venice Film Festival); 29 September 2006; (Hong Kong and China)
Running time	136 min.
Country	Hong Kong
Languages	Cantonese, Mandarin
Budget	HK$16.8 million

Rob-B-Hood is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 5, 2007	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
November 18, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Film: Chinese

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Chinese cinema task force.
	This article has an archived peer review.

Hong Kong: Cinema Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by Hong Kong Cinema (assessed as Low-importance).

Hong Kong To-do:

Attention needed (60)

...needing expert attention (4) • ...without infoboxes (19)

Collaboration needed

Recommend topic

Improvement needed

GA-Class articles (60) • B-Class articles (295)

Cleanup needed

C-Class articles (1,053)

Image needed (348)

Destub needed

Start-Class articles (5,488) • Stub-Class articles (6,677)

Deorphan needed

...orphans

Page creation needed

Requested articles

Miscellaneous tasks

...maintain popularity • ...assess the un-Class (386) • ...assess the un-Importance (1,339)

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

China: Entertainment Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Chinese-language entertainment taskforce (assessed as Low-importance).

older entries

"Jackie Chan said in an interview that there would be a scene where his character purposely burns the baby's hand with a cigarette." Can this line really be trusted as reliable information? As it originates from a Movie summary submitted by one guy with one submission.

I feel there may be a terminology problem here - I find it very hard to believe that a film that is rated, for example, G in Singapore would feature two guys French kissing, or even be allowed to be screened at all in Malaysia. A French Kiss involves the use of the tongue, is intimate, and is not something that happens quickly. Simple contact of two sets of lips does not constitute a French kiss. Can someone who has scene the relevant scene confirm whether the description here is correct? Paul Christensen (Hong Kong) 12:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? I've watched the film (the long version) and not a single cigarette was smoked, let me see. Oh and regarding the rating. The version shown in the cinemas has scenes cut out, compared to the one shown during the film festival. One of the cut scenes involves the kiss. Since you are here, mind checking the prose? It's under peer review.--Alasdair 14:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a pass through from a pure proof-reading perspective (again with no real knowledge of the subject) - just a few minor corrections of tense and grammar. One thing I left was the description at the end of the cast list of "high-ranking minions" - I think most people would regard that as a contradiction in terms, seeing minions as inherently low-ranking, but when I consult online dictionaries I do see that minion is used by some to mean simply devoted or fawning without implication of low rank, so I've left it.Paul Christensen (Hong Kong) 06:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merge

Project BB should be merged into this Rob-B-Hood article. Project BB is merely the working title for this film before it was released. When it debuted at the Venice Film Festival it was released as Rob-B-Hood. The Project BB article by itself does not have enough importance to warrant its' own article, at this time. Thus these two articles should be merged. Thoughts? Luke! 04:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See IMDB article for the relationship in these two names Luke! 04:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox flagcruft

The use of flags in the infoboxes has been a cause of concern recently on WP:FILM, and they are particularly onerous on this one. Why all the flags, especially in the country field, where the flag is redundant? Discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Use of flags makes information harder to read. It might be helpful to read, is all I'm suggesting. More details about the handling of release dates can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Release dates, which are only rough guidelines, especially in the case of this film, but still might be of some use.

The infobox is a summary. The releases in southeast Asia (Thailand on 28 September 2006! Woo hoo!), Greece and Japan could be noted in the body of the article, but aren't really necessary in the infobox. — WiseKwai 20:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so they are discussing a change in style. I'll go and have a look.--Alasdair 00:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, Now, only the film festival and Chinese releases are found on the box, and I agree it looks tidier. The flags often force 2 lines when I use the Day Month, Year format.--Alasdair 00:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Rbh E.JPG

Image:Rbh E.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overuse of non-free images

The article uses in the body too many non-free images that are not signified by critical commentary. Judging from the content, the only image that seems appropriate for inclusion is the one of Jackie Chan hanging from the roller coaster (due to neighboring content about stunts). The "Writing" image adds nothing to the article, the baby is not important to show in the "Cast" section, and the two images in the "Plot" section are just decorative of the scenes with no significance attached through critical commentary. Lastly, the poster image in the "Reception" section is a near-duplicate of the image in the infobox. Since this is a Featured Article (and I am a bit astounded about the lack of image review at its FAC), I would like to remove them. I've requested additional input before going ahead. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the infobox movie poster and maybe File:Rbh F.JPG (if that is the actual baby in this stunt, otherwise another screenshot should replace it). The others are all decorative or covered by the other two images. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with your assessment, the images are mostly decorative in nature (NFCC#8), and since there's so many, it's also a violation of NFCC#3a. decltype (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is just ridiculous - keep the infobox poster and the roller coaster image. I think this brings up an important issue though, which is that we probably need to go through every film FA (it's a tedious task) and reassess them. This page was promoted almost 2 years ago, and a lot has changed since then. It's been awhile since I've really looked at what WP:FILM has been doing, but do we have a task force devoted to FA reassessment? I think this page is a prime example of how much has changed since then (as you can see the page was passed with these images present). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been happening already. See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Triumph of the Will/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/BAFTA Award for Best Film/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Gremlins/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Boondock Saints, and so forth. At WT:FILMC, I mentioned an idea to do an article check-up (for FAs and maybe GAs) annually to assess quality in that timespan or even to see if reviewers missed anything. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see all the extra images were removed. Too many articles are filled with pictures that are just window dressing. MovieMadness (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Budget

We quote contradictory figures for the filming budget (16.8m US or Hong Kong Dollars?). --JN 466 23:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rob-B-Hood. 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) 02:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rob-B-Hood. 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/20071011073526/http://hkcuk.co.uk/reviews/rob_b_hood.htm to http://www.hkcuk.co.uk/reviews/rob_b_hood.htm

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) 19:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rob-B-Hood. 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) 20:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Can you please unlocked this page to edit? 2402:800:631C:1482:6109:C297:FFE2:3558 (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. Jamedeus (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]