Talk:The Rocket (2005 film)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Rocket (2005 film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Film: Canadian

	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
	This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force.

Canada: Quebec / Sport / Cinema Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Quebec.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian sport.
	This article is supported by the joint Canadian film and cinema task force

Ice Hockey

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey 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.Ice HockeyWikipedia:WikiProject Ice HockeyTemplate:WikiProject Ice HockeyIce Hockey

Query

Should we add in the fact that there were a number of NHL players (Laperriere, Suave, Lecavalier) in this film? SmurfOfEvil 03:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date format

[NOTE: Moved this exchange from my own talk page today. Pertinent here. Since then have converted "References" to templates; some need to be used as source citations (not "References") in this article due to missing citations throughout. --NYScholar (talk) 04:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)][reply]

Maurice Richard (film)

Hi. I noticed you [NYScholar] created that article with an international date format. Since articles on Canadian topics can use either format (read: we're not Europe so you damn well better use the normal MM/DD format), and you are the first major contributor, I'd like to request that you make it clear that I can change the date format. Someone keeps reverting me. --Pwnage8 (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. According to WP:MOS#Dates, if the dates are consistently and properly in one format (as they are), there is no need to change them. The article is about a French Canadian film filmed in English and French, and that format is consistent with the subject. I see no reason to begin an edit war by reverting the dates. I haven't seen the article and do not know who is reverting your changes, but it seems to me that your date changes are unnecessary; there is no Wikipedia rule that "we're not Europe so you damn well better use the normal MM/DD format)" (as stated by Pwnage8 above). (Again, read the section on dates in WP:MOS#Dates pertaining to varieties of English. "We" (by the way) is English Wikipedia--not a specific English-speaking place, neither America nor Britain nor Australia, e.g. If the place of the subject (French Canada)--where the film has been made and released--uses day-month-year, this format is fine, as long as it's consistent--see discussion in varieties of English in WP:MOS#National varieties of English. I will be moving this exchange to the talk page for discussion there, where it is appropriate. --NYScholar (talk) 03:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC) [Have so moved it. --NYScholar (talk) 04:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)][reply]

["Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the U.S. this is month before day; for most others it is day before month. Articles related to Canada may use either format consistently." (WP:MOS#Dates via link on full date formatting.) -NYScholar (talk) 04:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)][reply]

(cont.) If editors choose their preferred date format in their own user "preferences," the dates in templates will generally show up that way. Day-month-year is an international date format; preference in Wikipedia citation templates is e.g., "2008-11-10" (today's date), which will show up according to one's own preferences if bracketed; 2008-11-10, e.g. If double brackets are used in certain templates, the dates will show up according to one's own preferences. There is no need for them to be linked, however, according to WP:MOS#Dates (most recent revisions). I've used double brackets in press release citation template so they will be consistent; these templates may have been changed recently, because all the dates used to show up as links without double brackets recently. Some editors have been removing all the linked dates and converting them to unlinked dates. I leave them this way for the moment, so that one can see how they look in the citation templates after I converted all the items in "References" to such templates. In some cases, the "publisher" (not the "work", which appears in italics automatically) needs to be supplied. I've also added format=Web to some templates. The "cite web" citation template seems to leave the dates unlinked. It's fine with me if they are unlinked consistently throughout, but without the double brackets, the dates in some templates are not showing up as consistently linked as they are in "cite news" templates. --NYScholar (talk) 04:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source citations still needed throughout

[related to above and template added to top of article] Whoever developed material in this article without providing verifiable and reliable source citations ("ref"/"ref name=...") throughout needs to return to document the material in the article's various sections with such proper source citations. Listing items in References and External links sections is not the same as providing the necessary source citations. I provided one as an example of what is needed. Several of the items now in External links might not be considered to be reliable sources: see WP:CITE for further guidance. All I have time for in response to the message left on my talk page that I have moved here (above). --NYScholar (talk) 04:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Rocket (2005 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121012112326/http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/arts/story.html?id=d0638a3d-5c9d-4018-a63d-88f3464dc5d2 to http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/arts/story.html?id=d0638a3d-5c9d-4018-a63d-88f3464dc5d2

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) 03:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]