Talk:Themes and analysis of No Country for Old Men (film)
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 8 November 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Tags
[edit]I just read this article after reading the book and watching the movie. I find all of it, the book, movie and this Wikipedia article, brilliant work. The tags strike me as unjustified. I am tempted to remove them, unless there is objection. Jusdafax 03:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- I see the article as OR-laden and superfluous. It should be truncated at the very least. Peter Somerville (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- I heartily agree with Peter Somerville. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a journal of literary analysis or repository for film school theses. Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think the article reads great too! Remove the tags! Sсοττ5834talk 06:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Copyright Violations
[edit]The article's heft relies heavily on quoting large passages from the published reviews of film critics. This may create copyright issues, and it most certainly is not in accordance with WP:QUOTEFARM, which gives examples of overuse of quotations such as:
- "Using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style."
- "Wikipedia is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations."
- "Intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations instead of constructing articles out of quotations with little or no original prose."
Wikipedia policy specifically states
- "The copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted, and a longer quotation should not be used where a shorter quotation would express the same information. What constitutes a substantial portion depends on many factors, such as the length of the original work and how central the quoted text is to that work."
Furthermore, Wikipedia's policy on copyright violations, which states "If a page contains material which infringes copyright, that material – and the whole page, if there is no other material present – should be removed. See Wikipedia:Copyright violations for more information, and Wikipedia:Copyright problems for detailed instructions." as well as Wikipedia's policy on unambiguous copyright violation being grounds for Speedy Deletion.Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- You are simply repeating yourself. There are no copyright violations here, and certainly no "unambiguous copyright violations" that would make this article subject to speedy deletion. You lost both the merge and the deletion discussions, so what are you attempting to do now? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 17:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- While I think the article should be kept, it is in need of major clean-up. Per WP:NFCC, one of the unacceptable uses of text is, "Excessively long copyrighted excerpts." Basically, most of the article needs to be paraphrased. There is far too much direct quoting when we need to be able to paraphrase in our own words. Interpretations of Fight Club is an example of doing this mix of quoting and paraphrasing. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you, that is all I am trying to do here now, is call attention to the fact that this article has become a Quote Farm, and much of these excessively long copyrighted excerpts need to be paraphrased. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- While I think the article should be kept, it is in need of major clean-up. Per WP:NFCC, one of the unacceptable uses of text is, "Excessively long copyrighted excerpts." Basically, most of the article needs to be paraphrased. There is far too much direct quoting when we need to be able to paraphrase in our own words. Interpretations of Fight Club is an example of doing this mix of quoting and paraphrasing. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- In resolving the WP:CP listing, I've made a very basic stab at cleanup here, but obviously have only worked on the first few sections. I wish I could help more, but I am hampered by the fact that I've neither read the book nor seen the film. It would be great if somebody else who is familiar with the story could take this up, intermingling non-free content with new material in a way that doesn't violate WP:NFC. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- I appreciate your work. I tried to take a stab at reworking the original article offline in word document several months ago, cutting down long quotes and paraphrasing, but it was such a long article comprised mostly of long quotes, it would be a massive undertaking for one person. The only chance would be if multiple people wanted to sign on to tackle individual sections to paraphrase. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)