Talk:Timeline (2003 film)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Timeline (2003 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: American

	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 American cinema task force.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction 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.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

SIR GUY

Wow, all those differences between the film and the novel, and not even a mention of the film's lack of SIR GUY??! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.7.174 (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added the plot summary template

Because the summary right now is about 80% too long and detailed. For an example of a good plot summary, see Gladiator (2000 film). Anchoress 03:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced Synopsis

Laid the groundwork for a shorter synopsis. Previous text was a word for word copy from The Moviespoiler.com [1]. To avoid any problems with copyright I have removed the text and as said made a new synopsis. Bigar 01:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Timeline movie.jpg

Image:Timeline movie.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 02:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronisms

The Anachronism about Spain not existing as a country is false and should probably be removed as the area was known has "Hispania" back in Roman times and peoples from the area known as "Spaniards" even though a country of that name did not exist. Spain is the Anglicized version of Hispania, which is what the region was called and what the current country is called in the native tongue and the terms did exist at the time. For example, the area that forms the Italian peninsula was known as Italy for centuries before it was united as a country by the same name. Tykx (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but add: Don't they also blow up a slightly too-large-for-the-era magazine towards the end of the film? --Hrimpurstala (talk) 05:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Box Office

The assertion "This effectively ended the popularization of the medieval genre in films" is baseless and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.105.2 (talk) 23:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between Movie and Novel

The list of deviations from the original novel has been removed on the grounds of Original Research. However, if that is Original Research, the synopsis should be considered Original Research, too (because it doesn't directly state what happens in the movie minute-by-minute, but adds "original work", a conscious selection of the most important events) - just as well as all the various "Comparison of ... software" pages, which pick a selection of facts that can be placed side-by-side to compare two related things. 85.180.25.252 (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the differences from the novel were trivial. See diff. In general, the Production section can include information about the writing and adaptation process that translates the book to a film. Rather than direct references to the book, it is best if such production information is backed by reliable sources such as interviews with the writer or director, to give context and to help show if any of the changes were important. There do not seem to be any easy opportunities for salvage in this case. -- 109.76.193.172 (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]