Talk:Gravity (2013 film)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gravity (film)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 03:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I will review this article. Thank you. Ssven2 (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Lead

• Can you empty the references as per WP:LEAD and describe them in the later headings but you can keep the references for the "Science Fiction Thriller" portion of the lead section. (For example: The "Telluride Film Festival" reference can be removed and placed in "Release" section.) Ssven2 (talk) 04:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Removed all the references from the lead section. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 08:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Plot

• Plot Section looks great. Instead of "radios blind", you can write "radios in the blind". You can remove "dead or alive" and just simply leave it as "ready to head back to Earth". Ssven2 (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Done as you suggested. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 08:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Cast

• "Sandra Bullock stars as Dr. Ryan Stone, and George Clooney as Lieutenant Matt Kowalski in the film." can be rephrased as "Sandra Bullock and George Clooney star as Dr. Ryan Stone and Lieutenant Matt Kowalski respectively." Ssven2 (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Rephrased. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 08:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Development

• "Scheduling conflicts involving Gravity, Jolie's Bosnian war film In the Land of Blood and Honey, and a possible Salt sequel led Jolie to exit her involvement with Gravity" - Can you remove the "Gravity" word before "Jolie's Bosnian" part? Ssven2 (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Removed. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 08:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Can you rephrase the sentence "In mid-2010, Marion Cotillard tested for the female lead role." as "In mid-2010, Marion Cotillard attended a screen test for the female lead role."? Ssven2 (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah sure, it's done now. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 08:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• "who was being praised for her performance in the recently released Black Swan." can be rephrased as "who was praised for her performance in Black Swan at that time." Ssven2 (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 08:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Filming

• "Gravity had a production budget of $100 million and was filmed digitally on multiple Arri Alexa cameras." can be rephrased as "Made on a production budget of $100 million, Gravity was filmed digitally on multiple Arri Alexa cameras." Ssven2 (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, rephrased. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 08:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• What does "Live elements" mean? If there is an alternative way of expressing it, please rephrase the word. Ssven2 (talk) 04:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, actually I've read the word somewhere I don't remember but I think it's actually the word "CG elements." So, I've rephrased it. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 08:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Where is the source for the line "The soundtrack in the film's space scenes consists of the musical score and sounds astronauts would hear in their suits or in the space vehicles."? Ssven2 (talk) 04:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's done too. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 15:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Themes

• "Cuarón uses Stone" can be rephrased as "Cuarón uses the character, Stone, to" for more clarity. Ssven2 (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 15:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• "mortal consequences of a relentless Murphy's law" can be simply written as "consequences of Murphy's law". Ssven2 (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ssven2: I think, we should keep the "relentless" word, and just "mortal" be removed. It tells what Murphy's law actually is. What do you say? --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 15:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, since you have wikilinked Murphy's Law, that's why I had asked you to remove "relentless". You can keep the word anyway (the reason I suggested removing it is because IMHO, it look like an honorific to the law. ) Ssven2 (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• "vacuum of space with the sound of the score." can be rephrased as "vacuum of space with the background score giving the desired effect." Ssven2 (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 15:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• "posit" can be replaced with a more simpler understanble word, (example: postulate or propose) Ssven2 (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, "postulate" is a better word then. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 15:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Release

• "post-production effects work" can be written as "post-production work". Ssven2 (talk) 05:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 15:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Box office

• "eighth-highest grossing film of 2013" can be wikilinked. Ssven2 (talk) 05:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Critical response

• Mention that each reviewer gave the film its star ratings, (example: You can write it like this - "X gave the film X out of x stars" for whichever magazine, website or newspaper that uses star ratings.) Ssven2 (talk) 05:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the whole section needs to be rewrite, what do you say? --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

No need to rewrite, just give the rating for the movie by the reviewers (whichever one uses ratings). For those who don't have ratings, just leave them as they are fine. (i.e. they look great) Ssven2 (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I think Rolling Stone and RogerEbert.com are the only ones to use ratings and its solved already. Another thing, Corliss's review borders on WP:QUOTEFARM, so you can put a quote box for the "Cuarón shows things that cannot be but..." part. Ssven2 (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Accolades

• The references from the lead section about the awards can be removed from there and placed here. Ssven2 (talk) 05:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Already done in the start. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

References

• Follow a single reference style. You know the drill. If you plan on adding notes in the "Notes" section, please do so, otherwise, remove it. Ssven2 (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's removed. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• In case you don't know which style I am referring to, the refernce style should be followed like this for example :-

Stewart, Andrew (October 4, 2013). "Box Office: ‘Gravity’ Tracking for a $40 Mil-Plus Bow With Record 3D Sales". Variety. Penske Media Corporation. Retrieved October 6, 2013.

Names of 'newspapers and magazines' should be 'italicised' and 'websites' should be in 'normal style of writing'. Ssven2 (talk) 08:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any ref which is not in the manual of style. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!: Ok then, archive the Reference 2 as mentioned below. Ssven2 (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've never archived any ref before, but I tried this one and there was an error, given below.

"The caching attempt failed for the following reason: No files could be downloaded for the given URL. This is likely because

a) The URL is incorrect,

b) The site in question refuses connections by crawling robots, or

c) The site in question is inaccessible from the WebCite network"

So what do I do now? --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 18:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Finally I did it, done all. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 19:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Captain Assassin!: Reference 2 is a dead link. Archive it. Ssven2 (talk) 08:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!: If you address these concerns, I will pass the article. Ssven2 (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright Ssven2, I'm starting it in a few hours. It's good to see a new and good reviewer here. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 07:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright Ssven2, it's done at last. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 19:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Has underwent a C/e from WP:GOCE so no issues regarding prose, there were few, I fixed them while reviewing. Quotes use " " and have sources backing them up. So Criteria 1a is good for me.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.

   Pass or Fail:

@Captain Assassin!: Congratulations, Gravity has passed the test. Ssven2 (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Ssven2, for the review and help all along. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Ecology

It's an ecology film. Everything said about space in the movie is negative, and everything said about the earth in the movie is positive. The theme of the movie is that it would take us a million years of technological advancement to be able to actually go anywhere in space, and that whatever we would find out there would not be as wonderful as the earth is. The theme is that we better be good to the earth, because that's all we're ever going to have. 7Jim7 (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that we add such a comment to the article, it would have to come from and independent and reputable reliable source. HiLo48 (talk)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Prashant! (talk · contribs) 06:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead

• You should mention that its a "Science fiction Space thriller" not only science fiction thriller.
• Character names should be introduced, as you are talking about "their" space shuttles. Its confusing as it's Clooney's or Bullock's (actors).
• I also think its the story of Dr. Ryan (and only hers) struggle to land back on earth. So, correct it as Clooney's character doesn't struggle to get back on earth.—Prashant 17:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

•  Done :). --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 08:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Prashant, after making various edits, I realize I need to reply to your points:

Consensus so far (see previous talks) is to present the movie as "science fiction" since this is what many sources use. Opinion on "space" is less clear; some think it's one genre label too many.

I think we can fix the "whose ferry is it" issue without the many words required by naming the characters

No need to drop the main spoiler already in the lede; we have leeway to summarize films without giving away precise plot points (spoilers should be given of course, but their place is in the plot section)

Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) while I agree with most of what CapnZapp says, I still don't see how the film can be called "science fiction"; it is no Star Wars or E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial to be called as such. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Please read the extensive discussions on the Gravity talk pages, including archives, before discussing "is Gravity scifi?" further. Thank you, CapnZapp (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, then it's fine. Plot section is great.—Prashant 12:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Just walk by, I suggest this article need more infomation about the written, script and screenplay. The Development section are mostly casting, but development generally should be something more like how the filmmaker put resources together, how the scripts go, who will finance the film, something like that.--Jarodalien (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good point. I added the financing details about film in the Development section. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 18:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It's been 22 days Prashant!. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 19:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, the main problem with the article is it's length. I mean the development section is very small. For films like this, it's below average. So, please expand it at least 4 times as it is "Universally acclaimed". So, you won't find fifficult to collect sources materials. All the best. When it's done with it, ping me to continue.—Prashant 12:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I'm doing it. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 20:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Prashant! & Captain Assassin!, what's happening here? Finishing the review anytime soon?--Retrohead (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Prashant!, please tell me what you want me to add in the production? --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 01:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what specifically can be added to the article. But, an article on such a masterpiece film such be a greatcoat. The article needs expansion. More production, development, filming, pre-production details should be added along with box-office and critical reception.—Prashant 19:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Is the review still going on? It's been open over three months at a very slow pace, and the last comment above tells me that I'm not exactly sure what is being reviewed right now, especially since I see nowhere where expansion is sorely needed. Wizardman 22:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I just edited the article to format the long quotes in the Critical response section as blockquotes, per WP:Blockquote. Indeed, the second and third paragraphs there are quote farms, with almost no paraphrasing or significant description about the reviews, which is far from ideal in a GA. The article has three bare URLs, which need fixing. It makes me nervous when the reviewer doesn't point out that wording such as "put Gravity as one of the best space films" should be improved, and also ask for something to be done with the odd back-to-back HuffPo opinions on the movie that were diametrically opposed; I've edited these as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Prashant!, you still want to continue? If "no" is the answer, never mind. But the article (with over 100 references) looks fully GA-worthy, although some slight c/e would still do. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Kailash29792, Prashant! has had four months, as of today, to complete this review, and it's been over a month since the reviewer's last general post. I don't see things getting any better, so I'm returning this nomination to the pool in the hopes that some other reviewer can articulate just what it is the article needs, and also look at the actual prose and suggest improvements. With the GA cup in full swing, this will hopefully find a new reviewer before long. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

various: see talk

• Lede: no nationalities in lead sentence per WP:MOS; genre according to refs cited; no need to name characters in lede; remove needless spoiler, detail from lede
• Plot: copyedit (trim definite article); remove speculative wikilinking of "shaky steps" to Effect of spaceflight on the human body; per director's expressly stated aim was more to connect "shaky steps" to Human evolution via March of Progress.
• Release: added UK release to counterbalance US centricity
• Critical response: using Metacritics labels are uncontroversial

CapnZapp (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

High Speed Debris

Off topic chat

I don't recall (I may have missed it) how the High Speed Debris managed to impact the telescope? If the Debris was moving faster than the telescope, it would move into a higher orbit would it not? If both are in different orbits how would an impact happen if they are both in different places? There are only three ways I can think of where this could happen. 1) The defunct Satellite is pushed into a greatly eccentric orbit by the missile strike. 2) The defunct Satellite was in a polar orbit. 3) The defunct Satellite was orbiting in the opposite direction as the telescope. None of these seems likely. Jokem (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to their associated articles, not for general discussion of the articles' topics. While we have some sourced discussion of the accuracy of the science in the article, I don't see anything about the velocities and trajectories of the debris relative to the protagonists. Suffice it to say, the accuracy of the science here falls somewhere between Cosmos and Waterworld. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Since the article has a section discussing the accuracy of the science, and what I put in relates to that then I don't see how this is not part of a discussion on improving the article. Jokem (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic.

"Joe Blow in Space Movies Magazine said the movie made mistakes regarding orbital inertia. Is this a reliable source? Should we include this in the article?" is discussion about improving the article.

"I think the movie made mistakes regarding orbital inertia. Based on the assumed initial orbital velocity of the International Space Station an the apparent angle of impact..." is a discussion of possible errors in the film. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand how your response has anything to do with what I said. I never mentioned 'Joe Blow' or anyone else.

I opened some of the issues I saw as to scientific accuracy up for discussion on the talk page. If I were to instead research all this with references and write up a proof using the scientific method, then it would belong in the article, not the talk page since I would have answered all these questions.

So are you saying the Talk page is not the place to ask these questions? Jokem (talk) 07:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

That you did not mention "Joe Blow or anyone else" is exactly the point. Additions to the article need reliable sources.

No, if you wrote up a scientific proof it would be original research and would not belong on Wikipedia. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

And since I did not in fact add it to the article, but to the talk page, I am not sure what your objection is. Jokem (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for discussing your theories or opinions. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Off topic

chat
Impact What are the initial impacts of the film? Relate to Apollo missions and the actions of NASA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Englishkid2 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC) This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

"Foreign-Speaking Fisherman"

The line in the plot summary "after a poignant radio communication with a foreign-speaking fisherman on Earth" could be more precise. It's not clear from the movie dialogue that the distant voice is from a fisherman, but it's clear that they do not understand each other. Also, the language that's spoken is hard to identify and I only found out here what the context for this conversation is supposed to be. If there are no objections, I'm going to change the line to "after a poignant attempt at radio communication with an Eskimo–Aleut-speaking fisherman on earth..." Cheers, Not Sure (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

revisions as of 15 February 2015 by 67.211.139.244

Sources only support that the ISS was moved, not that this makes the criticism against Gravity applicable only at time of release. See WP:SYNTH. Besides, this info is largely irrelevant anyway: of course the complaint only concerns itself with the reality at the time the movie was released!

If you can find sources that expressly discuss how the complaint against the movie is impacted by subsequent ISS movements AND convince us here at the talk page that this actually merits a mention in the article, then feel free to add it back.

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

removal of Mera Joota

On 16:12, 26 March 2015‎ Wamiq asked the following question in the edit summary: "Music: Who removed this?"

@Wamiq:That would be 122.170.103.83 who removed this line at 15:06, 14 October 2013‎. Link: [1].

No explanation was given. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Space adventure vs. Drama/thriller

The new edit for the film's genre just came out of nowhere, should it be adventure or thriller? It should be thriller/drama because adventures is something that isn't as terrifying as what happened in this movie. Tell me what you guys think. - Theironminer (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Adventure, there are more sources listing this as adventure. Lembrazza (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: “This film goes one step beyond The Poseidon Adventure, in that it is set in outer space; beyond, that, who knows where its limits lie.” As such, I wonder whether it would be possible to put this remark somewhere in the article? As it is clear that this film, together with the film “Sanctum”, is one of the major inspirations for the plot. Nowhereman (talk) 12:55, 2 march 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.192.182 (talk)

Do you have a reliable source for this? - SummerPhD (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how this movie is "science fiction". There are no futuristic or unrealized technologies used. It's all current science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.1.90.4 (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

This subject has been discussed extensively, 184.1.90.4. Please, read through the archives (here's a good start) and you should hopefully find all the answers you need. Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 06:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC).

Country of origin

Gravity was entirely made in the UK, by a Mexican producer. Why is it then described as being made by UK and USA?122.59.83.216 (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Controversy / Lawsuit

Could some wiki-savvy person mention the controversy and ongoing litigation against WB by the author of the book 'Gravity'? Details, including the full legal document, are on Ms. Gerritsen's website: http://www.tessgerritsen.com/gravity-2014/ --36.37.235.104 (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Until the lawsuit is finalized, no credit should be changed on this page. Wikipedia is not a forum for airing disputes. The lawsuit is mentioned on the page, but I removed the inappropriate credit that was give to Gerritsen as it is still and unproven allegation. Yotsuya48 (talk) 09:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is not be used as a way to call undue attention to the lawsuit. Therefore, keep any details to a minimum (especially if the lawsuit is thrown out of court), and be vigilant for any sneak edits that try to add back statements in support for either position. Do not use Gerritsen's web page as a source, that would be a blatant violation of WP:POV. Finally, there's no "controversy" here. Or rather: isn't all lawsuits about a controversy? It's a lawsuit, folks - let's call it that. CapnZapp (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow, who wrote what's in there now? There's a quote by a different judge in a different case. Well done, wiki team. Gerritsen's website has the original documents filed in court, and the judge's reply is in the credit for the bogus edit in the current article. Why peddle so much misinformation? You don't need to say WB ripped her off, just state the fact that the case exists and why. No need to distort things and then throw in random false lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.37.240.78 (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Author Tess Gerritsen has dropped her lawsuit against Warner Bros. over similarities between the 2013 film "Gravity" and her 1999 book, she wrote in a statement Monday

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2015/06/29/3701509/gravity-author-drops-lawsuit-against.html

This makes the lawsuit not noteworthy in my opinion. Consequently, I boldly removed the section (originally called "Controversy", later renamed "Lawsuit"). What do you think? Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't dug through the history but I believe this still belongs. It's extremely significant to the genesis of the story regardless of the lawsuit's outcome. Dontreadalone (talk) 03:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

"Gravity is not sci-fi but a drama set in space"

Please read through the talk archives for a very large body of discussion around the film's genre. I recommend the following starting point: Talk:Gravity_(film)/Archive_2#why_is_gravity_classified_as_Scifi.3F (but feel free to browse the archives at your leisure)

(If you're wondering why I am not simply summarizing this discussion, it's because I don't want to speak for anyone else.)

What I can do, however, is bring your attention to the fact that the director's opinion is noted in this series of discussions.

I'm going to go ahead and revert the genre change for now, since we have not yet reached a consensus on making that change. I do welcome you to bring up your arguments to this talk discussion, assuming it hasn't been said already.

Best Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gravity (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131214045723/http://www.totalfilm.com:80/features/best-movies-of-2013/gravity to http://www.totalfilm.com/features/best-movies-of-2013/gravity

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of top 10 lists

Undoing removal on principle.

It's not that I have a strong opinion on the matter, Tenebrae; only I don't feel a small discussion involving a handful editors from four years back constitute Wikipedia-wide consensus to remove top 10 lists from articles in general.

I have to say I feel you come across as wielding "the policy hammer" to get your edits done unopposed with such measures: your edit note gives off the air of "a done deal, nothing more to say". As I said, I don't like that on principle.

That's why I've taken the case to THIS talk page. If you gain consensus on THIS talk page, your edit would go down much smoother. If you can show us a much more comprehensive consensus discussion, likewise.

Best Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

CapnZapp, I started a general discussion at WT:FILM yesterday. It can be seen here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit to link to archived discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 60#Top 10 lists CapnZapp (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

There was consensus to adjust Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film to address lists of top-10 lists. I have made the subsequent edit here. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gravity (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131109033805/http://wordonfire.org/WOF-TV/Commentaries-New/Gravity-A-Commentary-by-Fr-Barron-spoiler-alert.aspx to http://wordonfire.org/WOF-TV/Commentaries-New/Gravity-A-Commentary-by-Fr-Barron-spoiler-alert.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

using Barry Koltnow as a source

This regards this edit: [2]

Barry Koltnow is a self-described entertainment columnist as well as a television columnist, theater critic, food columnist, nightclub photographer and celebrity interviewer: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/interview-618290-new-asked.html However, what he is not is a technical expert or an authority on space helmet technology. Since I'm not neutral in this dispute, I ask you to evaluate the the newly (re-)added source's reliability. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic Chat

Off-topic chat

Inaccuracies Would NASA use a doctor of medicine to do mechanical repairs on the Hubble space telescope? Would NASA train anyone who does mechanical repairs to fly spacecraft? Would NASA train anyone to fly foreign (russian and chinese) spacecraft? How can communication satellites be damaged by debris produced in the orbit of space stations (roughly 400 km), geostationary orbit is above 35000 kilometers... 88.217.9.99 (talk) 08:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC) One of the main duties of astronauts is to mechanically repair things. They all spend time doing stuff like this, so the answers to your first two questions are "yes". NASA astronauts are also trained to operate and work with foreign equipment (and people) because lots of the stuff at ISS is foreign (mostly russian). Specifically all modern NASA astronauts are trained to speak and read russian. So the answer to #3 is also "yes". For #4 I don't know. Staecker (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to their associated articles, not for general discussion of the articles' topics. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Barry Koltnow (cont'd)

Resolved

Per above, my position on this source is that it isn't reliable. Nobody responded, but now the source is back, so I'll ask again.

Then the matter of WP:SYNTH. While it's possible to find reliable sources on space helmets, the ones I've been able to find do not discuss the matter in regards to this film's depiction. There could well be technical circumstances that makes Gravity's depiction plausible.

Please make your case here on the talk page before reinserting the disputed statement again, @HerbSewell.

CapnZapp (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The NASA source does not so much as mention the film, let alone discuss this issue in the film. It's NASA, so it is a "reliable, published source", but it is not "directly related to the topic of the article". That leaves us with Koltnow.

The Koltnow article has the entertainment columnist interviewing a fictional Dr. Clarke Gabel with a fictional degree representing a fictional organization as part of a satirical piece about people who have an overwhelming drive to publicize minor apparent scientific inaccuracies in fictional films. An editor is using it to publicize a minor apparent scientific inaccuracy in a fictional film. If you have to ask what irony is, you'll never know.

I propose that the visor in the film was designed by NASA specifically for the unusually charismatic astronauts sent on this mission to generate more press coverage of missions so as to build support for better funding for NASA. It is surprising that Dr. Gabel, with his doctorate in generating publicity, was unaware of this. As Koltrow is not a reliable source on such things, we can neither blame him for not knowing nor use his humor piece as a source for rocket science in a Sandra Bullock film. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

What exactly are you proposing? Also, I wasn't debating anything. I added both sources because I believed they were a sufficient basis for the statement and I provided an edit summary. How could that qualify as debating?--HerbSewell (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I am proposing that the NASA piece is not a reliable source for anything in the claim/this article as it does not discuss the claim/the subject of this article.

I am proposing that a statement by a fictional character in a fictional interview by an entertainment columnist is not a reliable source. (If he wrote a piece wherein a fictional interview with Richard Nixon had Nixon claim to be "Deep Throat" we wouldn't use that either.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

What is the relevance of the fictional person?--HerbSewell (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, I was referring to this statement: "I propose that the visor in the film was designed by NASA specifically for the unusually charismatic astronauts sent on this mission to generate more press coverage of missions so as to build support for better funding for NASA." This was the only thing you said you proposed, which is why I asked you what exactly it was you were proposing.--HerbSewell (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The fictional person is your source. "Dr. Clarke Gabel" says the visor should not be clear. He's a fictional buffoon, created by an entertainment columnist to spout supposed inaccuracies. "Dr. Gabel" also says a number of former astronauts and employees of NASA were outraged by the movie. Should we include that?

I am proposing that we know nothing about the fictional visor in the movie. You assume it's the one in the NASA source (my proposal is it might be an all-new visor created by the fictionalize NASA in the movie). A fictional doctor assures us the visor is all wrong. We have Neil deGrasse Tyson, et al. discussing very real things: inertia, when the Space Shuttles were retired, etc. I don't see a fictional doctor's claims about an unspecified visor fitting in with that. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

On what basis do you say that's my source?--HerbSewell (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Because you cited it. If that isn't your source, please cite the source that is. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

No, I didn't.--HerbSewell (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

When you add material and include a link to something published elsewhere inside of the <ref> - </ref> tags, as you did with the fictional interview here, we call that "citing a source". You cited two sources: the off-topic NASA article and the entertainment columnist's fictional interview with the fictional doctor of generating publicity, "Clarke Gabel". Were you instead trying to add the material without sources and just wanted to include some light reading along with it? - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

How does that imply that the fictional character was my source?--HerbSewell (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't imply it, the article's fictional interview quotes the fictional doctor. A photo/layout editor used the fictional doctor's fictional statement to caption a photo. Whether you feel you were citing the off-topic NASA article, the entertainment columnist, the fictional doctor or a photo editor is immaterial. None of them are helpful here. The material has been removed. If you have a what you feel may be a reliable source, feel free to bring it up here. Otherwise, I can't begin to imagine any practical value to further discussing whether entertainment-editor-quotes-fictional-interview-with-fictional-doctor-heading-fictional-organization-ed-by-layout-editor is a reasonable source for this absurdly ironic discussion.

If you disagree, please take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. Fair warning: the answer will likely be brief and to the point. That board tends to avoid apparent performance art. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

You claimed that the fictional person was my source. "The fictional person is your source." Is the fictional doctor different from the fictional person? What is the basis of you saying that the fictional person is my source? "A photo/layout editor used the fictional doctor's fictional statement to caption a photo." Where did the "fictional doctor" make that statement?--HerbSewell (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Your source says: "We sat down with the head of the organization, Dr. Clarke Gabel, to find out why he finds Hollywood films so objectionable....Q. Good morning, Dr. Gabel....A.One inaccuracy they noted was in the visors worn by the astronauts in the movie. They were clear, and real space helmet visors are not." - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

How does that imply that my source is the "fictional person"?--HerbSewell (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

It's in English. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The source is in English, therefore the "fictional person" is my source? That conclusion doesn't follow ipso facto.--HerbSewell (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I can't help you understand what it says. This conversation is over. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

If you're not going to explain yourself, allow me to suggest what erroneous assumptions you may have made. That article was my source, but the source itself wasn't the "fictional person," which I never claimed to be the source. There was no basis whatsoever to assume this aside from my indicating that the article was my source, which did not imply that the "fictional person" was my source. "A photo/layout editor used the fictional doctor's fictional statement to caption a photo." This is another statement that has no basis. The cutline that I used as a basis for the statement was not found in the "interview" with the fictional person. This would have been apparent by searching for the text within the answers by the "fictional person," and seeing that the opinion of the appropriateness of this artistic license of the cutline was entirely opposite to that of the "fictional person." If you were suggesting that I couldn't understand my own source, perhaps it would have been more helpful if you actually explained the precise reason why you believed the "fictional person" was my source, perhaps indicating that you believed this statement of the "fictional person" which was supposedly used on the cutline was found in the text of the interview within the article that I used as a source. I don't know what assumptions you made, whether they were wrong or I'm wrong, or that the statement from the cutline is supposedly based on a statement from the "fictional person." If you can find the statement of the cutline in the interview of the fictional person, please be so kind as to indicate its location within the "interview." The basis of my entry is part of the cutline, which is, "To be scrupulously accurate, if Sandra Bullock were a real astronaut she wouldn't have a clear visor and wouldn't float around the Space Shuttle in sexy underwear," which is different from, "One inaccuracy they noted was in the visors worn by the astronauts in the movie. They were clear, and real space helmet visors are not." I don't see how the latter statement invalidates the former. The article as such might not be adequate as a source for various reasons, but is the case independent of the "interview" conducted by the "fictional person."--HerbSewell (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The photo caption had nothing to do with the nearly identical claim in the article that it just happened to accompany? Brilliant. If you wish to argue the source is reliable for the article, do explain. If you're just here to clarify the specific reasons your source is not reliable, we're still done here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

"The photo caption had nothing to do with the nearly identical claim in the article that it just happened to accompany? Brilliant." The sarcasm is wholly unhelpful. I never claimed that the two statements had "nothing to do" with each other. I did say that "the opinion of the appropriateness of this artistic license of the cutline was entirely opposite to that of the 'fictional person.'" Merely having a statement restated with a different spin doesn't invalidate the statement in another part. "If you wish to argue the source is reliable for the article, do explain." My compromise for this was having a technical and reliable source speak generally about the theory behind the statement, and a less reliable source directly applying the judgement to the subject, resulting in the article statement being substantiated by the two sources.--HerbSewell (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Yup, an off-topic source + synthesis = We're done. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

And on what basis is the Orangecounty.com not a reliable source? It's easy to show that the cutline is independent from the statement in the "interview," and that the latter statement doesn't invalidate the former. I found about twenty articles using it as a source. If the source isn't reliable, should I remove all statements that only use that source as a basis?--HerbSewell (talk) 03:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Dr. Gabel, as you just said, we have a reliable source that says a number of former astronauts and employees of NASA were outraged by the movie. Astronauts and NASA folks! That's important! How can we not include it?!?! - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

As I said before, the sarcasm is wholly unhelpful. I've already said that my source isn't the fictional character, but the cutline.--HerbSewell (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

As I said before, Dr. Gabel, you'll need to take this to the reliable sources noticeboard. The local consensus says it isn't a reliable source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Why are you addressing me as Dr. Gabel and why isn't it a reliable source? You've given several reasons, and you've successfully defended none of them.--HerbSewell (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

If you like to further discuss Hollywood's inexcusable deceit of the public, you'll need to take it to the noticeboard. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

You didn't say why you addressed me as "Dr. Gable." There's already a section of the article devoted to the scientific inaccuracies, so that sarcastic response would extend to disqualifying the entirety of the section if it means to have any force at all.--HerbSewell (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

If you like to further discuss Hollywood's inexcusable deceit of the public, you'll need to take it to the noticeboard. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Why are you repeating yourself?--HerbSewell (talk) 04:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

If you'd like to further discuss Hollywood's inexcusable deceit of the public, you'll need to take it to the noticeboard. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to do that, so you can stop suggesting it.--HerbSewell (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Find a better source. A caption of a photo in a satirical column does not hold up as a reliable source. --SubSeven (talk) 04:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Why not?--HerbSewell (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Because such a thing would not be fact-checked, and there is no presumption of accuracy. Not everything that appears on a web page is gospel, I hope you understand; you have to consider where the information is coming from. Read up on the reliable source guidelines. Relevant sections there, for example, would be WP:RSCONTEXT, and, while I don't see anything in the guideline regarding humor pieces (probably because using such a thing as a reliable source is so rarely even attempted), the closest thing there that is discussed is probably opinion pieces, so you can also refer to WP:NEWSORG and the rare instances when something from an opinion column could be used. You will find that none of it applies here. --SubSeven (talk) 05:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Because such a thing would not be fact-checked, and there is no presumption of accuracy.

What is the basis of this statement?

Not everything that appears on a web page is gospel...

Nothing I did or said implied otherwise.

Relevant sections there, for example, would be WP:RSCONTEXT

"Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content."

I did so when using it as a source and I see no reason why it isn't acceptable.

"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

The article is not classified in the opinion section of the site, but even assuming this is the case, it says such articles are "rarely reliable," which isn't an absolute statement and begs the question of what makes something reliable. The resource is used in about twenty other articles, and it's not classified as an opinion piece in the source.--HerbSewell (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

For the purpose of sourcing, how are following sources not opinion pieces?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/21/heres-what-gravity-gets-right-and-wrong-about-space/

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131027-why-gravity-is-junk-science

Also, how is the dispute solved?--HerbSewell (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

You have several editors telling you this is not a reliable source. Your options are: 1) drop it 2) find a better source 3) take it to the noticeboard. There is nothing more to discuss, though we wish you well in your quest to protect the American people from wasting their hard-earned money on movies that are not 100 percent accurate. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The sarcasm is still unnecessary. If it were resolved, you wouldn't have made a post afterwards indicating that the source wasn't reliable, so the two actions are contradictory.--HerbSewell (talk) 05:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

New source

While I get that you really, really, really want to add this, please slow down.

Your latest addition states, "The dispute in the talk section was resolved. I not only found a better source, but took it to the noticeboard, in which I received a response that approved of this source for this article and content."

In the course of roughly an hour, you asked a question and one editor responded twice.[3] In their first response, they suggested you should be careful and "attribute the statement to Dr. Clarke Gabel, clarifying he's a film critic for the Coalition for Accuracy in Hollywood Movies of Anaheim. I.e., he's not a part of the space program." Oops. Gabel is a fictional character from a fictional organization. They did, however, caution, "I'm not a regular here, so you might want to wait for a second opinion." They're certainly right on that one. ANYONE can post to the noticeboard. I'd suggest waiting for some back and forth before taking a response there as the word of God. This example should have given you a clue in that regard.

Pressing ahead, you ignored the error in their first response and decided to ask about a new source, a blog post on a satelite database company's website. Yes, Seradata is likely a reliable source for some information in some contexts. This does not mean a blog post on their website is reliable in every context. That could use some clarification on the noticeboard, so I've raised the issue there.

Moreover, your addition is not what the source says. In the context of scientific errors in the film, you are adding "Visors in space reflect sunlight, and thus would be opaque, in contrast to their transparency of the helmets in the film." The source says, "By the way, so that the audience can see the characters’ faces – no reflective helmet visors were to be seen deployed."[4]

Claim: 1) Visors reflect sunlight. 2) Visors would be opaque. 3)Visors (not helmets) are transparent in the film. Source: Reflective visors are not seen in the film. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Pressing ahead, you ignored the error in their first response and decided to ask about a new source

I do not see why was obligated to address it. I decided not to use that source, so invalid arguments in favor of it are irrelevant.--HerbSewell (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

While I get that you really, really, really want to add this, please slow down.

My personal motives are irrelevant. I could just as easily say you "really, really, really do not want to add this", or that you "really, really, really" want to address me by the name of someone you just indicated was a fictional person, or that you "really, really, really" want to repeat the phrase, "If you like to further discuss Hollywood's inexcusable deceit of the public, you'll need to take it to the noticeboard."--HerbSewell (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

In the course of roughly an hour, you asked a question and one editor responded twice.

The time frame of the response is irrelevant. They could have answered immediately or weeks later. It wouldn't make their response any less valid ipso facto.--HerbSewell (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

In their first response, they suggested you should be careful and "attribute the statement to Dr. Clarke Gabel, clarifying he's a film critic for the Coalition for Accuracy in Hollywood Movies of Anaheim. I.e., he's not a part of the space program." Oops. Gabel is a fictional character from a fictional organization.

Pointing this out would be relevant if I actually followed that advice, but I didn't do that. Whether he was incorrect in his assumption that this person was real has no bearing because he gave advise that wasn't followed.--HerbSewell (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting for some back and forth before taking a response there as the word of God.

The implication is that I took their "response their as the word of God," which is either false, or its merely an irrelevant suggestion, because it doesn't accurately describe my behavior. You recommended to me that I consult the noticeboard, which I did. I provided two sources, the latter, the basis of my most recent, (now reverted twice), edit. After almost twenty-two hours, I edited the page with the information that was initially approved by the person who responded to me. Your edit summary, (inarticulate as it was), seems to suggest that I somehow should have acted differently, even though there's nothing in you advice from which I deviated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HerbSewell (talk • contribs) 04:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

In advising you to slow down, the time frame is certainly relevant. For example, I reverted your edit, went to the noticebaord to raise some issues and discussed the content issue here. It took less than half an hour. You boldly added material, I reverted it and started discussion. You reverted too quickly for me to respond. (Thanks, though, for undoing your revert.)

In advising you to slow down, the time frame is certainly relevant.

If there's a policy against editing too quickly, I would like to see it. I waited nearly twenty-two hours after I received that last response to add the content. You were free to contribute if you wanted to the noticeboard, and whatever prevented you from doing that is of no concern to me. You're telling me to slow down and I find this advice utterly worthless by your word alone. If there's a policy you can cite that I'm violating merely with the speed of my edits, (because apparently twenty-one hours isn't sufficient), cite it.--HerbSewell (talk) 04:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

This does not mean a blog post on their website is reliable in every context.

A blog post was used as the source for the content of, "Several observers (including Plait and Tyson) said that in the scene in which Kowalski unclips his tether and floats away to his death to save Stone from being pulled away from the ISS, Stone would simply need to tug the tether gently to pull Kowalski toward her. According to the film's science adviser Kevin Grazier and NASA engineer Robert Frost, however, the pair are still decelerating with Stone's leg caught in the parachute cords from the Soyuz. The cords stretch as they absorb her kinetic energy. Kowalski thinks that the cords are not strong enough to absorb his kinetic energy as well as hers, and that he must release the tether to give Stone a chance of stopping before the cords fail and doom both of them." Should that be removed as well?--HerbSewell (talk) 04:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The other editor made a mistake in giving a fictional character status as a reliable source. That same editor advised you they were new to the noticeboard and you should probably wait for a second opinion. That was good advice.

Given that several editors have challenged this addition several times, a bit of hesitancy to believe you've overcome that and established a consensus would, IMO, be a good idea. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

That same editor advised you they were new to the noticeboard and you should probably wait for a second opinion.

I waited for almost twenty-two hours. If there's a policy you can cite to show that this wasn't a sufficient amount of time, please cite it.--HerbSewell (talk) 04:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

How about waiting until a second opinion is given? Twenty-two hours is not long at all. What is the rush?

And I agree with SummerPhD, the statement you are trying to add to the article, and what the seradata source actually says, are two very different things, even if it was deemed to be reliable. --SubSeven (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Then I'll modify the statement. Address the reliability of the source.--HerbSewell (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

How about waiting until a second opinion is given? Twenty-two hours is not long at all. What is the rush?

There isn't a rush. The dispute was marked as resolved, with the only advice given to me to "1) drop it 2) find a better source 3) take it to the noticeboard." I took it to the noticeboard. It was approved, with apparently invalid reasoning. I took the second option and found what I consider to be a "better source." In regards to waiting twenty-one hours, I didn't know how long I was supposed to wait before I got another response and probably only got another one so quickly because I added the content with the newer source. The only harm is that somebody might have seen the content before it was reverted and learned that, along with other listed inaccuracies, the helmets should not have been transparent.--HerbSewell (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

You took it to the noticeboard, it was approved by an editor who mistook a satirical interview for a reliable soure, said they were new to the noticeboard and suggested you wait for a second opinion. You waited almost a whole entire day! Clearly this one additional opinion sent everyone who had disagreed with you previously running? This was marked "resolved" as in: the WP:CONSENSUS is against including it, we've discussed it to death, you want one thing, everyone else disagrees; time to move on. You took that as "If one other person agrees with me without sufficient context, I can add it"? Is there a policy against not hearing the consensus and pushing ahead against that consensus? I think you can figure that out.

Let's be clear: You really, really, really, really, really want to include this. So far the consensus is against that. You've Boldly added this several times. You've been Reverted several times. It is now time to Discuss it and build a consensus. That will likely take several days. One editor misunderstanding the situation and agreeing with you does not outweigh the established consensus here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Lake Powell - Arizona or Utah?

This entry was spurred by recent edits and their revertal.

In short: even though 1) Lake Powell is (mostly) in Utah, not Arizona and 2) the scene was possibly filmed north of the Utah border* even though everyone thought they were still in Arizona, Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability. Every source (including the director himself) says the scene was shot at something called "Lake Powell, Arizona", so that is what we should report. At least until our sources change their tune.

• ) https://jerrygarrett.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/gravity-filmed-in-lake-powell-arizona-not-exactly/

CapnZapp (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Latest bout of edits

The changes are so large it isn't immediately obvious if anything was removed or changed, as opposed to added or rearranged, so I'm going to ask the community to check up on that. Also, several images have broken. Thx CapnZapp (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gravity (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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/gravity-2013
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140102162352/http://www.metacritic.com/feature/film-critic-top-10-lists-best-movies-of-2013 to http://www.metacritic.com/feature/film-critic-top-10-lists-best-movies-of-2013

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)