# Talk:Hot Fuzz

Several sources name different production companies. 

Variety states (U.S/UK)
Lumiere database states UK/France [1]
American Film Institute states Great Britain, France and United States. [2]
BFI states France, United Kingdom, USA [3]
Sight and Sound state USA/United Kingdom/France. (source is from a library link that won't work for most people).
So how do we handle this?  A quote from the Variety review is "A Universal (in U.K.)/Rogue Pictures (in U.S.) release of a Universal Pictures presentation in association with StudioCanal of a Working Title production in association with Big Talk Prods.". I see why it's confusing! But is there any way to figure out how to handle this one? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Per sources, UK, France, US. International_co-production can be used. Lapadite (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
But some list some while others don't. How do we know if they are all appropriate? Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The Variety quote states "release" so it should be referring to the distribution, not the production. It is a confusing sentence, however; I would disregard all the "in association" here.
Pg 47 of this book says UK/France/US. Pg 114 of this book says UK/France/US. It's clear from multiple RS that it's an International co-production. Per WP:FILMLEAD, "If the film's nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), it should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section"; I'd go with something to the effect of "an international co-production among companies based in the UK, France, and the U.S." You can seek more opinions in WT:FILM. Lapadite (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
The cluster of nationality should be removed from the opening sentence, but the international production can be addressed in the infobox and later in the article. The same should be done for Shaun of the Dead. Maybe look at The Dark Knight, which is a good example of how to do this. BananaBork (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I have taken action and removed the nationalities from the opening line.BananaBork (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: keeps insisting we may not say: "the fictional village of Sandford in Gloucestershire", because everything in fiction is fictional. But of course this is not true, and the point is to clarify the boundary between Gloucestershire, which is not fictional, and Sandford, which is. I suppose if there were neat wording I could think of one could say "the village of Sandford in non-fictional Gloucestershire", but is this neater or clearer? I come from Gloucestershire, I watched the film, I thought: "Hmm, I don't think there is a village of Sandford", but I couldn't be certain. Why is it so bad to inform people even less informed about Gloucestershire than I am (probably 90-something percent of readers) what is going on? Imaginatorium (talk) 10:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Not everything in fiction is fictional, but to point out what's fictional in a fictional story is a time-wasting exercise. So what if Sandford is fictional? Who cares? So is Nicholas Angel. There's no need to clarify this, it's not important to summarising the plot. It's just noise. Put it elsewhere in the article if you must, but this is a plot summary, and its job is to summarise the plot, not answer questions like "Hmm, is Sandford a real place?" Popcornduff (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
We definitely do this in some articles, both on the film project and throughout WP in general. I'm super easy about this sort of thing; in this case I think the inclusion might be helpful but if consensus went the way of leaving it out, I wouldn't be annoyed by it.  If something specific is alluded to in a way that implies it's real world or could be mistaken as such, we often mention it or have a related article to link to. I've been wiki light/absent for a few years so I'm digging for a few examples based on my bad memory.
In 2012 (film), the plot section mentions a specific model of airplane that is similar to a real world model so we linked to List of fictional aircraft.
The Zombie Survival Guide's article mentions the fictional virus that causes zombies.
The various articles for the Back to the Future franchise references fictional towns, bands, etc., specifically in cases where there's an instance of alternate history.
Haven (TV series) notes that the town the show is set in is fictional and in the article about the town, specifically, it becomes apparent why; there is a similarly named real world place in that area.
I know there are better examples that I can't think of right now but there is definitely precedence for noting that the village is fictional, especially since it's set in a real county. It's not something we have any hard and fast rules about, however. I'm going to ask some more active editors from the film project to weigh in; I may have missed some conversations about this over the last few years. Millahnna (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I was hoping they'd reply here but since they didn't, I thought you both (and any other interested editors) might want to follow the conversation I started at the film project about this.  You can find it here. I'm inclined to agree with Masem's comment at the end of the thread as of my typing this.  I hope it helps, regardless. Millahnna (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Just to add from my comment there, there is potential confusion of the real place names with one fictional one dropped among them, that we do need clarity it is a fictional place in the plot summary (It's mentioned its fake in the production section but that's too far distant and buried from the plot summary to be clear). "Angel is reassigned from London to Sandford, a fictional village in Gloucestershire." is sufficient, given that we are meant to be writing out-of-universe and describing the work from the viewer's POV and not a character's. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hot Fuzz. 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/20111104102241/http://movies.sky.com/the-other-guys/buddy-cop to http://movies.sky.com/the-other-guys/buddy-cop
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mirror.co.uk/showbiz/entertainment/movies/tm_headline%3Dhot-fuzz%26method%3Dfull%26objectid%3D18621717%26siteid%3D89520-name_page.html
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) 07:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hot Fuzz. 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/20071012130637/http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977070586 to http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977070586
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) 02:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hot Fuzz. 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/20090125200921/http://movies.about.com/od/hotfuzz/a/hotfuzzsp041307.htm to http://movies.about.com/od/hotfuzz/a/hotfuzzsp041307.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) 19:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)