Talk:Falling from Grace (film)

message: :Image:Fallinggraceposter.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 07:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Fallinggraceposter.jpg

message: Continuing to disregard this talk-page discussion, QuasyBoy has again added uncited material to this article in contravention of Wikipedia:Verifiability on 26 October 2023 at 06:13 UTC.  I removed this material 11.05 hours later, saying (in part), .  This user then replaced their claims 15 minutes later, saying, I don't understand what they mean by "nothing wrong", when Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research clearly explain what's wrong.  I also disagree with the application of policy equalling a violation of Wikipedia:Ownership of content; that policy says, , and I would think that the core content policies of the project would constitute 'good reason'.  Anybody's assistance in explaining/understanding this other user's edits and accusations would be greatly appreciated!  —  Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's quite amazing that you point to this rule and that rule, to negate your ownership of the article. This is what the article looked like before you hijacked it: , outside of the long plot summary and the unnecessary table for the cast, the structure of the article is no different from any other film article on Wikipedia. You also revert any little edit that anyone makes on the article that is unsatisfactory to you, keeping the article exactly the same for nearly three years now. I have no other choice than having to report you to an administrator for your actions. QuasyBoy (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:    Your amazement aside, applying the policy instruction of, "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed", may be done to any article, including those previously edited by the same contributors.    Firstly, that isn't an appreciated accusation.  Secondly, you're correct: after 15.66 years of existence, this article was 97.44% uncited before I rewrote it with 100% cited verification to reliable sources as required by policies.    Excepting yours and my back-and-forth, which is documented on this talk page, fifteen registered accounts and one IP-user have made edits to the article since my rewrite in 2020.  Of those, I reverted six IAW policy for adding uncited material (which all later returned to the article once sources were provided and cited), and one over six characters IAW the manual of style.  This article and this article are not , and that's thanks to the contributions of ten other editors aside from ourselves.    Okie-dokie; if you need my input as part of that process, please let me know!  —  Fourthords | =Λ= | 05:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no reason to completely delete the plot summary that was previously there, a small concise summary wold have sufficed. I've never seen Falling from Grace, but I think the fact the film is not very popular, you are taking advantage of that with your domination of the article. If the film was relatively popular you wouldn't be getting away with this. Wikipedia is collaborative website, if there is uncited material in the article, if it is not too egregious, add a maintenance tag and move along. I will contact an administrator or another Wikipedia higher up to properly mediate this situation very soon. QuasyBoy (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:    Previously, 70.77% of the article was plot synopsis, which ran contrary to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, which says, "The length of the prose should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections, as well as the length of the story itself".  It's now 14.15% of the article's prose and cited to a reliable source.    I'm "taking advantage" and "getting away with" enforcing policies because this is a low-traffic article?  Be that as it may, if this were a high-traffic article, I wouldn't need to keep an eye on it because it would have a reliable flow of many experienced editors who're all making sure that uncited material isn't added or kept.  I didn't seek out a low-traffic article to own; I found an article that was in bad shape because it was low-traffic, and after bringing it to par, I've just stewarded it to prevent back-sliding.    That is one option, but when there're over 630 thousand such tags already in place, and some of them are 14% older than many of our productive contributors, I rely on Wikipedia:Verifiability to improve articles with a modicum more expediency: "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed".    Given your consternation with my application of the verifiability policy as written, you may have success at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability.  —  Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Autumn 2023

message: Rotten Tomatoes reviews are frequently, if not nearly always, given with the % symbol, rather than the words "-percent", and the Wikipedia Manual of Style stipulates that either is acceptable. I suggest we use % in this article for consistency's sake. OGBC1992 (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That's correct: the manual of style allows for either in non-scientific/non-technical articles.As for consistency, the only prescription I'm aware of is MOS:VAR, which says,   Now, I don't understand how readers are benefitted in specifically reading about Falling from Grace with a symbol instead of a word, but I'm certainly willing to hear your rationale.  —  Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

text: The allowance of "%" in non-technical articles is only 6.2 months old, and only 103 days old when the above discussion began, so every film article should've been using "percent" or "per cent" before then.  Given that history of longevity, MOS:VAR, and MOS:NUM compliance at the time it was written, I don't think changing it would suit readers or editing SOP.  I could certainly be wrong; if consensus is that the outright changing of words to symbols is now shown to be less obfuscative to readers, I'm definitely sanguine to a change.  —  Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In comparison, these top films of 1992 - A Few Good Men, Batman Returns, The Distinguished Gentleman, Home Alone 2, The Last of the Mohicans, 3 Ninjas, The Muppet Christmas Carol, Encino Man, White Men Can't Jump, Reservoir Dogs, The Bodyguard,  Wayne's World, A River Runs Through It, My Cousin Vinny, Terminator 2, Howards End, Scent of a Woman, Unforgiven, Bram Stoker's Dracula, The Crying Game, Aladdin, Sister Act, Alien 3, The Hand That Rocks the Cradle - all use the % symbol, and have for at least the last 10 years, according to their article's histories, so the usage of the symbol has been allowed for quite a long time, despite what that "6.2 month old" discussion says. Like I said, it looks weird to me that this article is the odd man out, and the usage of "percent" hasn't been in this article very long, so I plan on changing it. Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 15:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: %