Talk:Rob-B-Hood

message: "Jackie Chan said in an interview that there would be a scene where his character purposely burns the baby's hand with a cigarette."
Can this line really be trusted as reliable information? As it originates from a Movie summary submitted by one guy with one submission.
I feel there may be a terminology problem here - I find it very hard to believe that a film that is rated, for example, G in Singapore would feature two guys French kissing, or even be allowed to be screened at all in Malaysia. A French Kiss involves the use of the tongue, is intimate, and is not something that happens quickly. Simple contact of two sets of lips does not constitute a French kiss. Can someone who has scene the relevant scene confirm whether the description here is correct? Paul Christensen (Hong Kong) 12:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  older entries 

message: Project BB should be merged into this Rob-B-Hood article. Project BB is merely the working title for this film before it was released. When it debuted at the Venice Film Festival it was released as Rob-B-Hood. The Project BB article by itself does not have enough importance to warrant its' own article, at this time. Thus these two articles should be merged. Thoughts? Luke! 04:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See IMDB article for the relationship in these two names Luke! 04:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Merge 

message: The use of flags in the infoboxes has been a cause of concern recently on WP:FILM, and they are particularly onerous on this one. Why all the flags, especially in the country field, where the flag is redundant? Discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Use of flags makes information harder to read. It might be helpful to read, is all I'm suggesting. More details about the handling of release dates can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Release dates, which are only rough guidelines, especially in the case of this film, but still might be of some use.
The infobox is a summary. The releases in southeast Asia (Thailand on 28 September 2006! Woo hoo!), Greece and Japan could be noted in the body of the article, but aren't really necessary in the infobox. — WiseKwai 20:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, so they are discussing a change in style. I'll go and have a look.--Alasdair 00:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, Now, only the film festival and Chinese releases are found on the box, and I agree it looks tidier. The flags often force 2 lines when I use the Day Month, Year format.--Alasdair 00:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox flagcruft 

message: :Image:Rbh E.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 (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Rbh E.JPG

message: The article uses in the body too many non-free images that are not signified by critical commentary.  Judging from the content, the only image that seems appropriate for inclusion is the one of Jackie Chan hanging from the roller coaster (due to neighboring content about stunts).  The "Writing" image adds nothing to the article, the baby is not important to show in the "Cast" section, and the two images in the "Plot" section are just decorative of the scenes with no significance attached through critical commentary.  Lastly, the poster image in the "Reception" section is a near-duplicate of the image in the infobox.  Since this is a Featured Article (and I am a bit astounded about the lack of image review at its FAC), I would like to remove them.  I've requested additional input before going ahead. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep the infobox movie poster and maybe :File:Rbh F.JPG (if that is the actual baby in this stunt, otherwise another screenshot should replace it). The others are all decorative or covered by the other two images. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Agree with your assessment, the images are mostly decorative in nature (NFCC#8), and since there's so many, it's also a  violation of NFCC#3a. decltype (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this is just ridiculous - keep the infobox poster and the roller coaster image. I think this brings up an important issue though, which is that we probably need to go through every film FA (it's a tedious task) and reassess them. This page was promoted almost 2 years ago, and a lot has changed since then. It's been awhile since I've really looked at what WP:FILM has been doing, but do we have a task force devoted to FA reassessment? I think this page is a prime example of how much has changed since then (as you can see the page was passed with these images present).   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been happening already.  See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Triumph of the Will/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/BAFTA Award for Best Film/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Gremlins/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Boondock Saints, and so forth.  At WT:FILMC, I mentioned an idea to do an article check-up (for FAs and maybe GAs) annually to assess quality in that timespan or even to see if reviewers missed anything. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad to see all the extra images were removed. Too many articles are filled with pictures that are just window dressing. MovieMadness (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overuse of non-free images 

message: We quote contradictory figures for the filming budget (16.8m US or Hong Kong Dollars?). --JN466 23:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Budget

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Rob-B-Hood. 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/20070929004628/http://www.steve-lawson.net/13757.html?%2Asession%2Aid%2Akey%2A=%2Asession%2Aid%2Aval%2A to http://www.steve-lawson.net/13757.html?%2Asession%2Aid%2Akey%2A=%2Asession%2Aid%2Aval%2A
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/moviesreviews/view/233120/1/.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rob-B-Hood. 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/20071011073526/http://hkcuk.co.uk/reviews/rob_b_hood.htm to http://www.hkcuk.co.uk/reviews/rob_b_hood.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Rob-B-Hood. 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/20070927010432/http://ent.thebeijingnews.com/0606/2006/04-12/013%40014338.htm to http://ent.thebeijingnews.com/0606/2006/04-12/013%40014338.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927014926/http://fun.huash.com/gb/fun/2005-10/11/content_2278127.htm to http://fun.huash.com/gb/fun/2005-10/11/content_2278127.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927082528/http://www.varietyasiaonline.com/content/view/110/ to http://www.varietyasiaonline.com/content/view/110/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can you please unlocked this page to edit? 2402:800:631C:1482:6109:C297:FFE2:3558 (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. Jamedeus (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2024