Talk:Metropolis (1927 film)

message: Hi, I've been working on editing the Gothic double article for the past few months. It is still classified as a stub so I'm looking to divert some more traffic to the article in order for its classification to go up. I have a section on how the motif is used in Metropolis, and was wondering if I could please add a sentence or two in this article mentioning the use of the motif, and with a hyperlink to my own article? Please let me know. Thank you so much! Snowdrop Fairy (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to add link to other article 

message: I just noticed that in the second paragraph of the Plot section of the article, it states the movie is set in the year 2000.  I'm pretty sure there's at least one version of the movie that starts out stating that the events are set "100 years hence," or words to that effect, presumably meaning 100 years forward from the year the movie came out... which would set the movie around the year 2026 or 2027, not 2000.  Is there anyone here that has that edition of the movie?  I've only got one of the cheap, budget-bin, knock-off DVDs, not the DVD with the major restored version of the film.  Where did that year 2000 reference come from?  It is not attributed.  Is it from the novel?  An interview? One of the other editions of the movie? --Nomad Of Norad (talk) 05:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In the 'major restored edition', no date is mentioned. I've seen some writers call it 2000, others 2026. I don't know where these come from.Cop 663 (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This interview on WNYC states the film is set in 2026 http://beta.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/2010/may/07/metropolis-reconstructed/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.255.118.242 (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The year the film is set... 

message: All the missing citations in the WP:TRIVIA have been tagged. Any there is a consensus to keep should be cited or they will be removed in April. The WP:BURDEN of citing removed material is on the restorer. Skyerise (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "trivia", there is a valid "In popular culture" section, and you have no authority to issue deadlines such as this.  Your responsibility is to discuss contested edits, per WP:BRD, not to put on a pretend mantle of authority and attempt to throw your weight around. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:V - which is policy - "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." and "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." I'm not dictating anything. I am applying policy. I don't have to wait until April, I can remove them all tomorrow. Quit your whining and cite your sources. Skyerise (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You removed on the basis of notability, and now are citing policy on verifiability.  You've been here long enough to know these are not the same things.  In any case, "May be removed", not "must be removed". Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That's precisely the difference between trivia and valid IPC content. Unless a third-party source has taken note of the usage, it's not "notable". You're right about the 'may', but that doesn't give you the right to violate the 'must'. You have to provide a source when restoring something removed as unsourced. I don't think long lists of trivia improve the encyclopedia, and I am acting to improve Wikipedia as I see fit. Just as you do. Cheerio! Skyerise (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "must" to be violated.  The policy sets up a condition under which an editor may take action.  It does not require it, as you agree.  Without a "must" in the action, there is no "must" in the condition.  A goodly percentage of material on Wikipedia would be gone with the wind if every editor took the "may" for "must".  In general, editors need to put away their weapons, hunting for material to be deleted (many because they dislike IPC sections, and disagree with the fact that the community has never supported their wholesale removal) and instead concentrate on improving the encyclopedia in all possible ways.In any case, discussion leading to consensus is the way, not personally imposed deadlines. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure there is. "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." - WP:V. My 'must' here is that improving the encyclopedia requires the removal of uncited material, for me. WP:V allows me to do so, despite your objections and your attempts to otherwise dissuade me. I both may and will.  Oh, strawman! I am not removing any section wholesale, just the unverifiable entries, which is reasonable and accepted. Perhaps we can get the good article status restored! Skyerise (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing citations 

message: thr article says "Four roles (The Creative Man, The Machine Man, Death, The Seven Deadly Sins) ", I just came out of the screening in Berlin of the 151 Minute restored Version. The four roles appear joined with Maria and credit the actor, as Maria turns into all those four things. She literally becomes the machine man, death, and the seven deadly sins. Stsz (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a RS to back that up? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The four roles in the credits that are missing, are Maria  

message: Hi,
It looks like parts of the chapter "Living Mannequins" from the game 'Layers of Fear 2' takes direct inspiration from the movie,
references at 01:16:31, 01:17:02 and especially 01:19:00 in this walktrough video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cz9ORYsr0w&t=4593;
and screenshots on this website https://www.neoseeker.com/layers-of-fear-2/walkthrough/Act2-Living_Mannequins Kytetiger (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  in popular culture 

message: Not all the list is appropriate or necessary for such a list. Best to prune and merge into the main article. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Merged here. Feel free to remove any information from the list. Gonnym (talk) 09:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Metropolis (1927 film) in popular culture]] into [[Metropolis (1927 film)#In popular culture]]