Talk:The Big Heat

message: A list of quotes -- even the so-called "best" -- just arbitrarily lifted from the movie is trivia. If they factor or matter in the plot, integrate them in the "plot" section. Otherwise, it's just a list of "ooh, these are neat quotes" or "I think these quotes mean something, but I don't have the references to substantiate that or offer an interpretation, so I'll just list them here". Ditch 'em; save this kind of inane "content" for IMDb. --EEMIV (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: An editor is attempting to remove the small number of quotes from the film in the "quotes" section, on the grounds that it is verboten to list the best and worst quotes pertaining to the article's subject.  However, these quotes are not about The Big Heat, they are from the movie, and serve to give a bit of the film's flavor.  There is nothing in policy that outlaws this, and the existence of Wikiquotes should not be taken as an excuse to remove any and all quotes from all articles.I suggest that iof the editor wishes to remove all the quotes from the article, which is not required by policy, s/he should hold a discussion here and see if there's a consensus to do so. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 23:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The alternative to all or nothing editing is to actually edit the section.  I've removed several quotes which were unremarkable, leaving behind those that give a sense of the film's dialogue. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 23:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can offer a source that quotes provide a "flavor" for the movie, then cite the source and incorporate it into either the plot or reception section. Quotes are generally accepted as trivia in the Films wikiproject -- note that no featured or even good article in that category has such trivia. What are the objective rationales for including such material? How do these quotes, without any context or commentary, contribute anything to this article? --EEMIV (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see -- and follow -- MOS:FILM. There's not even a remote suggestion of having a "quotes" section. --EEMIV (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless there is some kind of third-party sourcing discussing these particular quotes (in such a case the section would need to be presented in a prose format actually explaining why these quotes are important), than per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIVIA they should be removed. We have a Wikiquote for a reason. If they are that necessary, move them over there and insert a link to the Wikiquote page at the bottom of the page.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If the quotes are from the film, they don't need any additional sourcing, and which quotes to include is very much in the purview of any editor.  "NPOV" doesn't mean we put our brains into neutral, we make decisions about what facts to include and which to exclude all the time.  How far should the case list go down?  Who's a star?  Who's featured?  Which anecdotes about production are interesting and which are not.  That's why we are called editors and not "compilers" or "robots" because we make decisions about what to include and what not to.  Editing is not a process of looking at text, looking up policy, and applying policy to text, it's a process of selection and choice to make an interesting and accurate article.The quotes here - four of them -- aren't excessive in number, they give a flavor for the script, they come from the film (and so are sourced and verifiable by the film in precisely the same way that the plot section is), and for these reasons they should remain in the article.  I have no objections to editing of the quotes, or of any section of the article, I do, however, object to wholesale removal for what seems to be ideological reasons which have nothing whatsoever to do with policy, or with what's best for the article. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In the meantime, a discussion is taking place here about this issue, and it's very much opposed to common Wikipedia practice to continue to try to remove the section while discussion is ungoing,' so please stop trying to do so. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also like to point out that while I've been trying to compromise, trimming the quote section, integrating some miscellany into other sections, moving others into more appropriate places, User:EEMIV seems determined to delete, delete, delete. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I also agree - real world context is needed, otherwise it has fair-use issues as well as those of style and content. Being as the article already has a link to the Wikiquotes page, I am deleting the section. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: When we write the "Plot" section citing the film itself, we try to provide a basic description.  Anything that seems interpretative can be rewritten to avoid that or can be backed by a secondary source for clarification (if the questionable item is not worth exploring in another section).  Wikiquote seems like an adequate place for quotes from this film... I think that adding flavor sounds like trying to present the film in a thematic manner, which goes beyond the goal of being solely descriptive with primary sources. —Erik (talk • contrib) 06:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: http://www.filmsite.org/bigh.html
http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/27/bigheat1.html
Jim Dunning | talk 03:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical reaction links 

message: I've moved the single paragraph in the Miscellany section to the Critical response section. By definition, "miscellany" falls into the realm of WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT so the section is inappropriate unless it is a holding place for useful content intended to be merged in other sections (such as Production and Critical response). Since this copy could be an editor's personal analysis, I'm flagging it with a Fact tag asking for help supporting the assertion (I couldn't find anything directly relevant, although there are some [sources] that might support a recharacterization of the relationship).Jim Dunning | talk 04:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscellany section 

message: The link to Dorothy Green (The Lucy Chapman character) leads to other Dorothy Greens. The one depicted here has no Wikipedia entry.
200.104.234.104 (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dorothy Green 

message: I propose that Lee Marvin be added to the "starring" line in the Infobox. Template:Infobox_film says this (in part) about the "starring" line:  "Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release, with the exception that if there are names listed 'above the title', these actors are the stars of the film. If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits. Other additions by consensus." Thus, addition of Lee Marvin would be "by consensus". Mksword (talk) 06:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, fair enough, if you develop consensus you can surely add him. But what is your rationale for deviating from the film's own billing block? Keep in mind that an infobox is for "at-a-glance" information; it is by no means supposed to be comprehensive and that's why we have a full cast list. Opencooper (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Lee Marvin plays a major role in this film. The only reason he didn't receive major billing at the time is that the 29-year old was still an unknown; this was the first movie in which he played a major role. Mksword (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm that is pretty reasonable actually since readers would want to know the most major actors of a film rather than a list crafted by the film studios based on contracts and advertising purposes. One point of contention might be that "importance" is relative and each editor might have their own opinion of that, but in this case Vince Stone had an demonstrable role in the story and Marvin had sufficient screentime. Very well then, I'll add him back, but if any other editors disagree it can certainly be discussed further. Opencooper (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always thought that if a lower-billed actor "walks away" with a film, they should be listed as one of the stars, regardless of the official billing. It would be easier if it could be sourced to a review which says something like "but the real star of the film is the rleatively unknown Lee Marvin" or something like that. BMK (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Lee Marvin as starring in Infobox 

message: In the last scene, Sgt. Banyon has a name plaque on his desk, not "Bannion" as used throughout the article.
Source: watched movie on Movies! network 03/26/2023. 108.53.39.189 (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main character's name