Talk:Sin City (film)

message: This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject.  If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class.  The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject.  Comics-awb (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now done the assessment, the article still needs more references (there are some requests made on the article and other sources needed) so I've left it on C for now. (Emperor (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Comics B-Class Assessment required

message: As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T  14:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: C-Class rated for Comics Project

message: Maybe at the end of the film the salesmen was going to offer becky to kill her before the others got to her? 202.169.181.208 (talk) 06:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Salesmen 

message: I've added this movie to my to do list of plot summaries to clean up, but I do like the way the summary is broken into subsections for this particular flick.  Unless there are any objections, when I get to it, I'll keep that same basic structure. Millahnna (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot Summary 

message: Why was the information about Sin City 2 removed? The editor claims it was speculation, yet major people involved (Robert Rodriguez, Frank Miller) have spoke of it's existence, if only potentially. It had citations for it's sources, and I don't see how it's not notable. Just because it's taking time doesn't mean it's not happening. - JasonTerminator 03:58 4 March 2011  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonTerminator (talk • contribs) 11:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's no reliable source saying that the film is being developed, it falls under WP:CRYSTAL. Also, any sources cited have to be reliable. That means that there needs to be an appropriate and notable source for the claims made. And still, many of the sources cited were clearly outdated on the subject. Friginator (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:CRYSTAL, it is possible to report verifiable discussion about such a topic. We should clean up the section to talk about what filmmakers have tried to do since the first film, but we can avoid wording that says there is a sequel in active development. We can't just remove the section as if nothing happened after the film was released. We should at least make the section look something similar to Shantaram (film). Erik (talk | contribs) 17:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but why are we keeping the rumors about the Weinstein Company losing the rights, if that rumor is disproved in the same section? Why are we listing rumors and speculation from years ago? It says in the section that "Production on the film has been delayed, mostly due to Rodriguez's involvement with a scheduled remake of Barbarella." That's from 2007. Why are we including it? There's absolutely no verifiable info indicating that a sequel is being developed at all. Most of the sources are from unreliable sites like MTV News or Bloody Disgusting. There's no relevant info as to the production of a sequel in the section at all. Friginator (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying that all of it is valid to have. We may need to hack at it, but we shouldn't toss out the whole section. WP:CRYSTAL says, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." We have the filmmakers talking about it, so we should be able to have at least a paragraph about what they intended. Let me see if I can clean up the section a little bit. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I overwrote you, but I wanted to take a new approach to the sub-topic instead of just removing the passages. Let me know what you think. I figured that the October 2010 news would be the most pertinent. If nothing pans out, we can update accordingly. Wikipedia is dynamic, after all. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds fine. The section looks a lot better now. Thanks. Friginator (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sequel info removed? 

message: The "External links" section is not a link farm. Here are some links that should be incorporated in the article body if the source is reliable. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: The word count of the plot summary is currently 1,183, far above the 700 word maximum.  This film is not so complex that it requires such a long summary.  It needs to be pruned. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 23:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction's non-linear storyline, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range.
This seems to fall squarely within the exception, in that, like Pulp Fiction, it consists of a number of separate, interwoven story-lines.
Havelock Jones (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summary length 

message: I can't see where the film rating or classification is. I could read the plot to discover what it should be, but that would be a spoiler. Since we give sections on "Box office", "Reception", etc. I think the film classification should be equally as obvious. Aarghdvaark (talk) 10:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Per MOS:FILM, we don't report that, as it would take up too much space to list every country's film classification.  You can find that information on the IMDB or AllMovie.  In the the US, it was rated R. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film classification? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Sin City (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090802132059/http://www.film-finder.com:80/Review.asp?ID=46173 to http://www.film-finder.com/Review.asp?ID=46173
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Article has been tagged for needing sources long-term. Feel free to reinsert the below material with appropriate references. DonIago (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced information