Talk:The Sixth Sense

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot overview, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. We are always looking for new members! Join us today!

	This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

	The Sixth Sense is part of the WikiProject Philadelphia, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Philadelphia on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Philadelphia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Thanks, KQ. Your grammar correction and your deletion of the "crazy" sentence made it a better article. Ed Poor, Tuesday, June 11, 2002

Ummm, don't you think that it would be necessary to have this page be "Sixth Sense(Movie)" and have a real article that is about "The Sixth Sense" as used in describing ESP, etc? DropDeadGorgias

Agree, except that, per Wikipedia style, it should be "The Sixth Sense (film)". Also, there was an occult-themed ABC tv series in 1972-73 starring Gary Collins and Christina Ferrare titled The Sixth Sense. I imagine there are probably also novels and non-fiction books with a similar title. --Canonblack 21:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

In trivia, the director M. Knight S. is listed as making a cameo as Cole's doctor, but he also appears again in a scene at Mrs. Crowe's store as the fiancee of a pretty Indian woman who is looking at an antique ring. -marina--marina 21:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

According to IMDB, that actor's name is Firdous Bamji. Pumpkingrrl 02:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Too much? 2 Mischa Barton 3 Another way to look at it 4 Budget?

[edit] Too much?

Isn't this plot outline a bit too detailed, seeing as how it describes essentially every minute of the film?DS 20:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. That's a bit too much. Some other pages have the same though. See for instance Alien vs. Predator (movie). Is there a policy on this?--J-Star 09:32, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

What's the problem with detail and content? At least it makes the movie amenable to some gentle analysis without having watch the movie with a magnifying glass. Dysprosia 09:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that this is an encyclopedia, not a place where we try to cram as much information as possible in one spot. The line must be drawn somewhere. If we look at the extremes of information possible, at the lower end being to just post the title, and at the high end we publish the entire DVD as an ISO plus in-depth coverage of everything down to a fashion analysis of attire worn by the dead cyclist at the end of the movie. Somwhere in between these two we must draw the line of how much we will put into this article. Now clearly what is written there is within these extreme limits. But I for one think it's too much. Especially since very little other is written about the movie in this article.--J-Star 11:13, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

An encyclopedia should aim to carry detailed information on its subject matter. The article should aim to present as much information as necessary to be useful. A short paragraph on the plot is less useful than a detailed exposition of the subject matter. The comparison to providing a DVD is specious as it would be clearly illegal to do so. If it is possible to upload a copy of a movie legally of some movie, and space matters were not an issue (ie., if Wikimedia permitted such large files), then it would be to the great benefit of the reader. Of course the article would be well served to have some detailed analysis of the movie in such a detailed manner as in the exposition of the plot, but I am no film theorist. However any good analysis of a work must come with an exposition of the work in some fashion as not to be completely without context. Dysprosia 11:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

If we were to upload the entire movie, then we have moved beyond the role of encyclopedia and instead become a media distributor. That is not the role of Wikipedia. Also there is such a thing as Too Much Information. A person reading this article for the purpose of information now have to sift through large amounts of text to find the desired information.

I never mean that only a short paragraph on the plot should be carried in the article. Only that we do not need such a detailed description of it. Basically this is not information about the movie but rather a retelling of the script.

If I can the lead out I'll try to write a shorter version of the plot and post that. But I also invite others to beat me to the task. ;) --J-Star 21:49, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

If one is to study a work in any manner, including encyclopedically, a detailed examination of the work is necessary. A simple cursory look at the work will not be enough. As to "sift through large amount of texts" -- what "information" is there? There's no analysis of the work whatsoever on this article and its what this article desperately needs, not to take the sickle to it. Secondly, what is in the article is absolutely not a retelling of the script.

It's a sad day on Wikipedia when have to talk about cutting content and information from articles rather than to add it... Dysprosia 06:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Adding information is not a self-justifying purpose. Like I said: there is such a thing as "Too much information". Cramming information into the article in absurdum can ruin it rather than benefit it. The goal of Wikipedia is not to pack the database with as much information as possible, but with the right amount of relevant information.

I and DS are claming that this detailed description of the script is not the right amount, nor relevant, for this article. But like I said above: I guess it's up to me to propose something better to replace this with (or - through this discussion - inspire others to do so ;) ).--J-Star 07:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

You and DS do not form a clear consensus. If there is a clear consensus to have the detail removed, I will do it personally.

That being said, you say "adding information is not a self-justifying purpose". Then what on earth are we doing here working on articles? What purpose is there in creating an encyclopedia? Is containing information on a topic surely part of this purpose? Is not the actual movie details relevant?! I also hardly' think that the article as it stands is an "absurd" amount of information, even if we concede your point.

If you truly think that the "right amount of relevant information" is lacking from the article, why don't you concentrate your efforts on finding and summarizing analyses of the movie, instead of removing content? Dysprosia 08:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

That's right, adding information is - in itself - not a self-justifying purpose. That is not the point of Wikipedia and we are not here for the sole purpose of adding information. If we were here for that purpose alone I could calculate a table of the function sin(x) for one million x's between 0 and 2 pi accurate to 100 decimal places, claim it's "information" (which it is) and add that to Wikipedia. According to your interpretation of the purpose of Wikipedia, that would be a worthwhile task/article. But I think you can see that it's just waste of time since it would not constitute a good Wikipedia article and would be voted for deletion in no-time.

Speaking of that, are you advocating that we remove Votes For Deletion from Wikipedia? After all, that removes information. I don't think so. I think you are perfectly aware that labeling something "information" does not make it immune for deletion.

We are here for the purpose of creating articles that may benefit others, not just to add information. An article shall be meaningful and beneficial, not just information for the sole purpose of collecting information. Of course the interpretation of "meaningful and beneficial" is a most subjective term... which is why we're having this discussion in the first place.

I for one do not think such a detailed recitation of the movie script is relevant, meaningful or even beneficial to such an extent that it cannot be shortened. This article is about the movie... it is not the movie itself. For the movie itself, the script in complete detail is most relevant. But for an article about the movie, such detail is not always relevant. So about your question: "Is not the actual movie details relevant?!", my answer is: "No, such a highly detailed recitation of the movie details is not automatically relevant". It may be relevant. But I'm not automatically assuming that.

I have already stated that when I get around to it, I'll suggest another description of the plot. There is no need for you to start telling me what to do in that regard since I have already - 2 postings ago - mentioned this.

--J-Star 11:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Such a table of values would be relevant for Wikisource, not Wikipedia. So your analogy again is not quite relevant, and does not aid your argument. Note that Wikisource has Pi to a large number of decimal places. So, Wikipedia may not have such information, but Wikisource does.

Votes for deletion does not always remove information either, and voting for something for deletion is not always a vote that information be removed either.

Again, this is not a recitation of the movie script -- that is a ridiculous assertation.

I did not "tell [you] what to do in that regard", I merely made a suggestion that would result in a more productive effort.

I am going to get rid of the section. Hopefully it will put a rest to such argument in future. Dysprosia 12:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Well personally I think you just overreacted. I didn't ask for that section to be purged at any cost. I just asked "Isn't this a bit much"? --J-Star 13:39, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

In some circumstances I feel that it is better that content that I have provided and has been disputed or disagreed to, be removed or not be replaced (though I may not agree with the dispute, for example). I won't mind either way if you revert or not. I simply don't want to be drawn into excessive debate. Dysprosia 08:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I would have to say that I agree somewhat on this point. I think, though, that there are certain films where it is okay to put the entire plot summary, so that we can find out what happens without having to watch the entire film with a magnifying glass, as said by a Dysprosia above. If you ask me, this is one of the films where its OKAY. It's not a film a whole lot of people are interested in seeing, as it might scare them out of their wits, so they would rather read the summary. The article is now incomplete, as it doesn't even explain what this "sixth sense" is. Now, we should be paying more attention to the film War of the Worlds, because this IS a movie that thousands of people want to see and not have it spoiled for them. Therein, I suggest that the plot summary of this film be placed back and that the summary of War of the Worlds be reduced to where it doesn't give too much away. I read the summary and it was spoiled for me. Scorpionman 23:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mischa Barton

The fact that 'a young, pre-fame Mischa Barton' plays the part of Kyra is mentioned up to three times in the article: once in the plot outline, once in the Cast section, and once in the trivia section. That's a lot of attention for a bit part from a not quite legendary actress. I suggest that either the trivia entry or the mention in the plot outline is removed.

[edit] Another way to look at it

Shouldn't someone add that there's another way to atch the film again, now realizing that Crowe is dead? - Someone

Not really. The DVD mentions it... You know, I wonder how this film is regarded in comparison to other Shyamalan works.. It's the best in my opinion, but I'm not entirely sure if it's the general consensus.--Vercalos 07:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Budget?

In the infobox, it lists the budget as being $55 million, yet elsewhere in the article it states the budget as being $40 million. This should be checked and then referenced properly in both places. -- Tom McGuire, 6/16/06, 20:21 GMT