Talk:On-screen clichés

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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.
Unknown
This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 27 March 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Glaring omission

While I think this article is pointless, poorly written, unencyclopedic, and might as well be deleted, I am surprised to note that the most common (and annoying) movie cliche of all is neglected: the 555 phone number. I know of only one movie that didn't succumb to the 555 temptation; namely, Bruce Almighty. --Nonstopdrivel 18:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long title

This title seems very long, can it be shortened to something like List of on-screen clichés? Marky1981 19:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

You are right. I can barely remember it myself, so I'm moving it now. Sonicrazy 18:29, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. Owen× ☎ 04:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tidy up

These lists are currently in no order other than alphabetical. Should I perhaps arrange the segments better, maybe like this:

  1. People
    1. Appearance
    2. Children
    3. Teenagers
    4. Men
    5. Women
    6. Dialogue
    7. Stereotypes
  2. Transport
    1. Airplanes
    2. Cars/Vehicles
    3. Trains
  3. Animals
  4. Genre Specific
    1. Violence/Action
      1. Bombs, Explosives/Explosions, and Fire
      2. Death
      3. Millitary/War
      4. Heroes and Main Characters
      5. Villains
      6. Injuries
      7. Weapons
      8. Fight Scenes
    2. Comedy
    3. Romance/Sex
  5. Science
    1. Computers and Internet
  6. Society
    1. Foreign Countries Depicted in American Movies
    2. Groups of People
    3. Holidays and Special Events
    4. School/College
    5. Hospitals
    6. Police
    7. Sports
    8. News Media
  7. Miscellaneous
    1. Music and Sounds
    2. Objects

I'd like to hear what other people think. Ideally I'd like to get everything under an umbrella heading. smurrayinchester(User), (Ho Ho Ho!) 18:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Go for it

Czolgolz 14:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Exceptions

These are cliches, not universal laws. You don't have to list every single exception to the rule. And whoever keeps writing 'ep,' please take the time to write 'episode.'

Czolgolz 14:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

But it says that every female villain in Batman. Harley Quinn is an exception. I wouldn't want every exception to a cliche noted, but I think that an article should not contain false information.

Otal 16:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In response to organization plan

I like that idea. A lot of it seems to be out of place with similar categories and multiple entries of the same cliché.Attitude2000 17:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article is absolute crap

This is a random list of speculation with no sources, no validity, and to top it all off, bad grammar. I'm going to go nuclear on it.--Jimbo Wales 20:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  • How notable should a source be, though. I've added back some science entries (with sources) but these are from science and computer websites, rather than those of movie critics. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 21:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand and agree with your reasoning, Jimbo, but 'absolute crap'? That's a bit harsh. A lot of people worked on that article.

Czolgolz 00:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Not harsh enough, IMO. It needs deleted. Brian G. Crawford 03:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's worse than any other of the lists of cliches, more entertaining and more informative if anything.----Theloniouszen 07:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The list now close to nothing

Was it really necessary to remove almost all of the articles here?? Purple Rose 13:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I kind of agree. I can certainly understand the motive behind cleaning up the list (which really was long) and requiring a citation from a film critic to provide back-up referencing - but to be fair, many of the cliches that were listed were perfectly valid. Perhaps the referencing could be slightly more flexible - reference from a film critic or at least three movies in which this has occurred, that sort of thing. --Joseph Q Publique 05:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

Why is there the pissy little list underneath the article, when we have the huge 'Movie cliches by Genre' page? Why dont we delete the crappy list and just have a link to the main list? FreeMorpheme 21:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In fact, sod it

I've thought about it some more, and decided that since the whole page has been nuked to nothing, it needs renaming appropriately and the few remaining cliches moved to the main list, where they will sit happily. Then we can move our editing muscles to that list which is bulky and duplicated, rather than fannying around on this page, with its hopelessly misleading title. FreeMorpheme 21:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Willing to edit

I'd be willing to sort though the cliches if there were categories in the manner that smurrayinchester mentioned. A suggestion I have is maybe locking the page.Attitude2000 17:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge suggestion

On-screen clichés seems to over-lap List of clichés on television as well as cliché. Can something be done about this? --GunnarRene 06:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm very upset

why? All of the articles on horror films and other genres were deleted. Why were they deleted? They were very helpful. I'm asking the admins to please put the articles back on or if one can do a favor for me, send me just the list of horror movie cliches because I want to write a script with these horror movie cliches. It would help. Thank you. Cigammagicwizard 01:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm angry too, but that's no need to add every other cliche onto this page. UnDeRsCoRe 02:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three Reference Rule

Cliches are supposed to be recurring elements. I wonder if it would be more legitimate if this list were limited to cliches that can be referenced at least three times (it probably should be more, but three is a good start)?

Not good enough. This article should cite sources which positively identify those things as cliches. I'm afraid as it is it will have to be scrapped. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is getting old

Come on. Can we have at least one list of clichés that doesn't get deleted?

[edit] Doesn't fail the test

This page was marked for deletion because it had "entirely unsourced, unverifiable, original research." Does it offer original research? Yes and no.

According to the article on No original research, a 7-point test is given to qualify something as original research.

1. "It introduces a theory or method of solution"

This is a list of cliches, as defined in another article.

2. "It introduces original ideas"

So long as each cliche offered follows the definition, it is not introducing an original idea. In and of itself, mere observation is not research.

3. "It defines new terms"

Inapplicable.

4. "It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms"

This point could be a problem for some of the listed cliches if they do not really follow the definition of a cliche. However, this should be taken case-by-case, and not as an invalidation of the entire list.

5. "It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position"

This is a list of presumed cliches. There are no arguments, except within the bounds of point 4.

6. "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source"

Again, as much as it applies, this is really covered under point 4.

7. "It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source."

Inapplicable.

It would seem to me that adding any "cliche" to the list, with appropriate references to back it up, would not violate the "no original research" rule. What IS needed are guidelines as to what can be considered a cliche for purposes of the list. Obviously, citing a published source is the best method, but I don't think normal observation can be disregarded.

I realize that I did not define the points above, and I may be misinterpreting them. However, I still feel that there is a strong argument to keep the cliche list up for now.Waltscie 15:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why do we need this?

What purpose does it serve? It will never be complete --AW 17:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Will any wiki article ever be complete? — Loadmaster 22:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shorter subsections

I split the "Science fiction and fantasy" section into shorter subsections because it was just too long. Hopefully, others can folow suit and sdo the same for the other long sections. — Loadmaster 22:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sources

Ok, so I went to Google and came up with [1] and [2] which show plenty of possible sources to use in constructing this article. This subject is not something that is completely original, it is discussed and someone who has been to film school may well be able to point to some academic works that cover it more effectively than I can. So, no, I can't agree with the prod reason. Mister.Manticore 13:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/n/-/Talk%7EOn-screen_clich%C3%A9s_3397.html"