Talk:Critical reception of Brokeback Mountain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Critical reception of Brokeback Mountain article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

[edit] Format

I think all this info will be more neater in table form or similar... --Charlie Huang 【正矗昊】 12:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

The practice of vandalism in Wikipedia articles is not limited to inserting jokes, but also includes deletion of whole sections of information, without some prior warning, discussion, and concensus. Such deletion of sections of information is called "blanking" and is very frequent, perhaps because it is much easier to delete a section (or revert to a prior version), rather than to add new detailed information.

In this article, the new section "See also" has been blanked multiple times, under the guise of nonconformance to the strictest of Wikipedia format standards; however, such blanking is still pure vandalism, even if disguised by elaborate excuses. The correct approach is to establish a warning notice for other editors, open a dialogue, and try to reach a concensus before deleting whole sections from an article, especially if those sections are new, which further amplifies the extreme level of the vandalism. -Wikid77 17:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

31-May-2006: I have been trying to get improvements into this article for the past 24 hours, but on 3 separate occasions, user Melchoir has refused to allow a top-note line above the article in the form of a standard hatnote: "This article is about USE1, for USE2, see PAGE2" (allowed by Wikipedia guidelines). At this point, I have abandoned adding the hatnote: I cannot afford to waste any more time by user Melchoir vandalizing the article to remove added information (in legitimate format). Yes, it has been 24 hours fighting to get a simple hatnote & "See-also" section added to this article, to match the format of the other articles about Brokeback Mountain. No wonder the information about that film has been so hollow on Wikipedia: people are actively fighting to vandalize sections and kill added information. -Wikid77 02:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This whole article is cobblers; it's just a list of facts that are already listed in other articles about the movie on wp, some wholesale lifting of quotations, and a bit of unsubstantiated opinionating. I feel it should be deleted, or massively edited/rewritten. SpaceyHopper 10:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This should be incorporated into the main Brokeback Mountain article

That page already has a section devoted to the movie's critical reception, and a section for awards and nominations. Why the separate page? Nizamarain 15:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)