Talk:Watership Down (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Watership Down (film) 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

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority 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 summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Contents 1 Trivia section and plot section 2 Bright Eyes 3 Citation for "piss off" 4 Question 5 Fair use rationale for Image:Movie poster watership down.jpg

[edit] Trivia section and plot section

Firstly, the trivia section. I was neither the person who added the {{toomuchtrivia}} tag, nor the person who reverted its addition, but I think it's worth discussing. Personally I tend towards the view that in an encylopedia, we don't need to add (and indeed should actively avoid adding) every little piece of information that refers to the article's subject, just those which are encyclopedic. Of course there's always argument as to what is sensible to include, so let's have some input.

It strikes me that several of the "Trivia" points that currently exist in the article could quite easily be incorporated into the main text, whereas others are really a bit tangential. The Vicar of Dibley reference should certainly be dropped, if only because it in no way refers specifically to the film.

Secondly, the plot section. It seems to me that it's going to far to have, as is currently the case, almost a complete scene-by-scene guide to the film. Even specialist movie guides don't have that much detail. It would be better to chop it down into a reasonable plot summary, maybe three or four paragraphs at most. Loganberry (Talk) 14:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't agree with you, the plot section is just fine. I mean, come on! It's no longer than the star wars plot section and I don't see anyone complaining about that! - Anonymous reader13:53 May 20, 2007

The Star Wars plot section is far too long as well. There: I've just complained! But seriously: this is an encyclopedia article for general readers; it is not a fansite. I actually have a WD fansite of my own, so I know the difference! And three or four paras is enough for Wikipedia. Loganberry (Talk) 23:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, Alright. Go ahead. i guess you're right. It is too long. Sorry. I was just overreacting because I was the one who wrote the whole thing. I guess it was a little too long. Go ahead. Narrow it down, just don't delete it. I don't want to lose ALL my hard work. - Anonymous reader15:27, 12 June 2007

Agreed. There are way too many articles on Wikipedia with plot summaries that are extremely specific, and not in anyway a summary whatsoever. There's a reason why it's called a 'summary', and not a 'transcript'.Vegetable4 14:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've stuck a {{plot}} cleanup tag on the section for the moment. Basically, the salient point here is that the section should not simply reiterate the plot, which is more or less what is the case at the moment. As I said earlier, three or four paragraphs should be enough: think book blurb, not point-by-point analysis. Loganberry (Talk) 03:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I corrected some out-of-order plot points, and realized that I did little to mitigate the purpose of this particular discussion. I attempted to streamline the flow of the narrative, but I don't think I'm one to condense it appropriately: I'm too close to the material to do it objectively. Hope someone can; until then, I pledge not to lengthen the section. TashTish 22:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Too close? You're not Richard Adams, are you? <g> But seriously, thank you: your input was definitely worth having even so. I've made a few small tweaks to maintain British English (traveling -> travelling, flashlight -> torch etc) but haven't touched the meat of your changes at all; there doesn't seem much point as I think with your edits it's got about as good as it's going to get in this long form. Loganberry (Talk) 22:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments, and sensitivity; I have to add that my ego won't be bruised if anyone wants to cut and slash (intelligently please) the section to a more encyclopedic-worthy form. P.S. No, not Richard Adams, just someone with too much affection for the subject matter to be appropriately objective. TashTish 17:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to have a go at writing a summary of more appropriate length, but then I've been thinking that for some while now and never actually got around to it. The book's page needs similar treatment (in terms of tidying, not plot summary specifically; that may actually be too short!) and that may end up being my priority. Loganberry (Talk) 00:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

And I am sorry for causing such a problem from writing the plot summary in the firt place and causing this whole mess. I will try and help with edititng out some of the lengthy stuff in the summary. - Anonymous reader 16:06, 19 september 2007

What EXACTLY is the problem? Is it causing any form of harm? Is it costing anyone money? No, it just happens to be very through, in my opinion, this is a good thing. -BDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.176.186 (talk) 11:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is Wikipedia policy, which is not optional. That says that the threshold for inclusion is "verifiablity, not truth". In other words, it does matter if assertions are made that we can't back up. Copyright law on derivative works also comes into play when a plot summary gets as long as that; and again, respecting copyright law is not optional. Accuracy based on solid, specific sources is vital for our encyclopedia, and "it's not hurting anyone" and "it's not costing anyone money" are not good enough counter-arguments. If this were a "why I love WD" fan page, it would be fine. But as an encyclopedia, it isn't. Loganberry (Talk) 23:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, all! It's been so long, hasn't it? Excuse my brief absece from Wikipedia, I've had to take an extremely hard computer class in college. I'm glad to have passed with a "B". Well, I have finally ventured into the strange void that is a plot section, It has actualy gotten longer in my absence! I have gone ahead and deleted any phrases that were irrelevant or unimportant, but found the same complications TashTish discovered: I'm too close to the work to delete or completely reiterate alot of things. So, I'm really not sure it's time to delete the...

The plot summary in this article is too long or detailed compared to the rest of the article. Please edit the article to focus on discussing the work rather than merely reiterating the plot.

yes, that, just yet. Looking at it now, I didn't change much of anything-it's much harder than just deleting a few paras. Please, tell me what you think so that this article may finally be all tidied. I'm probably not the best for the job. We may need someone to just start anew and write a brand new section of a more approprate length. But still, tell me what you think.

Anonymous reader (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bright Eyes

I can't find any record of the song Watership Down by the artist Bright Eyes. Is there a source for this, or should I just remove?

I'm not sure what you're talking about: The song is Bright Eyes, performed by Art Garfunkel, and included in the film Watership Down. TashTish 08:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The 'Trivia' section references a song titled Watership Down by Bright Eyes. I would be inclined to delete (or at least request a reference). Bmlb 00:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my ignorance showing; thanks for clarifying. I agree, there may not be such a thing, at least something I can find. TashTish 18:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation for "piss off"

I have a website for the citation of the line "The film is also possibly the only U-rated film to include the phrase "piss off"[citation needed]" but i'm not sure how to add it. http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/w/watership-down-script-transcript-rabbits.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.48.66 (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no argument about whether or not the film contains the phrase: we know it does. What's needed is a citation specifically for its being the only U-rated film that does; unfortunately, your transcript doesn't help us there. Loganberry (Talk) 16:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Is this the same production of Watership Down that was broadcast as a two-night "miniseries" in the United States? -- Pennyforth (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Miniseries? In the United States? I'm not very sure what you are talking about. I am pretty sure this was never broadcasted as a miniseries. My mom took me to see it at a theater when I was seven, so I don't remember ever seeing it on TV as a miniseries. Besides, if there was a miniseries I would know about it. When I saw this movie it changed my life, I'm a huge fan. So I would know if there was a miniseries. Perhaps you are thinking of the TV serries? But it only came on in the UK and Canada and Australia. I'll look into this some more. Not only for you, but for me too-because a WD miniseries sounds interesting.

-Anonymous reader (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Movie poster watership down.jpg

Image:Movie poster watership down.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)