Talk:1917 (2019 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Cinema Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force.
WikiProject iconWomen writers Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Former good article1917 (2019 film) was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 16, 2021Good article nomineeListed
February 26, 2021Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Why no “critical acclaim”?

There is an invisible comment on the page telling editors not to use “critical acclaim” to describe the critical response, could somebody explain why this is the case? Many other film pages use this, I don’t see why this one can’t? Fobz12345 (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it’s awards season and competition for them is huge right now. I’d say just go ahead and use the phrase. Boscaswell talk 09:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know the origin of the comment on this particular page. But I think you finger it with your “many other film pages use this”. It’s become empty words, added by some editors without citation or thought (I saw one IP most of whose edit history consisted of going round film pages just editing in “critical acclaim”). But what does it mean? Where an article already has factual data about and quotes from good reviews, this information speaks for itself. Where there isn’t such data, who says the film was acclaimed; where is the citation? Having the same comment in every film article is pointless, adding no useful information for the reader. Just my opinion. MapReader (talk) 07:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reception section: undue weight to negative review

Rotten Tomatoes has 89% positive reviews, but 1 of the section’s 3 paras, taking up nearly 1/3rd of the section, is given over to a negative review. This is WP:UNDUE. Boscaswell talk 09:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with it.Boscaswell talk 00:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two editors added a whole new paragraph critical of the continuous takes. Criticism of that had already been given space and again following WP:UNDUE I deleted the whole paragraph. Boscaswell talk 20:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

English or British

An editor today changed the lead from saying "British...film" to "English...film". I can understand the description English for places, and for individuals who identify explicitly as such, but for such a large cooperative project as this film, where the co-writer is clearly Scottish, and much filming was done in Scotland, British seems more appropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 February 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Speedy close. Page already moved to the title per guidelines: 1917 (1970 film) and 1917 (2019 film). (non-admin closure) Hddty (talk) 06:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– Can "film" accurately describe a short film? I don't think so. Unreal7 (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support move of the Mendes film... is the short film even notable enough to have it's own article? There is very little content. Plus I don't recall any instances where films have been disambiguated by the director's name should at least be by year. Also support restoring original titles as outlined below. Spanneraol (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Restore previous titles which were moved by Crookesmoor without a discussion. --Gonnym (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


The previous titles should be restored immediately. It’s outrageous that Crookesmoor changes them without any discussion, seemingly on a whim. Sorry, but I don’t know whether this is an oppose or a support. Boscaswell talk 21:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, revert to prior titles (
    WP:NCFILM which gives preference to year disambiguation above other methods. -- Netoholic @ 23:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I have moved both articles back to the titles they previously had. No idea why they were changed in the first place. HiLo48 (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
talk page or in a move review
. No further edits should be made to this section.

Country?

Seems like there's something of a contradiction now, with the lede reading "British film" and the IB/categories saying it is a British–American co-production. Can't find any source to back up either, and to confuse matters further, the first source I could find regarding this is the BFI database, which lists four countries: US, UK, Spain, and India. What should the article say?--

Sunshineisles2 (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Good luck getting responses on this matter. I tried up above three days ago, and got nothing. I still believe British would be most appropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per the MoS, the article’s lead sentence should say what the reliable sources say. That there were elements of co-production doesn’t prevent the artistic product being seen as British, if that’s what other sources are reporting. In such a case, the article body and infobox can set out the details of the various national involvements. Do a check and you will find sources from across the world that describe 1917 as a British movie or film - the UK ones are a given since 1917 just won “best British film” at BAFTA - but you will find references from the US, Ireland, Australia and South Africa. For example from the US, Variety.com (US edition),[1], Forbes,[2] AVclub,[3] and Hollywood Reporter.[4] (“home soil”). MapReader (talk) 07:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HiLo48 (talk · contribs) I’d say a response within two minutes is pretty lucky ;) MapReader (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very true, but now I'm jealous. What have you got that I haven't got?  ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time, I wouldn't say that a movie winning the British Film BAFTA means that it is indisputably a solely British production; last year's winner,
Sunshineisles2 (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Secondary note: The article for The Favourite cites the film's entry on AllMovie, which lists its countries as the UK, US, and Ireland. AllMovie's entry for 1917 lists the US and UK, which is what the infobox says right now.--
Sunshineisles2 (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
With respect, you are missing the key point. Left to their own devices, WP film and TV article editors love constricting their own arguments as to the nationality of particular films or series. All of these are OR. And, if I may be so bold, a recurring theme is of American editors often insisting that American $ can somehow override the creative input of other countries to deny the nationality of those creative products, despite this being recognised by multiple RS. Yet WP is an online encyclopaedia - not a forum for online original research - and the job of editors (note, not ‘writers’ or ‘researchers’) is to report things as others (provided they are reputable and reliable) see them. With a British Director, British writers, British storyline, British filming locations, British cast, and 1,200 British crew members, it shouldn’t come as any surprise that this film is widely seen as a British artistic creation. That some US money helped its production and US companies helped with the marketing and distribution doesn’t change this essential reality. MapReader (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I want to make it clear that I have no agenda to push in terms of arguing whether films “should” or shouldn’t be marked as being of particular nationalities. But it does seem, again, that to argue that discussion should not occur for any particular reason doesn’t seem encompassing of the actual information at hand. I have no particular opinion of how this should be resolved (or if there is anything to even resolve in the first place, if that’s what the consensus is!), but I’ve personally never been clear how one reconciles between the “nationality” of a film and the countries that funded it (for example, should the James Bond films be called British? No real feeling either way, just wondering!)
Sunshineisles2 (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Re-reviewing MOS:Film is a good place to start. MapReader (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1917 is certainly an American film as it was included on AFI's Motion Pictures of the Year list [5]. I am adding the other production countries as per BFI as well: [6]. If one country is being chosen for the lead, then it would need good sourcing to support the decision to ignore other reliable sources. –
talk) 18:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The sourcing is as above, from around the world. One American source doesn’t by itself negate this. As with most films nowadays, there is a degree of international co-operation; as per the MoS the key is to reference the generally accepted nationality of the artistic product directly from reliable sources. Sources clearly carry more weight if they are not claiming ownership for the country of publication. MapReader (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources you provided above are discussing the film in the context of the BAFTAs.
talk) 19:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Other involvement is not disputed and is set out in the article. Nevertheless per the MoS nationality is to be referenced directly, and not derived from OR; in the absence of contrary sources the ones provided above are clearly reliable, coming from a range of non-British countries. As per BRD, after your revert you need to bring some evidence to the table and not go edit warring. MapReader (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What original research are you talking about? Are you actually reading this conversation? The AFI and BFI are reliable sources (both linked above in my comment), and the AFI named the film one of the 10 ten best American films of 2019 (linked also above). What sources do you think mean we should ignore those? Also, the MOS says the lead sentence should only include a country "if the film's nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources", which is clearly not the case here. –
talk) 22:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, they are both reliable sources, but they are not relevant sources. Unlike the BAFTA citation, which specifically flags 1917 as a ‘British film’, the AFI does no such thing. Since nationality needs to be referenced directly, it isn’t helpful as a source. Nevertheless digging around on the AFI website, it is clear that eligibility rests not upon it being an “American film” (as you erroneously claim) but on there being some American involvement in its production (drawing such a conclusion from your link would of course fall foul of WP:Synthesis). American involvement isn’t however disputed, and is already covered in the article. Similarly the BFI link that you provided lists the various nationalities of the various interests (I believe the Canadians also claim to have been involved). But again, doesn’t help us with the key question of how reliable sources typically describe the nationality of the artistic product. In your eagerness to start an edit war I do wonder whether you have actually reviewed all of the sources already linked above in this discussion. They all describe the film’s nationality in singular terms, doubtless reflecting that 1917 has a British Director, British writers, a mostly British cast, a British storyline, was filmed in Britain, and had a crew of 1,200 Britons who created it. MapReader (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Production countries is the primary way that Wikipedia has labeled film's nationality. Your distinction between an "American film" and an "American produced film" is your own perspective. The idea that AFI and BFI are not acceptable sources for nationality is nonsense, especially when the Deadline article I cited specific says "the institute's criteria for American film and television". –
talk) 20:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
This misunderstanding perhaps illustrates where you are going astray. Nationality is NOT to be inferred from production companies (which would be OR, or at best Synthesis) but should be referenced directly, as with any other statement on WP. Which is what MoSfilm says we should be doing. AFI and BFI are acceptable sources - and I didn’t suggest otherwise - but not if they don’t refer to nationality directly. Which AFI does not. Combining references from a variety of places to synthesise a conclusion isn’t the way WP works. And you only have to look through past AFI awards to see that they are not all American films (e.g. The Favourite - not even spelled the American way). BFI endeavours to list out all the national interests involved, but you don’t have to spend very long looking up films on its site and comparing with the WP entries to understand the difference. There are plenty of films accepted as “American films” on WP, reflecting the way they are perceived and reported by reliable sources, that have various different national entities listed on BFI (and indeed within WP infoboxes). What you haven’t yet provided are any direct references to RS that support your edit, nor come up with any reason to challenge to the considerable number that support the longstanding version of this article. MapReader (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The country is the production countries. This is the same as the countries in the infobox, as stated in
talk) 21:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
No, please read the MoS more carefully. WP abounds with examples. For example Mulholland Drive (film), had French involvement in production and distribution, duly noted in the article and infobox, yet the film is, correctly, described as an American film in the opening sentence, reflecting the RS. WP always follows the sources, it’s editing lesson one. MapReader (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have quoted the MOS and provided links to several other policies and guidelines. Instead of repeatedly telling others to read the MOS, maybe you could provide some quotes and links? Also, maybe you should also provide some sourcing for your claims, because 3 of the 4 sources you provided above are about the BAFTAs, where 1917 had just won an award for "Outstanding British Film" and so obviously those sources are going to use that phrase when talking about the award. The only other source is a Forbes article written by a contributor, which is unreliable according to

talk) 00:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree it would be sensible to return to the nub of the matter, which is direct referencing from reliable sources. What we are looking for are reliable sources that describe the film as a “British film”, an “American film” or in some non-singular way such as a “British-American film” or “an international co-operation between UK and US film makers”. Our job as editors is then to balance the weight and reliability of such sources. The BAFTA award itself is one such source, since the award itself explicitly refers to the film as a “British film”. You are right that further sources that simply refer to the making of this award aren’t of additional value, since they would just be talking about the award. However sources that make the judgement that 1917 is a British film are of relevance, whether or not they were published at the time of the BAFTAs, since this offers evidence that BAFTA’s conclusion is more widely accepted across the media and/or industry. For the benefit particularly of others who might wish to join this discussion, I will take the time to set out a comprehensive list of such sources, with quotes and links as you suggest, and post it later. MapReader (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to your sources. Just so you know, the BAFTA award has nothing to do with being "only British". No one has disputed that British production was involved. The same goes for the AFI honor. –
talk) 20:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Neither has the lead sentence in WP: the issue is simply how a film is seen by reliable sources; hence my example of Mulholland Drive which was clearly not “only American” in its production yet justifies its descriptor because it is widely seen as an American creative product (reference MOSFILM, where the exemplar is “being called an American film” - we are discussing how something is seen, not how it was made. MOSTV, which contains a similar provision, helpfully expands the explanation to refer to “principal creative control” - not exclusive control). So your “only” is a false test. There are however factors for BAFTA that don’t apply to the AFI; the BAFTA award specifically refers to ‘British film’ and so doesn’t fall foul of WP:synthesis as a citation, the British film award is a distinct and specifically national award separate from BAFTA’s ‘best film award’, and its rules require significant creative involvement, whereas the AFI will settle for technical involvement. MapReader (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Song Lyrics

Enhancing wayfaring Stranger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashsharm884 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Removals

Hi All,

I'm new to editing and wanted to add to the historical inaccuracy section. My first couple of attempts were removed as I didn't cite a source (despite the facts being easily confirmed by numerous sources). So I then added a source yet the edit was still removed! Therefore, grateful for any pointers as to what I'm doing wrong please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by R M O'Dell (talk • contribs) 16:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re accuracy. The section of the film with "rocks, rapids and a waterfall" makes no geographical sense. The film is overwhelmingly set in chalk downland, (implying the broader "Somme" region) or in waist-deep mud (implying Flanders). The rivers in these areas are invariably sluggish and meandering or comprehensively canalised. There were no rapids or waterfalls in any of the areas on the Western Front in which British forces were operating. This whole section of the film was surely contrived for the sake of the plot.

I am the editor that removed your edits. Check your personal talk page - you’ll see that you have a welcome message directing you to the five pillars of Wikipedia, the second of which deals with what this encyclopaedia is and isn’t about. It isn’t about OR (original research). We only include information that has already been published in an RS (reliable source). The problem with your edit was this. You are sitting watching the film, and deciding based on your own knowledge of World War One aircraft (and/or your own research in books or on the internet) that the plane in the film was a Sopwith Camel. You are then going away and doing more research to find out when this plane began active service, to reach your conclusion that this was after the date when this film was supposed to portray, and editing your own findings into the article. This is OR, pure and simple. It doesn’t matter whether or not you are right, nor whether you think your conclusion is entirely obvious to anyone with some relevant knowledge. Facts and conclusions only go into WP if they have already been published elsewhere. You therefore have two choices. First, find a citation from someone reliable saying that the plane in this film is portrayed before the date when it went into active service. Or, second, impress some reputable film or military history journal with your undoubted historical knowledge and research expertise, persuade that journal to publish your observation, and then bring that published fact back here along with the citation. In short - you need a citation for the conclusion, not just for the evidence. Good luck with your editing. MapReader (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Mapreader and have read the '5 pillars.' However, I'm still a tad confused. The film states it is set in April 1917; I provided a source (as you requested) stating the aircraft didn't enter service until June 1917 as well as images showing the unique wing dihedral. Ho hum! — Preceding unsigned comment added by R M O'Dell (talk • contribs) 18:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is frustrating - and I understand, as I fell foul of the same when I first started editing. But the citations you have provided are for the evidence, not for the conclusion. As an editor (not a writer or a researcher) you are NOT allowed to derive the conclusion yourself. You need to find a citation from a reliable source where your conclusion - that the plane portrayed was not yet in service on the date portrayed - is explicitly stated. Don’t worry, there are experienced editors who still make the same mistake (for example in believing that they can derive the nationality of a film from their own analysis of the production entities, rather than directly from citation). Good luck and please stick with WP. MapReader (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mapreader! R M O'Dell — Preceding unsigned comment added by R M O'Dell (talk • contribs) 08:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mapreader is quite correct in his description of how Wikipedia works. Something very similar happened to me. I was reading the article on George S. Patton Jr, and noticed something that I was pretty sure was a mistake. It concerned Patton's whereabouts during the 1917 Battle of Cambrai. On the basis of what I've known about the subject for many years, I corrected the error. Luckily, several "editors" were quickly on hand to "revert" my edit, offer numerous supporting secondary sources and inform me that many more were available. They clearly stated that Patton led or observed the British forces at Cambrai; facts and conclusions already published elsewhere. Just the job. The system works. The fact that all these sources were wrong is unfortunate. And that's how Wikipedia works. If you're wrong, you get enough people to agree with you, and you become right. Hengistmate (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice contradiction!

Nicely done, Wikipedia! Let me guess, one "consensus" resulted in one result, another one in the exact opposite. Am I close? --84.132.154.198 (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that's a little too cryptic for me to even figure out what you're complaining about. It might be a valid comment, but you will need to elaborate a little please. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Date format.

I find it strange that an article about a file released and filmed in the US was using a the D-M-Y format. I changed it to M-D-Y but I am bringing it here to the talk page for review. 108.30.105.141 (talk) 09:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find behaviour like yours hard to respond to. It's difficult to say anything but - you are completely wrong on every claim there. It was filmed entirely in the UK, and first released in the UK, and logically uses the standard UK date format. I shall await the arrival of other editors. Perhaps while we wait you could try to find evidence for your claims. HiLo48 (talk) 09:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I could be wrong on where it was filmed, but whatever consensus decides then I'm fine with that. 108.30.105.141 (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read the article, especially the Filming subsection? It tells you where it was filmed, with excellent sources. This doesn't really need consensus. It needs rational behaviour on your part. HiLo48 (talk) 10:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor would be advised to read the article and the talk page discussion, which have already covered the nationality topic, based on citation of reliable sources. I don’t understand how he can possibly think that this is an American film. MapReader (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Tempelsman

Right now we dedicate a paragraph to Cathy Tempelsman's opinion about the historical accuracy of this film. Cathy Tempelsman is not a historian of any kind. She is not an expert in WWI. The article used as a source is an opinion piece she wrote in the New York Times. It's a primary source, reliable only for reporting her own views on the subject, and since she has no qualifications whatsoever when it comes to the history of WWI, her views on the subject are no more relevant than anyone else's. This section should be sourced either to secondary reliable sources or to the opinions of actual WWI experts. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE to include it. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

There are much better sources out there that discuss this. For example, [7], [8], and [9]. These are all secondary sources that incorporate interviews with actual WWI historians. I'll attempt to add these to the article instead. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a better source that makes the same point, by all means make the edit and let others review it. But there is no ‘rule’ that only professional or qualified historians can be used as reliable citations in a section on historical accuracy, and there are plenty of examples to the contrary, including in this article for example the article in the Telegraph. Templesman is not making a highly specific claim about a point of significant but obscure historical detail - she is commenting on how likely it is that the overall arc and mood of the storyline reflects what would have been the reality in 1917. The difference between her opinion and yours or mine is that the New York Times thought hers good enough to publish. MapReader (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a rule that says that articles should be based on significant viewpoints:
WP:DUE
. The New York Times publishes dozens of opinion pieces a day. Include other news publications with similar reputaions and you get thousands of opinion pieces a day, the vast majority of them insignificant. When you say "if you have a better source that makes the same point, by all means make the edit", you are working backwards. You have decided what material should be in the article, and you're looking to sources to justify that. That is not how articles should be written. First you should look to high quality sources, and only then decide what to include in the article based on the views represented in them.
In the dozen articles I've read published by magazines and newspapers under their own masthead with editorial control (as in, actual secondary sources rather than opinion pieces), including several based on interviews with professional historians specializing in WWI history, none of them make claims anything like Tempelsman's. There's no indication that her view is anything more than an outlier based on her own incorrect knowledge or idiosyncratic beliefs. If her viewpoint was significant, then there would be more sources that share it. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cathy Tempelsman states: "in reality the scale of the casualties was such that the potential loss of 1,600 men would not have exacted the response portrayed in the film." This is incorrect. Although the British Army would throw away vast numbers of lives in waste (see the Somme). However if they knew it was a trap and the lives would be more valuable later, there would be no benefit to wasting lives for no reason. This defies the principle of Sense-making. It is not a worthy historical perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.217.214.194 (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you are so exercised about it, why not sign up for an account? No-one takes anonymous commentary from an IP account seriously. MapReader (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MapReader, no one takes them seriously? Excuse me, I do! Must be one of those IP haters aren't you? Not all IPs are bad. GeraldWL 11:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree - it struck me as out of place when reading this. While a "disregard for human life" by military command may or may not be true, I think it unlikely that an operation would be allowed to go ahead that was headed into a known trap. The disregard for life could be argued in the sense that high casualties would be accepted in order to achieve a goal, not that command would wilfully ignore intelligence. This playwright's opinion seems dangerously presumptive, does not seem to be relevant and I'm unsure why it's included in the article if not written by an expert or significant person. If she were a particularly famous playwright I might understand, but as a relatively unknown one her opinion doesn't seem significant here Flobberz (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that personal opionion of Cathy Tempelsman should be removed as its pretty much bizzare and just don't have any sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.198.82 (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it should be removed - it's an insight into a certain kind of opinion - just a poorly-informed one which screamed out at me when I read it. The answer, basically, is that the BEF was becoming a very professional organisation by these later years of the war. Artillery and infantry tactics were improving considerably, and senior commanders could usually make a pretty good guess at how many casualties would be racked up to take a given objective. Officers were often sacked for insufficient aggression but at the same time were often sacked for clumsiness and taking excessive or unnecessary casualties. If a footnote were to be added to that effect somebody (and I'm not volunteering) would need to trawl through books by the likes of Gary Sheffield, Andy Simpson, Peter Simkins and historians of that kind.Paulturtle (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2021

Adding a cover art for the EP released Fitriamirrol (talk) 08:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMAX

Can we add the category "IMAX films"?82.27.106.254 (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2021

X=Categories as they are. Y=Categories with "Category:IMAX films" 82.27.106.254 (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — IVORK Talk 03:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2021

Hello,

I’d like you to reconsider the content in your ‘historical accuracy’ section. I think that by focussing on the accuracy or otherwise of black and Asian soldiers (as the first points raised) you risk playing into a … difficult narrative.

In the film: (1) a man falls down a waterfall in the - famously flat - Flanders; (2) the tactics used are indicative rather than accurate: consider the accuracy of the German rifle and the 30-40m shots that are routinely missed; (3) there is a clear prioritisation of narrative over documentary filming.

Given the need to make a film that is watchable by maintaining a narrative, it is not unreasonable to represent the black and Asian soldiers through a historical inaccuracy. In the same way it is not a travesty to invent a 10-15m waterfall in Flanders.

By choosing to focus your paragraph about accuracy on race in the first instance you might be perpetuating a pretty worrying trope. The black, Asian, and Irish contribution to WW1 has been often missed (for a number of reasons more complicated than racism). Why spotlight the manner of their inclusion in the film in a way you don’t spotlight other glaring errors?

I’d propose just deleting the historical accuracy paragraph, or properly researching and documenting every inaccuracy. Alternatively change the paragraph to ‘People were concerned because there were too many black and Asian people in the film. They - and we - focussed on this narrative device than any of the other narrative devices used in the film.’

Thank you. 148.252.129.149 (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: We don't do our own original research. We report what is written in reliable secondary sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Accuracy section sources?

I'm not sure the paragraph about Black and Sikh soldiers is supported by the sources it gives, at least not to the degree of confidence it seems to present:

  • The British Library source doesn't mention the West Indies, but does say that "Among the colonial non-white troops of the British empire, only Indians were allowed to fight in Europe."
  • The Daily Telegraph source explicitly describes the presence of "several black soldiers among the British forces" as historically accurate and quotes Jonathan Boff of the University of Birmingham as saying that "The filmmakers took advice on who would have been there and who wouldn’t have been there. That was all quite well done."
  • The Colonial Soldiers in Europe, 1914–1945 source says that "the number of Black men in the peacetime British Army is unknown," but probably very small, and then says that there are "no available statistics on the recruitment of Black men to the British Armed Forces in wartime" and says that there was no clear pattern to whether they would be rejected or accepted if they tried to enlist during the war, especially after 1916 when there was "a desperate need for manpower."
  • The Alicante Journal of English Studies source states that "there is no consensus on the number of Black British and Afro-German soldiers who served in white regiments but their presence and involvement on the frontlines is indisputable."
  • The BBC source says that Indian infantry divisions were withdrawn from the European front in 1915, but that "two Indian cavalry divisions remained on the Western Front until March 1918."

However, I don't have access to The Times source or the Encyclopedia of World War I source, so I'm not sure what they say. But the bulk of the sources cited in the section don't really seem to back up what the section is saying with the degree of confidence to which the section is saying, and barely any of the sources are about the film itself (only the Telegraph and the The Times sources). NHCLS (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2022

X="Exhausted, Schofield sits under a nearby tree before looking at photographs of his wife and children which, like the message paper, have miraculously survived undamaged after prolonged immersion in the river." Y="Exhausted, Schofield sits under a nearby tree before looking at photographs of his wife and children."

Pointing out plot holes is not the purpose of the plot summary. The comment about water damage is also snarky, which violates neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:81:E580:E121:2112:6C35:78A7 (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this point, ridiculous editorializing which disrupts the flow of the article. Funktasticdog (talk) 06:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done In the future, please use {{edit semi-protected}} to get a faster response. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 07:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2023

Could you link

1917: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack in the Music section 223.178.86.76 (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

 Done -- Euryalus (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2023

box office should be changed from 384.6 to 384.5 Lmnopw (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Box office is correct rounded value as per source. Canterbury Tail talk 13:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality

@

WP:FILMCOUNTRY. The policy states: If the film's nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), identify it in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section. According to the infobox, this film is a British-American co-production; as such, the opening sentence should omit mention of its nationality. It's not about RS's, this is pretty straightforward. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

No, it’s not straightforward, because the policy is pointing you towards the reliable sources, but you haven’t cited any. If you care to check - and this has been discussed on the talk page before - the film is widely described by the RS as a British film. The nationality of the companies listed in the infobox is irrelevant and your attempting to impute a description for the film from them is editor OR. You’re saying “it’s not about RS” when the very first line of the policy you yourself have quoted states clearly that nationality is defined by the RS, makes no sense at all. And it was very bold of you to speculate on my unfamiliarity with that policy; after all, what were the chances that you had run into the very editor who wrote it in the first place? ;) MapReader (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is a textbook FILMCOUNTRY violation. If it is true that the film is widely described by the RS as a British film, then the infobox should be adjusted; you cannot claim the film is British-American in the infobox but only British in the lead. We always look at the infobox (where I see there is a source for British-American involvement, so I'm not sure why you claim otherwise) when determining whether to include nationality in the lead. If you have an objection, please start a discussion at
WT:MOSFILM to change the guideline's wording, as this is how editors have interpreted and followed the guideline for years. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Also, nice try trying to imply you were the author of the guideline's wording. Fortunately, it is easy for me to tell if something fishy is going on. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, it went through lots of discussion and got consensus on the project page, but I did originally draft and propose those few sentences back in the day, yes; if you are bothered to check, the discussion will be in the archives somewhere. Or maybe it was the similar wording for MOSTV, in which case my bad. In any event it was cheeky of you to suggest unfamiliarity based on, not much. The key point is that how a film is described, as with everything else in WP, must follow the sources. That various national interests are listed in the infobox is a separate matter, and it isn’t open to you or any other editor to synthesise a descriptor that doesn’t reflect the RS. As a long-standing descriptor, changing it would require a review of the current RS, and as per BRD you are welcome to start one should you feel it appropriate. MapReader (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First things first:
Now, moving onto more important things. I am not opposed to having sources back film nationalities — it should, after all, comply with
WP:V and all that. However, FILMCOUNTRY is clear in its directive to omit mention of a film's nationality in the first sentence of the lead if there are more than two countries of origin — which is the case here, per the infobox which lists the U.S. and UK as the film's countries, with a source attached. It's that simple: it follows what RS's say, and it complies with FILMCOUNTRY. If you need further clarification, please let me know. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@MapReader: Do you have any further comments? If not, I can request additional input from our friends at WT:FILM. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I hadn’t responded because I find your response above a bit weird. The reason we were having a discussion about my previous involvement with the policy was solely because you chose to open the talk with an entirely unnecessary insult - for which you had no basis and is hardly in the spirit of co-operative editing. That I had misremembered being involved with the film wording rather than the very similar provision in TV is my bad, but nevertheless establishes that I was obviously familiar with the policy, which is the point at stake. So the above is gratuitous and somewhat obsessive. Anyhow, yes, in the absence of other contributions here, additional input would be useful, neutrally drawn. MapReader (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't intended as an insult — I genuinely assumed you were either unaware of that policy or didn't read it, based on your edit summaries insisting that FILMCOUNTRY doesn't say to omit nationalities if there is more than one. But I do apologize if you were offended. I will go ahead and leave a notice at WT:FILM. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this dispute. The source provided in the infobox clearly lists both the UK and the US as "Production Countries", which seems unambiguous to me.

If that's correct, then the countries should not be listed in the lead sentence per FILMCOUNTRY, as noted.

If that's not correct, then are we asserting that The Numbers isn't a reliable source for production country data? Has that claim been made before, and if so, where? If it's just incorrect in this case, why aren't alternative sources being provided to support the claim that it is strictly a British film? DonIago (talk) 05:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment IIRC, the discussion about film nationality was triggered by the fact that a lot of Hollywood films such as
    WP:WEIGHT to describe it as a solely British film, and reputable sources clearly show its nationality is not "singularly" defined. Betty Logan (talk) 08:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
When the sources were reviewed during previous discussion, there were many around the world that described it as a British film, and none found that described it as a co-production. A further review might be worthwhile as this may have changed. But you can’t SYNTH a description from infobox data that simply lists the nationalities of the companies involved with the film. For descriptors, WP simply follows the RS in terms of how a film is described - just as it does for people, Robert De Niro being described as an ‘American actor’, reflecting the sources, despite his Italian passport (in addition to his US one) and Boris Johnson always having been a ‘British politician and writer’ despite having been born in the US and holding US citizenship for most of his life. If this film isn’t still widely referred to as a British film then clearly the descriptor should be dropped, but not otherwise, as per the policy. MapReader (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no synthesis in the examples I have provided. In Lumiere's case it states that in the case of "international co-productions" it endeavours to list "producing countries" in the order of their financial investment, so it is fairly explicit that Lumiere regards the film as an international co-production. Being considered a British film and an international co-production are not mutually exclusive (the BFI Yearbook considers the film to be both), and in this case 1917 is not "singularly defined" as British film. Betty Logan (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no guideline (as far as I know) that dictates film articles should simply [follow] the RS in terms of how a film is described. There is, however, a guideline (FILMCOUNTRY) that says to omit mention of a film's nationality/production countries if there is more than one. As I and now Doniago have said, it's really not a debatable topic. If you are saying there were previous discussions on this page where editors concluded we should call it a British film, they are wrong.
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot override community-wide consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Just to remind you that SYNTH says “ do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source” - so descriptions do need to be explicitly stated - your “fairly explicit” isn’t sufficient, since it isn’t explicitly stated at all. When the RS were reviewed during the previous discussion, it was very common for the film to be singularly defined as a British one. MapReader (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lumiere explains its methodology for designating nationalities i.e. in the case of international co-productions, it explains the criteria for how it selects and orders production countries in its database. There is no synth in that. Betty Logan (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m afraid that there is. Anything that involves analysis or “methodology” or “criteria” is synthesis of a description that isn’t explicit stated. And policy is crystal clear that - as generally in WP - if a film is singularly described with a nationality by reliable sources, then so it is in WP. This film is very widely described as a British film - as just one highly reputable (American) example, by the associate professor of film studies at Minnesota State University, Steven Rybin, in his book ‘Stellar Transformations: Movie Stars of the 2010s’. And there are dozens of web media sources, from all around the world. MapReader (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MapReader, can you provide a policy-based reason for not following FILMCOUNTRY? If not, there is no reason to violate FILMCOUNTRY. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are following the policy. I still don’t understand how above you could have quoted it and then immediately commented that ‘it’s not about RS’, when the policy opens with a clear and specific statement that makes it explicit that it is. MapReader (talk) 04:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are two parts to FILMCOUNTRY: one, we must follow sources, meaning we can't make stuff up; two, if sources say there is more than one nationality, we should not mention it in the first sentence of the lead. By calling 1917 a British-American production, we are following sources, specifically The Numbers, BFI, and Lumiere. We cannot only follow one part of FILMCOUNTRY and ignore the other. If you disagree, you are misinterpreting FILMCOUNTRY, as I and now two other editors have told you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that - as applies universally across WP - statements that appear in and conclusions drawn about the subjects of articles need to be directly referenced. Which means that, as per WP:OR, the conclusion must be stated explicitly in the sources - not inferred or deduced from related pieces of data that do not spell out the eventual conclusion the editor wants to draw. This is why FILMCOUNTRY opens by referring to definition according to the RS, and makes clear in brackets that this means direct references to the nationality of the film. The example given is “being called an American film”, but other examples would be a “British film”, a “British-American film” or an “international co-production”. How the film is described in RS is the key, and if this is singular, the logic of the quoted policy stops there. The remaining sentence applies, and only applies, if it isn’t singular. So far, the only direct references cited in relation to this film are that it is seen as a British film; the published academic reference from the American film professor that I cited above adding to the many such references on the internet. MapReader (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Erik: You were the one who proposed the current wording of FILMGENRE all those years ago; can you clarify what you meant by singularly defined by reliable sources? TL;DR, per this article's infobox, this film is a British-American production; however, MapReader is insisting that we should say "British film" in the lead because [see comment directly above]. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It means reliable sources naming that single nationality in writing about the film. Like "one of the best [nationality] films in the past decade" or "[nationality] films like X, Y, and Z". In this case, if there is due weight of reliable sources calling 1917 a British film, compared to other sources naming something else, that would be appropriate. It's just policy being applied in a guideline for films (in this case, WP:DUE). Of course, it's possible that most sources here and for other films don't bother with nationalities, just saying something like "World War I film" or "Sam Mendes film" or only mentioning Britishness in the context of the story. I don't have a clean answer for this particular situation because there's such a hyperfocus on one word in the opening sentence to treat as a badge. One example that comes to mind is Wolf Totem (film), which I personally think is fine not calling it a "Chinese" or "Chinese-French" film but rather spelling out the Chinese and French elements in the first two sentences. For most of film history, it's been simple enough to identify that singular nationality. Nowadays, it's a bit messier, and my own opinion is that I favor spreading out the context rather than distilling it in a single-word placement before "film" in the opening sentence. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 23:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying the lead does not need to be consistent with the infobox? InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Erik says above, the nationality descriptor (specified in the opening sentence if singular and detailed later in the lead otherwise) must be directly sourced from the RS, reflecting the balance of reliable sources around the world in terms of how the film is commonly described. That’s the same for any direct statement in WP - based on explicit citation, and not argued to indirectly (which would be OR or SYNTH). Thus Lumiere’s database, which is the example given in detail above, isn’t an appropriate source (for the lead descriptor) since they clearly say that their data is worked from the sources of funding for a film, which may or may not reflect how it is described. Clearly however if the question is “where did the money for the film come from?”, then Lumiere is an excellent source, and if editors wish to list as data for the infobox all of the countries that had any involvement in the film (which is my impression of the usual approach) I don’t see the objection?
  • The situation is analogous to the Robert de Niro one I cited above - the article records as data that he holds American and Italian passports - in his case the citizenships aren’t itemised in the infobox, but for many biographical articles they are (e.g. Boris Johnson) - yet he is described, rightly, as an American actor, because despite being ‘legally’ both an American citizen and an Italian citizen as a matter of cited fact, RS continue to describe him as American.
  • The reason our discussion reminded me of the earlier policy talk over at TV (even if I misremembered which project) is because that arose from precisely the same issue. Nationality descriptors were sometimes being argued on the back of criteria - such as where the financing came from, in which countries the production companies were based, etc. - proposed by an editor unsupported by any direct referencing, because at that time the TV policy was poorly worded. The problem this created was that different editors could pick different criteria, leading to differences of opinion that couldn’t be resolved and essentially competitions between various forms of SYNTH. Yet it is basic to WP that the statements we include in the encyclopaedia should reflect the consensus view not of we editors ourselves but of the published RS from the wider world.
MapReader (talk) 06:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For most cases, especially older ones, the nationality in the opening sentence will incidentally match the infobox's country field. I don't recall if there's a guideline that both must be in sync, though the assumption is understandable. At the same time, the infobox has a lot of names that don't often get mentioned in the lead section, so we can't assume that they're both the same presentation of data in different formats. That said, I consider the infobox a kind of database format, and if multiple databases indicate one country or three countries, Wikipedia's infobox can emulate that. It's the presentation of prose and what "nationality" means in the opening sentence. I'm sure it's possible for some films to be multinational productions in all the technical and financial senses and yet be quintessentially "representative" (whatever that may mean) of one country.
I don't have a direct answer for this case. I don't see many results of it being explicitly called a British film (though I only skimmed), but I don't know if absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Yet another thought regarding opening sentences is to simply say that it's X-language film. That's more incontrovertible than countries and nationalities (and even in cases of multilingual films, it's more than likely that these will be multinational productions). If there are valid points and counterpoints, then I'd rather default to spreading out the context in the first few sentences. It gives more flexibility in framing it so readers can have their own takeaways, seeing that the story is British-focused and that it's based on Sam Menedes's grandfather who served in the BAF and that the studio DreamWorks is American and that the production company under it is British. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas the lead is directly referenced, infoboxes do tend to collect the nationalities of all countries peripherally involved - some external infoboxes for this film also list Spain and India, for example, and it often seems somewhat arbitrary which end up in the WP infobox. For the nationality itself, US sources reviewed for this film shortly after it was released included Variety.com (US edition),[10], Forbes,[11] AVclub,[12] and Hollywood Reporter.[13] (“home soil”), to which we can add the American film professor’s book that I cited above. There are also similar references to it being a British film in reputable media sources from Ireland, Australia and South Africa, as well as very many from the UK itself. The descriptor has been there for over three years now and can therefore clearly be treated as stable. MapReader (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, FILMCOUNTRY needs to be amended to clarify that sources actually refers to sources in prose, and that the lead does not necessarily need to match the infobox. But I'll say this: is a British film is another way of saying is a film whose country of production is the United Kingdom, so this confusing arrangement is just inviting editors — IP or otherwise — to attempt to change the lead to British-American film. This is what I assumed was one of the reasons behind FILMCOUNTRY, not this arbitrary case-by-case analysis of sources that overcomplicates things. Editors are not going to sit down and have a discussion every time a film is a multinational production to decide what the "majority" of sources label the film "in prose" (without directly citing said sources in the lead or anywhere else in the article). InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following the (balance of) sources is how WP works, across all subject areas. Yes, sometimes it’s difficult. But that doesn’t justify trying to short-cut a synthesised description from a website such as the one above, which by its own admission merely looks at where the money comes from (which IMHO tells you little about the national origin of a creative product in any event - the same logic applied to, say, art, would quickly reveal its flaws). The brackets in the current wording already clarify what is intended (not that there is much ambiguity if you refer to editing policy in general). Everything of significance in the encyclopaedia should be explicitly cited. If the sources actually referred to this film as “British-American” or an “international co-production” (both descriptors that you will find for other films), then it would be reasonable to omit the descriptor from the opening sentence and cover the matter in later sentences, as the policy already says. That this film has had a settled description for over three years suggests that it isn’t particularly controversial. MapReader (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same problem that has plagued film genres and categories for years, in large due to the frequent misuse/misinterpretation of LEADCITE. Because these are rarely "sourced" in the articles, editors resort to claiming (often via edit summaries) that "most sources" say this and that — without naming the actual sources. Only when the claim is contested and people start edit-warring do editors present lists of sources on the talk page ... but then none of the sources end up getting incorporated in the article itself, making the claim "sourced" only in theory. Time and again we point out the flaws of this approach, but LEADCITE and CATV make it difficult to make meaningful change. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If it is certainly a British-American production, it would help if the American side of the production is detailed in the body, to make it more uncontestable. GeraldWL 08:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor corrections

After the soldier jumped in the river and fell over the waterfall is when the cherry blossoms began to fall. I know it’s an extremely minor correction—I just like accuracy. Helipilot68 (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2024

Filming also took place at Bovingdon Airfield Studios over 8 months from January to September 2019. The actors had to rehearse for 6 months on location before shooting started, all of which had to be supported as if filming the entire time. Over a mile of trenches were dug for the film, including on Bovingdon’s huge radar and triangle field backlots. It’s one of the largest-scale filming endeavours to have taken place on Bovingdon’s site, recreating No Man’s Land, Allied and German trenches, and large bomb craters. Bradburysl (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1917_(2019_film)&oldid=1202479318"