Talk:A Field in England

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: British This article is supported by the British cinema task force. Military history: War films / British / European / Early Modern / Wars of the Three Kingdoms This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  War films task force British military history task force European military history task force Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800) Wars of the Three Kingdoms task force

Please add references to use in the article.

• From Sightseers to Civil War: Ben Wheatley directs his fourth film in three years (in a field in Guildford)
• Ben Wheatley, director of A Field in England - interview
• A Field in England figures revealed

Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 19:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

• Empire
• The Financial Times
• The Guardian
• The Hollywood Reporter
• IGN
• The Independent
• Metro
• New Statesman
• Screen Daily
• SFX
• Time Out London
• Total Film
• Variety

Reaction

• BBC: "Ben Wheatley 'overwhelmed' with reaction to A Field In England"

Is

No, it isn't. I've reverted it, and suggested that it be proposed at

talk) 15:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:CLICKHERE does not apply; the end of that section fully indicates that it is about writing style. I think it is better to say that there are no actual guidelines about using hover-over, which is relatively new. In any case, it was applied here as a trial run. This is one of many film articles. I'm not sure why attempted new approaches have to be squelched in every single corner of Wikipedia before the guidelines get updated. The guidelines do not mention it, but that should not mean it is forbidden. We apply a cast list here already; this is another way to identify the actor behind the role without the eyeballs going back and forth. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion itself is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Cast in plot descriptions. What it boiled down to though was that some editors like to include cast names in the plot summary since it aids identification, while others argued that it unnecessarily interrupted the flow of the prose. A few compromise suggestions were put forward, hover links being one of them. My personal view though is that we should trial run them and see what sticks, otherwise we are stuck with a very arbitrary approach depending on who the principal editors are. Betty Logan (talk) 08:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 09:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I still disagree that WP:CLICKHERE applies. Obviously in a print encyclopedia, one cannot click a blue underlined term and go elsewhere. Hover-over has been used in a lot of articles already, just for a different purpose. This shows its usage. It is mainly for pronunciations, but I have seen another instance where it was used to define "c." as "circa". (Actually, Featured Article Prometheus (2012 film) uses hover-over for pronounciation.) I agree with Betty that we should do trial runs. I have checked article feedback for that purpose, but there have not been any complaints about it since the thousands of views that this article had through the film's release. This tells me that it is not a bad thing to have; it is the newness, especially in film articles, that can throw others off. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Field in England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220182735/http://www.kviff.com/en/films/film-detail/4103-a-field-in-england/ to http://www.kviff.com/en/films/film-detail/4103-a-field-in-england/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The summary as it currently stands is highly inaccurate. It's a fairly major problem throughout, but particularly galling is the section that claims O'Neil is pulled from the ground when it's the four others who are pulled across the field. 108.49.70.67 (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]