Talk:Calvary (2014 film)

This article is rated C-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. Ireland Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland 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.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Christianity Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Catholicism Low‑importance Calvary (2014 film) is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Catholicism task list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Sanctification; Westminster Cathedral Other : Watch recent changes for Catholicism articles

I have slightly condensed the plot summary, as the flag criticising excessive plot detail seemed justified (30-04-17), and at present what should be a synopsis is instead a blow by blow account of the entire script. Before wading in with the shears, I will consult WikiHelp regarding how far an editor should go in such trimming. --Humboles (talk) 07:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My second attempt, after I digested Wiki guidelines. I significantly cut the length of the plot summary, following the recommendation at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Plot which states that "plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words" (sic). Excessive detail was removed, and the language kept as concise as I could manage without introducing ambiguity. The synopsis was over 1250 words when I began, so in trimming the synopsis to below 670 words, I left scope for a bit more editing within the guidance above.

--Humboles (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a fairly novice editor who doesn't know the ropes, I'd like to query user 212.135.65.247 's undoing on 19th May of my paragraph on the painting (added as 89.234.90.66 on 11th May as I forgot to log in). It was flagged as trivia but I felt that it was the sort of interesting point that I like to find in an encyclopaedia and also added a couple of relevant links. It may be the paragraph was too prominent but simply removing it without discussion is rather discouraging. What is the process now?

DecBrennan (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The plot timeline is not in order. The daughter came from london before the meeting with Fitzgerald for starters. The conversation with the doctor about the little girl came later in the plot than listed in the plot summary. --DesmondE (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Plot) further recommends: "... events in the film do not have to be written in the order in which they appear on screen. If necessary, reorder the film's events to improve understanding of the plot." So reordering is not wrong per se.

--Humboles (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it common to detail the ending of a Movie on Wikipedia. This could ruin the movies for potential viewers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.206.198 (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spoiler you will see that this topic is dealt with in detail. In brief, Wikipedia policy since 2007 is that spoilers are inevitable and spoiler alerts are not appropriate, bearing in mind the project's encyclopedic function.

--Humboles (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A character named Nzd has actively been chasing my contributions down on various pages unfarily and without reason. It has helped with the citation of works.-zaneta — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZanetaStepanova (talk • contribs) 00:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

promote your website(s). I also note that the website in question triggers the filter log. Nzd (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

My sole aim is not to do that. Secondly, I didn't put in the Taste of Cinema review. Someone else did, and it has been their for months. Taste of Cinema is a notable film site, this is a notable review and I ask that you stop reverting it. Thank you.- zaneta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.217.136.255 (talk) 13:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing, absolutely nothing funny there. It is a particularly dark and pessimistic drama set in a gloomy location. No tongue in a cheek, nothing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:F2CB:C700:B452:FAA:D0C4:71A1 (talk) 09:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same question. A few jokes or humorous parts of a few scenes does not make a film a comedy. This film struck me as a profound drama, not something to watch for laughs. I would think only a Satanist would consider this film a comedy. I propose revision of this part of the page. -- Newagelink (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]