Draft talk:Terror on the Prairie

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Terror on the Prairie redirect.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This redirect 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Black listed on wiki because of who made the film

Bruce Willis has about 20 straight direct to dvd movies that all have wiki pages . Movies that aren’t even out yet have them. But this movie is clearly being black listed from having one because of who made it. Pretty sad that wiki has this big of a bias . 50.33.34.51 (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They don't always all have wiki pages, and if they aren't even out yet they often should not have wiki pages if editors are being strict about WP:NFF and WP:GNG. -- 109.77.202.114 (talk) 06:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia only accepts articles cited by sources Wikipedia considers reliable - take a wild guess which sources are considered reliable and which ones aren't.

But please keep telling all your friends to donate to Wikipedia - the internet's most trustworthy encyclopedia! Noctis83 (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Noctis83, the reliable sources guidelines can be found here, along with a list of common sources and their reliability here. More helpful if the information is given that way.Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have plenty of criticisms of Wikipedia (how some people have created rules like WP:NFF and then those rules are only very selectively enforced, is only one example of many), and also quite separately I have criticisms about the Wikimedia Foundation and how they solicit donations and how they put that money to use, but this is WP:NOTAFORUM and that has little to do with improving this article and getting this page out of draft and into mainspace. -- 109.79.70.46 (talk) 11:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accept this

If this doesn't get approved the only reasonable assumption is that it is due to bias. The film is obviously important enough as it is much much bigger than Daily wire's first two movies which both already have their own page. "Not clear how big of a film this is given that the critics listed are from non-notable blogs" - bs explanation, who determines what a "notable blog" is? I would say a blog with 2.2 million monthly views (boundingintocomics.com) and another with 250k is very notable... am I the only one that thinks so? This film deserves its own page, this is madness.

Rather curious that Bruce Willis' A Day to Die has no box-office information, no reception page and the three Rotten Tomatoes' reviews - which aren't included on the page, mind you - are from Common Sense Media, Dennis Schwartz Movie Reviews and Blu-ray.com -- fascinating, dare I say ... --Bartallen2 (talk) 10:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s blatant hypocrisy on display. GroovySandwich^Yum. 08:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOODFAITH. Assume good faith. This is a direct-to-streaming film, it is a small production and is not unreasonable for editors to be rigorous. Not every film gets an article. I would expect a film that has been reported on repeatedly by Deadline Hollywood and The Hollywood Reporter to pass muster (and WP:GNG). I expect it will be moved out of draft space in due course but it does need work. Again assume good faith, better to try and improve the article and do what needs to be done to get it sorted. -- 109.77.202.114 (talk) 06:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The editors should clean out the references to The Daily Wire and try to write the article using secondary sources because of WP:PRIMARY and WP:RSP reasons. I know it's rather challenging since The Daily Wire is one of the producers. That's the current bottleneck. If there are more mainstream film reviews, then that might help out as well. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Bruce Willis film, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It doesn't help this article. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The heavy reliance on WP:PRIMARY is a problem and on an even simpler level it also makes for awful repetitive prose, with "The Daily Wire" sometimes repeated twice in the same sentence. The Daily Wire is not a reliable source of news, but surely it is reliable source about itself? I would see that as a reason to tag the article with the template {{Primary sources}} rather than as a block to it being accepted as a Stub/Start class article. -- 109.79.70.46 (talk) 11:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Compare with What Is a Woman?, which only has 1 or 2 references to articles from The Daily Wire, and a lot more external news sources. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 03:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are only 2 Dailywire.com references remaining. The last two could probably go with not too much more work (rewrite the lead section, lose a quote in the cast section. etc). -- 109.79.73.200 (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed all the Daily Wire references I think can be removed. The two remaining references are needed to support a quote, and information about filming locations. -- 109.79.73.26 (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources

https://deadline.com/2021/10/gabriel-kane-day-lewis-gina-carano-western-terror-on-the-prairie-daily-wire-1234856353/ FloridaArmy (talk) 06:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plans to resurrect draft

I started putting a draft together on this film yesterday, before coming across this version. Plan on putting together a basic page so that this can be submitted, it seems to be quite a notable film. Streamingsteve (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmitted the draft for review. Removed lots of poorly referenced content and the constant mentions of the producer. Hopefully that is enough. Streamingsteve (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not at all clear why you chose to delete large sections of this article[1]. quite a notable film This is a minor film that was released directly to a streaming service, but there are plenty of direct to home media moves that have Wikipedia entries and I think it does more than meets the WP:GNG requirements and is overdue for an article. (It was in the news again recently, people trolling Gina Carano[2]). Cutting the article back to bare bones is counter productive, most of the concerns raised had been fixed and only a few more minor changes should have been necessary to get this article in mainspace if someone was willing to put in the effort. -- 109.79.73.26 (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the news - Gross

Gina Carona was in the news,[3] it was tangentially related to this film, as people on Twitter were mocking her and this film. Deseret News: Did Gina Carano ‘fumble the bag’ with Disney? She says no. According to The-Numbers.com the film grossed €804 domestically[4] it was released for one day, August 10th, 2022 (Limited), in one theatre. (The-Numbers.com does not list any international gross. Box Office Mojo does not list any domestic gross figure, but it does list an international gross of ~$13,115.[5])

To quote what Variety magazine said in 2007 about another low grossing film[6] :

"Like many on the dishonor roll of 60-plus titles cuming less than $1,000 over the past two decades, its stint in a single theater had more to do with contracts or four-wall rentals than mass audience desertion."

Perhaps this should be explained in the article, or maybe not. This film didn't get a real theatrical release, it is a non-event and there is little to explain other than contractual obligations. -- 109.79.174.17 (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]