Talk:? (2011 film)

Update needed

The article says that it will compete in the Indonesian Film Festival in October. An article used as a source says the winners will be announced November 27.[1] What happened? Did it win anyhing? MathewTownsend (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:? (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 18:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Hi, I will start this review shortly.

• Please note that I put a request on the talk page that the article needs updating but there has been no response. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry. I've been looking for reliable sources for it (a blog says it won only one award) but they have yet to be forthcoming. I did not watch the presentation myself, sadly. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Review notes

• This is a very interesting film. I have a few comments below. All in all I see no great problems. I'm really impressed that the sources are archived!
• I did some copy editing and feel free to change anything you don't agree with.

• The plot section was very hard to understand and I think it could be expanded just a little for clarity. It was difficult to keep track of who was who. I think a "Cast" section would be helpful for the reader to be able to refer to.

• I'm waiting for the DVD to come out for that. It's not in theatres anymore. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• Why are only some of the religions linked?

 Done Linked all.

• "since she converted" - from what

 Done - From Islam. I thought it was implied as her son was Muslim, but no harm in making it clearer.

• Why is Abi ostracized?

 Done - Because the neighbours disapprove of his mother.

• "he dies when suicide bombing a church when Menuk rejects him." - don't understand this.

 Done

• For a person not completely familiar with the relationships among the three religions mentioned, some links or brief explanations would help.

Like a background section?

• Production

• Is there any information about the writing of the screenplay?

• None has been forthcoming online from what I can see. I've been dying to get the DVD if / when it comes out for more background information.

• Any information about casting choices, where filmed and other production issues?
• "Its release coincided with a contest sponsored by a local cellular provider to give the best name to the events shown in the film." - I'm not sure what giving "the best name to the events shown in the film" means. What were the results?

• "Accolades"

• Is "Accolades" the best title for this section?

•  Done Changed to awards

• "As of October 2011, ? is slated to compete in the 2011" - this needs updating, as the results were to be announced November 27.

•  Done

• "Controversy"

• "The youth group Banser, part of NU" - what is NU? What is Banser besides a youth group - what kind of youth group?

• Partially done. (NU) added after the first use of Nahdlatul Ulama

Please feel free to contact me and/or ask questions and provide feedback.

MathewTownsend (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've done some of the basics. I will work on a characters section asap. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

A few more

• I don't mean a "background" section on religion, just a little more explanation of how religion and society interact there.

• e.g. why is Abi ostracized? Isn't being Muslim ok there? Or is it because of his mother being Catholic?
• Also, when Hendra decides the restaurant will serve exclusively pork, no more is said on that issue. Didn't that have some effects?
• Surya receives an offer from Rika to play the role of Jesus at her church's Christmas pageant, which he accepts for a high fee after hesitating - does he hesitate because he'll be playing a Christian role? And the "high fee", what is the significance of that? (He's a "ne'er-do-well Muslim actor", so does getting this job make him ok?)

Other things

• Hendra comes into conflict with Soleh over Menuk, as Hendra had previously dated her. Menuk becomes increasingly depressed after Soleh tells her that he plans to divorce her. - (but then) - Eventually, Soleh joins the Islamic group Nahdlatul Ulama, enabling him to feel more confident; however, after Menuk refuses to take him back ... (I thought he was the one who wanted to divorce her. Did he want the divorce because he lacked self confidence?)

• However, its becoming clearer. Your edits helped! MathewTownsend (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Alright, I've got most of those down. I'm still going to work on getting a character section in there. Where do you think the religious information should be worked in? I'll also probably give a sentence or two about discrimination against Chinese Indonesians. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Reply - I think just a little more explanation in the plot. Nothing elaborate - just the things I mentioned. Since religious conflict drives the plot, it would help if were clear how it does. I know about the three major religions mentioned, but I don't know how they interact in Indonesia. That's all. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Background has been added. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps a little too much background. How about:

• "? focuses interfaith relations in Indonesia where interfaith conflicts are common and there is a long history of violence and discrimination against Chinese Indonesians."

• Otherwise, it gets a little off topic. Let the plot tell the story. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Trimmed. Anything else? Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• I made a few changes but feel free to correct. It's all fine. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Awesome, thanks! Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Best Featured Article Ever

I LOVE the lead for this article as today's featured article! Absolutely great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.92.199.90 (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

It certainly made me click through.
--Cogniac (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Me too, although it looked like a browser error. 50.39.110.236 (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I liked the lead too; it made me click as well. :) —Lowellian (reply) 03:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Easiest lead ever! Thief12 (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm very much glad everyone's enjoying this.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
• It is very attention grabbing, look forward to seeing the stats it generates, will certainly be way up in the WP:5000 and perhaps crack the WP:TOP25.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it, it might be one of the lowest visted ever main page leads... which is fine, because it means that people fell for it. Everybody thought it was a browswer error.74.124.47.11 (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• 220k hits. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, that makes it the 13th most-viewed featured article of all time. Prioryman (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Noticed. It's nice... although a couple AFD articles ranked higher up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Very nice and creative lead for April Fools=D. Smallman12q (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
• + 1 that came here for the title. It's really nice! - Sarilho1 (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

What is this nonsense?

Wikipedia is supposed to be of utmost professionalism and formality(Or at least it should try to be). Partaking in silly events such as April fools day undermines its academic authority. Having a question mark as the featured article on the main page just doesn't look right. It's sort of like the journal Nature having a photograph of Barney on its front cover as an April Fools Day joke. It's stupid. You have to stay consistent. If you want to "celebrate" April Fools Day, do it in a more colloquial setting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.53.35 (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hi there 99, this page is for discussing improvements to the article ?. If you wish to discuss the main page and its content, please see Talk:Main Page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
• Every link on the main page is legit. I see no problem. PurpleChez (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
• I don't share the vision you describe. I think wikipedia should be sourced and worded like the utmost professionalism and formality, but there's no reason to forget it's edited by humans, and a good number of them, and a bit of silliness now and then seems quite healthy to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brant.merrell (talk • contribs) 16:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
• This is a legitimate article that happens to have an amusingly novel name. It's an incredible stretch to start arguing that it delegitimizes the encyclopedia. You'd have to take yourself far less seriously than wikipedia self-evidently does to care about this level of "silliness".70.51.115.177 (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
• Yeah, cool brah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.235.106.145 (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I actually thought the same thing as the original poster, which is why I came here. At that, is it possible to include a picture, as to prevent confusion? When I fist came to the main page, I thought something was desperately wrong. -Poodle of Doom (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Jeez, I don't see what's the issue. It grabbed everyone's attention, which I think it's the purpose. This reminds me of Einstein sticking his tongue to the camera. Does his moment of "silliness" undermines his scientific credibility? Thief12 (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

First off... do not edit my post again. Second of all, I do believe we are supposed to be indenting here right? -Poodle of Doom (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Every year Wikipedia features a curious but perfectly legitimate article on April 1. And every year someone will be outraged by it. Manning (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Lost Episode

Shouldn't there be a disambiguation to the Lost episode with the same name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.224.4 (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

No. The article's title is already disambiguated because it says "? (film)". Now, if you write "?" on Wikipedia's search, then it will take you to all the possible meanings of the symbol. Thief12 (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It takes you to the article about a question mark. From there, you have a link to the disambigation page. Provided, the link should be placed here as well. -Poodle of Doom (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You mean

This article is about the film. For other uses, see ? (disambiguation).

? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

There's no need, because the most basic search should be for the "question mark" article, which then leads you to the disambiguation page with all the other possible alternatives. There's no need to disambiguate any further. Thief12 (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with you there, but there are alternative views. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 9 April 2024

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.

The result of the move request was: moved. – robertsky (talk) 07:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

---

? (film) → ? (2011 film) – Dab from ?: A Question Mark. The film with the subtitle is more popular. This is a test case for Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)#Does this apply to subtitles?. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support A Question Mark has 1,195 views compared with only 313[[2]] for the 2011 one and subtitles are often omitted and the image doesn't appear to even show the words "A Question Mark" and the "?" is large so its likely both are called "?". Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Religion, WikiProject Film/Southeast Asian cinema task force, WikiProject Film, and WikiProject Indonesia have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support current title should point to the disambiguation page -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Cfls (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The subtitle in ?: A Question Mark only disambiguates that page from this one, not this page from that one. Each page needs adequate disambiguation within its own title. If this were a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it could be adequate disambiguation. But even without considering WP:INCDAB's heightened standard for treating a partially disambiguated title as a primary topic, this is not a primary topic per above. SilverLocust 💬 03:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.