Talk:The Duel (2010 film)

These edits added content copied from the film's official press kit ([1]). This violates Wikipedia's policies on spam and copyright violations (the text is copyrighted). Please don't add it again.Prezbo (talk) 06:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theduel (talk) 07:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC) I would quote the reference link with the text to actual official document ([2]) published by the makers of movie on the website. hope thsi will not violate the Wikipedia's SPAM policies and guidelines.[reply]

No, this is still against Wikipedia's policies. It's still using Wikipedia for advertising, and it's still plagiarism.Prezbo (talk) 07:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest you read WP:COI.Prezbo (talk) 07:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theduel (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC) this is just an initiative to publish the correct and more vital information in WikiPedia. What parts would you suggest to remove from the updated version?[reply]

All of it. Read the things I linked to above. Even if you just copied a paragraph from the press kit into the article rather than the whole thing it would still be in violation of those rules. If people want to read the press kit they can go to the official website, that's not what people come to Wikipedia for.Prezbo (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theduel (talk) 07:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC) On so you want me to remove the part which I have taken from Presskit, then it would work. Am I correct?[reply]

As far as I can tell everything you added was copied from the press kit, what did you add that wasn't?Prezbo (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theduel (talk) 07:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)then I think you haven't read the press kit properly and only guessing on that. Only the Synopsis part was taken from Press kit which can be changed. Also I would suggest you to discuss first before making any undo.[reply]

It's all obviously from some kind of promotional material. Whether it was copied from the press kit or some other advertising the problems raised are the same.Prezbo (talk) 07:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theduel (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Your argument is not justified. If this is the case then on Wikipedia there should be no "reference" option at all. You are stopping public to share information in this free medium.[reply]

Read the rules I linked to above, and maybe some other Wikipedia policies, and you'll see that this isn't my opinion but just the way this site functions. Wikipedia isn't for advertising.Prezbo (talk) 07:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is on here? Why my changes have been removed? Wikipbonly (talk) 09:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read everything above? Since you added the same content that's being discussed above, the same problems apply to it.Prezbo (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you are the one, who created this page. Thats good Prezbo. However the way you shared information is incorrect. I suggest you should refine it for 'better reader experience'. You can take notes from the other guy; whose changes you removed. In this discussion the actual reader is suffering Wikipbonly (talk) 09:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I can really respond to here. Read the pages I linked to above if you don't understand why your edit was undone.Prezbo (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly Written

Who is Kirilin? He is discussed but we are never told how, when, or why he is introduced into the story. Who is Kirikin? He too is discussed but we are never told how he is introduced into the story. One particular sentence runs on and needs to be broken up: "Nadya cries and regretting the way Kirikin is offensive and begged him for not pursuing her to sleep with him but she gave up and asked Kirilin "where?"" I cannot fix it because I had never heard of this story prior to reading this entry. N0w8st8s (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)n0w8st8s[reply]

Requested move 13 February 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Number 5 7 22:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Chekhov's The Duel → The Duel (2010 film) – Is "Anton Chekhov's The Duel" not primarily The Duel (Chekhov story)? Timmyshin (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support evident In ictu oculi (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support move only to Anton Chekhov's The Duel (2010 film). The title of the movie isn't "The Duel" but "Anton Chekhov's The Duel" so why take that out? Just add film in parenthesis. Wikimandia (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support move exactly as proposed, to The Duel (2010 film). The title of the movie is simply The Duel. There is no need for extra disambiguation. Andrewa (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Summary?

The plot summary is identical to that of the original story. Is this a 100% faithful adaptation? And if so, does it need to have such a detailed plot summary? Mragsdale (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]