Talk:Dune (2021 film)

BoxOfficeMojo gross

The figure given for the UK re-release at BoxOfficeMojo[1] is $28,322,437. The figure for the original UK release is $28,804,796.

Clearly it is impossible for the film to have grossed almost the same amount as the original release on a limited re-release. Hopefully this will be corrected on the site at some point. Barry Wom (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I see a ref for the gross data from TheNumbers has been added. I've commented out the BoxOfficeMojo ref for now, as the figures given there are confusing. Barry Wom (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Barry Wom: Box Office Mojo has a pattern of double counting grosses with rereleases. For more info on why and how, see Talk:List of highest-grossing films/Archive 19#Double Counting. In this case, it looks like the UK box office was counted twice. They have corrected the gross for Dune, which is correctly listed as $406 million. I have corrected the gross in the article and commented out The Numbers for now. ~ Rajan51 (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Plot section rewrite

@Dcdiehardfan: I reverted this drive-by rewrite of the plot section.[2] I am trying to finish up a GA review and I cannot review an article that changes drastically day to day. Further, the hidden text says not to do this and the user removed that text. Please review their changes and update if necessary. Viriditas (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I've failed the GAN. I don't think this should have been nominated since there's no way to review an article that hasn't stabilized to a single version. Viriditas (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I am the editor responsible. Apologies for complicating a frustrating, time-consuming GA review process. This reversion seems to be a careless byproduct of that process, and I hope it will be undone with due review of my edit (not by myself); it comes across as an undue effort to preserve stability which stands somewhat at odds with WP:BOLD, not taking into account whether or not the edit genuinely improves the article, and I have never seen such a thing following previous edits of a similar nature. It is not an actual content dispute that can be resolved as a content dispute.

I did not inappropriately remove an invisible comment, as claimed with "the hidden text says not to do [a rewrite of the plot section] and the user removed that text". I found that two copies of the invisible comment ("This wording was agreed upon on the talk page. Please do not change without consensus.") were enclosing as if brackets two words, "distant future", and took this to refer to those two words in conjunction with the AI discussion on the talk page. Perhaps wrongly, I thought this interpretation of the ambiguously worded invisible comment was so intuitive that the second copy of it was superfluous, and so I removed only that copy. It is false to suggest that my edit either deleted the invisible comment or defied it, given its ambiguity. After that, I improved the quality of the plot summary's writing (minor edits), which did need doing, and also remedied a couple of glaring omissions while avoiding bloat. I worked non-destructively and with due reference to (lack of well-defined) consensus and disputes on the talk page. There has been no "drive-by" recklessness or disruptive activity here, and minimal bold ("drastically" done) editing.

This talk page thread fails to assume good faith and is disrespectful, especially given its supplementation with sarcastic comments left on my user talk page, and it flouts WP:OWN with the overly literal, unintuitive interpretation that the invisible comment applies to the entire plot summary, given no evidence that I can see. I am very sorry if there is a convention here that I am unaware of, and, again, I hope my contribution can be vetted seriously, with the insignificant hidden metric that is the article's stability no longer a point of contention. I will engage constructively with or disengage from any real content disputes. PurpleQuaver (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I see nothing failing AGF, disrespectful, or sarcastic in anything I wrote here or on your talk page. Since you are somewhat new as you claim, let me give you a bit of advice: focus on the content, not on the personalities. I would also recommend teaming up with User:Dcdiehardfan as fellow collaborators, since you can easily get this to GA status in half the time by working together. And if you're committed to article improvement, you could probably skip the GA process altogether and go to FA. Good luck going forward, as this will likely be my last ever edit to this article. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The changes to the plot were not an improvement and had some poor sentence phrasing and the introduction of unnecessary detail (to an already complicated plot). I would have also reverted them as well. I would encourage Viriditas to rethink and return to the GA as there has been a lot of good work tidying up the article and I don't think it is far from GA standard imho. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Aszx5000 I would also say the Plot edits by @PurpleQuaver definitely jumped the gun but I think some of the changes were for the better. I'm a bit sad that it was PurpleQuaver's edits kinda decked the Stability in the GAR, but I understand that they probably weren't aware and it was a genuine mistake on their part. Either way, I think another reason why the article was highly trafficked and very actively edited during the timeframe of the GAR was due to the release of Dune: Part Two. I'm looking at the page views, and the engagement has since then decreased. I think the prose could definitely use some trims however, especially in the Lead. I do agree we are pretty close, but what I think should be done for now is to probably wait for at least a month or two, see if the article is more stable, and then maybe go for a renom soon. I also welcome PurpleQuaver to provide their suggestions and just let bygones be bygones and not drag the GAR thing out any further; what's done is done atp. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

MOS:PLOTBLOAT 'Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as with non-linear storylines, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range.' Jontel (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Notification of infobox image change proposal at Lady Jessica

Hi, I'm notifying editors who may he interested in participating in the discussion at Talk:Lady_Jessica#Proposed_infobox_image_change. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 17:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)