Talk:Melancholie der Engel
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Melancholie der Engel article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 29 December 2013. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
 | This article contains a translation of Debris Documentar from de.wikipedia. (803402892 et seq.) |
Citations Are Misformatted
[edit]Footnote #1 is like ten sources packed into one footnote — confusing. Which claims are backed by which sources? — Henry chianski (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Cf. my reply over at Talk:Marian Dora and same goes for Shira. From WP:PRIMARYCARE: “The novel itself is an acceptable primary source for information about the plot, the names of the characters, the number of chapters, or other contents in the book [...] The film itself is an acceptable primary source for information about the plot and the names of the characters.” I doubt sources are even required for the synopsis.--79.182.133.116 (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- He was referring to the out-of-universe content (background, production) and not the plot summary, which in general doesn't require citations. However, they're the same sources just inserted at the end of every paragraph. Source #1 is a huge amount of links lumped into one, when they should be broken down separately. Lastly, the massive series of incorrect categories added to this page is a violation of WP:CatDD and has been removed, because the film has zero relation with sailing or robotics or forestry and so on. We're definitely not here to gang up on you, just to help improve the article, but this is starting to veer into WP:OWN territory. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 23:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Category clutter
[edit]This article had 50 categories and was tagged with Template: Recategorize. Wikipedia:Overcategorization notes that not every applicable category should go on an article. The categories should note the subject's defining characteristics. With that in mind, I removed many of the less-relevant categories. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
The IP account 2605:6000:F4CE:8E00:79A3:E9E2:A484:E4E made three edits to this article (two of which were reverts) leaving no edit summaries:
- The first was the revert of a bot edit of a category which the bot quickly returned and reinstated. Both times the bot linked to a discussion which itself linked to MOS guidelines. This also ties into the article being tagged for overcategorization.
- The second removed a short paragraph in the lead which summarized the film's reviews from the Reception section. I'd added this to the lead to better summarize the article and to balance with the award already mentioned. I also felt that the review summary was a little easier to take than the plot summary.
- The third edit (a) reverted the removal of 26 categories that had expunged from the article per the explanation above (Category clutter), and (b) removed the layout change which had separated Themes from Production.
I think these edits have themselves been reverted, but if this is opposed please discuss here. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Animal abuse
[edit]I noticed that the article under the section "Reception" does not mention anything about the criticism the movie received for its rife and plentiful depictions of authentic torture and killings of animals, which I think should definitely be included.