Talk:RocknRolla

	Film portal This article 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
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Albums Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Too Much Opinion

Why only quote negative opinions? Why claim the film is 'very similar' to his previous films, when it just isn't; yes it's the same theme, but that does not mean it's a similar film.

As it happens I am not a Guy Ritchie fan; but I'm disgusted at this one sided approach to his work.

Heenan73 (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. This article needs to be cleaned up immediately as it is painfully biased. I was merely browsing when I came across this article and took exception to the repeated quotation of heavily negative opinions. It seems to me like the person who wrote this article hand picked exceptionally negative reviews to illustrate their own dislike of the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.161.6 (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's the opposite and the bias is in favour of the film, because it only mentions specific cherrypicked positive opinions and the overall lukewarm reception. To be balanced it'd need to have prominent negative opinions too. Reinis^talk 15:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation dump

BREAKING: Guy Ritchie Plans ‘RocknRolla’ Trilogy With Thandie Newton

Headline. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman/Jeremy Piven

Jeremy Piven plays Mickey NOT ROMAN. Ludacris aka Chris Bridges plays ROMAN. Stop making false changes all online sources state this: movies.yahoo.com and imdb.com 67.167.180.64 (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Online sources can and will be wrong at times. I suggest instead of citing online sources, you ACTUALLY WATCH THE MOVIE. There's a funny feature they have in movies nowadays called the END CREDITS. In said end credits, it lists Roman: Jeremy Piven and Mickey: Chris Bridges.—Alger82 (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and PS, IMDB lists Roman=Piven/Luda=Mickey as well, so what the hell are you talking about?—Alger82 (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judas Priest reference

Is the film's title intended to be a reference to the Judas Priest album and/or song of virtually identical name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.154.74 (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date formatting

There was a misunderstanding Template:Cite_news says a little different to Template:Cite_web, it does specify that the date parameter you should "write out the month in words" and you'll note I only changed the accessdate value but left those alone. I see now for accessdate it says "in the same format as the rest of the article". This is unusual for recent Film and television articles, which tend to use the format 2009-10-31 (which makes sorting really simple) so I got to thinking it was the preferred format but the there is no recommendation, not even a weak one (unless I read another completely different Cite Template). Since the article was already formatted you way I'm forced to leave the dates in the existing format you seem to prefer, even if it is unusual.
Interestingly the guidelines explicitly specify dates should not be wikilinked. Unfortunately wikilinked dates can be interpreted automatically by wikipedia and shown according to the users preference but ordinary dates cannot, which would avoid some of this kind of disagreement. I'll leave the dates as they are but I would encourage you to look at the many film articles that use the other date format and reconsider it for the accessdate. I suppose I can at least be grateful you appreciate clarity and have not abbreviated the dates to Oct. and Nov. and suchlike.
-- Horkana (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth Template:Cite episode specifies that airdate must be formatted YYYY-MM-DD and I misremembered that as being a requirement for accessdate. -- Horkana (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"thanked crew members" edit war

Ok, let us discuss this content: " Special Thanks for the film production were awarded to Richard Mirisch and Scott Walterschied." Thanked for what exactly? Is there some reason our readers understanding of this film is enhanced by this information, or is it just meaningless detail added to get these two peoples name into a Wikipedia article? Generally, we don't mention every single person who is listed in the credits of a movie, and there is no detail here as to what actual role these two persons played in the production, just an IMDB entry that says they were thanked. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, this "thanks" does not merit inclusion in the article. VQuakr (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems that the user who is adding this is doing so at the behest of Guy Ritchie's PR people:[1]. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This information clearly is not notable, and if the user is doing this for PR, there's also a WP:COI issue. Cresix (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user is a single purpose account, whose only edits have been to promote the same person across multiple articles:

RocknRolla
Michael Clayton (film)
now deleted, but viewable by admins:
Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 5
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Walterschied
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 13

Add into this that the material is not appropriate on Wikipedia in the first place due to WP:BIO, WP:PROMOTION, WP:RS, and possibly WP:COI - add it all together, and I fully agree with the removal. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Ludacris have his own section at the bottom?

Just wondering why he has his own section. I don't know what they're called but it's at the very bottom of the page where it has [show] next to it.

It seems weird to me that some rapper/actor gets such a special mention on the page when people that played even larger rolls, Gerard Butler etc. don't have one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.178.32 (talk) 12:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is called a WP:NAVBOX. I'm not sure the Ludacris box really belongs on this article, he was hardly the star of this film. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]