Talk:The Assassin (2015 film)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Assassin (2015 film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

China: Cinema Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Chinese cinema workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Film: Chinese

	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 Chinese cinema task force.

Taiwan Low‑importance

	Taiwan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Which poster to use in the infobox

Having a little disagreement with another editor about which poster to use in the infobox. There are no guidelines either way so let's find consensus. I think the US onesheet should be used rather than the Taiwan poster, because this English Wikipedia and an English-language poster is of more significance to readers. I see the other side of the argument about the poster from the country of origin being used, but I don't think that's more appropriate for English Wikipedia - especially when a film (such as this one) is a co-production between multiple countries. Thoughts? Film Fan 14:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILMPOSTER says, "Ideally, an image of the film's original theatrical release poster should be uploaded and added to the infobox to serve as an identifying image for the article." Per WP:LEADIMAGE, "The image helps to provide a visual association for the topic, and allows readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page." In other media, Template:Infobox book#Usage says to use the first edition cover. Template:Infobox album#Cover says to use "the official front cover of the original version of the album". I think these factors, plus the original theatrical release poster not being detrimental to a visual association to the topic, warrants keeping it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that visual association for English-language readers is more likely to be the images used in English-language countries. Film Fan 15:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "visual association" should be interpreted that strictly, especially as evidenced by the different kinds of media preferring the original representation. It should be a "good enough" kind of test where a reader would not be confused to see this poster. If you need additional opinions to further the consensus one way or another, you can post a notice at WT:FILM. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Departures (2008 film), a Featured Article about the Japanese film that won the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, uses the original theatrical release poster. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An example of what another does when there are thousands besides that do what I'm suggesting, doesn't add anything. And we'll go with whatever the consensus of this conversation is, but thanks. Film Fan 21:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Featured Article, which means that it was highly reviewed, and the poster selection was not an issue. Better than a random example where an editor could have dictated the selection one way or another. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An example of one article among hundreds of thousands is irrelevant. Anyway, I've said my piece now. I'll only add that the US onesheet is simply a much better poster. So if anyone else wants to weigh in, then great. Film Fan 18:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed review

Thomasettaei, Bellagio99, regarding this, I support including a mixed review per WP:NPOV. Metacritic here, shows 21 positive reviews, 4 mixed reviews, and 1 negative review, so a mixed review is appropriate for balancing. Perhaps the 4 mixed reviews can be assessed for the most commonplace non-positive assessment, and one review can be picked to reference that assessment? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and accolades

The film won five awards at the 2015 Golden Horse Awards.^[1] It was also listed as the number one film of 2015 by Sight and Sound Magazine.^[2] These should be added to the main page.

Done Davidreid (talk) 05:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "2015 Golden Horse Film Awards".
^ "The 20 best films of 2015". Sight and Sound.

[1] "2015 Golden Horse Film Awards".

[2] "The 20 best films of 2015". Sight and Sound.

[1]

[2]