Talk:The Last Dragon (2004 film)

Air date

I'm working on merging the two articles, does anyone know when this aired in hte UK?--NeilEvans 02:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Docu/Mock

No, this is a Fictional Docudrama, labeling it as a mockumentary implies that it is done with comedic intent. Razielsr

Isn't this more of a mockumentary than a docudrama? Pentagram16 02:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Si. A page move is probably in order. Kuru ^talk 03:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TheLastDragon.PNG

Image:TheLastDragon.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

In Universe Manner

The article is written in a primarily in-universe manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.164.178 (talk) 07:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! This article is very confusing! This article needs to clarify that these facts about dinosaurs are completely fictitious. - Ravendown

Referense

There is a request for references that appear in reliable third-party publications. However, this article is not about any true story, it only tells the synopsis for a movie. I think in that in such a case, the movie itself can be a sufficient source of information, or am I misstaken? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RBM 72 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I too wish that a more Wikipedia-policy fluent editor would address this issue. I have long contended that summaries of content fall under Wikipedia's umbrella of "statements by the source about the source itself" as it is assumed as writ that a statement made publicly in an indelible media is intended, by it's public and fixed nature, to also imply that it is being said. I contend that the sane see this as a separate issues from the validity of the overt statement, the reliability of the source or whether or not the overt statement is of an "extraordinary nature" or not. In other words, if there exists a widely distributed journal, while we might question if a given statement in said journal is accurate, whether the journal itself is a valid credible source (regardless of truth), or even if the statement requires (due to the nature of it's claim) rigor be applied to it's relative validity; we do not question, here, whether or not the statement was made. To do so is to fall into a tautological hall of mirrors; it is unproductive and has no place on Wikipedia, or with-in scholarship.

We can compare different editions of a source: if we are summarizing another piece concerning dragons, namely Tolken's The Hobbit, we might find we need to mention that different publication runs contain slightly different plots, to forestall an edit-war, but we don't get into arguments about what any particular edition says or Wikipedia becomes sophistry. If I, as a public figure claim to be the reincarnation of Sheerly McClain, the validity of my claim would need to be supported reliable third-parties, the fact that I said it however, need only footnote the source where I made this claim--in this case, my televised interview with Barbra Walters, not any expert on embodiment.

Numerous Wikipedia editors, in defiance of standard academic practice, disagree with this contention; they claim that summaries of content, particularly of fictional works, need to come from a reliable published reviewer, not the actual work described. I haven't yet been able to find the correct reference to Wikipedia policy to settle this contention. Nor do I seem to make any headway getting my fellow Wikipedians to distinguish between statements made within a work and common interpretations of those statements. I admit that it is difficult to describe the plot of, say, a work by Joyce or Twain without interpretation, but I think Wikipedia would be best served if we did so; and cited the work directly, saving interpretations for elsewhere in the article and there supporting said interpretations with footnotes pointing to credible third-parties. As a more direct example of this problem, I have been completely unable to find a reviewer of this fake nature special who speaks to this, but the movie itself expressly states that the male dragon senses the temperature of the clutch with his tongue, and implies that the female does as well. I should not use the meaning I am assuming is intended, that dragons, male and female can take temperatures with their tongue as a given as it is not directly stated. I would, however, like to use the movie itself a reference to correct our article here, which states that temperature sensing is done with the genitalia.

I can not because I am failing to find either, an third-party reviewer who comments on this one point, or a specific reference to Wikipedia policy to placate editors who don't consider any primary source ever relevant. 71.235.31.212 (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Use of non-free images on this article

This article has been identified as containing an excessive quantity of non-free content. Per the Foundation's requirement to keep non-free media use minimal, and per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #3, the non-free images on this article have been removed. Please note:

• The presence of a fair use rationale for this article on an image description page does not make it acceptable for a given use.
• Blanket restoration of the non-free images that have been removed can and most likely will be reverted, with subsequent reporting action possible.
• If some restoration is desired, careful consideration of exactly what non-free media to use must be made, paying special attention to WP:NFCC #1 and #8. In most cases non-free media needs to be tied directly to the prose of the article, most preferably with inline citations tying the discussion to secondary sources regarding the image per Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If this is a list type article, please read the WP:NFLISTS guideline. If you wish to dispute this removal, it may be helpful to read WP:OVERUSE, as it answers a number of typical questions and responses to removals such as this. If after reading these, you still feel there is grounds for restoration of most or all of the media that have been removed, please post to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article has no third-party sources (except the rather unreliable IMDb reference), and the sections 'synopsis', 'dragon biology and behaviour' and 'dragon species' may not pass the undue rule and read a lot like fancruft. The first and second sections cite no sources at all (since May 2014), the third section cites primary sources that actually don't show what they say (namely, the different "dragon species"; instead one just sees general trailers of the film), so those don't even count as references. I propose that all three sections be removed, or seriously abridged with at least one reliable source per section. Since the first and second section have already had unreferenced templates since May, and the references of the third section don't count either, I will remove all three sections if no other user tries to improve the situation within three days. Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Seeing that in 9 days time no one has taken the effort of improving the references, I will now start the cleanup and remove all unsourced material. I'll leave only an essential summary based on the NY Times review I found about it. Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

That's an awful long synopsis. Sgerbic (talk) 03:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2015

Copypaste of almost entire article removed
50.121.161.89 (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done As it clearly states in the instructions to submit an edit request:-
"Please don't copy the entire article into the request. Only copy the part you're changing. If you copy the entire article into the request, you'll break navigation on the talk page, and another editor may remove your entire request."
This is not a "spot the difference competition" If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: WP:FILMPLOT states "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words" - Currently the synopsis is 2615 words - so about 3/4 of the synopsis needs to be removed. - Arjayay (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Synopsis

Per the above comment, the "synopsis" that Gojira4eva keeps reinserting is massively obver-long, is substantially an in-universe treatment of a fictional topic (never a good idea) and, most importantly, references no sources whatsoever so reads as a personal essay. This content is not compliant with policy and guidelines. Gojira4eva, if you want to add a plot summary then read the link above and learn how to do it properly. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in Arjayay and Jzg. I didn't know about WP:FILMPLOT. What about the lead section? According to WP:LEADLENGTH, the lead length of an article of fewer than 15,000 characters should be one or two paragraphs. The current article has 5,451; the lead almost constitutes half the article and cites no references or sources. If no reliable source can be found, I propose to delete the second and third paragraphs, if they can, to integrate them into the summary. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

"that Gojira4eva keeps reinserting": That long plot section was here long before Gojira4eva first edited this page. Some readers want this information. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

So they might, but it is Gojira4eva who keeps reinserting it (hence the 3RR block) and as noted above it is overlong, written in essay style, lacks independent sourcing and is written in an in-universe style. We have had many battles down the years over content that "some people want", notably in Star Wars and the like. The consensus is represented in our guidelines on plot summaries, and the very long summaries now live in Wikia sites for the various franchises, which is absolutely fine.

I will note in passing that WP:PLOT has status whereas WP:SOMEREADERSWANTTHIS and WP:ITSHARDTOFINDELSEWHERE do not...

Snark aside, the relevant text from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) § Plot summaries is:

Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work. [...] Even small details that might be clear on a word-by-word or frame-by-frame analysis – steps well beyond the normal act of reading or watching a work – should be considered original research and excluded from such articles.

That's the risk here. Original research based on noting details from the film, presented in an in-universe style. There's no real factual basis for the purported species, for example. All of this is basically fancruft, unfortunately. A comment above says that in the belief of at least one fan of the content, the film itself is sufficient source. That's simply not the case. We cannot draw great chunks of articles from personal observation of the subject, that is canonical WP:OR. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately Gojira4eva has returned form his block and continued this edit-war - Arjayay (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Some people want to read the long detailed description. The long version seems to have been in this page's history since before Gojira4eva's first edit and back to April 2007‎. It is not "unreferenced" :: the movie is the reference. As regards "personal observation": what is not personal observation by someone? "Do I need a reference to state that the sky is blue?", as someone said. As regards "fancruft", often one man's cruft or trivia is another man's important relevant matter :: there are always inclusionists and exclusionists. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

You could make the "some people want to read it" argument about any film, or any other subject on Wikipedia, which would ultimately lead to vast, unreadable, articles with little encyclopedic content.
As I am sure you are well aware, this is one of the reasons we have a very clear guideline WP:FILMPLOT as part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film which clearly states "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words" - It also states "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail." The overlong, 2615 word, detailed, description is clearly a "scene-by-scene breakdown".
There are plenty of other places, like IMDb, if people want to post highly detailed summaries. The current, 151 word summary should be expanded over 2.5 times to reach the minimum length of WP:FILMPLOT and could be expanded over 4.5 times, and still stay within the 700 word limit. - Arjayay (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Page Move

I have reverted the page move to Dragons: A Fantasy Made Real as The Last Dragon was the original title.
The article has been under several titles:-

• The Last Dragon (docudrama) - As created in September 2006
• The Last Dragon (Mockumentary) - Moved there in November 2007
• The Last Dragon (Docudrama/Fantasy) - Moved there in January 2008
• The Last Dragon (2004 TV series) - Moved there in July 2009
• The Last Dragon (2004 film) - Moved there in April 2013

Other than the slight change from "TV series" to "film", it has, therefore, been stable under the current title for well over 5 years.
Any further move will need consensus before being implemented - Arjayay (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)