Talk:The Red Sea Diving Resort
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
See also Hotel Rwanda
[edit]@TropicAces: Could you explain why you removed the helpful and relevant navigation hatnote {{See also|Hotel Rwanda}}? If you'd left an edit summary, this discussion mightn't have been needed, but you didn't see fit. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 22:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- right, so if I didn’t leave an edit summary it was a blip of the mind, I do 99% of the time so sorry about that. As far as why it was removed, I’ve always been led to believe linking the “see also” or “this article is about...” up top of articles is for those that share similar or exact titles/names. Just because these two films share a time period/setting doesn’t make them inherently linked. You wouldn’t put “see also: Schindler's List" on top the The Pianist's article just because they’re both WWII dramas about Jewish survival. The “Related pages” tab at the bottom would take care of that, or you can add a “See also” section at the end of the article. If I’m in the wrong here please let me know but I’ve never encountered a “these films are similar, let’s link them” in my years of editing... hope this clears up my reasoning, cheers! TropicAces (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)tropicAces
- Mhmm; my bad. I have altered the template's doc which stated "... hatnotes ... at the top of article sections ..." (I skimmed and put "hat" and "top" together; like I said - "my bad") to "... at the top of article sections ..." as a measure against similar errors. So, a see also section is agreeable? "Related pages"? Does that still exist? I must have turned it off somehow/somewhere years ago when it was horrible. Is it still horrible? Oh wait - you're on mobile; never mind.
Fred Gandt · talk · contribs01:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC) - A see also section was added by another editor, so I went ahead and added Hotel Rwanda to it (with annotations).
Fred Gandt · talk · contribs17:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Mhmm; my bad. I have altered the template's doc which stated "... hatnotes ... at the top of article sections ..." (I skimmed and put "hat" and "top" together; like I said - "my bad") to "... at the top of article sections ..." as a measure against similar errors. So, a see also section is agreeable? "Related pages"? Does that still exist? I must have turned it off somehow/somewhere years ago when it was horrible. Is it still horrible? Oh wait - you're on mobile; never mind.
Israeli secret/intelligence officers vs international agents
[edit]@M.k.m2003: and 80.56.71.134 (contacted via their talk): please discuss this edit and this edit and establish an agreed wording before it becomes an edit war. Cheers. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 16:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Fred Gandt: I don't understand what you mean!!! M.k.m2003 (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- You were one of two editors disagreeing about what some specific wording in the article should be, but no discussion was started; this behaviour often leads to edit warring (like the current disruptive edit war over one of the "see also" links), and starting a discussion before it gets out of hand can sometimes prove productive. I am not insinuating that you are warring; I only pinged you because you demonstrated an interest in the wording that 80.56.71.134 is apparently also interested in. Honestly though, don't worry about it; the current edit war over the "see also" content is so pathetic, I have unwatched the page and am moving on. Happy editing.
Fred Gandt · talk · contribs13:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- You were one of two editors disagreeing about what some specific wording in the article should be, but no discussion was started; this behaviour often leads to edit warring (like the current disruptive edit war over one of the "see also" links), and starting a discussion before it gets out of hand can sometimes prove productive. I am not insinuating that you are warring; I only pinged you because you demonstrated an interest in the wording that 80.56.71.134 is apparently also interested in. Honestly though, don't worry about it; the current edit war over the "see also" content is so pathetic, I have unwatched the page and am moving on. Happy editing.
White savior trope
[edit]An IP editor is pushing their POV that the white savior trope does not belong in the "See also" section despite reliable sources clearly identifying this trope's presence:
- Time: "Some critics have called out The Red Sea Diving Resort for putting forth a 'white-savior' narrative, privileging the roles of the Israeli Mossad agents led by Evans' character Ari Levinson."
- USA Today: "David Ehrlich of IndieWire called the action thriller a 'dull footnote to the history of white savior movies'... Debruge echoed the sentiment: 'American audiences typically adore 'white savior movies,' but this one pushes the stereotype to such an extreme...'"
At minimum, the "See also" section is for tangentially related links. The above shows that the trope is more than tangentially related to the film. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- I've linked it in the quote from the Variety review; there's no reason to use a see-also when we can link from the body of the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Roscelese, that was fine by me. TropicAces removed it, though, and I've restored it. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- yeah didn’t realize it was part of a larger discussed scope, just thought it was a kinda shoe-horned one line of a review so added the full blurb. TropicAces (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Original research
[edit]I've removed the "controversy" section because it was based on sources from 2015 and thus obviously not attesting any controversy about a 2019 film. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)