Talk:Watership Down (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Bright Eyes

I can't find any record of the song Watership Down by the artist Bright Eyes. Is there a source for this, or should I just remove?

I'm not sure what you're talking about: The song is Bright Eyes, performed by Art Garfunkel, and included in the film Watership Down. TashTish 08:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The 'Trivia' section references a song titled Watership Down by Bright Eyes. I would be inclined to delete (or at least request a reference). Bmlb 00:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my ignorance showing; thanks for clarifying. I agree, there may not be such a thing, at least something I can find. TashTish 18:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

Is this the same production of Watership Down that was broadcast as a two-night "miniseries" in the United States? -- Pennyforth (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Miniseries? In the United States? I'm not very sure what you are talking about. I am pretty sure this was never broadcasted as a miniseries. My mom took me to see it at a theater when I was seven, so I don't remember ever seeing it on TV as a miniseries. Besides, if there was a miniseries I would know about it. When I saw this movie it changed my life, I'm a huge fan. So I would know if there was a miniseries. Perhaps you are thinking of the TV serries? But it only came on in the UK and Canada and Australia. I'll look into this some more. Not only for you, but for me too-because a WD miniseries sounds interesting.

-Anonymous reader (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Movie poster watership down.jpg

Image:Movie poster watership down.jpg 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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 14:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Trivia section and plot section

Firstly, the trivia section. I was neither the person who added the {{toomuchtrivia}} tag, nor the person who reverted its addition, but I think it's worth discussing. Personally I tend towards the view that in an encylopedia, we don't need to add (and indeed should actively avoid adding) every little piece of information that refers to the article's subject, just those which are encyclopedic. Of course there's always argument as to what is sensible to include, so let's have some input.

It strikes me that several of the "Trivia" points that currently exist in the article could quite easily be incorporated into the main text, whereas others are really a bit tangential. The Vicar of Dibley reference should certainly be dropped, if only because it in no way refers specifically to the film.

Secondly, the plot section. It seems to me that it's going to far to have, as is currently the case, almost a complete scene-by-scene guide to the film. Even specialist movie guides don't have that much detail. It would be better to chop it down into a reasonable plot summary, maybe three or four paragraphs at most. Loganberry (Talk) 14:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't agree with you, the plot section is just fine. I mean, come on! It's no longer than the star wars plot section and I don't see anyone complaining about that! - Anonymous reader13:53 May 20, 2007

The Star Wars plot section is far too long as well. There: I've just complained! But seriously: this is an encyclopedia article for general readers; it is not a fansite. I actually have a WD fansite of my own, so I know the difference! And three or four paras is enough for Wikipedia. Loganberry (Talk) 23:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, Alright. Go ahead. i guess you're right. It is too long. Sorry. I was just overreacting because I was the one who wrote the whole thing. I guess it was a little too long. Go ahead. Narrow it down, just don't delete it. I don't want to lose ALL my hard work. - Anonymous reader15:27, 12 June 2007

Agreed. There are way too many articles on Wikipedia with plot summaries that are extremely specific, and not in anyway a summary whatsoever. There's a reason why it's called a 'summary', and not a 'transcript'.Vegetable4 14:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've stuck a {{plot}} cleanup tag on the section for the moment. Basically, the salient point here is that the section should not simply reiterate the plot, which is more or less what is the case at the moment. As I said earlier, three or four paragraphs should be enough: think book blurb, not point-by-point analysis. Loganberry (Talk) 03:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I corrected some out-of-order plot points, and realized that I did little to mitigate the purpose of this particular discussion. I attempted to streamline the flow of the narrative, but I don't think I'm one to condense it appropriately: I'm too close to the material to do it objectively. Hope someone can; until then, I pledge not to lengthen the section. TashTish 22:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Too close? You're not Richard Adams, are you? <g> But seriously, thank you: your input was definitely worth having even so. I've made a few small tweaks to maintain British English (traveling -> travelling, flashlight -> torch etc) but haven't touched the meat of your changes at all; there doesn't seem much point as I think with your edits it's got about as good as it's going to get in this long form. Loganberry (Talk) 22:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments, and sensitivity; I have to add that my ego won't be bruised if anyone wants to cut and slash (intelligently please) the section to a more encyclopedic-worthy form. P.S. No, not Richard Adams, just someone with too much affection for the subject matter to be appropriately objective. TashTish 17:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to have a go at writing a summary of more appropriate length, but then I've been thinking that for some while now and never actually got around to it. The book's page needs similar treatment (in terms of tidying, not plot summary specifically; that may actually be too short!) and that may end up being my priority. Loganberry (Talk) 00:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

And I am sorry for causing such a problem from writing the plot summary in the firt place and causing this whole mess. I will try and help with edititng out some of the lengthy stuff in the summary. - Anonymous reader 16:06, 19 september 2007

What EXACTLY is the problem? Is it causing any form of harm? Is it costing anyone money? No, it just happens to be very through, in my opinion, this is a good thing. -BDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.176.186 (talk) 11:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is Wikipedia policy, which is not optional. That says that the threshold for inclusion is "verifiablity, not truth". In other words, it does matter if assertions are made that we can't back up. Copyright law on derivative works also comes into play when a plot summary gets as long as that; and again, respecting copyright law is not optional. Accuracy based on solid, specific sources is vital for our encyclopedia, and "it's not hurting anyone" and "it's not costing anyone money" are not good enough counter-arguments. If this were a "why I love WD" fan page, it would be fine. But as an encyclopedia, it isn't. Loganberry (Talk) 23:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, all! It's been so long, hasn't it? Excuse my brief absece from Wikipedia, I've had to take an extremely hard computer class in college. I'm glad to have passed with a "B". Well, I have finally ventured into the strange void that is a plot section, It has actualy gotten longer in my absence! I have gone ahead and deleted any phrases that were irrelevant or unimportant, but found the same complications TashTish discovered: I'm too close to the work to delete or completely reiterate alot of things. So, I'm really not sure it's time to delete the... yes, that, just yet. Looking at it now, I didn't change much of anything-it's much harder than just deleting a few paras. Please, tell me what you think so that this article may finally be all tidied. I'm probably not the best for the job. We may need someone to just start anew and write a brand new section of a more approprate length. But still, tell me what you think.

Anonymous reader (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

History has repeated itself. In a matter of months, the plot section of this article has almost doubled in length. When it was first written, I can agree it was a bit lengthy, but we were able to get it under control. I don't know who has decided to lengthen this article, and I don't care. You are forgiven. Let's just work on getting it under control. I know we all want Wikipedia to be a nice place. I also know it probably will never be possible to get all two million of its articles perfect, and that's fine. Let's just work on keeping Wikipedia at least decent. I hope I'm not talking to myself here. I hope someone is reading this message I have stayed awake until Eleven o' clock to write. If you are reading this, though, please help. By the way, the {{plot}} tag in the article has a date that reads "April 2008." This plot section was fixed in April 2008, was it not? The tag was deleted, I do believe. Either the person who placed the tag was stuck in a time warp, or the section was both corrected and corrupted in the same month, which I doubt. Like I said in my last message, five months ago, maybe this plot section needs to be completely remade. It just needs help. Sorry for the long message. My point is clear.

Anonymous reader (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)