Talk:Wetherby (film)

	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.

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Wetherby (film) is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spoiler tag

We don't use spoiler tags on plot sections. The section title is enough to alert the reader that plot details will be present int hat section - there is no other material that could be present. So the spoiler tag is redundant. Moreover, the Wikipedia:Content disclaimer already has a generic spoiler warning. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My edits

I tried to streamline the overly detailed and ultimately confusing plot summary, which contained a considerable amount of analysis and therefore POV. (It wasn't an easy task, given how convoluted Hare's plot is.) I added data missing from the infobox, and added awards and critical reception.

I removed the "Narrative construction and style" section because it read like a film student's term paper. Comparisons to other films and discussions of "stylistic flourishes," "plangent musical score," "the necessary limitations of individual perception and understanding," "gnomic bits of dialogue and pregnant pauses," and the like definitely have their place in a critical essay but not an encyclopedia article. MovieMadness (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Acclaim

The current, published acclaim is nonsense: How can the "Rotten Tomatoes CRITICS" overlook the fact that "Wetherby" is grossly confusing, follows a terribly disjointed plotline, and ends without a final justifiable conclusion? On one level leading into these three elements, "Wetherby" is an extraordinarily exciting mystery; but on the other hand -- because of the lack of their denouement -- "Wetherby" STINKS.

Filming locations

Re this removal of unsourced material, the IMDB entry for the film, given as an External link, lists all filming locations. If this is considered reliable, it could be used as a source? If it is not reliable, why is it included in External links? Note that the closing credits of the film itself say only: "The film was made on location in Yorkshire and London ..." (If you want to check for yourself, there is full-length 1080p BluRay x264 version on YouTube that has been there for over two years: see t = 1:42:38). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not considered reliable, as per WP:UGC. External links are not subject to the same criteria as sources. But, one could use Template:Cite AV media to support "Yorkshire and London", but as far as I can tell that wouldn't support "not in Wetherby", given that Wetherby is in Yorkshire. --tronvillain (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]