Talk:Dante's Peak

	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 Australian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Volcanoes Low‑importance

	Volcanoes portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects 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.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

The statement at the end of the page (only in U.S Internationally the film was a huge hit) requires clarification.

Does this mean only in the US was it not successful? Internationally it was a hit? Punctuation, etc. are not clear. R5gordini (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure this film didnt star james bond... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.252.76.200 (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Fixed. —WWoods (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Noticing two bodies having been boiled by the water. Harry sees this as a bad sign" Is this a deliberate joke?203.184.41.226 (talk) 06:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright[edit]

The section on production seems to be copied directly from here [1], and the website says it's copyrighted. 98.27.7.29 (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.cinemareview.com/static-htm/029702n1.htm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MLauba (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the removal. In addition, the website does not appear to be a reliable source to use. If anyone wants to use better sources to recreate the "Production" section, leave a note on my talk page. Erik (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary[edit]

The plot summary in this article often seems to fit the "too long or excessively detailed" category. I've previously tried several times (including a few weeks ago) to shorten it, but every time someone changes it back, as if people WANT it to be "too long or excessively detailed". I thought that wasn't allowed on Wikipedia? STH235SilverLover (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't quite throw my hands up in the air in frustration just yet. I see you tried to shorten it in December 2017 and January 2017. If you tried other times, I don't see them. The build back after the try a year ago seems to have been mostly the work of an IP or two. I have no idea what they were doing.

The more recent one we an probably get some clarity on. It seems one edit by Ellis1998 restored all of it and then some. An edit summary would have helped, but a reason now works too.

As for the length, right now we're close to 1,600 words. The applicable MOS guideline, WP:FILMPLOT, suggests "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction or Memento's non-linear storylines, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. (Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range.)"

Yes, I've seen plot summaries outside of that range, but 1,600 words seems to be hard to swallow. Is this film's plot that complex? Incidentally, after STH235SilverLover's cuts, the summary is 711 words. While that is close enough to the guideline, nothing is saying it must be 711 words either. IMO, the summary should be as long or as short as it needs to be to be to provide a concise overview of the film's main events. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the section and removed the copy edit tag. I did nothing to address the length of the section though, since there was no tag about that. With my edits, the section is approximately 900 words. That seems appropriate for how action-packed the movie is. It is not readily apparent to me how the plot summary would be significantly shortened, so my vote is to leave it as is. Romhilde (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People come to this site to get a detailed overview of a film's plot. Shortening it, which almost always leads to the plot summary becoming vague and missing whole chunks of plot seems to go against the very reason people would look up the plot on here in the first place, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:B902:9301:E5B8:BC0A:60D9:3F5 (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:SummerPhDv2.0 above - "the summary should be as long or as short as it needs to be to be to provide a concise overview of the film's main events". The tricky part is getting everyone to agree on what is "concise" and "the film's main events", but regardless, applying a rigid word count on plot summaries is unnecessary. JezGrove (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An "encyclopedia" aims to provide a summary of knowledge on a subject. Much as we do not list everyone involved in the production of the movie, a shot-by-shot breakdown of locations, an exhaustive list of funding sources, etc., we do not aim to give a detailed anything on the movie. We aim for an "overview" -- a "general review or summary of a subject".

Such an overview might include the major people involved in the production (director, yes; gaffer, no), the major locations used, significant funding sources and yes, major plot points. Summaries by definition leave out details. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Although it was a bigger financial success"… how was it a success?[edit]

Can we get some references for such claims? Because by the actual financials (if you know how movie financials work), a 180 mill box office on a 120 mill budget is a loss, and absolutely no success. I've seen this on a number of movie articles. All wrong. --jae (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of Volcano in "Critical reception"[edit]

@Chaheel Riens reverted part of my edit,[2] which I now realize didn't go far enough in removing Volcano from the first line under "Critical reception" (still mentioned "mixed reviews of its rival"). I have a few problems with this line. It's accurate, but also WP:SYNTHy and introduced offhandedly without context. The film's link is duplicated under "See also". Either we mention twin films and maybe how the director sought to be more realistic than rival Volcano,[3] or none of it and just link in "See also". 70.163.208.142 (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My bad - I agree that it's an either/or situation, and under the circumstances, probably a single link to the film in See also is the better option. I feel particularly bad, as I'm normally quite strict on removing entries from See Also that are mentioned in the article itself, so that's a self-own on my part. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Science[edit]

Suggestions 49.149.111.22 (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]