Talk:Die Hard 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Blanks[edit]

"Who ever keeps putting the error about the weapons please stop. Mp5's aren't gas operated. They don't need an adaptor to fire fully auto with blanks."

I beg to differ....even though an MP5 uses a rolling block mechanism, it still needs a blank adapter. A simple google search will pull up plenty of these devices for sale. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Majorblud (talk • contribs) 11:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I Agree. The roller delayed locking of the MP5 and G3 is particular heavy, so you have to find a BFA in a real good condition to fire full auto with blanks. Filmmakers might use modified weapons with lighter locking mechanism and/ or partly "plugged" muzzels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.20.3.206 (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Takes Place In The '90s[edit]

Okay, should the idea of this movie taking place in the '90s (based on a comment by Holly and the Simpsons episode) be under Trivia instead of Synopsis? The year alone is fine, but the ideas that back that up aren't really important to the story. I tried moving it but it was moved back by someone. Anyone care to step forward and explain why? Lemmy12 21:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His daughter's plane?[edit]

Who ever put that John McClane's daughter's plane is going to run out of fuel is wrong. It was his wife's plane. So I changed it. 70.90.174.173 (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The part about the Daughter is correct for the novel that this movie is based on. The novel in which Die hard 2 is based off of(58 minutes by Walter Wager)has his daughter on the plane not his wife but for the movie they decided to use his wife.--Emrys Pennent (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Production and Promotion'[edit]

I have removed the following text:

"Furthermore, a potential solution to the communication problem is presented in the film itself, and yet nobody thinks to use it. At several points during the film, characters are able to use the air phones to make telephone calls between the plane and the ground; Thornburg, in fact, is able to narrate a lengthly news report using precisely this method. No explanation is offered as to why air traffic control simply don't call the air phones on the various planes in order to guide them down."

This isn't true - in the scene where Barnes and co think of using the outer marker beacon as a voice transmitter, they discuss the fact that there are only 5 planes with air phones aboard, and they could only get through to three of the aircraft to explain the situation on the ground. fatbarry2000 (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am replying as part of an assignment but couldnt the idea of taking that reporters gear to be able to somehow get in contact with the air traffic base? couldnt that be part of the "potential solution to the communication problem" ?" XPatK (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Links to other films in series[edit]

The "handy" links at the top of each Die Hard film page to other films in the series aren't necessary. They should be listed under "see also" at the bottom of the page.

Please examine protocol for other film series. No other major film series is set up this way (Alien, Lethal Weapon, etc). What if the franchise went on for 10 or 12 installments? Would it be rational to take up space with links to all the other titles in this manner?

I'm not going to get into a revert war over something so ludicrous, so whoever's insisting these links show up for the uninformed public's use can leave them there for all I care.PacificBoy 07:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don Harvey[edit]

Is this the right Don Harvey listed? The Wiki link is to Don Harvey that died in 1963, 27 years before Die Hard 2 came out. Norum (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thornberg report[edit]

Per WP:NOT#PLOT, plot detail needs to be kept down and summarized, necessitating the removal of unimportant details. I believe a paragraph devoted to this is unimportant detail, except for the one line, since it explains why the people at Dulles are panicked. But that is the only effect on the plot and it can be summarized in one sentence. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iran-Contra[edit]

Hasn't anyone noticed that this movie is an action movie where McClane is playing out the Iran-Contra affair in a fictional aftermath? PokeHomsar (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have any reliable sources stated this? If not, it is inappropriate for inconclusion regardless of whether it's true. Doniago (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just listen to the television reporters in the scene when the main antagonist is doing his weird naked yoga. PokeHomsar (talk) 06:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link time:

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,300003,00.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=jHhbLBgVLS0C&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=die+hard+2+iran-contra&source=bl&ots=45MdBeQ0RT&sig=eB1E1oFmiIkskJt_BsD15yTbzs0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3iYfUbX9MYSD0QHzhICoDw&ved=0CFMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=die%20hard%202%20iran-contra&f=false

Yeah, that second link is to a page of a book where the author quotes one of the writers of the screenplay saying exactly what I said. PokeHomsar (talk) 06:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that link which gives me a source straight from the writer's mouth, I added it to the page. PokeHomsar (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LAPD or NYPD?[edit]

Just for clarification as I know John's character is a NYPD detective and not LAPD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.2.153 (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's inconsistent in the series. In the first movie he's stated to be an NYPD detective and in the second film they refer several times to his "Los Angeles badge."--76.27.236.13 (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that's inconsistent; I believe we're supposed to assume that after the events of the first film John moved to LA, but by the events of the third film he's living in NYC again. Could be wrong though, I'm not an expert on the series. Doniago (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John says he moved to LA to follow his wife's job, so he transferred to LAPD Vicarage (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. In the opening scene of the film, McClane shows the airport police his LAPD badge, stating he moved to Los Angeles because his wife Holly got a job there. The third film in the series, "Die Hard With a Vengeance" (1995), whether for creative, logistical or financial reasons, is set in New York. So that (arguably minor) plot point of his transfer to LA is completely ignored - indeed, McClane actually states that their marriage suffered due to Holly working in LA and he still being a cop in New York. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huffy1968 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{GEOGRAPHY} They completely get the DC area geography wrong. Saying the planes will crash into the potomac? Dulles is nowhere near the potomac, nor really near DC for that matter. They even said at the beginning they applied DC law? Dulles is in Virginia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.143.33 (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The geography error isn't even close to the most egregious. The fact that there are multiple airports in the D.C. area other than Dulles, ruining the entire central conflict of the movie (i.e. planes stuck in the sky that can't get to another airport in time, one of which has McClane's wife on it.) PokeHomsar (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were other errors in this movie, in contrast to the first part which was produced in a more convincing way. They even took the liberty to portray the TV Reporters as dumb (mislocating Helsinki to Sweden). In the second part McLane states the Glock pistol, he took from the first terrorist in the luggage department to be made in Germany (Austria was correct). Later he complained about the crime scene not being sealed of from public, while the luggage department, where he surprized the first two terrorists actually was a sealed area. Strangely enough nobody was really intersted, what those two were actually doing in the luggage department, maybe they were setting up a bomb. Also, the airport control tower seems to be accessible by anyone, even the caracters in this movie considdered that weird. And finally after witnessing a red alert situation in the tower, which might cause a major panic (as the flight director feared). So the two witnesses are thrown out of the tower back into the crowd so they can tell everybody about the red alert instead of isolating them (e.g. holding them for questioning). Tho whole plot of blackmailing the airport has a great weakness. What if the flight director just calls over to Langley or to the FBI, the State Trooper, the Texas Rangers, the Army, Navy, Marines, the national Boyscouts or all of them. At least any terrorist/mercenary should know, that letting a plane actually crash will cause a chase on them after which they are surely no rich mercenarys but most likely very dead ones. This overkill threat only works out, if the evil can keep the hand on the trigger until he got away or if the evil does not want to surwive at all.--77.20.3.206 (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP: BLP violation removed[edit]

Saying without source that a murdering terrorist is "clearly based" upon a living individual never connected to such acts is a textbook BLP violation, so I have deleted the claim.205.206.130.93 (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Live Trivia Section?[edit]

Can I get opinions regarding the appropriateness of adding an admittedly non-live Trivia section to the article as per this edit? Personally I'd rather see it added here than see unsourced trivia, even non-live trivia, added to the article itself. Thanks. DonIago (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If they're "live" then they need to be sourced and relevant.
If they're not live and hidden from the audience, then there's no point them being there in the first place.
WP:BRD applies, and the discussion ought to be completed here before they're re-added.
For what it's worth - I'm against them being present in hidden form. My view is that even hidden they're unsourced, and if a source is planned on being found, then they can be added at the same time as the text. For every pro-essay there's an anti-essay, and I promote WP:BRD over WP:DEADLINE. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're not live, so they don't need to be sourced yet. I suppose I could tag the page with a {{WiP}} template and make them live without sources for a week while I work on it. BRD also doesn't apply to new information being added if it isn't yet alive, although repetitively reverting while it is a work in progress indicates to me that some think they WP:OWN the article and no-one else can edit it. Let me finish gathering my information, taking notes, and adding sources. When it is all done, if there is a consensus that the few paragraphs of prose with a bunch of interesting facts isn't interesting to readers, then it can be removed. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Might I ask when you anticipate having sources (based on your response I might theorize within a week)? IMO it would have been better to gather your information with sources before adding to the article, but I suppose we've already crossed that bridge. Of course, even if we remove it from the article at this time it would still be available to you historically. Might I also ask on what policy/guideline/etc. you predicate your claim that BRD doesn't apply to non-live information? DonIago (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read any of that as indicating that BRD doesn't apply to non-live information. In any case, you didn't answer my question as to when you anticipate your refinement being completed, and it looks like at least one other editor doesn't feel it's appropriate to leave unsourced information in the article indefinitely even if it's not live. Thanks in advance for clarifying. DonIago (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Die Hard 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Released in July; set in December[edit]

Is there a reason for that? Jim Michael (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Character's info in cast section[edit]

We got a lot of articles that have character's info which is necessary for film articles if you haven't gathered. Even Die Hard had that detail, which some additional casting below at the cast section if you want to do something like that while maintaining the content on it. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is irrelevant. Please see other stuff exists. That other articles are in poor quality does not mean that this one should be. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 11:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the additions to Cast added anything that wasn't clear from the Plot summary. I'd much rather see real-world information added. DonIago (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, you listen, TheOldJacobite. Die Hard had a compromise in the cast section with additional henchmen and such. We can do the same thing to this article while maintaining the content that was originally on the cast section, not the other way around. That's what we should do. Also, we have film articles that have brief character descriptions and those are useful. That is what we should have in most film articles. Not many editors will know who the characters are without character descriptions in cast sections. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A compromise on one article is not necessarily relevant to another. Again, your argument is irrelevant. At this point, three editors disagree with you. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any principal characters in the film whose role would be unclear without reviewing the plot summary? Specific examples, please. Alternately, modeling this as Die Hard is done, with the random mercs in plain prose, I'd be amenable to. DonIago (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this is anything other than redundant to the plot section; in addition, the cast list is wildly bloated as is--there's little point naming a character not otherwise mentioned in the article; we aren't IMDB here. GRAPPLE X 15:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Addressed to all) There is nothing inherently detrimental to have a brief description of the characters. If anything, it can give readers fuller context about what role an actor played especially if it was one not worth mentioning in the summary despite the actor themselves worth listing in the "Cast" section. It doesn't damage Wikipedia to have such descriptions. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, that is why we need character descriptions in cast sections for those reasons. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if prose would be better for those cast members not specifically called out in the plot (and no, this should not mean the plot should be re-written to call out all cast members). For example many of the henchmen in this film could be summarized in prose as "So-and-so starred as Colonel Stuart's henchmen, and so-and-so as soldiers in Major Grant's command." (whom are all for all purposed unnamed mooks for the film). That would leave the bulleted plot list for only characters who role in the movie should be obvious from the plot. --MASEM (t) 17:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: You mean like most of Han's henchman at the cast section in Die Hard. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part yes, but I disagree on the Die Hard article about the rest of the cast list (the summaries duplicate plot info), and the fact that the plot goes out of the way to name the mooks which is 100% unnecessarily for an encyclopedic overview of the film. --MASEM (t) 17:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We're not interested about that issue with Die Hard now. Right now, we need to focus the character description issue in Die Hard 2 and it doesn't hurt to bring the brief character descriptions back here. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While the first film is not at issue here, I point to how awkward the brief character descriptions on the main starring list look given that the plot summary identifies them in this way too. Those descriptions are fully unnecessary, and only if we're talking bit parts or cameos does it make sense to use prose (not cast list) to explain that. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many cast sections will need brief character descriptions so the readers will have a better understanding about the characters and it doesn't necessarily hurt the readers to see it most of the actors and characters in cast sections. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No they don't. The plot summary should make the key character's role known in the film's context. Duplicating that in the cast list, or even only having in the plot list does not help. --MASEM (t) 18:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing this discussion is convincing me of is that other articles need cleaned up too. Leave this stuff out of the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But the problem is the readers would get confused because if none of the characters mentioned in the plot summaries and are listed in the cast section, they don't even know which ones they are and they will need brief character descriptions. That is among the reasons why we need them for those brief character descriptions. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more inclined to remove all those characters that aren't in significant roles. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not every character that is casted in a film is critical to a brief plot summary. There's just not enough space to try to cover 30+ different characters when only about 10 or so are critical to the work's brief synopsis. --MASEM (t) 21:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with brief character descriptions in the cast section, some people are important enough to credit but not important enough to the plot that it can be described without including them, plus bare lists should never be used at all. I didn't have a problem with the descriptions on Scarface either. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like Darkwarriorblake said, there are reasons where we should have brief character descriptions in cast sections. There are characters who are important enough to credit, but not important to include them in the plot. A lot of readers would want brief character descriptions in cast sections for various reasons, including about character who are important enough to credit, but not in the plot summary of the film articles. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why short descriptions should be considered as a factor of poor quality. There are excellent articles with much more detailed descriptions in the cast section, see Prometheus (2012 film) for one. It would be a factor of poor quality if the brief description was trivial, or badly written. Hoverfish Talk 23:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "casting" descriptions at Prometheus are completely fine. That's an alternative to a separate casting section and makes sense if there are actor-by-actor casting aspects to discuss; as such, a couple of words to establish the narrative role is likely going to happen due to the nature of casting information. Here is a different story, as it is just to describe the narrative role of the character. That's duplication of the plot summary if the plot summary is written right. --MASEM (t) 23:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of duplication. It's for brief character description of what their occupations are and what relationships to the other characters are. That's what we should have in cast sections for various reasons for the readers. Your arguments about that is irrelevant. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if the plot is written well, such brief descriptions are redundant in the cast. Hoverfish Talk 01:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BattleshipMan, are you saying that these particluar brief descriptions are not appropriate in the plot? Hoverfish Talk 01:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoverfish: Problem is that with actors who are credited, but not important to the plot and linked actors with characters, the readers will not know which occupations they are and such for one. There are various reasons why we should have them for the sake of readers. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any acceptable way to make this more orderly. As a reader, when I see version 791396817, what I see looks confusing rather than helpful. If we should include brief notes, can we somehow divide the cast in groups, so we have first the main roles, who are mentioned in the plot and who need no descriptions, then some roles with a unique note (sister or brother of X, etc) and then a section for Stuart's mercenaries, where we don't have to add a note for each role? And please, not colwidth=20em, with all the notes, 3 columns make it worse (at least for a 1280 screen). Here is an example, with less words where possible. Is this more acceptable to both sides? Hoverfish Talk 15:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC) I have removed descriptions which are mentioned in the plot. Hoverfish Talk 15:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically responding to BattleshipMan's comment above the readers will not know which occupations they are and such for one. There are various reasons why we should have them for the sake of readers.. This is not WP's purpose. We are not a guidebook, particularly towards the fictional narrative, as we are writing for the general audience who may never have seen this film, rather than people who have seen it and need to understand it in depth (there are plenty of other online resources for this). We can't ignore some of the minor stars that appear in the film, but their roles in this is so minor to the plot as they are not named on screen (credits, yes), and appear for only a scene or two before they are killed off or left out of the rest of the story. They wouldn't be named in a <700 word plot summary over other more fundamental details, and thus we don't need to give extensive discussion to these characters. When you do that, the role of the other major stars should be clearly obvious from a well-summarized plot, and thus those characters descriptions are just not needed. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see the clear picture. Character descriptions are needed for the most part because for readers, who have seen and not seen the movie, would want to know which characters they are and such. In fact, in Die Hard 2, not many terrorists's names were ever mentioned in film, but have their character's names credited in the end credits and that's many reasons why we need character descriptions in cast sections because we can get characters whose names are never mentioned on-screen, but are credited. That's just like how actors who are credited in the beginning credits, but not important to the plot summary or linked actors with characters, which therefore should have character descriptions in cast sections, regardless of redundancy issues. And if you think this is an idea to bleak character descriptions as you would say a general audience who may never have seen this film, rather than people who have seen it and need to understand it in depth (there are plenty of other online resources for this)., you are sorely mistaken. Because it would just like WP:SPOILERS in the cast section, similar to how in the plot summary is a spoiler to the readers and brief character descriptions are there in cast sections for various reasons, other than spoilers. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about hiding pertinent info, it is about avoiding indiscriminate info. Those actors listed in the opening credits are listed there for good reason, the movie's producers consider their roles significant to include. But then a cast of dozens/hundreds that are in the closing credits are not treated in the same manner. There has to be distinguishing features here. I'm not saying we don't include the actor names, but we don't need a whole bullet point for what trivial role they played when they can be grouped.
Now as a contrast, I found The Martian (film) to actually have useful brief descriptions of character aspects that do help to understand the connectivity of the various characters in the plot that would weigh down the film's plot. Some ideas could be used here for the key roles (like mentioning Holly's restraining order with Thornburg which is not central to the plot), but your current version doesn't help. Effectively, everyone after Sheila McCarthy in the current list is best relegated to a prose statement, whereas the others need more expansion to be more appropriate. But things like "Dennis Franz as Captain Carmine Lorenzo, the head of airport police at Dulles" which is already established in the plot ("airport police captain Carmine Lorenzo") is unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree with BattleshipMan's central argument: Wikipedia is not here to help readers understand the film. WP:INUNIVERSE content is solely included to help readers understand the real world commentary in the article. We obviously consider a plot summary central to that because it dscribes the nature of the work, but beyond a synopsis Wikipedia articles should only include in unverse content if it is to directly support sourced commentary. The brief character descriptions at the Prometheus article are justified because they are supporting casting information, but there is no casting information to support in this article so I don't see what necessitates their inclusion here. Betty Logan (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, has anyone looked at my sandbox suggestion yet? Should I insert it in the article? ;) Note that I haven't seen the film and what was there before in cast made me feel very confused, quite an outsider to the article and not the least helpful. If however I had seen it as presented in my example I would have felt much more clear about what I am looking at and more enlightened, as an addition to the plot. And I am for Masem's point that if the plot defines the whereabouts of a role, no notes are needed about it in the plot. I find the cast section in The Martian quite informative. Hoverfish Talk 18:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think Hoverfish's sandbox suggestion might work since we got less character descriptions from the ones mentioned in the plot summary and brief character descriptions from the ones not mentioned in the plot summary. We also have a section of Stuart's named mercenaries and ignore any other characters who are not named and their actors who obviously don't have their own Wikipedia links, which is probably and likely enough to satisfy us for different reasons. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, here is how I would take Hoverfish's sandbox User:Masem/dh2. --MASEM (t) 18:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is you didn't add the names of Stuart's mercenaries in your sandbox and you didn't add character description of those who are not mentioned in the plot summary. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They not named in the film, so it is indiscriminate info, unless there is more relevance beyond the work itself. --MASEM (t) 19:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And this is the basic issue. This list has too many names on it. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But Stuart's mercenaries are named in the end credits and Miller & Cochrane were mentioned by name in the film. You want to answer to the readers if they saw that movie and saw the end credits? Do you? This is not a matter of indiscriminate info. I strongly suggest you revise the sandbox or use Hoverfish's version. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not our job to make sure that every credited role in a film is identified as to what that character was doing. That's indiscriminate information. Even named characters, if they are only in a few scenes and are just there as a role like one of the mercanaries here, it is indiscriminate info to make extra work to be sure that we identify their role. There are plenty of other sites that do this for us, we're trying to provide a high level overview. --MASEM (t) 20:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not satisfied with your sandbox, not without the character descriptions and the named mercenaries. Your argument of this is irrelevant and has no grandstanding to this. You've been one-sided in this argument and you are acting like a politician who wants to censor this site & remove things are necessary for this article. It's time for you to see the other side of it and see the clear picture of this issue. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, what censorship? There are things WP is not, and we're not meant to be the whole of human knowledge but to summarize it. In summarizing a film, its recognized that not every role is critical, thus there's no need to name every single character even if it is possible, and instead we make sure we provide resources and references that a read wishing to learn can find this out. --MASEM (t) 21:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm commenting here per a request by BattleshipMan. It's true that we include character detail in the Cast section of our film articles, but it is best to make sure that it's not overly redundant to the Plot section. If BattleshipMan provides character detail that is not overly redundant to the Plot section, and preferably character detail that includes sourced actor and/or creator commentary, I think it will be fine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Error[edit]

John McClane says to Lorenzo that Glocks are made in Germany but Glocks are Austrian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.8.90 (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Die_Hard_2&oldid=1206077836"