Talk:Trainwreck (film)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Trainwreck (film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Film: American

	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 American cinema task force.

Comedy Mid‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York (state): Long Island Low‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York 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.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Long Island, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

Romance Low‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romance, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional romance in literature and romantic fiction writers. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.RomanceWikipedia:WikiProject RomanceTemplate:WikiProject Romanceromance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Trainwreck has received positive reviews from critics."[edit]

There are two possibilities here:

1) The statement is a clear, obvious statement, based on the information sourced later and everyone would agree it is as obvious as it is accurate. In this case, the sentence is redundant, adds nothing, restates the other stuff and says the same thing over and over again.

2) The statement combines information from more than one source and summarizes it in a non-obvious way. In this case, the statement is synthesis.

Take your pick. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Wikipedia articles dealing with films contain similar statements: e.g., The Blair Witch Project, The Perks of Being a Wallflower (film), ParaNorman, Wild (film) ... no time to try to list them all. Google search will confirm this. I could claim that it's more unusual for a film's article not to contain such a statement, but that would be original research.

I assert that there is no consensus to remove such a statement, which is just a reasonable summary of the cited material. NameIsRon (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assert that there is no consensus to add this ... whatever it is. Is it a redundant, repetitive restatement of what one source says or is it a combination of what more than one source says?

Without the statement, the article says what the sources say. With the statement, the article says what the sources say and gives your interpretation of what all of the sources together say. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I see that it "received positive reviews from critics". Is that from the 85% on RT or the 75 on Metacritic? At what point would lower numbers no longer justify that wording? 80% and 70? 70% and 55? 51% and 51? Whatever numbers you choose, where did you get that break point? It's your opinion. As evidence of this, consider that you changed it to this wording from "very well received by most critics". Is that other editor's opinion "wrong"? No, it is their opinion. How do we choose which person's opinion to include in Wikipedia? We don't. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply restoring the text as it appeared on 26 July. The sentence in question has been edited several times since its original appearance on 19 March ("Trainwreck has received acclaim from critics" ... 28 May: "Trainwreck has received early positive reviews from critics" ... 11 July: "Trainwreck has received positive reviews from critics.") The editors generally provided summaries to explain their choice of words. So far, there have been three editors who wanted to provide a summary of the critical reception to date, and there is one editor who has objected to the idea. I wasn't choosing any editor's text, just intending to restore the text that was there on 26 July, because I saw no way to improve on it. NameIsRon (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You chose one unsourced opinion over three other opinions, directly removing one opinion in the process. How did you decide that particular opinion is the opinion Wikipedia should support? Why should we ignore one of our pillars in this particular case? - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Link to shooting article[edit]

I know that the 2015 Lafayette shooting is not about the film, however - It is a disservice to users to not include any mention of the shooting at all, at least as a See also. KConWiki (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with linking to it in the "See also" section. I added a description to indicate the connection. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, it could have a place in the article. We have Amy Schumer expressing sympathies on Twitter, as well as this. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the summary of the Aurora shooting from this article, it's irrelevant apart from it also took place at a theater in the same huge country in the same decade. The attacks were completely unlinked, it would be different if Group X had targeted these two films in co-ordination. '''tAD''' (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this which may be relevant to include here. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the worst synopsis ever.[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:2:d360:6d17:6cd5:d03c:6b9a (talk • contribs) 12:29, September 7, 2015‎

So fix it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]