Talk:Independence Day (1996 film)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Plot summary issues

Lately, there's been an edit war circling around the plot summary. Well, let me give my two cents on it. Placing cast members on the plot summary is completely unnecessary, as the article already has a Cast section below it.

Now feel free to agree or disagree. And for those who disagree, please give a clear explanation on why plot summaries should have character references. - Areaseven (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe it was at WT:FILM where a loose consensus was established that when the length of the plot summary is a concern, removing the actor names from it should be one of the first steps if there's already a Cast section. It's unnecessary duplication at that point. I also have to say, as someone who was trying to trim the summary down to a point where including the names might have been a non-issue, that it's frustrating that my edits were being reverted wholesale. Putting aside including actor names, I think my other edits not only have merit but were intended to help those looking to include the actor names. DonIago (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
My particular issue isn't with the cast members, (but I do agree they're unnecessary,) rather the plot details themselves, which are just a bit silly:
  • "rejoice in their true Independence Day"
  • "unleash their devastating primary weapon"
  • "White House is destroyed in spectacular fashion" - phrases like these read as though they're from a comic book.
Just because filmplot says 700 words, doesn't mean we should try to bring it to that many, just that we shouldn't exceed it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Those are some of the additional issues I tried to address in my edits. I would find this whole situation less problematic if the only revert was re-adding the actor names, but I think a wholesale reversion of my cuts was particularly unwarranted. DonIago (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I can't believe we're arguing over a film synopsis — but since we are, there are a lot of problems with this article, beginning with the cast list, which includes a bunch of trivia that belongs in the "production" section, if it belongs anywhere. I'll fix that at some point, as time allows — we all have a finite amount of time to devote to this project. As for the synopsis, removing all descriptive phrases — leaving the summary toothless, gutless, and crotchless — isn't encyclopedic. It's just boring. Sure, some phrases "read as though they're from a comic book." Have you seen the movie? It's a comic book! Leave the synopsis alone. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Commands such as "Leave the synopsis alone" tend to have the opposite effect. And while the film may be a comic book - Wikipedia isn't: The plot can be perfectly engaging and descriptive without those turns of phrase - as DonIago demonstrated with his edits. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
He or she demonstrated exactly the opposite, actually. But now that an admin has locked it up, it will have to remain as is. Not that it matters, it's only a movie synopsis. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
For the record, I requested full page protection after a notice was posted at WT:FILM about the activity here. One or two reversions is completely normal when there is a mild dispute, but this was clearly crossing another threshold. It is only locked for 4 days, so hopefully that's enough time to sort it out here and form a working consensus. I haven't looked too deeply into the proposed edits to the plot section, but I agree with others here that the current state needs some work. Per WP:FILMPLOT, the summary should describe events "as basically as possible" and "avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail". Clearly, this part of the guideline is being ignored. There is more than one way to improve the summary, and we should be open to suggestions at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad others agree that the article needs work, which is impossible at present, due to page protection, which was an over-reaction, IMHO. "As basically as possible" does not mean "as boring as possible" -- and certainly does not mean removing cast references, which started this whole thing. When I rewrote the synopsis, months ago, no one objected at all. For the record. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I would be curious to see diffs for the changes you made, as I see edits made by you to the Plot in March, but nothing earlier. I'm assuming by "months ago" that you mean farther back in time. DonIago (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Of all the points you could have taken away from my post, the most important one is being "open to suggestions". There are now quite a few editors that believe a change to the plot section is warranted. Stating that there were no objections months ago is irrelevant, as consensus can change, especially when "previously unconsidered arguments" are raised as they have been above. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I have no problem with a change of consensus, if there is one. (Several editors also believe the status quo is fine, apparently, judging by recent reverts by users other than myself.) I do have a problem with an editor leaving a template message on my talk page, accusing me of "adding a significant amount of unneeded detail" to the synopsis -- which is both uncivil and untrue, given that I'm the one who eliminated most of the nonsense already, and brought it down under 700 words. Once this tempest in a teapot has subsided and the page protection expires, perhaps we can get back to improving the article. Or at least you all can; I'm moving on. Have a nice day. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
On the contrary, your version of the Plot summary was over 700 words. And I have to say, this is the first time I've ever heard that particular phrasing called uncivil, and that template has been in use since 2010. I see one other editor reinstating your changes, and I note that they haven't presented an opinion here yet, though I acknowledge there could be a variety of reasons why that would be the case. If you're moving on, then we can contact an admin to have the protection lifted in any case, as it was only invoked because of the edit-warring. DonIago (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I think leaving the page protection intact is a good thing, as it could very well take a few days or so to reach some sort of consensus. The discussion here needs to focus more on content and less on the contributor. Some of the issues have been identified above, but so far, there haven't been any concrete proposals on how to fix them. DonIago, perhaps you and/or someone else can write up a draft in a sandbox and submit it here for review (or provide a diff, if you prefer to stick with your previous attempt). I'm sure we can all weigh in more easily with suggestions if we're all looking at the same thing. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with the current version. I'd even be fine with adding cast names back in if the total word count of the Plot section remains under 700 words in the process, though I consider their inclusion redundant. DonIago (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't realize your changes were reinstated before page protection set in! Well in that case, if anyone has any objections to the changes made (diff), here's your chance to speak up. Please be specific when explaining your position. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I've made my opinion clear as well - I think that the current revision is the one to keep, sans cast, sans comic book. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
As have I; I prefer most of the pre-change version. If you make a change from the status quo and others object, the onus is on you to explain, as it is assumed the status quo is the consensus view, else it wouldn't be the status quo. These were small changes, not worthy of warring over, but worthy of discussion. And if the initiating user doesn't understand why leaving a template message on an established editor's talk page is uncivil, perhaps someone will explain; it seems pretty obvious to me. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 05:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You may make an assumption that the status quo is the consensus, but (to quote a phrase) it seems pretty obvious to me that when your insistence on the previous version is reverted by three different editors - consensus has changed. Whilst you are correct in that those promoting change need to justify change, (as we have above) that doesn't mean you get to sit back and relax - you would do well to justify your own position, as saying "it's the current version" is not really enough - why are our changes not good enough, and why is it essential to the plot section to include the cast members when there is already an excessive (as you point out) cast section? Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

In addition, we have moved past the edit history of the page as our only indicator of consensus. Now we have this discussion, which is currently trending in favor of the changes that were made by Donlago. So far, no one has provided a specific reason as to why the changes should be reverted. On the contrary, specific reasons justifying the change have been provided above. If no one steps up to the plate, the status quo is likely to change. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not my assumption, it's a basic WP premise: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." Another basic premise, once again, is that the onus is on the editor making the changes to justify them. You mentioned that 3 different editors reverted to the changed version, but failed to mention that 3 other different editors reverted it back, so your new consensus is shaky at best. I've stated my objections already, more than once. If, once the page is unlocked, you are interested in working toward a mutually satisfactory compromise, great. If not, we will need to get an admin involved. I know it's only a film plot, and who cares, really -- but the principle is important. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
To which three editors (other than yourself, presumably) are you referring, and why are they not speaking in defense of your edits? I have to ask since my review of the history for the article shows one editor reverting to your version, and they have yet to participate in this discussion. My advice would be that you consider pinging them.
Part of the issue I have with this entire situation is that, in my estimation, you keep making claims for which I cannot find supporting evidence. I'd still like diffs for the edits that you claimed you made months ago. Or did you mean the ones you made in March? You claimed you brought the plot down, but the only edits I'm seeing you having made actually increased the word-count.
Thank you in advance for providing the information to back up your claims. DonIago (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay, weeks ago, not months ago -- I rewrote a poorly written synopsis, and the edits stuck. I saw 3 reverts and didn't notice that one editor reverted twice; but you are deflecting from the central question: Are you or are you not willing to work out a compromise on this, or is it your way or the highway? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Given that current consensus seems to favor my edits, my advice, if you want a compromise, is that you offer one while replying to the comment(s) below. My view is that I already tried to offer one when I trimmed the plot in an attempt to bring the word-count to a point that the cast names might have been able to be included, and that you implicitly rejected that compromise at the time by reverting my changes wholesale and by coming across as less than receptive in your comments to me here and on your Talk page. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I'll probably work on a compromise, time permitting, once the page is unlocked -- but I see two misunderstandings here that should be addressed: (1) The basic guideline in question is WP:BRD -- you made some changes, you were reverted; the third stage is to discuss. "Discuss" does not mean "take the revert personally, restore all changes in a huff, brush off the objection with a generic warning template, don't explain, just dig in your heels." Once again, the onus is on the editor making the changes to justify them, and favorable comments from a couple of editors doesn't absolve you of that responsibility. (2) You need to be careful about issuing templated messages to experienced editors; it's insulting, and implies that you can't be bothered to explain your edits with a personal message. I may have overreacted slightly -- and your "diss" may not have been intentional - but it was still a "diss", and it triggered contention that could easily have been avoided. Fortunately, it's just a plot summary, and this minor content dispute has gone on long enough. I think we're done here. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
@DoctorJoeE: The fact of the matter is that we are forming a new consensus right here in this discussion. The onus to explain the proposed edit was initiated by Areaseven and addressed by Chaheel Riens and Donlago, who are attempting to resolve the issue on the article's talk page in accordance with WP:DR. You say you've stated your objections already, but looking above, this is all I see:
1) "...removing all descriptive phrases — leaving the summary toothless, gutless, and crotchless — isn't encyclopedic. It's just boring."
2) "I prefer most of the pre-change version."
The first statement isn't specific enough. You haven't stated exactly what descriptive phrase was removed that you want back in. You should start by quoting some examples. The second statement is basically saying, "I prefer X over Y", which is not helpful to the discussion. You need to elaborate. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Once again, the onus is on the editor making the changes to justify them! What part of that is not clear? I don't see any specific justification from you of your edits, other than that they "have merit". Why did you take out that the White House was destroyed "in spectacular fashion"? That scene was the most famous teaser of that decade. Why take out that the force field was "impenetrable"? It's an important plot point. What's wrong with "ruthless" as a descriptor of a ruthless invader that plans to exterminate the entire Earth population? Why did you take out that Hiller and Levinson were presumably going on a suicide mission, when that point is made more than once in dialog? Other changes were fine -- "their true Independence Day" is something I contemplated taking out myself, when I did the original rewrite, and I probably should have. But once again, you're supposed to be justifying your changes, so you are the one who needs to elaborate. And for a third time, are you or are you not willing to work out a compromise? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Might I suggest that, rather than asking us whether we're willing to work out a compromise, you propose one? It seems that everyone other than you is happy with the version we have right now, so if you want us to favor a different direction, why not suggest one? DonIago (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
"Everyone" is you and a couple of others? I'll be happy to have a go at crafting a compromise once you agree to it and the page is unlocked. Meanwhile, you're not making any effort to specifically justify your changes, nor answer any of the specific questions I just asked, in response to your request for specific objections. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 21:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@DoctorJoeE: Just a disclaimer that you responded above as if I made the edits to the article. I have not, nor have I given a final opinion on the matter. I was simply encouraging you to be more specific with your objection, and it looks like in your last post, we may finally be getting somewhere. There appears to be some middle ground that you and Donlago can work on getting to. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Apologies, that was my mistake -- but it doesn't change the fact that the responsibility for justifying proposed changes lies with the editor making those changes. I elaborated, just the same. So far, no response to my questions, other than "current consensus seems to favor my edits". DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) You misunderstand my comment - I meant that whilst you may have had consensus in the past, you do not have it anymore. I accept that the changes have been reverted by multiple editors on both sides (although I only count two keeping the material, not three,) however, the fact remains that three different editors now dispute the "old" plot. At the very least, the plot is now disputed - but that still means that the old version is no longer the preferred version.

I have justified my reasoning - this will be the third time I do so: I see no point in having the cast members in the plot section when they are also listed in their own section. I am also of the opinion that much of the removed phrasing was in poor tone, and (my choice of words) "like a comic book" - not an encyclopedia. The resulting changes were entirely adequate, and not "toothless, gutless, and crotchless".

It is an important point that the force field was impenetrable - I agree on that point, but it's not necessary to say that it was impenetrable, when saying "the craft is protected by a force field" does exactly the same thing. If the craft is "protected", then by definition the force field cannot be broached, and thus is impenetrable - it's duplication. Much of the rest of the removed detail (that isn't Batmas-esque Kapow! Blammo! in style) is similar - the inclusion makes no real change to the plot. "Ruthless" - the same is true here. The descriptions used "like locusts", and "destroying all native life" are adequate to portray the aliens without the "ruthless" qualifier. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think we need to include unnecessary adjectives. An encyclopedia doesn't need to build up the "wow" factor in the plot, as peacock terms like "spectacular" represent an opinionated POV and should be left out. On the other hand, DoctorJoeE does make a decent point about the mission being suicidal from the characters' point of view, so perhaps that can be reinstated in some form. Other than that, I don't see much else that needs to be looked at here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, then we just disagree. There's a difference between "peacock" and "colorless and boring". Fortunately, it's just a movie synopsis, and I just don't care enough. I guess we're done here. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm beginning to suspect WP:IDHT, and even WP:OWN here. You're still bleating on that the changes need justification to your satisfaction, despite the fact that much of this thread revolves around it. Just because you don't agree with or see the justification does not mean it hasn't been done. Compromise has been mentioned, yet you are claiming that all the work will be done by you, not us, as if this page is your province: "I'll fix that at some point", "I'll be happy to have a go at crafting a compromise once you agree to it and the page is unlocked"
Is it not possible that you accept the (very small) majority change, and then you suggest changes to bring it into line with what you'd like? Instead of just saying "Yeah, it'll get done once the protection is over" - What would you like done?
Can you please bring something to the table that doesn't include the phrase "You've got to justify yourselves" in any shape or form, because it's getting so boring now that even you're getting sick of it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
"Bleating"? Really? I've been doing this a long time, I'm well past personal attacks, so we'll let that pass. Funny how people automatically invoke WP:OWN anytime someone challenges their changes. Read what I've written above. How much more clear to I have to make what I wanted done? That's in the past tense, because I'm outta here. You want a mediocre summary, you got it. Live with it. Cheers. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Independence Day (franchise)

Proposal for a new article for Indepenence Day series Talk:Independence Day (book series)#Independence Day (franchise).--NeoBatfreak (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Alternate history film?

Would Independence Day count as an alternate history film? The sequel does, as it confirms the dates in which events take place in this alternate, fictional reality. It also retroactively gives a time frame for the events of this film. However, I don't specifically see anything in this film that confirms it is an alternate history one. What would you folks say? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 07:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Nah - based on that logic every film ever released that takes place prior to <insert current date here> is an alternate history film. Is Stripes an alternate history of the Cold War? It should be... Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
It certainly falls under the genre description, but really we need reliable sources that classify it as such. Are there any that support the claim? --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
So far as I know, only for the sequel, I'm afraid. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 09:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Independence Day (1996 film). 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) 08:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Fred Melamed

Is that Fred Melamed as the director of SETI that bumps his head when he wakes up? I do not see him in the credits here or in IMDB. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Independence Day (1996 film). 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 04:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Independence Day (1996 film). 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 06:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Independence Day (1996 film). 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 02:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Independence Day (1996 film). 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 14:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Independence_Day_(1996_film)/Archive_4&oldid=1136270379"