This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Penguins of Madagascar article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
News from Box Office Mojo says that Penguins of Madagascar made over $300 million worldwide but it didn't update it. I hope it on The Numbers site. When will Box Office Mojo update the international grosses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.46.27 (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
A dynamic IP (Sao Paulo, Brazil) is adding a table of country names and linked dates with unreferenced release dates. This is not valid for this article 1) because there is already a "Release" section that includes or should include notable releases, 2) it is totally unreferenced and 3) because none of those dates have any notable significance. See MOS:FILM#Release and WP:FILMRELEASE for more on what the Manual of Style says about this issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I bet the penguin's parents and the origins of their commando skills appear in deleted scenes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.57.247 (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
To clarify the cleanup tag, the problem is WP:PROSELINE (overuse of "on/in Xmonth Xyear") which falls under the general copyedit template. The Critical response section has a related issue. After Rotten Tomatoes & Metacritic scores it's $name of $publicationtitle gave the film $grade, saying $quotefromreview
, 20 times in a row.
This is what readers currently see:
Removal of some of the reviews if they're variation on a theme is another possibility to consider. They're reliable sources – well done to the editor who added them – it's just there's a cookie-cutter feel to the way they're currently used. 146.199.67.6 (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Koala15 believes she/he has fixed the issue. However, I would like somebody involved with the copy-editing issue to review their changes before they continue to persistently remove the top template. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 21:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
To get this thing rattling and stop unnecessary edit war and drama, this is what I suggest: 3 paragraphs of critic reviews? That's excessive. The plot and critical reception seem to total the same in word count (by viewing), which is not good. I really say we only include 2 paragraphs (Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic stays as always) of reviews. I am certain (I haven't bothered reading) that a lot of reviews are just repeating the same opinion. I suggest we certainly remove the quote boxes. They're unnecessary, they expand the section and it does not prevent clutter. It's all over the place, which bothers me. That's all I have for now.
And Koala15, please take this seriously: stop removing the template. I've arranged of adding an edit warring template because you were in fact edit warring. You made 5 reverts within less 24 hours. It wasn't your call to say it's been resolved when you were never the user who saw the issues and you initially participated in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR (as said by General Ization). Keyword in one of your edit summaries: "I think I fixed the issue." You think. If you think you've improved the article about the copy-editing issue, please participate in WP:Discussion instead of merely removing the template, deeming your edits as resolution without consultation. I do agree with GI that you should take a short break. If you don't have anything to say to improve the article or don't agree it needs improvement, don't edit at all. It follows under OWNBEHAVIOR.
Now if we're done here, I would like to improve the article. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 00:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
(outdent) The core issue isn't the length of individual quotes, but the sheer amount.
As much as possible, we're supposed to write content by summarizing source material in our own words. This fulfills our legal obligation to avoid violating copyrights, and as an additional benefit helps ensure consistent prose style.
Extensive use of short quotes is a problem--even when it might be lawful under 'fair use'. That's because our non-free content guidelines are intentionally stricter than copyright law. Wikipedia's purpose is to create a free enyclopedia. The more we include non-free material, the more we stray from that goal. So we keep use of text under fair use to a minimum.
The relevant WP:NFC point is "extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." NFC points to WP:QUOTE, in which overuse is identified as using quotes to explain points that could be paraphrased, and where quotes dominate the article--or in this case section. In this case they aren't irreplaceable through paraphrasing, and there's a lot of overlap; here, take a look.
There're various ways to tackle these kinds of issues. First, keep quote use to a minimum. When quoting, use as little as possible from the source. Two lines from a book isn't much, two lines from a haiku is a lot. A fifth of Slant Magazine's review was quoted.
Omit words within quoted text by using an ellipsis, or insert words inside square brackets. For instance, not much is added by text after the word "sameness" in the Variety quote or by the scriptwriter names in the Washington Post quote. Rewrite source material's underlying facts in your own words as much as possible. If you're including a point one source made, giving the same point from other sources three more times is repetition. That's true whether you directly quote or paraphrase them. For example, the Philadelphia Inquirer and Variety quotes both say that while it does have strong animation it's unimaginative and repetitive. Avoid having several identically structured sentences in a row. It's monotonous and doesn't read well. As with writing in general, paraphrasing well is a skill and, sometimes, it's hard. It gets easier with practice. –146.199.132.115 (talk) 08:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Various editors over time have added various summaries to this section. All of them are unsourced synthesis: combining two or more sources to make a statement that neither one directly states.
There is nothing to be gained by Frankensteining two summaries into one meta-summary. Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes use very different methods to come up with their scores. Any attempt to say that they "agree" is pointless, unless both are 100 or 0.
In the present case, the two clearly do not agree. Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a 72%. This indicates that roughly 3/4 of the critics they reviewed gave the film "positive" reviews. Those reviews may have said the film was the best movie ever made, said it was ever-so-slightly better than average or anywhere in between. The remaining 28% were "negative": saying it was the worst movie ever made, slightly worse than average or somewhere in between. If all of the reviews RT looked at were very close to average (which we have no way of knowing), this would indicate average reviews. If they were all at the extremes, this would indicate some kind of good-to-mixed situation. Maybe all of the positive reviews were just above average and all of the negatives say it was the worst movie ever made. We simply do not know. For all we know, the reviews form a perfect bell curve centered less than one standard deviation above average, making the film (arguably) statistically dead average.
Metacritic's score, OTOH, is 53/100, based on a different set of critics and a different scoring method. They say this means "mixed or average reviews". This 53/100 is notably different than RT's average score of 6.2/10 because the two sites are using different sets of critics and different methods to arrive at their scores.
A common argument for leaving the summary in place is that it is "obvious". If that is the case (and it clearly is not in this instance), the statement would be redundant. The section would be repetitive. The section would say the same thing several times. The section would repeat itself. - SummerPhDv2.0 11:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The character's name is never revealed, because it is classified. It would be incorrect to refer to him as "Classified," because that is not his name. The penguins in the movie make this mistake as part of a gag. A plot summary should refer to him as a wolf, not as Classified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.221.144.98 (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The character is also a wolf, not a Siberian husky dog. Compare images of the animated character to images of real huskies and wolves and you'll see the facial coloration patterns match wolf, not husky. Also, all the other animals are wild animals. A domesticated dog breed shouldn't even have been considered. I'd say the error stemmed from a DreamWorks Animation plot summary on IMDB which referred to Classified as "handsome and husky". Not capitalized, the word "husky" was referring to the nature of the character's voice, not his species. Nomopbs (talk) 04:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Knock off trying to tag the character as a domesticated dog! The character was always a wolf.[1][2][3] Even before the movie came out it was a wolf. [1] For those having mistaken the character as a Siberian Husky, it was one person's use of the word "husky" — meaning "A voice that is husky is low and rough, often in an attractive way". [2] You can even see Cumberbatch verify he is playing the voice of a WOLF in the upcoming film Penguins of Madagascar starting at point 5:20 in the video interview. See here: [3]
Nomopbs (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Since the vandalism (changes from wolf to Husky) is being repeated, I have requested protection for this page. The perpetrator is an IP editor. Nomopbs (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Anyone questioning this should check the various references. The ones which use the term "Husky" are review websites, not industry press releases. Check for "reliable source" when deciding. Nomopbs (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Pages affected by the vandals:
Nomopbs (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved, WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 04:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Penguins of Madagascar → Penguins of Madagascar (film) "Penguins of Madagascar" should redirect to The Penguins of Madagascar. 31.52.4.146 (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
According to several trailers, it was released on November 27.
Some of the information in the music section is in the soundtrack section so it makes no sense why there are two different sections for the same information 2601:441:8400:91C0:F1C3:7E76:892C:205E (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)