Popcornfud (talk | contribs) →"science fiction action-thriller film" or "action-thriller and science fiction film": Replying to Cognissonance (using reply-link) |
Cognissonance (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
{{re|Wallyfromdilbert}} I'd be fine with "[[action-thriller]]'''-'''[[science fiction film]]" or "[[Science fiction film|science fiction]]'''-'''[[action-thriller]]". The issue was always that two links look like one link, which [[MOS:SEAOFBLUE]] guides people to avoid. {{re|Debresser}} Why are you talking about policies like you didn't keep citing [[WP:FILMLEAD]] in the last discussions? [[User:Cognissonance|Cognissonance]] ([[User talk:Cognissonance|talk]]) 01:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC) |
{{re|Wallyfromdilbert}} I'd be fine with "[[action-thriller]]'''-'''[[science fiction film]]" or "[[Science fiction film|science fiction]]'''-'''[[action-thriller]]". The issue was always that two links look like one link, which [[MOS:SEAOFBLUE]] guides people to avoid. {{re|Debresser}} Why are you talking about policies like you didn't keep citing [[WP:FILMLEAD]] in the last discussions? [[User:Cognissonance|Cognissonance]] ([[User talk:Cognissonance|talk]]) 01:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC) |
||
:There is no good way to get round the [[MOS:SEAOFBLUE]] problem if we're going to provide multiple genres in the lead sentence. This is part of why I still favour sticking to one genre. [[User:Popcornfud|Popcornfud]] ([[User talk:Popcornfud|talk]]) 01:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC) |
:There is no good way to get round the [[MOS:SEAOFBLUE]] problem if we're going to provide multiple genres in the lead sentence. This is part of why I still favour sticking to one genre. [[User:Popcornfud|Popcornfud]] ([[User talk:Popcornfud|talk]]) 01:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC) |
||
::Then we could just go with [[science fiction film]]. [[User:Cognissonance|Cognissonance]] ([[User talk:Cognissonance|talk]]) 01:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:52, 7 December 2020
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Page is protected
How long will this page be under protection from vandalism? I wanted to edit the box office section. PinpointJoker57 (talk) 08:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- @PinpointJoker57: The protection expires 12:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC). If you want, you can post the proposed change here, and editors that can edit the article will do so for you, if the proposal seems good. Debresser (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
DVD release
It was just confirmed that the film is releasing on DVD in December. PinpointJoker57 (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- And?Robbmonster (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
World War III
The synopsis the the protagonist is attempting to prevent World War III. Seemed to me more like he was trying to prevent total annihilation, no war involved. Can the synopsis be revised, or am I simply way off base? It sure was one heck of a confusing picture.Robbmonster (talk) 03:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. The protagonist is told that he is to prevent "something worse" than WWIII. "World war" implies a fight among the national militaries of various nations. I have changed the wording to "global catastrophe". (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 18:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- Not worse than WWIII, but worse than a nuclear holocaust. Barbara specifies it is to prevent WWIII. Cognissonance (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- Barbara does indeed say it is to prevent WWIII, but she doesn't appear to be privy to what is ACTUALLY at stake. There is little indication in the story itself that a 'world war' is going to be the actual outcome of events. And it seems someone has gone back and restored WWIII. It might end up being one of THOSE edits...Robbmonster (talk) 04:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Are the article's filming dates off?
The article's lead states that the film's "principal photography lasted three months in Denmark, Estonia, India, Italy, Norway, the United Kingdom, and the United States, from May to November.
" Does this seem off to anyone? The time from May to November is clearly 6 months. The article's production section also states that filming began in May 2019, and concluded on November 12, 2019, which is around 180 days, but states that filming concluded after ninety-six days
. Horacio Vara (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- I just followed the sources. The making-of book says it took 96 days, so I wrote that. They must have spent 3 months from May to November on principal photography and the rest of the time on other things. Cognissonance (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Plutonium 241 is not weapons grade
I was puzzled why they were after plutonium 241 thinking it's probably a script mistake, which was confirmed, when they called it weapons grade. In plutonium bombs the chain reaction is triggered by neutrons, which split (fissions) atoms, which releases more neutrons and so on. To get a high yield, plutonium 239 is compressed to a strongly supercritical state with chemical explosive and then a neutron generator starts the chain reaction, which releases lots of energy and causes the nuclear explosion. However, plutonium also fissions spontaneously, releasing neutrons that can trigger a chain reaction. When this happens soon after the compression achieves criticality (slight critical), the nuclear explosion expands the plutonium to a subcritical state before much of the plutonium has fissioned and the chain reaction stops and only relatively little energy is released - the bomb fizzles. This is always a risk, but the chance of this happening is higher, when the frequency of spontaneous fission is higher. Plutonium is created in nuclear reactors when uranium 238 captures a neutron without fissioning and then decays to Pu-239. If the Pu-239 stays longer in the reactor, some of it captures neutrons and turns to Pu-240 and Pu-241, which have a higher rate of spontaneous fission and therefore makes it difficult to make bombs with a high chance of not fizzling. Weapons grade plutonium is Pu-239 with only low contamination by Pu-240 and Pu-241. It is obtained by leaving uranium only for a short time in the reactor and extracting the Pu-239 before significant quantities of Pu-240 and Pu-241 build up. Therefore, in the film, specifically looking for Pu-241 is wrong, as it is about as bad for bombs as it can get.
I'm not sure what to call a section of mistakes in movies. We could write there "Pu-239 is weapons grade and Pu-241 is not." I also can't believe this was made intentionally to keep someone from making nuclear bombs, because everyone who has even the slightest chance of doing so knows this. Darsie42 (talk) 06:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Are there any reliable sources that discuss this aspect of the film? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't recall anyone in the film talking about 'making bombs' (which isn't to say it didn't happen). Perhaps the 241 was in some way essential to the (largely unexplained) time travel aspect of the storyRobbmonster (talk) 07:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
"science fiction action-thriller film" or "action-thriller and science fiction film"
Cognissonance has repeatedly reverted "science fiction action-thriller film" back to "action-thriller and science fiction film" by claiming there is consensus for this wording at Talk:Tenet (film)/Archive 3. While the consensus does seem to be to keep those genres, I do not see consensus for that keeping the word "and", and would like to open a discussion on whether to include the word "and" in the film's lead when describing its genres. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's weird having "and". It is not the solution. Popcornfud (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- My point precisely, as I said in the edit summary of this edit: "The consensus is have both [genres]. The order or addition of additional words between them, is solely you insisting." Cognissonance was the one in the now archived discussion who insisted that per the recommendation in the WP:SEAOFBLUE guideline (not policy), that that is what we should do, and he actively enforces his opinion. I argued then, and still do, that two links is not yet a sea of blue, that there is ample precedent for two consecutive links, that the recommendation clearly says that it is only a general recommendation to which exceptions exist, and that the construction with "and" looks not natural in English. Unfortunately, Cognissonance is not afraid to edit war for his opinions, and sees himself as the police officer assigned to this article (as in having WP:OWN issues), who comes by once or twice a day and reverts everything he doesn't like. If we research this articles history, we will find that many editors have made the edit which is now officially proposed by Wallyfromdilbert, and despite this clear sign of consensus, Cognissonance has reverted them all. I am sorry that my reply had to address not just the issue, but in order to understand what is going on here it is necessary to address at least in part the problems related to the editor as well. Debresser (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
@Wallyfromdilbert: I'd be fine with "action-thriller-science fiction film" or "science fiction-action-thriller". The issue was always that two links look like one link, which MOS:SEAOFBLUE guides people to avoid. @Debresser: Why are you talking about policies like you didn't keep citing WP:FILMLEAD in the last discussions? Cognissonance (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- There is no good way to get round the MOS:SEAOFBLUE problem if we're going to provide multiple genres in the lead sentence. This is part of why I still favour sticking to one genre. Popcornfud (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Then we could just go with science fiction film. Cognissonance (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)