| Revision as of 10:34, 8 May 2018 editGråbergs Gråa Sång (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers57,959 edits press← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 15:16, 27 November 2024 edit undoJip Orlando (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers9,700 edits →Subject-verb agreement |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
|
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|
{{Article history |
|
{{Article history |
|
|action1=FAC |
|
|action1=FAC |
| Line 29: |
Line 31: |
|
|topic=film |
|
|topic=film |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|living=no|listas=Kubrick, Stanley|1= |
|
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=People|class=GA}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Screenwriters|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Screenwriters}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|filmbio-priority=Top |filmbio-work-group=yes }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Chess|importance=Bottom}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|class=GA|filmbio-priority=Top|filmbio-work-group=yes|listas=Kubrick, Stanley}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Chess|class=GA|importance=Bottom}} |
|
{{WikiProject New York City|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject New York City|class=GA|importance=}} |
|
{{WikiProject Hertfordshire|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Hertfordshire|class=GA|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WP1.0|v0.7=pass|class=GA|category=Langlit}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|counter = 10 |
|
|counter = 15 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|algo = old(180d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Stanley Kubrick/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Stanley Kubrick/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I |age=2 |units=months }} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Press |
|
{{Press |
|
|
|collapsed=no |
|
| subject = article |
|
|
|
| subject = article |
|
| author = Corinne Ramey |
|
| author = Corinne Ramey |
|
| title = The 15 People Who Keep Misplaced Pages’s Editors From Killing Each Other |
|
| title = The 15 People Who Keep Misplaced Pages’s Editors From Killing Each Other |
|
| org = ] |
|
| org = '']'' |
|
| url = https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-wikipedias-bickering-editors-go-to-war-its-supreme-court-steps-in-1525708429 |
|
| url = https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-wikipedias-bickering-editors-go-to-war-its-supreme-court-steps-in-1525708429 |
|
| date = May 7, 2018 |
|
| date = 7 May 2018 |
|
|
| accessdate = 18 August 2020 |
|
| quote = “Your grammar is frankly awful,” said one editor while discussing filmmaker Stanley Kubrick’s box. “This is just another throwaway, unreliable, unattributed pile of stinking horseshit,” said another editor during a dispute about actor Cary Grant’s box. Foul language flew. The arguments spiraled out of control. So another editor brought the matter to the online encyclopedia’s top jurists. |
|
|
|
|
|
| accessdate = May 8, 2018 |
|
|
|
| subject2 = article |
|
|
| author2 = Omer Benjakob |
|
|
| title2 = How Crazy Was Last Year? The 15 Most Controversial Misplaced Pages Articles Paint a Dark Picture |
|
|
| org2 = '']'' |
|
|
| url2 = https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/.premium-the-15-most-controversial-wikipedia-pages-of-2017-1.5730022 |
|
|
| date2 = 1 October 2018 |
|
|
| accessdate2 = 18 August 2020 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{annual readership}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== potential missing word == |
|
== Archival of ongoing discussion?? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current quote: |
|
Why was the ongoing discussion - the straw poll - archived {{u|Serial_Number_54129}}? ] (]) 15:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
"Despite the notoriety this provoked among actors, many of Kubrick's films broke new cinematic ground are now considered landmarks." |
|
:I was waiting until the arbitration decision (which I haven't looked at) could be built around whether or not to have an infobox. ] (]) 15:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Possibilities: |
|
*Thank for this. Althouhgh oddly, I didn't get your ping—lucky I'm watching the page! Take care, ]]] 16:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
"Despite the notoriety this provoked among actors, many of Kubrick's films '''''' broke new cinematic ground are now considered landmarks." |
|
:::But that doesn't answer the question: if only so that I understand the rules about archiving (which I confess I don't), why did you archive the discussion above {{u|Serial_Number_54129}}? ] (]) 16:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
<u>or</u> |
|
|
"Despite the notoriety this provoked among actors, many of Kubrick's films broke new cinematic ground '''''' are now considered landmarks." |
|
|
or something else! ] (]) 20:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I vote for the '''''' option. I think that sounds great! ] (]) 21:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
== Infobox == |
|
|
{{archive top |
|
|
| result = Please do not start several threads for essentially the same purpose. ] (]) 00:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
}} |
|
|
Considering that nobody has as of yet objected to an infobox on the straw poll, and nobody is discussing anything, I think we have consensus. I'll add an infobox. ] (]) 22:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:Two of those editors are basically SPA's. Also you agreed above to wait for the outcome of the ARBCOM case. Add to that the fact that you claim that you could "care less" so waiting is still the way to handle this. ]|] 23:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::Sheesh. I didn't realise everyone was so pickly on this. Fine. ] (]) 13:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
{{archive bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2024 == |
|
=== Post Arb-com case: Infobox, yes or no? === |
|
|
|
|
|
{{archive top|reason=This is going nowhere. At least wait for the main Infobox RfC to finish and let the matter settle; doing it right after an Arbcom case is counter-productive. ] ] ] 13:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Stanley Kubrick|answered=yes}} |
|
Ok, so the Arbcom case is closed, and other than reaffirming that we should all be civil and act in good faith (and that consensus can change), it doesn't have any bearing on infoboxes on this page. Considering this, does anyone have any objections to the adding of an infobox to this page, or do we have consensus? ] (]) 11:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:No objection, but keep it simple. --] (]) 13:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
The second sentence says "Widely considered one of the...". It should say "Widely considered as one of the..." ] (]) 05:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> The use of "as" would be redundant here - the current phrasing works fine. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
:No objection to a simple infobox. Would stop all the pointless bickering on this page. — '''''<small>] <sup>(])</sup></small>''''' 13:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Simple IBs are, if anything worse, than useless. They would exacerbate the "pointless bickering" by failing to address even less points of note than a "normal" one. As a solution to satisfy none but enrage all, it's a killer though. ]<sup>]]</sup> 13:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
== Barry Lyndon: Zeiss 50mm F/0.7 lens == |
|
{{Infobox person |
|
|
|
|
|
| name = Stanley Kubrick |
|
|
|
The source doesn't support the claim that this lens was intended for satellite photography. ] (]) 05:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
| image = KubrickForLook (cropped).jpg |
|
|
| caption = Stanley Kubrick, aged 21, in 1949 |
|
|
| birth_date = {{Birth date|1928|07|26}} |
|
|
| birth_place = ], New York City |
|
|
| death_date = {{Death date and age|1999|03|07|1928|07|26}} |
|
|
| death_place = ], Hertfordshire, England |
|
|
| works = ] |
|
|
| occupation = {{plainlist| |
|
|
* Film director |
|
|
* Producer |
|
|
* Screenwriter |
|
|
* Cinematographer |
|
|
* Editor |
|
|
}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
:: Different people may mean different things by "simple". How is this? --] (]) 14:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
* Jeez... not this yet ''again''... '''Oppose''' the addition of an IB. Skimming through the thread above from not that long ago (where there was no consensus for change), no one put forward any good reasons to change the situation, and the consensus from some time ago for non-inclusion still stands. The now (thankfully) archived "poll" means absolutely nothing: little on WP is decided by a simple vote, and it is discussions based on policy and guidelines that hold sway, not IDONTLIKEIT voting. This constant pushing for IBs is disruptive and distasteful, and with all the millions of articles that actually need improving, it seems odd that this subject still seems to be the focus of constant driving for too little effect, except to create more heat than light. – ] (]) 20:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{u|SchroCat}}. Please don't be hyperbolic. As an artistic choice only, an infobox decision cannot be determined by policy or guideline. That is the primary issue that leads to so much discussion on them. Whether the infobox is added actually '''is''' decided primarily by IDONTLIKEIT voting (or if you prefer ILIKEIT voting). \The main issue that leads to constant disruption is the fact that you can ''never'' get IP's and new editors arriving at this page to accept the reasons why there is no infobox without explaining it to each and every one of them and then arguing with them. Frankly it is just weird and inconsistent with most other articles, so they just want to help to fix it. Given that the only thing that is hurt by adding the infobox is the feelings of a few editors that JUSTDONTLIKEIT, I think that I'll support any infobox discussion simply to end the repeated discussions that result from not having one. — '''''<small>] <sup>(])</sup></small>''''' 20:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::There is no hyperbole in what I've said. The inclusion of an IB is in no way "an artistic choice only", and if you look through previous threads you'll see that people give a range of reasons, which go far beyond such a simplistic and misleading a statement. I'm glad that you think POV pushing by people simply to get an IB just to achieve a 'one size fits all' approach is an endless process that will continue, despite any valid and very real reasons to the contrary. That is all too obvious to anyone who has observed this behaviour by socks, IPs (read into that logged out editors), IB warriors and the occasional flashmob to keep pushing. If such behaviour of going round article after article to ''remove'' the IBs was undertaken with such vigour and using such tactics, I can guarantee that overly heavy-handed action would have been taken against anyone who takes a more flexible approach. Voting to include an IB to stop pushing by disruptive editors from ongoing pushing their IDONTLIKEIT view... not an approach I'd take, but each to their own, I guess. – ] (]) 20:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Are you assuming that every new editor and IP that comes along is a sock? Seriously? Why are new editors not allowed to have an opinion on infoboxes? You keep saying "their IDONTLIKEIT view", but as far as I can see, your only argument for not including an infobox is the same. — '''''<small>] <sup>(])</sup></small>''''' 21:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::"{{green|Are you assuming that every new editor and IP that comes along is a sock?}}" No. "{{green|You keep saying "their IDONTLIKEIT view", but as far as I can see, your only argument for not including an infobox is the same.}}" Then you have not read in the previous threads what I have actually written, because that is a gross misrepresentation of my opinion, so please don't try and play the 'bad faith' game with me. – ] (]) 21:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Then what might I ask... is your policy or guideline based argument? (links or just copy here please, I'm not going to spend an hour digging through old threads for your name). — '''''<small>] <sup>(])</sup></small>''''' 21:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I'm trying to keep my input into IB discussions to a minimum, but as you've already told me what my opinion is, I thought you would have bothered to read through? As you haven't, I'm not sure why you think it's based on IDONTLIKEIT. As I've said above, go through what I've written previously and you'll find my reasons. I'm de-watching this now, as I don't think anything constructive will come out of this, but ''plus ca change'' as far as IB discussions are concerned. – ] (]) 21:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::You opposed the infobox and said that it should be decided "based on policy and guidelines that hold sway, not IDONTLIKEIT voting". The only other reason you gave boils down to 'maintain the status quo because it is the status quo'. I read through all the old discussions in the archives of this page a couple months ago and I haven't seen ''any'' policy or guideline based reason for including or excluding an infobox, at least for an article like this one. I'm happy to be pointed wrong, but as far as I can see, it is mostly/entirely an editorial decision and therefore essentially can't be chosen by any other method than a vote of personal preference (i.e. IDONTLIKEIT/ILIKEIT). Arbcom has similar views, having found no reason in our polices or guidelines to fall on one side or the other. My argument is simple: it is less disruptive to have an infobox than to not have one, simply because new editors will keep showing up in discussions on this page if there is not an infobox (and they have as good a reason as anyone else because there is no good reason to have/not have an infobox other than the personal preference of a group of editors). The consistency argument for an infobox that is often made isn't based in policy or guideline, as articles are not required to be consistent with each other's formatting. However, most high quality/high profile articles ''do'' have an infobox, which naturally leads to new editor questions about why there isn't one (and new editors or visitors to this page are naturally dissatisfied with the answer that they eventually get: "some guys at the beginning decided that it looked bad and we haven't been able to get a consensus to change it so it just stays that way because it is the status quo"). — '''''<small>] <sup>(])</sup></small>''''' 22:22, 1 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::: Not sure what you mean by "some guys at the beginning decided". In the beginning, indeed, this article had no infobox, but then {{diff|Stanley Kubrick|35022461|34966091|from 2006}} to {{diff|Stanley Kubrick|676405653|676405157|2015}}. --] (]) 23:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Interesting, I thought it was a long term thing, though this just confirms my hypothesis that having an infobox is less disruptive than not having one (the repeated discussions in the archive and edit warring on the article don't start until Blofield unilaterally cuts the infobox, and it was stable for a long time previously). In any case, the situation is still the fact that the most recent discussion was closed as 'no consensus' (despite 70% of the !votes being in favour of an infobox of some kind, I might add). The most recent discussion close actually suggested opening another RfC at some point to discuss a collapsible infobox which I would agree might work as a reasonable compromise that might reduce the amount of disruption. — '''''<small>] <sup>(])</sup></small>''''' 23:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2024 == |
|
*'''Oppose''', as I find an infobox adds no value to this article. The information presented is readily available in the lead and anything more is too complex to condense into infobox parameters. The infobox creates a non-ideal visual presentation as well, and will be a magnet for those wishing to introduce unsourced parameters. I do find it curious when random IPs and new editors find their way into these discussions. I don't think suspicions of socking are that novel, since the topic of infoboxes (and editors' behavior around the same) has been discussed on external sites known for recruiting trolls to come disrupt our site. {{ping|Insertcleverphrasehere}} I find your repeated requests for "policy or guideline" arguments to be weak. Have you considered that it might just be common courtesy to at least consider the editorial choices of the principal editors of a page, similar to what we do for citation style? There's a difference between what we're allowed to do and what we should do. --] ] 13:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::I wasn't the first person to bring up "policy or guideline" arguments, and I'm not "repeatedly requesting" them; I don't believe they exist one way or the other (which I thought I made quite clear in my comments above). Considering the editorial choices of the principal authors over others runs completely contrary to the concept that no one ]S the article and I wouldn't consider my editorial choices any more valid than anyone else's on an article I was the principal author on either. What is your opinion on a default-collapsed IB? — '''''<small>] <sup>(])</sup></small>''''' 13:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::: You've asked more than once for a policy or guidelines argument, so that is the definition of "repeated". I don't accept or buy the ] argument that's often presented against editors who have content-based arguments for keeping them out. So, instead of being pedantic, perhaps come up with some content-based arguments of your own. --] ] 14:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Stanley Kubrick|answered=yes}} |
|
*On another note, I'm not sure what point there is with the 'support' and 'oppose' !voting here, nothing in particular is being proposed (yet), I was under the understanding that this was a discussion, please don't try to turn it into an RfC. — '''''<small>] <sup>(])</sup></small>''''' 13:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Add in as source: Kubrick: An Odyssey (February 2024), by Robert P. Kolker and Nathan Abrams; Pegasus Books, Ltd.; ISBN: 978-1-63936-624-8; https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Kubrick/Robert-P-Kolker/9781639366248 ] (]) 13:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
:* So, you're claiming that someone writing "Infobox, yes or no?" in the section heading isn't proposing anything? That's a bit disingenuous. My answer to the question/proposal is no. Oppose. --] ] 14:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> <code><nowiki>''']'''<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki></code> (]<nowiki>|</nowiki>]) 13:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::I think the OPs original question is well and truly answered. Yes there are objections, no there is not consensus to add. — '''''<small>] <sup>(])</sup></small>''''' 15:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
{{archive bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::Not done. What do you want this to be used as a source ''for''? ] (]) 03:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
=== Existing consensus hidden message (archive 7 vs archive 9) === |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==AFI== |
|
There is a hidden message in the text of the article near where an infobox would be added that reads {{tq|<nowiki><!-- Per consensus at ], do not add an infobox to this article. --></nowiki>}}. |
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Stanley Kubrick|answered=yes}} |
|
|
About ''The Shining'', the article states "and the American Film Institute has ranked it as the 27th greatest thriller film of all time". I'm pretty sure it's at #29 and not #27. Also, I suggest adding "in 2001", since the ranking is from that year. And maybe include an internal link to ], for instance the text "has ranked it". --] (]) 11:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> I confirmed that 29 is correct with the existing source and also made these other changes, thanks. ] (]) 15:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks. --] (]) 19:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Subject-verb agreement == |
|
I tried to change this to: {{tq|<nowiki><!-- Per the lack of consensus at ], do not add an infobox to this article without consensus at the talk page. --></nowiki>}} but was reverted by {{u|SchroCat}} with the message: "There was no change to the consensus established way back, and the votes mean nothing. The consensus still stands." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current sentence: The scientific realism and innovative special effects in his science fiction epic '']'' (1968) was a first in cinema history, and the film earned him his only ] (for ]). |
|
This seems to stem from a misunderstanding of what ] means. The RfC contained at archive 9 clearly closed with a result of '''no consensus''' to change the current state of the article. This means that we stick with the status quo of no infobox, but this ''does not'' mean that the consensus reached back in archive 7 somehow still stands. Linking to that discussion and not the much more recent RfC is very misleading. We can say that there is no consensus to add an infobox, but we cannot say that there is an existing consensus for no infobox. — '''''<small>] <sup>(])</sup></small>''''' 07:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:Please do not ping me to this thread again. To clarify why I reverted: there has been no discussion that has overturned the stated consensus held in archive 7. All subsequent discussions have ended as no agreement to overturn that consensus. Consensus 7 still stands, despite any semantic acrobatics to try and twist it to something else. – ] (]) 07:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::I won't ping you, but discussions that end in 'no consensus' don't 'fail to overturn the previous consensus', they establish a new situation where there is '''no consensus''' (and then ] kicks in and advises us to stick with the status quo). — '''''<small>] <sup>(])</sup></small>''''' 08:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I agree with you ]. Your wording is a more accurate reflection of the current state of affairs and is what should be used.--] (]) 14:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corrected sentence: The scientific realism and innovative special effects in his science fiction epic '']'' (1968) were a first in cinema history, and the film earned him his only ] (for ]). |
|
=== That damn infobox === |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Explanation: The subject is plural: "The scientific realism and innovative special effects," so the verb should be "were" instead of "was." ] (]) 15:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
I have this article on my watchlist for I-don't-know-the-reason, and every edit war so far seems to revolve around that damn infobox. Obviously consensus hasn't been reached. My opinion is: meh. Meh, leaning towards including an infobox, but still: meh. Since talk page isn't going to resolve this, how about going to DRN or that third-party-invitation noticeboard? ] <sub style="margin:0 2px">]</sub> 01:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:{{done}}, thank you! ] (]) 15:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:{{hp|Byteflush}} DRN has nothing to say. There is no policy reason to have or not have an infobox, as such it is editor preference and choice. Essentially it can only ever be decided by a head count, which will always leave a large contingent unhappy. DRN or third party will waste a bunch of time telling you the same thing. — '''''<small>] <sup>(])</sup></small>''''' 07:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:Have {{u|Byteflush|you}} considered taking it off your watchlist? I only ask as then you wouldn't need to think of a reason to keep it on there. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 18:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:Good god this is still being debated? ] 18:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::Don't worry, I'm sure ArbCom are all aware and will be delivering DS alerts. Frankly, I think there's more of a chance that ] might deliver my milk in the morning. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 19:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
: One thing is for sure: I never get tired of hearing about it every 30 days. --] ] 18:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
: Meh. Ok, fine, I guess you're right. Didn't think of it that way. Nevermind then. ] <sub style="margin:0 2px">]</sub> 22:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
Current quote:
"Despite the notoriety this provoked among actors, many of Kubrick's films broke new cinematic ground are now considered landmarks."
Possibilities:
"Despite the notoriety this provoked among actors, many of Kubrick's films broke new cinematic ground are now considered landmarks."
or
"Despite the notoriety this provoked among actors, many of Kubrick's films broke new cinematic ground are now considered landmarks."
or something else! 213.120.28.36 (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Current sentence: The scientific realism and innovative special effects in his science fiction epic 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) was a first in cinema history, and the film earned him his only Academy Award (for Best Visual Effects).
Corrected sentence: The scientific realism and innovative special effects in his science fiction epic 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) were a first in cinema history, and the film earned him his only Academy Award (for Best Visual Effects).
Explanation: The subject is plural: "The scientific realism and innovative special effects," so the verb should be "were" instead of "was." 71.167.230.104 (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Not done: The use of "as" would be redundant here - the current phrasing works fine. EphemeralPerpetuals (they/them) 01:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Done