Jump to content

Talk:Saving Private Ryan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleSaving Private Ryan is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 6, 2024.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 6, 2007WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
August 25, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
September 14, 2008Good article nomineeListed
May 7, 2023Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

"Cultural shift"

[edit]

Find better phrasing for whatever this was trying to express. There have been 0 moments since WWII where its veterans weren't honored or respected in the US, even though Slaughterhouse Five and Catch-22 were theoretically based during that war specifically instead of any other. There was no cultural shift where people suddenly remembered that they owed a debt of honor to the WWII vets. — LlywelynII 05:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So many professional historians here on Wikipedia. What does the second sentence say after the one you edited? Or did you not read that far? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saving Private Ryan

[edit]

The name of the movie reviewer mentioned in the Wikipedia article about the movie, "Saving Private Ryan" is misspelled. The name should be (Gene)Siskel. Not Schikel. 2600:1700:2920:1C10:D9B2:A151:487:E7CF (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's very much Richard Schickel Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too much "of"-ing?

[edit]

books of Stephen E. Ambrose and accounts of the deaths of members of a single family such as the Niland brothers There are 4 record of'es in this main article section. 182.253.54.87 (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look at me @Darkwarriorblake 182.253.54.87 (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The grammar is correct. Graham Beards (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution countries missing from infobox

[edit]

The countries for the distributors of the film have been removed from the infobox. WP:FILMDIST guidelines clearly state, "Using the same rationale as the release date, the distributor(s) should be restricted to the country or countries that produced the film and (if different) the country where the film is first released. If there are only two distributors in total (a domestic and foreign) then include both of them." However, on this infobox, they are replaced with hidden notes saying not to include them, as they are discussed in the body text, when it's clearly known that DreamWorks distributed in the United States and Paramount distributed internationally. Other articles for films show countries for distributors (domestic and foreign in the infobox). TPalkovitz (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're misreading the guideline. The distributor guideline has nothing to do with country field, and both distributors are American. The hidden notes are there to stop people adding "(North America)" and "(international)" to the infobox when we a) try to avoid using the term international becuase it's an English Wikipedia, and b) it makes the infobox a mess. Plus there will be countries where other companies ultimately distributed on behalf of others. And it is discussed in the body text. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]