600:, so I believe that the copying was done sometime between September and January and the damage is already done. Furthermore, this is such a short paragraph. Even if it were copy-pasted from somewhere else (and who among all these Google hits would dare claim original copyright?) surely it can be claimed "fair use" for a short descriptive plot to stay as is. If not, then why don't we write our own paraphrase? Does it really serve the article to have no plot outline at all? Mockingjay Part 2 has none, either. I guess we could refer people to the article on the book if they really want to know. The first two films have followed their plots extremely closely.
827:, and I have to say that, overall, I prefer the "before" version. It's concise, well-written, and adheres to Knowledge's standards. Count this as an endorsement of that version. I'm not sure why Lkaliba reverted, and I think, once again, such an action requires discussion here on the talk page, much as I said the last time this happened. I would urge Lkaliba to work more collaboratively. I don't know what's going on between Lkaliba and Flyer22, and I'm not terribly interested in finding out. ANI sounds like a legitimate forum if this continues. I'm tired of cleaning film-related articles of
1159:) keeps making edits too the reception area that are not very insightful. The added material is slanted to highlight only the positives and has led to a sever build up of reviews. It is also poorly constructed and attempts to include as much positive hype about the film as possible (Much of which is personal opinion that is not sourced). Attempts to reason with Lkaliba have been unsuccessful and they refuse to provide any reasons for their changes. Please Help resolve the matter as I have just undone an edit that has completely disrupted the reception area and are quite drastic. Thanks. -
316:
1310:"In North America, Mockingjay – Part 1 is the third highest-grossing film in The Hunger Games franchise..." Considering that there have only been three films in the franchise released to date, calling it the "third highest" seems a bit silly as it is not actually higher than anything. In this case "third highest" is actually equivalent to "last" or "lowest", so why not say something to this effect. A minor quibble I know, but I find the current wording jarring. --
998:
neutral than an editor saying so based on his personal evaluation of the aggregate score as there is no definitive mixed or positive response ... And the term mixed to positive is one we try to avoid (And it's too broad and based on an editors evaluation). At least that is what I think. I'm taking example of the likes of the first installment in The Hobbit trilogy and Thor The Dark World and such. It seemed to work there. Cheers. -
596:), and a couple things are important to note: the bad grammar as it was initially introduced: "to the point of destruction to the other districts" and "with everything she cares for in the balance" would not have been perpetrated by a professional copywriter. Therefore I think the copyvio is on the part of websites which have reproduced this original Knowledge content without attribution. I corrected this grammar in
619:
615:
246:
222:
256:
348:
1088:
misrepresented as some kind of overview from E online. (As an aside I tend to find negative reviews give a better variety of opinions, the good reviews mostly praise the same things, negative reviews are more selective in their praise so give greater insight into details such as writing, cinematography, score, that the generally positive reviews overlook. I've been hit with
191:
393:
1211:
was overcrowded with "two hours of preamble with no discernible payoff." He concluded that the film "fell short" and "could not be called satisfying." Henry Barnes of The
Guardian also gave the film three out of five stars. He felt it offered "thrills" despite "lacking a solid structure" and featured
1110:
Yeah it isn't an obligation just a starting off point as the reviews before my edited were all positive ones highlight
Lawrence and the politics themes as positives ... All very redundant at this stage. At least it's a bit more varied and through to form at the moment but more can be done off course.
661:
The plot section is sloppily written, expecting the reader to already be familiar with elements in the story. For example, it says that Prim gets to keep her cat -- what cat, and why wouldn't she get to keep it? Later it says Snow left roses to taunt
Katniss -- why would she consider roses a taunt?
1125:
isn't even claiming to provide an overview only that their own reviewer Robbie Collin gave it a mixed review. Similarly the LA times is not claiming to provide an overview of their own either, instead they have looked at 71% on Rotten
Tomatoes given their own interpretation that that means mixed, so
1074:
It is also the reviews used in the section. There were many "glowing" reviews used and it seemed that it was there just to include as many as possible so I condensed what was used and included two positive ... two mixed ... and two negative ... It is also somewhat reflective of the overall aggregate
1413:
Can someone please correct the implication that this film was not released in 3D? There is a source cited for this (112) but if you read this source then the author is actually complaining that the 3D conversion of
Mockingjay part one isn't good. The film was both released in 3D in cinemas and
915:
specifically uses the word "mixed" in their description of the reception ("reviews ... have been mixed"). I don't think it's a problem. In cases where we have a secondary source that describes the reception, I think it's a good idea to use it. My problem is when editors add their own commentary,
685:
If you've all noticed recently, I just added A LOT of information to the character and marketing section (will get onto the production section when I have time). I don't really edit
Knowledge articles often so I'm not sure of certain criterias but I know for sure my reference links are all messy as
997:
It's nothing against the term mixed being used as such ... I don't have any particular interest in these movies. It just seems more diplomatic to leave the reviews speak fir themselves. And having a source stating that the general consensus is mixed ... Or two even ... seems a lot better and more
1219:
leisurely pace and noted it felt "like a manufactured product through and through, ironic and sad given its revolutionary theme." Richard
Corliss of Time felt the film was a placeholder for the second installment and noted "Lawrence isn't given much opportunity to do anything spectacularly right
887:
I believe such terms as mixed should be avoided here as it is going to cause serious debate. Maybe we should just leave the results speak for themselves as is often done in such cases as this. Lkaliba just undid quite abit of work from a short while ago with no reason provided ... Alot of these
715:
This synthesis comes (from near the end of the article) paraphrasing Joe
Neumaier of The New York Daily News. E Online does attempt to provide a summary of their own. The whole sentence and reference to E Online should be removed. Also the two sentences from Telegraph and the LA Times could be
1087:
but that edit didn't go far enough. What little is being attributed to E Online was actually said by Joe
Neumaier. So as I said above the whole reference to E Online should be removed. The opinions of Joe Neumaier could be added along with the other individual critics but it should not be
1126:
they aren't adding anything over what Rotten
Tomatoes already says. It doesn't make sense to treat either of these as an overview of the reviews that in any way discredits the information from Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. I think the extra clause is misleading and should be removed. --
1367:
article, it does appear to match criteria of one, though it is fiction. I would argue that to be a war film (even fictitious) the storyline takes place in the past whereas this is more a history of the future. "Science-fiction action movie" would be more appropriate in my
888:
changes were disruptive to the editing and I sent him a message and undid his changes. It isn't his first time being warned and has been blocked in the past for these actions. Maybe I'm wrong but my edit of the reception area seemed to be concise. Anyway. Thanks. -
954:
don't indicate that exactly; they are not high up there with the score for this film, but they are above what people typically think of as "mixed." And we know it's the usual case for editors to go by the review aggregators first, that editors initially give more
1223:
Under the mathematical section it says that the film grossed $ 123,000,000 in North America and $ 67,500,000 in other countries, thereby totalling up to $ 275,500,000. I would recommend correcting this to $ 190,500,000 or correcting the numbers that add up to $
523:, since we don't really know the plot of this unreleased movie. We can speculate and make assumptions based on the plot of the book, but we don't know for sure. While assuming the plot will follow the book may be a safe bet, it's still speculation.--
538:
I don't think I could call it speculation. Given the first two films followed the same storyline at the books, it's safe to say this one will too and like I said previously, the current plot states the main idea without going into too much detail.
558:
Turns out there was a reason it looks like a safe way to summarize the plot. I copy and pasted the lines into a google search and the same lines turns up from many results, seemingly originating from picture captions written by an outside source.
153:
1178:
like Flyer22 suggested. If he's going to ignore the talk page, consensus, and requests for collaboration, then the only reasonable request is for him to be blocked until he realizes that his edits are disruptive.
457:
I have a question. Was it that this film was teased in the ending sequence of Catching Fire? For that matter, the Mockingjay pendant was shown transitioning through all three of its forms throughout the series.
44:
641:
The plot on the article right now was the old synopsis released by Lionsgate before Catching Fire was released, hence on why it was so vague. They have now released an updated version of the synopsis in the
147:
1092:
a few times simply because I found the negative reviews more insightful, and covering more aspects of the film. You should not feel an obligation to have 2 positive, 2 mixed, 2 negative.) --
1391:
say, and also be careful of adding too many genres together. The list frequently grows without too much reference to sources. I would remove the genre if there are no sources to support it.
1212:"limp special effects." He was also critical of the "creaky script" and felt it lacked some of the "terror" of the previous installments. He did however praise the acting of Lawrence.
376:
325:
232:
712:
This is not accurate. E Online avoids giving an opinion "Catching Fire premiered to rave reviews. Did its follow-up—the third of four movies—meet or exceed expectations?"
643:
1215:
Todd McCarthy, who reviewed the film for The Hollywood Reporter, felt the installment was "disappointingly bland and unnecessarily protracted." He was critical of the
370:
364:
1461:
168:
1451:
135:
79:
24:
911:
I left a message, too. I'm in diplomatic mode, so maybe I can get Lkaliba to listen to reason. If not, sure, ANI sounds good. "Mixed" is fine. The
622:, as they appeared in the Knowledge article, and I guarantee you that I copy-pasted from nobody to correct that grammar, those were my original words.
1446:
129:
1287:
85:
125:
1292:
1127:
1093:
800:
717:
663:
175:
1456:
1075:
score. As opposed to cramming in many short sentences highlighting only the positive even in negative reviews as was done before. -
479:
916:
especially when you get over-the-top descriptions like, "The film was hailed as a great success" or "It was acclaimed by critics".
749:, constantly reverting, you and others will have an uphill battle maintaining a very accurate Critical response section. Just ask
950:
I think that what An Unexpected Journey is concerned about with regard to calling the reception for this film mixed is that the
777:
first, I will gather all of (or a good portion of) the incriminating evidence on Lkaliba and present my case against Lkaliba at
824:
820:
274:
99:
30:
1441:
141:
104:
20:
1156:
742:
286:
278:
74:
1240:
1038:
593:
202:
1041:, seems to be the best approach if we are going to use "mixed" in this case; you know, since, for example, the film's
494:
His character doesn't appear in the Mockingjay films. (He's said to have been killed after Katniss enters the arena.)
65:
857:. The only thing going on between me and Lkaliba is that I'm wholly tired of Lkaliba's WP:Disruptive editing, like I
1192:
1169:
1160:
1112:
1076:
999:
921:
889:
836:
282:
269:
227:
1427:
1400:
1382:
1357:
1338:
1319:
1300:
1266:
1244:
1196:
1135:
1101:
1054:
968:
925:
870:
840:
808:
790:
725:
695:
671:
655:
631:
609:
573:
553:
532:
508:
487:
467:
799:
Locking the article seem like a total waste of time in that case. Flagged edits make much sense in general. --
1423:
1288:
http://www.visiontimes.com/2014/11/28/hk-protesters-express-aspirations-for-freedom-with-3-finger-salute.html
1097:
804:
721:
667:
1296:
1131:
432:
425:
418:
354:
109:
519:
I believe the Plot section should either be re-written or removed entirely. This would seem to fall under
483:
1415:
774:
770:
750:
1334:
1419:
1188:
917:
854:
832:
762:
208:
1374:
1258:
1228:
475:
1349:
1330:
1277:
Could you also add that protesters in Hong Kong have been using the Mockingjay three-finger salute?
190:
1396:
1353:
627:
605:
443:
315:
161:
55:
1315:
1232:
528:
70:
1281:
1150:
1050:
964:
951:
866:
786:
736:
520:
463:
442:
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
51:
1207:
I believe that under "critical response" there are two grammatical errors. It says, "he felt
1236:
956:
773:
article. One of these days, if Lkaliba is not indefinitely blocked or does not stop editing
691:
651:
587:
405:
831:, such as "acclaim", "hail", etc, and I'm losing my patience for the editors who add them.
1369:
1253:
1089:
567:
547:
502:
1392:
623:
601:
1435:
1311:
1175:
861:. Some editors have a higher tolerance for that type of behavior; I obviously don't.
828:
778:
524:
1388:
1329:
According to the source (Box Office Mojo) not $ 810,000,000 - but $ 564,177,267! --
1182:
1146:
1046:
960:
862:
782:
732:
459:
716:
condensed into a single sentence saying both summarized the reviews as mixed. --
273:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can
687:
647:
583:
261:
1042:
561:
541:
496:
251:
245:
221:
758:
754:
353:
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
1364:
290:
709:
reported that the film had received a favorable response from critics,"
1416:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Die-Tribute-von-Panem-Mockingjay/dp/B01H30BT36
413:
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
1414:
on bluray in Europe. the European bluray can be bought on amazon here
1037:, without starting off the section with it and with the inclusion of
614:
It's worth pointing out that there are multiple Google hits for both
1348:
Is this really a war film? I can't find any site listing it as one.
387:
342:
184:
15:
1282:
https://twitter.com/ProfessorKenLee/status/538150168416096257
686:
hell. Does anyone want to fix/clean it up for me? Thank you!
314:
706:
1084:
1034:
858:
766:
746:
597:
579:
472:
Why no mention of Lenny Kravitz as Cinna in the cast?
160:
578:I disagree that it was a copyvio. It was added in
1203:Two Grammatical Errors and one Mathematical Error
959:to them than they do to the individual reviews.
620:the modified, grammatically-correct plot summary
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
289:. To improve this article, please refer to the
1187:why won't you comment here on the talk page?
819:Well, since I was pinged... I looked at the
174:
8:
285:. To use this banner, please refer to the
216:
1174:If he does it again, I suggest you go to
1045:rating is "generally favorable reviews."
360:times. The weeks in which this happened:
1033:Having "mixed" in there the way that it
424:] The anchor (#Mrs. Everdeen) has been
218:
188:
25:The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1
7:
1462:Pages in the Knowledge Top 25 Report
267:This article is within the scope of
1452:American cinema task force articles
1145:Can someone please help. A certain
1083:It was a good edit to say E Online
207:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
14:
598:these edits in early January 2014
431:] The anchor (#Beetee) has been
417:] The anchor (#Beetee) has been
323:This article is supported by the
1447:B-Class American cinema articles
1252:Box office math has been fixed--
391:
346:
283:regional and topical task forces
254:
244:
220:
189:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
1280:Here's a primary source photo:
580:this edit on September 25, 2013
377:November 30 to December 6, 2014
1401:00:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
1383:23:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
1358:13:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
1:
1339:11:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
1267:23:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
1245:22:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
1197:20:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
1163:18:36, 22 Novmber 2014 (UTC)
1102:19:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
1079:19:19, 21 Novmber 2014 (UTC)
1055:19:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
969:19:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
926:18:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
871:18:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
841:18:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
809:17:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
791:17:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
726:17:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
632:20:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
610:19:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
574:19:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
554:19:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
533:16:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
468:19:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
42:Put new text under old text.
1320:03:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
1301:17:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
1115:19:45, 21 Novmber 2014 (UTC)
1002:19:19, 21 Novmber 2014 (UTC)
767:Lkaliba's disruptive editing
509:18:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
488:17:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
1306:Reception - awkward wording
892:18:25, 21 Novmber 2014 (UTC
50:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
1478:
1428:22:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
1389:reliable secondary sources
326:American cinema task force
299:Knowledge:WikiProject Film
1457:WikiProject Film articles
1085:doesn't provide consensus
672:03:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
656:10:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
616:the original plot summary
322:
302:Template:WikiProject Film
239:
215:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
1286:Or a proper news story:
1136:12:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
696:11:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
1387:We need to follow what
1273:Political Ramifications
853:Thanks for commenting,
371:November 23 to 29, 2014
365:November 16 to 22, 2014
1121:Looking at this again
771:The Maze Runner (film)
582:by established editor
433:deleted by other users
426:deleted by other users
419:deleted by other users
319:
197:This article is rated
75:avoid personal attacks
1442:B-Class film articles
1170:An Unexpected Journey
1161:An Unexpected Journey
1113:An Unexpected Journey
1077:An Unexpected Journey
1039:WP:Intext-attribution
1000:An Unexpected Journey
890:An Unexpected Journey
318:
100:Neutral point of view
105:No original research
747:editing the article
275:join the discussion
952:review aggregators
320:
203:content assessment
86:dispute resolution
47:
1248:
1231:comment added by
913:Los Angeles Times
751:Captain Assassin!
701:Critical response
478:comment added by
450:
449:
408:in most browsers.
386:
385:
341:
340:
337:
336:
333:
332:
277:and see lists of
183:
182:
66:Assume good faith
43:
1469:
1380:
1372:
1264:
1256:
1247:
1225:
1189:NinjaRobotPirate
1186:
1173:
1141:Disruptive Edits
918:NinjaRobotPirate
855:NinjaRobotPirate
833:NinjaRobotPirate
763:NinjaRobotPirate
570:
564:
550:
544:
505:
499:
490:
444:Reporting errors
395:
394:
388:
350:
349:
343:
307:
306:
303:
300:
297:
270:WikiProject Film
264:
259:
258:
257:
248:
241:
240:
235:
224:
217:
200:
194:
193:
185:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
1477:
1476:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1432:
1431:
1411:
1375:
1370:
1363:Looking at the
1346:
1327:
1308:
1275:
1259:
1254:
1226:
1205:
1180:
1167:
1143:
775:WP:Disruptively
703:
683:
646:for this film.
568:
562:
548:
542:
517:
503:
497:
473:
455:
446:
411:
410:
409:
392:
382:
347:
304:
301:
298:
295:
294:
260:
255:
253:
230:
201:on Knowledge's
198:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
1475:
1473:
1465:
1464:
1459:
1454:
1449:
1444:
1434:
1433:
1410:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1345:
1342:
1326:
1323:
1307:
1304:
1274:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1204:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1142:
1139:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1105:
1104:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
846:
845:
844:
843:
829:words to avoid
814:
813:
812:
811:
794:
793:
702:
699:
682:
679:
677:
675:
674:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
612:
516:
513:
512:
511:
454:
451:
448:
447:
441:
440:
439:
436:
429:
422:
406:case-sensitive
400:
399:
398:
396:
384:
383:
381:
380:
374:
368:
361:
351:
339:
338:
335:
334:
331:
330:
321:
311:
310:
308:
266:
265:
249:
237:
236:
225:
213:
212:
206:
195:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1474:
1463:
1460:
1458:
1455:
1453:
1450:
1448:
1445:
1443:
1440:
1439:
1437:
1430:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1420:Senhor sydney
1417:
1408:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1381:
1379:
1373:
1366:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1343:
1341:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1324:
1322:
1321:
1317:
1313:
1305:
1303:
1302:
1298:
1294:
1293:24.106.216.17
1290:
1289:
1284:
1283:
1278:
1272:
1268:
1265:
1263:
1257:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1221:
1218:
1213:
1210:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1184:
1177:
1171:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1162:
1158:
1155:
1152:
1148:
1140:
1138:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1128:37.110.218.43
1124:
1123:the Telegraph
1114:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1094:109.76.10.249
1091:
1086:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1078:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1001:
996:
995:
994:
993:
992:
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
970:
966:
962:
958:
953:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
927:
923:
919:
914:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
891:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
872:
868:
864:
860:
859:stated before
856:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
842:
838:
834:
830:
826:
822:
818:
817:
816:
815:
810:
806:
802:
801:109.76.10.249
798:
797:
796:
795:
792:
788:
784:
780:
776:
772:
768:
764:
760:
756:
752:
748:
744:
741:
738:
734:
730:
729:
728:
727:
723:
719:
718:109.76.10.249
713:
710:
708:
700:
698:
697:
693:
689:
680:
678:
673:
669:
665:
664:50.180.19.238
660:
659:
658:
657:
653:
649:
645:
633:
629:
625:
621:
617:
613:
611:
607:
603:
599:
595:
592:
589:
585:
581:
577:
576:
575:
572:
571:
565:
557:
556:
555:
552:
551:
545:
537:
536:
535:
534:
530:
526:
522:
514:
510:
507:
506:
500:
493:
492:
491:
489:
485:
481:
477:
470:
469:
465:
461:
452:
445:
437:
434:
430:
427:
423:
420:
416:
415:
414:
407:
403:
397:
390:
389:
378:
375:
372:
369:
366:
363:
362:
359:
356:
355:Top 25 Report
352:
345:
344:
328:
327:
317:
313:
312:
309:
305:film articles
292:
288:
287:documentation
284:
280:
276:
272:
271:
263:
252:
250:
247:
243:
242:
238:
234:
229:
226:
223:
219:
214:
210:
204:
196:
192:
187:
186:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1412:
1377:
1371:☾Loriendrew☽
1347:
1328:
1309:
1291:
1285:
1279:
1276:
1261:
1255:☾Loriendrew☽
1227:— Preceding
1224:275,500,000.
1222:
1216:
1214:
1208:
1206:
1153:
1144:
1122:
1120:
1073:
1035:currently is
912:
739:
714:
711:
704:
684:
676:
640:
590:
560:
540:
518:
515:Plot section
495:
474:— Preceding
471:
456:
412:
404:Anchors are
401:
357:
324:
268:
209:WikiProjects
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
1378:(ring-ring)
681:Cleaning Up
644:press notes
618:as well as
480:62.49.75.10
262:Film portal
148:free images
31:not a forum
1436:Categories
1368:opinion.--
1325:Box office
1043:Metacritic
521:WP:CRYSTAL
291:guidelines
279:open tasks
1393:Elizium23
1350:Lembrazza
1344:War film?
1331:SuraShoka
1111:Cheers -
957:WP:Weight
707:E! Online
624:Elizium23
602:Elizium23
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
1409:3D error
1365:War film
1312:Smcg8374
1241:contribs
1229:unsigned
1157:contribs
1090:WP:UNDUE
743:contribs
594:contribs
525:Asher196
476:unsigned
233:American
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
1220:here."
1183:Lkaliba
1147:Lkaliba
1047:Flyer22
961:Flyer22
863:Flyer22
783:Flyer22
769:at the
733:Lkaliba
460:Visokor
435:before.
428:before.
421:before.
199:B-class
154:WP refs
142:scholar
1262:(talk)
1233:Fgmail
1209:the it
1176:WP:ANI
821:before
779:WP:ANI
765:about
688:Wormow
648:Wormow
584:Wormow
379:(24th)
373:(11th)
367:(10th)
205:scale.
126:Google
1217:films
825:after
731:With
563:Gloss
543:Gloss
498:Gloss
453:query
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
1424:talk
1397:talk
1354:talk
1335:talk
1316:talk
1297:talk
1237:talk
1193:talk
1151:talk
1132:talk
1098:talk
1051:talk
965:talk
922:talk
867:talk
837:talk
823:and
805:talk
787:talk
761:and
759:Sock
755:Erik
737:talk
722:talk
692:talk
668:talk
652:talk
628:talk
606:talk
588:talk
569:talk
549:talk
529:talk
504:talk
484:talk
464:talk
402:Tip:
296:Film
281:and
228:Film
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
176:TWL
1438::
1426:)
1418:.
1399:)
1356:)
1337:)
1318:)
1299:)
1243:)
1239:•
1195:)
1134:)
1100:)
1053:)
967:)
924:)
869:)
839:)
807:)
789:)
781:.
757:,
753:,
745:)
724:)
694:)
670:)
654:)
630:)
608:)
566:•
546:•
531:)
501:/
486:)
466:)
231::
156:)
54:;
1422:(
1395:(
1376:☏
1352:(
1333:(
1314:(
1295:(
1260:☏
1235:(
1191:(
1185::
1181:@
1172::
1168:@
1154:·
1149:(
1130:(
1096:(
1049:(
963:(
920:(
865:(
835:(
803:(
785:(
740:·
735:(
720:(
705:"
690:(
666:(
650:(
626:(
604:(
591:·
586:(
527:(
482:(
462:(
438:]
358:3
329:.
293:.
211::
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
