This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Egyptological subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt articles
We should have an article on every pyramid and every nome in Ancient Egypt. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have.
Cleanup.
To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates?
Standardize the Chronology.
A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563)
Stub sorting
Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Wikipedia, but if you believe it needs to be done . . .
Data sorting.
This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Wikipedia than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Gods of Egypt (film) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
Australia and
Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
The
Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.
Plot descriptions cannot be copied from other sources, including official sources, unless these can be
verified to be
public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. They must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's
copyright policy. In addition, they should only briefly summarize the plot; detailed plot descriptions may constitute a
derivative work. See
Wikipedia's Copyright FAQ.
Requested move 16 May 2015
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Strong oppose this makes absolutely no sense. The gods of Egypt are the gods of Egypt. Clearly lacking in a worldwide perspective. Films are not the entirety of the world. We have an article on this topic already, for the real topic,
List of Egyptian deities. --
65.94.43.89 (
talk)
04:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment. If it doesn't contain or redirect to the article on the film, "gods of Egypt" might be better aimed at
Ancient Egyptian deities than at the list, for the sake of consistency with
Egyptian gods, which redirects to the overview article. As for whether it should aim at the film article or an article on the gods themselves, I actually don't have much of an opinion on it. WP uses small differences for disambiguation all the time, doesn't it? I can't think of examples offhand, but I know I've seen them. Pointing the search string "Egyptian gods" at
Ancient Egyptian deities while pointing "gods of Egypt" to the movie article may be an odd, finicky distinction, but it's not really out of keeping with Wikipedia practice. The movie would probably irk me terribly, though, so I'm not going to go see it.
A. Parrot (
talk)
05:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Obviously a promotionally-motivated request. A film which won't be released until next year has already usurped the primary topic from this common term? This redirect has been around since December 2006. Arguably "Gods" is a more common term than "deities", as
Deities of Eqypt is a red-link.
Wbm1058 (
talk)
16:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
That's probably just the beginning. (Feel free to provide more reliable sources that address this and/or be bold and edit the article accordingly. I'm not bold.) —
Jeraphine Gryphon(
talk)18:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Jeraphine Gryphon: I want to avoid any use of "Controversy" per
WP:STRUCTURE. I am not sure if "whitewashing" holds up as a stand-alone definition for a section heading. The current heading is kind of a catch-all to cover distinctions made between race and ethnicity (which I've seen debated before). Do you have any recommendations?
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me)16:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Oscars So White? Or Oscars So Dumb? Discuss. "Also, I think it's important to say that more and more people are calling the industry out, as when people went after the makers of the forthcoming 'Gods of Egypt' for casting a bunch of white surfer-dude types as ancient Egyptians. But this kind of protest tends to be drowned out by the culture of consensus that has turned too many mainstream media types into industry lap dogs."
Thanks for the link! I will incorporate details. For the infobox, though, the production budget needs to be straightforward. It technically cost $140 million regardless, but we can use the article body to explain the studio's savings.
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me)15:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)reply
IMDb is not considered reliable. Would you mind reverting until we get credit information from a different source? I have not found reliable sources yet, but they'll probably come soon.
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me)22:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)reply
New poster
here has a billing block that confirms the names. The order of the actors may appear unconventional, though, since it says "with Gerard Butler and Geoffrey Rush" where Butler may be more expected to be near/at the top. We could go with the order of characters on the official website's "Story" page as a better rule of thumb.
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me)18:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Critical reception
Easy4me is pushing for the problematic write-up of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores. These are commercial websites, so we should not showcase the scores upfront per
WP:PROMO. As an encyclopedia, we need to guard against this and to instead leverage these websites for encyclopedic value. We should not make Wikipedia a place for readers to decide whether or not to see a movie. We need to take the long view and provide a statistical breakdown of the critics and how the websites used that breakdown to put forth a score of their own making. To open with "the film has a rating of 18%" is to grossly oversimplify the matter in a commercial sense.
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me)19:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Write-up #1: On
Rotten Tomatoes, the film has a rating of 18%, based on 11 reviews, with an average rating of 4.6/10.[1]Metacritic gives the film a score of 28 out of 100, based on 7 critics, indicating "generally unfavorable reviews".[2]
Write-up #2: The film review website
Metacritic surveyed 7 critics and assessed 4 reviews as negative and 3 as mixed. It gave an aggregate score of 28 out of 100, which it said indicated "generally unfavorable reviews".[3] The similar website
Rotten Tomatoes surveyed 11 critics and, categorizing the reviews as positive or negative, assessed 9 as negative and 2 as positive. Of the 11 reviews, it determined an average rating of 4.4 out of 10 and gave the film a score of 20%.[4]
The reason why I started it off with "the film has a rating of 18%" is because it is too early to determine what the overall critical consensus towards Gods of Egypt will be. Plus, there's an average rating so that does not oversimplify it. If people are curious as to how Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic work, they can simply choose to click on their respective Wikipedia pages. You are giving off the vibe that you are trying to defend this movie.
Easy4me (
talk)
19:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)reply
I agree that it is too early to determine an overall consensus, but I don't think either write-up does that. If needed, for #2, we can state "to date" to show that the numbers are very dynamic. Aside from that, the thrust of my argument is to explain Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic's approaches every time they are referenced. We have to avoid assuming specialist knowledge. It is easy for movie buffs like us to be very familiar with RT and MC, but we cannot assume that familiarity universally. I cannot find the
WT:FILM discussion right now, but there was some consensus on writing out RT and MC scores more fully. While it is wordier, it lays out how the sources manage the critics and their reviews, such as Rotten Tomatoes treating a review only as positive or negative, meaning its score will be more severely skewed than Metacritic, which has a "mixed" middle ground.
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me)20:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)reply
I agree with Erik. Write-up #2 is more informative in that it summarizes the methodology and gives a full-break down of the findings. If we are presenting statistical analysis we have a duty to explain the methodology so that the numbers are not misinterpreted, and readers should not expected to have to go to another website to fully understand the statistics. By that logic we could just as easily say there is no point including any statistics at all since the reader can go to the website itself to see the statistics. Also, you can't reject some of the statistics on the basis it is "too early" because it is all based on the same data. While there is a valid argument for not adding any statistics at this stage, the fact is the statistics and the accompanying prose can be updated as the aggregators incorporate more reviews into their data.
Betty Logan (
talk)
20:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)reply
The Rotten Tomatoes consensus is particularly
colloquial and a good example of merely
showcasing Rotten Tomatoes; it should not be included. The passage says nothing except that the film is bad, which does not require such silly language. The consensus for other films may actually explain what critics thought, but this one doesn't. Pinging
Betty Logan,
Easy4me,
TropicAces.
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me)12:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)reply
I agree with not including the summary in this case. The purpose of the summary is to provide a summary of RT's findings, and in this case the summary simply does not do that. It is completely vacuous!
Betty Logan (
talk)
10:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Considering that you pushed to remove Gods of Egypt in its entirety from
List of films featuring whitewashed roles (
discussion), your stance here is highly dubious. The casting was indeed a huge scandal. Reference #27 shows many, many reliable sources writing about the studio and the director apologizing for the whitewashing. Coverage of the film's theatrical release and box office performance universally mentioned the whitewashing and that critics found whitewashing to be the least of the film's problems. In addition, the section includes contrasting commentary from the actors as well as the director. More would be added if it can be found. I find the tagging of this section to be in bad faith. Pinging editors who have edited or discussed this article:
Betty Logan,
Basickk,
TropicAces,
Easy4me.
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me)11:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)reply
The controversy is not excessive in comparison to sections covering controversies in other film articles, so I don't agree the section gives undue weight to the issue. However, I think there is a neutrality issue by singling out Scott Mendelson's opinion for "box" treatment since it is promoting a non-neutral point of view in the debate.
Betty Logan (
talk)
12:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)reply
I added a quote box to try to break up the wall of text. I thought the quote seemed to summarize the overall situation well. Do you think there is another way or another quote to break up the wall of text? We could move the Proyas quote box down from "Production" to balance it out and maybe find an image for the "Production" section instead.
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me)12:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)reply
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose. Yet another poorly thought-out move request from this IP. Not only did the IP just change "
Gods of Egypt" to point to this film instead of the obvious primary topic
Ancient Egyptian deities, the above move request, which was exactly the same as this one, was completely ignored.
Nohomersryan (
talk)
17:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Wokeism
Racial and ethnic, non-whites playing Egyptian gods ... it's not a serious historical piece, people, it's a bit of fun for the kids. This section should be removed, stop pandering to the childish.
110.175.159.176 (
talk)
16:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)reply