This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to
animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can
the article attached to this page, help out with the
open tasks, or contribute to the
discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Brazil and
related topics 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.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
Since "blue macaw" is actually a nickname for several kinds of macaws (Hyacinth, Lear's, Glaucous and Spix have all blue plummages) I'm trying to find a source for Blu being a spix. Has anyone had any luck with this? SO far the only thing potentially usable I've found is
this book. The summary on the Harper Collins website notes that Blu is a spix (which fits with the film plotline) but as I don't ahve access to the book, I can't cite it properly (page number and the like). Any one have any suggestions?
Millahnna (
talk)
01:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Plot
The plot in this section needs to be significantly shortened. I took a stab at it earlier, but it still needs a lot of work. Let's try to shoot for around 500-700 words. That length seems to be the going standard for most featured articles, like
The Simpsons Movie. --
TravisBernard (
talk)
15:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)reply
In theory I'm seeing this over the next two days and I should be able to take a better whack at it. Right now, I'm concerned with finding a reliable source beyond the companion book I note above so that we can end this Spix/Blue nonsense once and for all.
Millahnna (
talk)
18:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)reply
In terms of length, our efforts have managed to reduce the plot to under 700 words. Adding some reliable sources could also be beneficial, but I think we've at least solved the issue of the plot being too lengthy. Over the next 48-72 hours, we might want to consider removing the "plot is too lengthy" tag at the top of the plot section. I'll let this sit for a few days first to see if anyone objects. --
TravisBernard (
talk)
20:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Sounds good to me. We could probably remove the tag now but until we have a stable plot in there it will probably go back and forth between bloated and not. Doniago made a template for that sort of thing but I can't remember what it's called. It amounts to "people are editing this plot like crazy so maybe you could help on another section of the article."
Millahnna (
talk)
03:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Yes. And now that I think about it, I'm not sure he actually made the tag I'm thinking of (he made another one related to plots but I'm not sure he did this one).
Millahnna (
talk)
00:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Plot revision by Disneydreamworksgirl (DDWG)
I'm fairly certain I'm at my max for reverting these additions so I wanted to address them here instead of crossing into edit war territory. Personally, I prefer the version in place prior to DDWG's edits (though it still needs further trimming for length): it's more clear, is written better in terms of grammar, and has fewer unneeded details. DDWG's version, to my eye, has awkward syntax, overlinking, improper capitalization, and does not improve an understanding of the main plot. Additionally, it's adding a fair amount of length to a plot that's already a tad on the too-long side of the Film plot guidelines. Am I alone in thinking this or should we look at keep her version and polishing up the awkward stuff?
Millahnna (
talk)
21:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)reply
We should leave the version in place prior to these edits. Unless someone objects, I am going to start trimming it up to at least 400-700 words per
WP:FILMPLOT, since I have reverted two times here and do not wish to violate 3RR or get blocked again.
DarthSjones23 (
talk -
contributions)
21:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Definite improvement. At one point it was
real concise and I quite liked that version; but then the inevitable bloat happened. I figure there's a happy medium between the two.TravisBernard did a lot of good work getting it to where was before today. I've been meaning to go in there to do more but keep getting sidetracked by looking for a good ref to use for the Blue/Spix thing.
Millahnna (
talk)
22:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)reply
I agree with you guys about this one user edits. We can continue to moderate changes, but I think the plot looks pretty good right now. --
TravisBernard (
talk)
15:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)reply
MPAA Section
While I see that there was some controversy concerning the rating for the film, I was under the impression that MPAA ratings were not included in Wikipedia articles. If anyone does not object, I am going to go ahead and remove this section. --
TravisBernard (
talk)
17:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the clarification. I think in this case, the MPAA rating change is notable enough, so I went ahead and reverted my previous edits. --
TravisBernard (
talk)
18:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)reply
I am concerned about the statement at the end of the paragraph (I put a fact tag on it awhile back). I think the IP who wrote it is right (only third time, yada yada) but I haven't been able to find a source noting that fact. I'm not sure that such a statement doesn't amount to
WP:SYNTH, in light of that. But I don't think it hurts to leave it there for a week or two longer with the tag while we search for stuff.
Millahnna (
talk)
18:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Intro paragraph
The introduction paragraph tends to be the most important part of the entire article. It's what shows up in search engines and it's the most frequently read portion of the article. I think the intro could definitely use some improvements. For example, I think that there are too many notable cast members listed in the intro paragraph. I think we should maybe cut it down to around four to five major cast members. Obviously Anne Hathaway and Jesse Eisenberg are not going to be cut, but I think a few of the others can be cut. My recommendation is to cut Tracy Morgan, Jemaine Clement, Leslie Mann, will.i.am, Jamie Foxx, and Davi Vieira. Thoughts? On a side note, I got pretty excited when I Googled "Rio film" the other day. The Wiki article is the first result! --
TravisBernard (
talk)
15:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Ah ok. When I moved stuff around the other day I was thinking marketing before release since that's what order they happen in (like how we'd have a production section before release if we had one). But I'm easy on the section order as long as stuff is in logical subsections where it's warranted so that works for me.
Millahnna (
talk)
23:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Possible overlinking and plot issues?
I am concerned about possible overlinking issues in the article, especially linking to the species names in the plot and voice cast sections, and also adding extremely unimportant details to the article.
Conmancool17 (
talk·contribs) has been repeatedly overlinking terms in the concerned sections among other issues such as adding minor details to the plot summary (see
WP:FILMPLOT), despite being warned not do to so.
The MOS on linking states that only the first instances are to be linked as a rule of thumb, which I feel that it was breached (
[2],
[3]). Also, is it necessary to link to a subject (i.e. species or city names) two times in the article and if not, should it be removed? Rather than getting involved in an
edit war any further (as I can get blocked for this), I have decided to post here to see if anyone can voice their opinions on this matter. Thanks,
DarthSjones23 (
talk -
contributions)
04:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)reply
I share your concerns you've just been beating me to the fixes since I haven't had time to do much other than check in real quick lately. From some recent efforts elsewhere, I've noticed that kids films involving animals seem to draw the critter overlinking, specifically. I would say that most of it falls under the idea of not linking common terms (cat, dog, bird, etc.). I can see linking some of the animals that folks may not be familiar with (like specific species of Macaw since that provides the basis of the storyline, marmoset because they aren't all that commonly known, etc.) but in general I support the changes you have made over the last week.
Millahnna (
talk)
06:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Hey, I don't believe we would include this information in the article because we are using the English version of Wikipedia. A similar situation came up when working on the
Cars 2 article. We decided not to include it. I don't typically like to cite other articles as the "right way" of doing something , but it's the only other place I've seen it. --
TravisBernard (
talk)
19:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)reply
Starring
I watched the movie including the end credits, and the following actors and actresses were listed at the beginning of the credit. This usually means they are the main cast members.
Jesse Eisenberg as Blu
Anne Hathaway as Jewel
George Lopez as Rafael
Bernardo de Paula as Kipo
will.i.am as Pedro
Jamie Foxx as Nico
Tracy Morgan as Luiz
Jemaine Clement as Nigel
Leslie Mann as Linda
Rodrigo Santoro as Túlio
Jake T. Austin as Fernando
Carlos Ponce as Marcel
The infobox is an overview of the topic, and so "Starring" is usually a small field, no more than 3-5 names usually. After all, we have the "Cast" section listing all the main cast members. The infobox is just a snapshot and not meant to disclose everyone's names.
Erik (
talk |
contribs)
14:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)reply
Plot summary
All right, this is getting out of hand. An IP hopper from Brazil who uses the 189.70.XXX.XXX range continues to add that Jewel kisses Blu in the plot summary, rather than the simple "they kiss in midair", despite my efforts to trim the unnecessary descriptions. The IPs include:
If you really want, you can retrieve those covers. As you wrote on my talk page, you saw that I have a lot of soundtrack images uploaded, but I must say that it was in the beginning, when I just started editing. Back then I didn't know that there should not be soundtrack cover if it is the same as poster in the infobox. So I had a lot of problems with those images just to keep them. So I don't upload soundtrack covers anymore if they are the same as poster, because someone will definitely remove it from article, it's only a matter of time. So, as I said, you can retrieve them, but eventually, someone will remove it from article.
InfamousPrince10:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Maybe only one should be removed. Maybe keep the John Powell score album art (white with "RIO") and let the soundtrack album art (bunch of animals on the beach) be deleted?
dogman15 (
talk)
17:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)reply
There has been numerous changes to the cast section, specifically with the billed actors and non-billed actors. As far as I know, Jesse Eisenberg, Anne Hathaway, Leslie Mann, Jemaine Clement, George Lopez and Jamie Foxx are listed on the film's poster. However, in the cast section, there has been changes with the non-billed actors listed in prose or all-bulleted list format. Rather than getting involved in an edit war, I am going the
WP:BRD route and discuss things here. Thanks,
Lord Sjones23 (
talk -
contributions)
00:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)reply