Talk:Volcano (1997 film)

California: Los Angeles / Southern California

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force.
	This article is supported by Southern California task force.

Film: British / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

United States: Cinema

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Well, we had pleasure watching 4 seconds of our old office apartment complex, soon to be demolished at Sinai Temple 10400 Wilshire, burst into flames. Watching the filming of it was a treat, too! Movie fun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.120.23.127 (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

There seems to have been something of a minor edit war overnight with this article. Can I remind both parties that the best place to resolve differences in opinion is on this talk page, rather than through edit summaries? The former is far more conducive to debate and reconciliation; the latter rarely is. It seems like DeWaine has made several excellent improvements to the article, which I don't think AnmaFinotera would disagree with; most of the dispute seems to come from how that information is presented. As far as that goes, putting some of the quotes in the reception section into boxes is sometimes a good idea, if only to break up the giant wall-o'-text that these sections often become. My usual tack to try to avoid drawing unfair notice to one comment over another is to have one be positive, the other negative. That may or may not work here, and it's not the only way, but I urge both editors to at least discuss it outside of edit summaries. On the small "Production" sub-sections, if the intent is to expand those into longer sections at some point very soon, then maybe they could be left in. However, if the current content is as far as it's going to go, there's probably no need for them. On images of the cast, I often find it useful to include such where free ones are available, if only to break up the text for decorative purposes, although here perhaps more care could be taken on their sizing and placement, as they could become too overbearing. Another method could be to source some decent casting information suitable enough for its own section and create a composite cast image, such as I did here, which doesn't look excessive in that wider context. As I say, we should always remember the "discuss" part of the bold, revert, discuss cycle; it would be a shame to see two excellent editors develop feelings of rancour towards one another by forgetting that. Steve ^T • C 09:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I respect other people's opinions, and I'm open to new ideas and viewpoints. I can't say I entirely agree with all the changes that were made, but I'm willing to compromise on most of them. I'm not going to revert the edits that were made to my additions, but I feel it necessary to make an inclusion with the External links section. I added the Box Office Mojo link because it provides detailed information regarding financial stats on the film that a user would be interested in reading further about. Placing the link there is not in any way redundant. It provides supplemental information on the film. Also, a reader should not have to manually search through the article to pinpoint and find the exact sentences regarding the business release information. It's provided there for a quick and easy reference find. Same issue with the Rotten Tomatoes link. It provides supplemental reviews for those who would like to read into criticisms further. It provides additional viewpoints on the film that are not displayed in this article. And again, its provided there for quick easy access instead of searching for the sentence in the Reception section for the internet link. Countless film articles include those supplemental links in a stand-alone fashion; and to say its redundant or not necessary is ludicrous. I also added titles for the subsections in the Reception section to make it easier to navigate through, as according to WP:MOSFILM. The rest of the article, I did not revert as to avoid an edit war. DeWaine (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Critic overload

The critical reception section is ridiculously long. There are views from no less than a dozen different critics (several of whom say essentially the same thing), 2 block quotes and is over 1,100 words. Really? This section needs cut down sigificantly. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from someone who doesn't live in LA

After watching this movie, which wasn't very clear, I did my homework on Los Angeles by looking up some maps, and I'm wondering: Is there really a holly hills strom drain that leads to Ballona Creek?

Also, since Roark couldn't get the lava to flow down Wilshire to the ocean Amy suggested that Roark should let the lava pool at Wilshire and Fairbanks to try to get the lava to "dam itself" like in Iceland. But in Iceland the lava dammed and diverted itself -- the dam didn't hold back the lava, it simply moved it elsewhere. Looking at a map of Los Angeles, did they want to divert the lava (and to where? The lava would divert to more houses!) or simply stop it (and how, unless the remainder of the fresh lava switched to the red line)? 95.55.122.21 (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

box office performance

The sentence "Taking into account its $90 million budget, the film was technically considered a moderate financial success after its theatrical run" is unsourced. Moreover, it is highly improbable: a movie with that weak box office performance would be considered a definite flop, regardless of any future prospects.

Since the sentence is not only unsourced but likely misleading, I've removed it. 213.112.134.159 (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I did not verify every source link. But after sampling a half dozen, the links associated with sources 4, 5 and 18 do not take you to the indicated source. Instead, they take you to the broad website (e.g. Yahoo! or Los Angeles Times), but not the specific article or site. Jonjjjej (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dester12

Bounty2003, why are you keep reverting the text here in Volcano Flim while i'm trying to put new details on the article. Usually there is no bad grammer and word unclear. Please i want put new details on the article Bounty203, by leaving a reply message. I swear god. Dester12 (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dester12: It was I who reverted your changes, not Bounty203, and the reason I did so was because your changes added excess, unnecessary wordiness, and introduced a grammar error (the plural of man is men, not mans). Reading your question here, it is clear that English may not be your first language, and that your command of English grammar may be incomplete. I would recommend that you not try to "fix" grammar that you may not completely understand. You may be happier editing the Wikipedia in your native language. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]