Talk:Metropolis (1927 film)

Metropolis (1927 film) was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 14, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
December 21, 2005	Good article nominee	Listed
June 20, 2006	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 10, 2007, January 10, 2012, and January 10, 2019.
Current status: Delisted good article

Film: German / Silent / Core

	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 German cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Silent films task force.
	This article is on the project's core list.

Science Fiction Top‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction 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.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Germany High‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2016. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Queen Mary, University of London/Research Methods (Film) (Spring 2016)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Request to add link to other article[edit]

Hi, I've been working on editing the Gothic double article for the past few months. It is still classified as a stub so I'm looking to divert some more traffic to the article in order for its classification to go up. I have a section on how the motif is used in Metropolis, and was wondering if I could please add a sentence or two in this article mentioning the use of the motif, and with a hyperlink to my own article? Please let me know. Thank you so much! Snowdrop Fairy (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The year the film is set...[edit]

I just noticed that in the second paragraph of the Plot section of the article, it states the movie is set in the year 2000. I'm pretty sure there's at least one version of the movie that starts out stating that the events are set "100 years hence," or words to that effect, presumably meaning 100 years forward from the year the movie came out... which would set the movie around the year 2026 or 2027, not 2000. Is there anyone here that has that edition of the movie? I've only got one of the cheap, budget-bin, knock-off DVDs, not the DVD with the major restored version of the film. Where did that year 2000 reference come from? It is not attributed. Is it from the novel? An interview? One of the other editions of the movie? --Nomad Of Norad (talk) 05:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the 'major restored edition', no date is mentioned. I've seen some writers call it 2000, others 2026. I don't know where these come from.Cop 663 (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This interview on WNYC states the film is set in 2026 http://beta.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/2010/may/07/metropolis-reconstructed/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.255.118.242 (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the confusion around the exact date in which the original version of Metropolis is set, I've decided to change that section from, "in the future of 2026, wealthy industrialists rule the vast city of Metropolis from high-rise tower complexes" to, "in the futuristic city of Metropolis, wealthy industrialists reign from high-rise tower complexes" WilliamBenjaminPritchard. (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The novel, written by Lang's wife in collaboration woth him and published before the film's release, states that "Metropolis does not take place in any particular time or setting, neither the past or future." Andrew G. Doe (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missing citations[edit]

All the missing citations in the WP:TRIVIA have been tagged. Any there is a consensus to keep should be cited or they will be removed in April. The WP:BURDEN of citing removed material is on the restorer. Skyerise (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "trivia", there is a valid "In popular culture" section, and you have no authority to issue deadlines such as this. Your responsibility is to discuss contested edits, per WP:BRD, not to put on a pretend mantle of authority and attempt to throw your weight around. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:V - which is policy - "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." and "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." I'm not dictating anything. I am applying policy. I don't have to wait until April, I can remove them all tomorrow. Quit your whining and cite your sources. Skyerise (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You removed on the basis of notability, and now are citing policy on verifiability. You've been here long enough to know these are not the same things. In any case, "May be removed", not "must be removed". Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely the difference between trivia and valid IPC content. Unless a third-party source has taken note of the usage, it's not "notable". You're right about the 'may', but that doesn't give you the right to violate the 'must'. You have to provide a source when restoring something removed as unsourced. I don't think long lists of trivia improve the encyclopedia, and I am acting to improve Wikipedia as I see fit. Just as you do. Cheerio! Skyerise (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "must" to be violated. The policy sets up a condition under which an editor may take action. It does not require it, as you agree. Without a "must" in the action, there is no "must" in the condition. A goodly percentage of material on Wikipedia would be gone with the wind if every editor took the "may" for "must". In general, editors need to put away their weapons, hunting for material to be deleted (many because they dislike IPC sections, and disagree with the fact that the community has never supported their wholesale removal) and instead concentrate on improving the encyclopedia in all possible ways.

In any case, discussion leading to consensus is the way, not personally imposed deadlines. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure there is. "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." - WP:V. My 'must' here is that improving the encyclopedia requires the removal of uncited material, for me. WP:V allows me to do so, despite your objections and your attempts to otherwise dissuade me. I both may and will. Oh, strawman! I am not removing any section wholesale, just the unverifiable entries, which is reasonable and accepted. Perhaps we can get the good article status restored! Skyerise (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The four roles in the credits that are missing, are Maria[edit]

thr article says "Four roles (The Creative Man, The Machine Man, Death, The Seven Deadly Sins) ", I just came out of the screening in Berlin of the 151 Minute restored Version. The four roles appear joined with Maria and credit the actor, as Maria turns into all those four things. She literally becomes the machine man, death, and the seven deadly sins. Stsz (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a RS to back that up? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

in popular culture[edit]

Hi,

It looks like parts of the chapter "Living Mannequins" from the game 'Layers of Fear 2' takes direct inspiration from the movie, references at 01:16:31, 01:17:02 and especially 01:19:00 in this walktrough video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cz9ORYsr0w&t=4593; and screenshots on this website https://www.neoseeker.com/layers-of-fear-2/walkthrough/Act2-Living_Mannequins Kytetiger (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Metropolis (1927 film) in popular culture into Metropolis (1927 film)#In popular culture[edit]

Not all the list is appropriate or necessary for such a list. Best to prune and merge into the main article. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]