Talk:The Mummy (1999 film)

Featured article standing

Currently, this aritcle does not appear to be up to quality to be a featured article on Wikipedia. I've listed some quibbles below.

• Some citations do not seem to correlate to their source, specifically, the genre citation in the lead calls it a "horror action hybrid", not an action-adventure as currently stated.
• Several cast and crew members mentioned in the infobox are unsourced and not mentioned anywhere in the article.
• Is the Scorpion King" a spin-off or a prequel? It suggests both but it is not cited in the article either.
• Premiere is being discussed at screening at Universal City. What is this? It's not cited in the article.
• Several additions have been made to sourced material over the years (particularly in production), and its not clear if it was actually part of the original article as seen here.
• Awards section and roller coaster section has no sources whatsoever.
• Some citations, specifically the video game adaptation, is sourced to a bare-URL.

These items need to be fixed or this article risks being pushed for a Featrued Article review to see if it still holds ground. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Cast information that can simply be found in the credits doesn't need additional citations. Likewise, for the genre you're talking about a citation to a book about action adventure films. That you could call it beyond that an action horror film as a subgenre is kind of irrelevant (and we've had people edit-warring for years over that nonsense.) Beyond that I'm happy to revert the cruft additions that have been added over the years; there's only so much I can keep on top of. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not the cast information that was the issue, it was more of the technical team. As for the genre, I understand it being edit warred, it should either come to a conesnsus, or at least match the source in question. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

While I think credits for anybody involved in a film, even the crew, don't need citations as, you know, they're credited in the film, I agree with a lot of this. Plus, subsections in the release and reception are lacking info from many other contemporaneous sources and suffer from quote farm tendencies (although the opinions in the legacy section look well put together). I mean, come on, newspaper sources at the time discuss trends in the film and bring up films by the biggest studios in doing so, including The Mummy; I can say this cause I have experience editing and reading other WP film articles. Also, I think there's more sources and details to add for the production section too. At best, this is just GA quality. HumanxAnthro (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• @HumanxAnthro: and @Andrzejbanas: might be helpful to have you revisit. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Wow, things surely improved since months after I commented here. I'd have to read the sources to see how well the prose represents them, and if there are other sources the article is missing, but we're definitely headed in the right direction. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2021

Mention the genre as: action, adventure, fantasy film instead of just American film.

don't post replies as, not done, change x to y, give sources

Action, adventure, fantasy

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120616/

Action, Fantasy, Adventure

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1087270-mummy 2402:3A80:1C40:3AF7:60E8:CB19:9ECD:38AA (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

 Note: the text which is being proposed was removed by Andrzejbanas (talk · contribs) on 27 January with the reason: “removed citation for genre in the lead which was making a hybrid of genres based on two of the three mentioned genres in the article”. DigitalChutney (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: IMDB is not a reliable source (user-generated content); and I'm unsure about Rotten Tomatoes on this exact aspect (it's reliable for other bits, though), but it only says "Action/Fantasy"; no mention of "adventure". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2021

The genre needs to be mentioned. If IMDB is not reliable then use reliable. Those who edited this page, they can discuss and come to a conclusion. Don't close this as "not done"

https://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-mummy

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl3546646017/

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1087270-mummy

All mention action, adventure, fantasy. 2402:3A80:1A40:5CBA:CD94:EB12:93A6:FBFD (talk) 10:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)

how will this consensus be established, where, and who are those editors who will take part in consensus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:1A40:5CBA:A53E:C1EA:CBAB:9275 (talk • contribs)

Consensus for genre

Those who are interested please comment what is the genre of this film.

1- action, adventure, fantasy

2- action, adventure

3- action, adventure, horror

4- adventure, horror

--2402:3A80:1A40:5CBA:A53E:C1EA:CBAB:9275 (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Consensus is derived not from pure voting, but consensus. The relevant question is what do the preponderance of reliable sources describe the film as? Sommers himself in the article describes it as a romantic adventure movie with horror elements, not a horror film per se. The 2019 book The Mummy on Screen: Orientalism and Monstrosity in Horror Cinema describes it as action-adventure. I think really the safest thing I can say looking at sources is that it's not a horror film. "Fantasy" seems less used as a descriptor than straightforward "adventure". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia

I am planning on recording a spoken word .ogg version of this article for the WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. This will be my first contribution to the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRennocks (talk • contribs) 20:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The article has been recorded! I've done my best to add it in the proper format, but if I've got anything wrong, a kind correction would be appreciated. JRennocks (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes consensus

@David Fuchs: Yesterday I added the consensus from Rotten Tomatoes for this film because that's what we generally do on our film articles. The consensus provides the reader with a brief summary of how critics felt about the film, much like our nutshell template. Now, it's understandable on some articles not to include the consensus, such as Gods of Egypt, since that film's consensus was found to be too comically poetic. But there's nothing about The Mummy's consensus that warrants its exclusion; it's brief and it provides a decent summary of what most critics thought. We should include it. Songwaters (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Cherry-picked examples are not evidence of best practices or guidelines. And they mostly demonstrate why it shouldn't be included—it turns the opening of every critical response paragraph into a paint-by-numbers scheme of "On Rotten Tomatoes this, on Metacritic that" that is boring and incredibly samey to read. Not having the capsule review is the least one can do to try and help with that problem (personally, I'd summarize the critical averages even further, and especially with a 1999 film where Rotten Tomatoes wasn't a major established presence, same with Metacritic, they really shouldn't be given as much space as they are already in this article.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

First off, my examples were not cherry-picked, they were the first nine films I thought of, most of which I hadn't looked at the consensus of before. Second, seeing how virtually every other film on Wikipedia includes the consensus, there doesn't seem to be a consensus that the inclusion of the Rotten Tomatoes summary is "boring" and "samey"; please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not for you but for our readers, many of which undoubtedly find value in knowing the consensus without having to do an extra click to find it. There's no evidence that it's a widespread "problem". Third, it doesn't matter if Rotten Tomatoes was not as major a presence in 1999 as it is today; the consensus still summarizes how critics have generally felt since its release. Songwaters (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The fact that editors try and make every film article read the exact same is a widespread problem, as your examples prove. And yes, trying to pass off the RT score as contemporaneous as the article currently does is also a problem. You have no guideline to furnish saying that the log line of a random uncredited person on Rotten Tomatoes should be given undue weight compared to actual contemporaneous and notable critics. As such, you need to get consensus for such a change here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Patricia Velásquez is missing in starring section

Patricia Velásquez (Anck-su-Namun) is missing in the starring section (below the image). Was that intentional? 2A01:E11:1009:C040:D1C3:2F3F:B233:787E (talk) 08:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The Mummy and The Mummy 2 are two different films. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Character list links

Hello @David Fuchs: I think the [[List of The Mummy (film series) characters# links in this edit should stay. Invasive Spices (talk) 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Recent reversions

Hello David Fuchs This edit by Harborist reflects the phrase and sources in Gara Medouar. The source that is here now does say "volcano" but that is not correct and they are not experts in that subject.

If O'Connell is O'Connell throughout the film then it will confuse readers to insist upon Rick merely because other characters are referenced that way. That's a strange reason.

All edits for the last month have been your reversions of others. Perhaps it's time to let others edit the article. Invasive Spices (talk) 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Having a laissez faire attitude with random edits is what led to this article significantly degrading, which I then had to spend a ton of time cleaning up. I'm not interested in having to do that again. What is the issue with Gara Medouar? I adjusted the phrasing here, so I'm not sure why that remains an issue. And I'm not going to bother trying delicate surgery to try and salvage bad edits. Beyond the O'Connell, they added unnecessary details throughout. It's not a net positive to the plot section. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

What is the issue with Gara Medouar? I adjusted the phrasing here, so I'm not sure why that remains an issue. I don't know what you adjusted but the volcano phrasing remains. Reverting someone's correction with an edit summary admitting this is a reversion to incorrect phrasing is a strange choice. The massif phrasing has citations in Gara Medouar.

Beyond the O'Connell, they added unnecessary details throughout. One of those unnecessary details was a correction of the 1923 phrasing to the correct 1923 and 1926.

FA does not justify reverting every edit to an article. Invasive Spices (talk) 8 December 2022 (UTC)