This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofscience fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror infilm,literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to thegeneral Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror
–Article still provides virtually no encyclopedic coverage of the film, even almost 3 years later.
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level.BetacommandBot08:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And a human has re-rated it. This is clearly still a stub - even the IMDb page provides more information than this does. There's nothing here but the barest of statistical facts. —SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs.03:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
–Plot section needed improvement, but was mostly just deleted, and so needs to be rewritten.
While it's very informative, thePlot section is very disorganized and doesn't really follow the events of the movie in a coherent fashion.Oddity- (talk)01:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, one could say that the plot itself is not very coherent. ;) But the synopsis halts about halfway thru the movie, with no sense of how events in this movie, at points, are interrelated like parts of aRube Goldberg machine. --llywrch (talk)01:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a shorter (usual) cut at 1:12, and a longer 1:14 version released on region-free and possibly unofficial DVD (available on Amazon.com) calledThe City of Lost Children – As Originally Released (Korean release, with audio available in French or English, and subtitles available in French, English or Korean). This article should inform us as to the differences between the versions. I may order it and do the update myself, but anyone else should feel free to beat me to it. —SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs.03:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Klaw, Rick (2008). "The Steam-Driven Time Machine: A Pop Culture Survey". In Ann and Jeff VanderMeer. Steampunk. San Francisco, CA: Tachyon Publications. p. 355 This ref discusses the film as an example of Steampunk. Ref isn't incorporated into text of article yet, but is here to support category inclusion.AstroCog (talk)17:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose split. It's not a major game; just a film tie-in and not a great one of those. The appropriate level of coverage is about right with a section within the film article.Andy Dingley (talk)17:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
strong support You're the man, thanks for bringing this up again! I've yet to find the courage to do it, partially cause I still haven't played the game and I would enter into spoiler territory to push for a split, but better late than never. And yes, I don't think anyone can disagree with it meetingWP:NGAMES, I own far less popular games that have their own page. I would go even further to claim that the game is more popular than the actual movie.Punkalyptic (talk)21:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to utilize this page's talk section to further reiterate that not everyone looking for information on a film or story is seeking to have it retold in its entirety a la Cliff's Notes! This practice is pervasive in Wikipedia and is actively rude to those who are seeking some basic information on a film. Plot retellings should NOT be the first thing on an encyclopedic entry about a fictional work, and should furthermore be hidden unless specifically desired by the reader. MAKE IT STOP! Thank you!66.25.191.98 (talk)18:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The placement of the film plot directly after the lead section and the inclusion of spoilers in it without warning (other than that implied by the section title "Plot") are both per Wikipedia guidelines established after much debate--seeMOS:FILM andWP:Spoilers. If you want to see these guidelines amended, I would advise raising the matter at the talk pages of those guidelines. I think that it would be difficult to substantively change the established guidelines, but your chances will be improved if you review the archived debates to familiarize yourself with the arguments on the other side and then make a specific proposal that takes those arguments into consideration. If this sounds like a lot of time and effort (and it does to me), well, I'm sorry, but the community spent a lot of time and effort to establish these guidelines, so they ought not to be lightly abandoned. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk)19:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unresolved
