Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheJoebro64 (talk | contribs) at 14:59, 20 July 2019 (→‎The Invisible Man (2020 film) and the Dark Universe). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to table of contents • Skip to bottom • Start new discussion
Shortcuts
WikiProject Film announcements and open tasks [
]

Article alerts • Articles needing attention • Assessment • Cleanup listing • Deletion sorting • New articles • Popular pages • Requests • Reviews


Did you know

Featured article candidates

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

(6 more...)

Featured article reviews

Featured list removal candidates

Peer reviews

View full version with task force lists
WikiProject Film
General information (
)
Main project page + talk
→ Discussion archives
Style guidelines talk
→ Multimedia talk
→ Naming conventions talk
→ Copy-editing essentials talk
Notability guidelines talk
Announcements and open tasks talk
→ Article alerts
→ Cleanup listing
→ New articles talk
→ Nominations for deletion talk
→ Popular pages
→ Requests talk
Spotlight talk
Film portal talk
Fiction noticeboard talk
Project organization
Coordinators talk
Participants talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Departments
Assessment talk
→ B-Class
→ Instructions
Categorization talk
Core talk
Outreach talk
Resources talk
Review talk
Spotlight talk
→ Spotlight cleanup listing
Topic workshop talk
Task forces
General topics
Film awards talk
Film festivals talk
Film finance talk
Filmmaking talk
Silent films talk
Genre
Animated films talk
Christian films talk
Comic book films talk
Documentary films talk
Marvel Cinematic Universe talk
Skydance Media talk
War films talk
Avant-garde and experimental films talk
National and regional
American cinema talk
Argentine cinema talk
Australian cinema talk
Baltic cinema talk
British cinema talk
Canadian cinema talk
Chinese cinema talk
French cinema talk
German cinema talk
Indian cinema talk
Italian cinema talk
Japanese cinema talk
Korean cinema talk
Mexican cinema talk
New Zealand cinema talk
Nordic cinema talk
Pakistani cinema talk
Persian cinema talk
Southeast Asian cinema talk
Soviet and post-Soviet cinema talk
Spanish cinema talk
Uruguayan cinema talk
Venezuelan cinema talk
Templates
banner
DVD citation
DVD liner notes citation
infobox
invite
plot cleanup
stub
userbox

List of American film actresses

I removed the ***** that had been added to identify actresses at least 80 years old, but the edit was reverted. Could someone from this project take a look and adjudicate. See the comments on the talk page. Thank you.--76.14.38.58 (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support your edit. Those asterisks just look weird, and I don't understand why they are needed. Betty Logan (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that the asterisks are unnecessary. Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there were to be a designation like this, it should be one asterisk or some other single character, not 10 asterisks like it previously was for some confusing reason. But in any event, I don't think the designation is particularly necessary either... — Hunter Kahn 21:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the other comments here and have taken the liberty of removing it again. Arbitray and unnecessary. PC78 (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By closing down an ongoing discussion on the talk page Atlantic306 (talk)
...and I've been reverted. Seems like most users think this should be removed though. PC78 (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Errors on page for 'Desert Shores (film)"

Watched this film on Amazon and see that the title was changed to "Salton Sea" upon it's release. The page's title should change with it. Also there is a poster image that can be added from their IMDB page https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BN2IzOWFhMzktNTczZS00YjQyLTg3NmMtNTU3N2IxOTFjYjJhXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjI3MDU2Mzk@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,666,1000_AL_.jpg.

You can see the title change here: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5884434/mediaviewer/rm3720714497 and here https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07TW9TK89?autoplay=1&ref=dvm_us_api_cs_hud_fb_GWRD-singleCW&pf_rd_p=e479604f-233b-4177-b107-fcfc45f79589&pf_rd_r=2344Y5N3JZNF3B6EA5S4

I'm not much of an editor so I couldn't do these changes myself but noticed they were wrong and want to support this film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaredit (talk • contribs) 13:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Todd (now Emily) VanDerWerff having come out as transgender

The consensus is to use the name currently shown in the bylines of the cited articles. Nardog (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC) (closed 18:29, 18 July 2019‎)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Because of this edit by an IP, which I followed up with this, this and this edit, I just found out that VanDerWerff has come out as transgender. As some or all of you may know, VanDerWerff is a critic we commonly use as a source in our articles regarding popular culture. I'm sure that there have been changes to a lot of Wikipedia articles regarding VanDerWerff, with respect to name usage and gender pronouns. And there is the MOS:GENDERID guideline to follow. At the article the IP popped up at, I chose to use the name "Emily Todd VanDerWerff" because, as seen here and here, it's currently what VanDerWerff uses, the source was changed to use that name, and because "Todd VanDerWerff" is still more recognizable than "Emily VanDerWerff." It seems that VanDerWerff is easing into the "Emily" name publicly because she is so well-known as Todd. But her blog commentary here indicates that she won't use "Todd" for long; she states, "I'm going to be publishing under the name Emily Todd VanDerWerff for a bit." She also states, "If you use my former name, well, I won’t like that very much." So maybe we shouldn't use "Emily Todd" at all, especially since she's likely to stop posting under "Emily Todd VanDerWerff"?

I'll alert WP:TV to this section for a centralized discussion per WP:TALKCENT. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the WPTV notification. So just to make it clear, at present Vox and A.V. Club have both changed the name to "Emily Todd VanDerWerff", which retroactively changes the byline in each of the articles she wrote. VanDerWerff is using just "Emily VanDerWerff" on Twitter and from the blog, it seems like she's planning to switch to that for Vox and A.V. Club articles in the near future. Currently it looks to me like "Todd" serves as a faux middle name on the bylines, so it wouldn't be inaccurate to just cite her as "VanDerWerff, Emily" (and refer to her as "Emily VanDerWerff" in prose), and this would prevent us from having to make the same name changes again if/when she switches to just "Emily VanDerWerff". — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that seems fine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bilorv, don't forget the pronouns. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have been looking for them, just forgot to on the first couple of pages I edited. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at your updates with regard to VanDerWerff's gender identity, I see that a lot of articles, perhaps most, actually hadn't been updated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there are hundreds of articles that haven't been updated, though it looks like over a hundred have been. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the MOS:GENDERID guideline is that there is no consensus on how to handle people who have changed genders when mentioning them in articles other than the one directly about them prior to their gender transition. Translation: from my reading, there did not seem to be an agreement on whether to retroactively change their name when citing a work that has been published by their previous name. The policy states to handle on a case-by-case basis using context which... is very unclear. So in this situation, are we deferring to Van Der Werff's personal preference to retroactively have all works published as Todd to now be referred to by her new name? I just want to understand what factors have been considered in this case so I know how to handle in future cases. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's my understanding of MOS:GENDERID too. You say whether to retroactively change their name when citing a work that has been published by their previous name but I think the operative phrase is "has been". Both The A.V. Club and Vox only exist as websites, as I understand it, and their bylines have now changed to read "Emily Todd VanDerWerff", so it's no longer correct to cite the author's name as "Todd VanDerWerff", and I also don't believe it would make sense for the prose to not match the reference. "Emily Todd VanDerWerff" would be a correct way to cite it, but it's not mandatory to cite an author's middle name, and Emily has expressed the intention that they will be changed to "Emily VanDerWerff" in the near future, so in the interest of not having to make the same hundreds of changes again in the near future, that's how I came to the conclusion that "Emily VanDerWerff" / "VanDerWerff, Emily" was the appropriate name to provide in this context. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean about biographies vs. other articles. I've addressed this in other cases. But I don't think "Todd VanDerWerff" should be used in some articles and not in others. The bylines have changed, and VanDerWerff clearly doesn't want to be referred to as "Todd" anymore (except temporarily as "Emily Todd VanDerWerff"). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I came here based on some edits I found saw in regard to this series of edits. Correct me if I am wrong, but don't we usually go by what their name is at the time something happened? For example, if you look at Barb Wire (film) it stars Pamela Anderson Lee. Raw Justice however lists her as Pamela Anderson. Just because in 1996 she changed her name, we didn't go back and retroactively change who starred in the movies. 1976 Summer Olympics says Bruce Jenner won, not Caitlyn. This should be no different. Anything prior to their name change should show Todd, anything after should show Emily. Wikipedia always goes by their name at the time, not their name later retroactively. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 18:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Galatz: do not mass revert the edits I made. I established consensus before making them. I am in a hurry now but I will reply to this message later; I've got plenty of responses to your questions. If I get back and see dozens of reverts then I'm reporting you for edit warring. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: Where do you see a census? There was a few people here who discussed and no clear consensus. You are making sweeping changes, and this should probably be in WP:VPP since it has major repercussions. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 18:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a comment about this statement by Galatz: "Anything prior to their name change should show Todd, anything after should show Emily. Wikipedia always goes by their name at the time, not their name later retroactively." The byline on her Vox and A.V. Club stories has been changed to "Emily Todd VanDerWorff", so if the reader clicks on the link in one of these articles, the author of the story would be "Emily", even if it was written years ago when she was known as "Todd". If the byline was changed retroactively, it not only seems appropriate to me that the Wikipedia articles should be as well. In fact, to not do so would be both inaccurate (since the cited author name would conflict with the source) and confusing to the reader (if they see Todd on the Wikipedia page but Emily if they visit the reference). So it would seem to me that Bilorv's edits are appropriate. — Hunter Kahn 20:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hunter Kahn: If a female that writes for one of those websites got married, and their by-line changes, would you suggest we go through and change every article to reflect their new name? Then when this said person got divorced and reverts back to their maiden name, do you propose we then go back through and change them all again. Then said person gets remarried, you then want us to go and change everything for a 4th time? There is no benefit to this - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 21:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Galatz: the policy being cited here is MOS:GENDERID, which applies only to issues of gender identity, not of marital status. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • And even putting that aside, if somebody did' go through and change bylines to reflect their new name, I certainly wouldn't mass revert every one of those edits. Especially since they ultimately made the article more accurate... — Hunter Kahn 23:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Firstly what you are referencing is a MOS not Policy. The vast majority of what you are citing relates to the article about the person's article itself. The only information about other articles than the person's article itself is Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis. Generally, do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. It states to use context on a case-by-case basis. Therefore in following this MOS there is nothing wrong with the ones before the name change remaining Todd and the ones after remaining Emily. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 11:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)In general I agree with Flyer22 Reborn take on the situation. Because modern day publishing allows for online bylines to be updated Emily is the name that makes the sense to use because it is what is showing now. Additionally, the change in our articles will prevent users from inadvertently using an incorrect name in future content discussions for this living person. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Hunter Kahn and FloNight and to anyone reading this, whether they agree with my edits or not I welcome discussion. What I don't welcome is someone reverting 100 of my edits as I frantically ask them to stop so that we can have a discussion, but I'll deal with that at ANI in a moment. As for Galatz's comments, let's break them down:

Correct me if I am wrong, but don't we usually go by what their name is at the time something happened? and Wikipedia always goes by their name at the time, not their name later retroactively.

Yes, you are wrong and a simple check against policy would have shown this, had you cared to spend 30 seconds before making 100 reverts. As the users including myself in the very discussion I linked to in each of my edit summaries pointed out, MOS:GENDERID is the relevant policy and it says: Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis. That is, no it does not say to go by someone's name "at the time something happened". Your subsequent examples are just that—examples of where context has been determined to provide former names. And this is a different context.

This should be no different.

Again, you're betraying that you didn't bother to read the above discussion. The bylines in the references you have changed are now factually incorrect, because if you follow the link you will see that the bylines contain "Emily" as the first name and "VanDerWerff" as the surname. "Todd" is a middle name but it is simply not correct to cite somebody by their middle name and surname. In fact, what you've restored is worse than factually incorrect (for Wikipedia's purposes)—it's unverifiable. We have discussed in this section that VanDerWerff plans to get the bylines changed in a short time to just "Emily VanDerWerff", at which point the references to "VanDerWerff, Todd" will no longer exist. With the sources in question, The A.V. Club and Vox, both exist only as online sources. It is standard, uncontroversial practice to update online references when they change—doing otherwise would simply make no sense. For instance, I've done it many times with these sorts of edits, in which a prior reference like "Ranking all 20 episodes of Charlie Brooker's chilling Black Mirror" no longer exists, having been replaced with a reference "Ranking all 23 episodes of Charlie Brooker's chilling Black Mirror". It is an uncontroversial change to update a reference to match the source it actually references. "Todd VanDerWerff" is no longer the name of the person who wrote the source and so it's not correct to cite them in the reference or in the prose; the references now say "Emily VanDerWerff", referring to a female contributor, and hence we need to use that name and female pronouns. MOS:GENDERID says to use context and the broader context of reference data integrity, which itself is fundamental to WP:V, is what makes the name changes the logical option in this case. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: I am familiar with both the policy and the discussion as I read both in full prior to reverting. I am aware that you linked to a conversation between two people, and deemed that a consensus (you only linked part of the conversation for some reason). The context between the example I gave and this are no different. At the time of the review the articles were written as Todd. Just like how she was Pamela Anderson vs Pamela Anderson Lee. We use an access date in references for a reason, and an archive.org pull of the page will show what it looked like at the time of the sourcing, where the name was Todd. If the review was taken down and replaced by a bot to the archived page, it will show Todd and not match your change to Emily, would you then go through and change them back? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 21:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Archive pages have nothing to do with it; if we have cited a source then the references should match our reference metadata, as demonstrated by my Black Mirror example above. We use access dates for a reason, yes, but that reason is not so that we can continue citing an old version of a source no matter what—rather, it's often to say "this is when we checked the reference and if that's a long time ago, this part of our article may need updating". Consider if we link to an article which has a factual mistake which is later corrected by the newspaper—we cannot continue citing the "old fact" rather than the actually correct information. We then need to update the Wikipedia page. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discovered this through ANI. The person has expressed a desire to be known in their entirety as Emily, so I support changing her name retrospectively. I'm unwatching this page and won't change my opinion, so please don't drag me into an extended argument, but please ping me if you need to. SportingFlyer T·C 22:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This popped up on my watchlist, I checked out the discussion, noticed that it had progressed beyond the permalink but was still of same general disposition, was pleased that this was happening in compliance with policy in such a low drama manner and went about my business. I was disappointed to then see it at ANI so I'm back here to express my explicit support for the change. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I ask the question of why does a gender change resulting in a name change take a different answer than a person marrying changing their name. If you were to ask Todd/Emily my assumption would be that they will tell you they have been a girl since they were born. Therefore they were a girl name Todd who chose a new name they more closely identified with. No one is changing Bruce Jenners medals to being won by Caitlyn, why is this different? If Bill Clinton came out and said he is changing his name to Jefferson Clinton would we change who was the president of the US? If he came out and said he was becoming Betty Clinton would that change your answer? What if the US government changed their website to say she now goes by Betty and showed the 42nd President as being Betty Clinton? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 11:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As was mentioned several times above, each of those hypothetical examples is slightly different from the Van Der Werff situation and per MOS guidelines, we would want to use context in each case to determine what to do. I am not going to give a blanket "yes" or "no" answer to each of them because we should not handle each case the same way. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 12:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously every case is different, but the underlying issues are the same. As I stated above Emily/Todd would say they have been a girl since they were born, this is a name change, not a gender change.
Lets look at this exact same example, but take the gender change out. If Todd became Keith, would you want to go back and change everything to Keith? If they were born in a female body, and was given the name Tabatha, but decided to change her name to Emily, would you want to go back and change everything to Emily? If you are answer is no, then please explain why Todd/Emily is different. If your answer is yes, please explain why, based on what MOS/Policy. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 12:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There would be no reason not to use the new name. VanDerWerff doesn't have a Wikipedia page, so a lot of the thornier issues with when and where to use old names and gender expressions is removed, doubly so given that most of the major publications she wrote for have also changed their bylines. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here to offer explicit support and to note that if Galatz is the only person objecting to the change, at this point, the consensus appears crystal-clear to me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also support Bilorv's changes to make the byline match what's on the news articles. Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also support the idea to change Todd to Emily. And I'm going to be frank: this is a silly argument that shouldn't have happened. Emily changed her name, and many of the websites that she wrote for changed their bylines to match. Changing the text so it reads "Emily" is useful because a) it now matches what those major websites have and b) does not confusion for readers (as seeing two different names might). Using "Todd" may not only be hurtful to the author (for a variety of reasons) but frankly it is just confusing to readers.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although it would mean more work, if we're going to change the specific references, then we should use whatever the article credit currently is when you click on the reference and go to the web page: Emily Todd if that's what it says, and Emily if that's what it says. If Emily Todd is a stepping stone, then use that while the sources do, and change again whenever the sources make that change. References should reflect the source as it is today, not as it is anticipated to be at some point in the future. (In any event, I think it should change from Todd, since that isn't the name on it. I haven't checked the reference changes, but "access-date" should change to reflect the date the name change is being made in the reference, since it was Todd at the old access date.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're interested in editing the 1000 or so relevant articles yourself twice each, you can, but it's never been mandatory to cite somebody's middle name. Thanks for the accessdate note, something I hadn't considered, which I'll look at when making future edits. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: obviously I can't do this as I'm involved, but if someone could either snow close this discussion or comment saying that there's now a consensus, that would be helpful. I count 12 users in support, 1 with concerns and Galatz in (presumably) opposition. I trust that if Galatz actually had any interest in discussion, as they so claimed, that they will now revert their 116 edits from yesterday. Otherwise I'll make the changes myself between 20 and 30 hours from now, because every time one of those pages gets an intermediary edit it means that the edit will have to be undone manually, not a task I look forward to. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Highlander articles

Came across Quickening (Highlander) through some series of clicks that started with Starship Troopers and noticed it seemed pretty heavily reliant on primary sources. Clicking around to some other Highlander-related articles, I'm seeing a lot of that: Watcher (Highlander), Ahriman (Highlander), Four Horsemen (Highlander), Nick Wolfe, Immortal (Highlander), The Kurgan, etc. Could maybe use some attention from folks more familiar with the degree of sourcing available for this one. (I was a fan of Highlander 2 when I was a kid and didn't know better, being one of the first rated R movies I had seen, but that was the end of my knowledge of the series). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Average row removal

Regarding The Lord of the Rings (film series), there is a dispute about whether or not the "Critical and public response" table should have an "Average" row. A discussion has been started here: Talk:The Lord of the Rings (film series)#Average row. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Harold Holland

I am having trouble getting this draft approved and I'd be happy to have assistance. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (2005 direct-to-video film)

A move request at Talk:H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (2005 direct-to-video film)#Requested move 12 July 2019 might benefit from a few more eyes. See also an earlier discussion from 2016 at Talk:H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (Hines film)#Requested move 2 July 2016. PC78 (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Invisible Man (2020 film) and the Dark Universe

@DisneyMetalhead: has been insisting that this film is apart of the Dark Universe, which had not had any announcements made about it in a few years. None of the recent news surrounding the film have made any reference to it being apart of or a new relaunch of the franchise. I’ve tried removing the sentence about the DU twice now but DMH keeps readding it. Am I wrong here? Rusted AutoParts 22:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Has there been ANY reference to this being part of Dark Universe in the past? You say there has been no mention recent news articles, but are there any from years back that say it? If so, maybe there is a way to include something in the article like "It was announced in February 2005 (or whatever) that this film would be part of Dark Universe, but recent publicity around the film includes no references to it." Or something like that? I realize that probably borders on WP:OR, so maybe other editors would agree or disagree. (Alteratively, if there has never been a reference to this movie being part of the Dark Universe, the solution is easy: there should be no reference to it in the article at all.) — Hunter Kahn 01:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hunter Kahn: there is sourced suggesting this, and already exists in the article. The issue is @DisneyMetalhead: insisting its still part of the Dark Universe when there’s nothing to bolster this claim. Rusted AutoParts 03:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Dark Universe hardly even existed. Outside of The Mummy, there was talk of tying Dracula Untold to it and a few projects in development, but it was really nothing more than a plan Universal had before The Mummy bombed. I agree that it's entirely incorrect to say The Invisible Man is part of the same franchise. Also worth noting this has been a recurring issue with DMH for some time; we've had tons of similar problems at the DC Extended Universe article for the same reasons. JOEBRO64 22:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve provided a link for DMH from Variety about how Universal was moving from the Dark Universe but I got reverted and was told I was “reading between the lines”. Rusted AutoParts 22:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That behavior doesn't surprise me. JOEBRO64 22:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64: are you kidding me? What issues have you had with me, and what 'behavior' do you reference? @Rusted AutoParts: what I have repeatedly stated is that there is no statement from the studio stating that the Dark Universe has ended. Likewise to say that the Dark Universe never evolved past a concept is also incorrect. The only official statement is the one that you have stated before. they do not state that the Dark Universe is over/past idea/nor that they are moving on from it. They state that they are focusing on individual installments. @Hunter Kahn: is exactly right in stating "Has the film ever been Dark Universe?" the answer is yes. Conversely, has the film officially been declared as "not a part of the Dark Universe?"...the answer is no. We cannot make decisions for studios based on tabloid commentary.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Variety source directly says The move is part of a fresh strategy for Universal’s monsters properties, bringing creative directors with distinctive visions to the classic characters and moving on from the interconnected Dark Universe concept. Rusted AutoParts 20:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see. Blatantly editing against existing consensus ([1], [2], [3]), repeatedly reverting to your preferred revision of the page ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]), and editing against/going beyond what sources say ([10], [11], [12]). And this is far from an exhaustive list—if I had more time, I'm sure I'd find a lot more. JOEBRO64 21:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TheJoebro64: No, each of those reverts as due to the fact of dispute on reliable sources. That is the intent/reasoning behind any of those you just linked. Assume good faith, bruv. Additinoally you need to re-read guidelines regarding WP:Don't be rude. Your scornful comments are lacking in WP:Civility (see: WP:CIVIL-Avoid condescension). I trust that each of us have the goal of making Wikipedia as accurate as possible.

The factual sequence of events regarding this film is as follows:

  • 1. The Invisible Man announced to be in development with Ed Solomon writing the script
  • 2. franchise given the name of Dark Universe
  • 3. Johnny Depp cast in the role/slate of films announced
  • 4. Dark Universe stalled: The Bride of Frankenstein filming put on hold for scriptwork
    • Franchise as a whole re-assessed after The Mummy was not as well-received as they would have liked
    • The co-runners/producers of the franchise, depart the franchise due to creative differences.
  • 5. President of Universal production states: "We've learned many lessons throughout the creative process on Dark Universe so far, and we are viewing these titles as filmmaker-driven vehicles, each with their own distinct vision. We are not rushing to meet a release date and will move forward with these films when we feel they are the best versions of themselves." (emphasis added)(ref)
  • 6. Ed Solomon leaves project stating that the studio is "reconfiguring" the franchise(ref)
  • 7. Bride of Frankenstein still continues to be in development with director hiring crew. (ref)
  • 8. Jason Blum expresses interest in helping to shepherd/oversee the franchise, directly referred to as Dark Universe in this thread. The filmmaker expressed interest in several public instances, including stating that he is not making a new monster franchise.
  • 9. Graphic artist announces that he's been hired by the studio to collaborate on future movies within the Dark Universe, identifying the official new team behind the franchise.(ref)
  • 10. Jason Blum is hired as producer for The Invisible Man
  • 11. Leigh Whannell is hired as director/writer for Invisible Man. Blum states that elements of Solomon's script may remain. - studio considers keeping Johnny Depp
    • Invisible Man ultimately re-cast

As you can see here, I'm not just attempted to 'preserve my opinion' as you both have insinuated. I'm looking at all the facts here. At no point does the studio say that the franchise is dead, nor do they state that it is abandoned. They have simply 'reconfigured' the franchise to be standalone features in order to make each installment "the best versions of themselves". --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • P.S.: additionally, @Rusted AutoParts:' source from Variety states: "The talent previously attached to various monster roles like Depp, Javier Bardem, Tom Cruise, and Russell Crowe still have the option to appear in the movies after a filmmaker with a new vision is brought on."(ref) - indicating continued continuity, as a priority for the studio... The franchise of films is continually referred to as Dark Universe in each of these sources. All that has occurred is - at this time - the franchise is focusing on individual characters, not a shared universe as initially planned (a similar approach was recently taken by WB/DC with their [[DC Extended Universe|shared film universe]).--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And you say I read between the lines. Okay, first off the bat, Blum saying he’d like to take it over doesn’t equate to him actually taking over Dark Universe as of now. Saying script elements from the DU version MAY remain isn’t confirmation it’s still the planned DU version. Whether or not Bride of Frankenstein was still in development in....February 2018? (talk about outdated information) doesn’t have any barrings in the development of The Invisible Man. That graphic artist posted that in May 2018, nothing came from it since. So until you provide a reliable source from the production notes made in regards to this iteration of Invisible Man that has anything saying directly “The Invisible Man is part of the Dark Universe”, saying it is part of the Dark Universe is baseless speculation. Also cool it with the pings. The actors still having options to return isn’t confirmation they are or that this has any connection to those films. Rusted AutoParts 04:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reference @Hunter Kahn:'s input again: Has there been ANY reference to this being part of Dark Universe in the past? Yes in every instance/reference.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source please. Rusted AutoParts 04:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
....I gave the reliable sources, please.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Screenrant and Slashfilm aren’t aren’t as reliable sources as Variety, Deadline or Hollywood Reporter. Besides all those sources are outdated, and make no reference to the current iteration of The Invisible Man. Rusted AutoParts 04:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusted AutoParts: again, I have no beef with you. Do not tell me what to do, I will ping when appropriate. Refresh your memory to guidelines: WP:Don't be rude. Refer to WP:CIVILity-Avoiding Incivility, bullet 3: Nobody likes to be bossed about by an editor who appears to believe that they are "superior". A reference being from 2018, does not render it inaccurate. Additionally I clarify - that I was not stating that Blum is running the Dark Universe. I stated that the facts are he had/has interest in the franchise. The resounding/defining statement comes from Universal President of Production: "We've learned many lessons throughout the creative process on Dark Universe so far...will move forward with these films when we feel they are the best versions of themselves." Your Variety source explicitly states: "The talent previously attached to various monster roles like Depp, Javier Bardem, Tom Cruise, and Russell Crowe still have the option to appear in the movies after a filmmaker with a new vision is brought on." All things I have stated have reliable sources, and quote the actual developers of the projects.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And you're now stating that Screenrant and Slashfilm aren't reliable as Variety, Deadline or Hollywood Reporter... each of my references has a direct source within them. I also just debunked your theory from the Variety source.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, Stop. Pinging. Me. I’m already watching the discussion I do not need constant alerting you’ve responded. You see it as me bossing you around and being superior, I see it as me asking you to stop badgering me with pings. That quote you keep using is from 2017. Since then in January this year they have now said “We are excited to take a more individualized approach for their return to screen, shepherded by creators who have stories they are passionate to tell with them”. No mentions about Dark Universe were made in that statement, so to say it’s Dark Universe is inference on your part. Either way we’ve both said our pieces. If you respond, please please do not ping me about it. It’s borderline hounding. Rusted AutoParts 04:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As The Invisible Man (2020 film) reads right now, the sentence (which is properly sourced) says "In February 2016, the project was redeveloped to be a part of Universal's shared cinematic universe, intended to consist of their classic monsters." It seems to me this is fair to include. However, to the point made by Rusted AutoParts, the Universal Classic Monsters page cites this reliable source in saying "In January 2019, Universal announced that they were moving on from the Dark Universe, and would instead serve as standalone features." It would seem to me that it would be appropriate to include this in the Invisible Man article as well. So that article could be revised to something like: "In February 2016, it was announced the project was being developed as part of Universal's Dark Universe, a shared cinematic universe intended to consist of their classic monsters.[1] However, in January 2019, Universal announced that they were moving on from the Dark Universe, and would instead serve as standalone features.[2]" It would seem to me this would be a better solution than just straight-up omitting a mention of the shared universe altogether, and could possibly be a compromise between the two differing opinions voiced in this argument? — Hunter Kahn 04:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not against mentioning it was intended to be apart of a shared universe in the production section, I’m just against saying it’s an instalment of the Dark Universe in the lead paragraph like it was being edited as, when it’s not been said to be so. Rusted AutoParts 05:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your refusal to get the point is astounding. "Your scornful comments are lacking in WP:Civility (see: WP:CIVIL-Avoid condescension)." Really? I just provided over 10 diffs showing numerous instances of your troublesome behavior, which includes violations of WP:OWN, WP:3RR, and WP:SQS. You're just trying to use WP:Civility to discredit my observations when in actuality I have just proven you are problematic. JOEBRO64 12:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:World War II films made in wartime

Gildir is deleting this category from a large number of film articles, presumably with a view to emptying and deleting the category.

However, the category describes a well-defined, relevant class of film, and provides a direct method of retrieving such films for study. The edit comment is overcat[egorisation], but no other category enables just this search, and the films I examined did not have a specially large number of categories. I would be interested to know what other editors think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My intention isn't to empty and delete the category, only to remove it from articles which are in its subcategories (and subcategories of those categories). Gildir (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Jr, Mike Fleming; Jr, Mike Fleming (2016-02-10). "Johnny Depp To Star In 'The Invisible Man' At Universal". Deadline. Retrieved 2019-07-15.
  2. ^ ‘Invisible Man’ Finds Director, Sets New Course for Universal’s Monster Legacy (EXCLUSIVE)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film&oldid=907107031"