Talk:A Bug's Life/Archive 1

Sequel

Is there a possibility for a sequel to A Bug's Life? Scorpionman 01:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Er...yes...no...maybe? According to the Big Cartoon Database, A Bug's Life II should be out this year. Then again, they're also saying that Ratatouille will be out in 2006 (before Cars) and Ray Gun is a Pixar movie. --Wack'd About Wiki 16:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't trust anything that the BCD says. They've talked so much nonsense that I don't even go there anymore. Are there any plans for a sequel to A Bug's Life? Scorpionman 17:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. A Bug's Death Ha ha! That's funny. I don't care who you are, that's funny! If you don't think its funny you can get the hell outta here. Comedian

Did you get that from the exterminator in The Simpsons? ViperBite 00:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I hear it will be made in 2018 for it's 20th year

Yoikes. Twenty years later huh? I don't think any film's ever gotten a sequel twenty years after its release. Scorpionman 23:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually there was a squeal to Bambi and it was made way after 20 years so there is a change also is it true that there will be a squeal to Cars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.27.75 (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Animated short

What animated short(s) aired with this movie at any time? This includes in theters or on DVD/VHS. --Wack'd About Wiki 16:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The VHS/DVD edition had the short Geri's Game. Squidward2602 15:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Script...

Um, is there a site that has the script of A Bug's Life? If there is, please link it here! I need for a story that is based on this movie. I am a writer/artist. ^__^

Title

Why is this page called a bug's life, all in lower-case? Even Pixar doesn't insist upon that. The lower-case title graphic is just an artistic flourish and not part of the actual title. What's next? FINDING NEMO? AC(lightning bolt)DC? --typhoon 23:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Heimlich?

Does anybody know what kind of caterpillar he is? ViperBite 00:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

He looks like he's just a big fat green worm to me. Although, I have seen a big garden caterpillar similar to him...can't remember where though. Scorpionman 23:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody know what exact species of caterpillar Heimlich is? because I'm not so sure. 2601:98A:301:4E70:747E:63DB:7993:5D98 (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article?

What are anybody's thoughts on trying to improve this article to FA standard? Naturally, the first step would be a peer review, then we can work on it. It would be nice to emulate the success of the Final Fantasy articles and have several Pixar articles featured. RMS Oceanic 10:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Toy Story would have a good chance of being a Pixar featured article. And the actual Pixar article itself is looking pretty good. --211.26.122.42 10:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

)

Japanese voice actors

Is there any particular reason that the Japanese voice actors are listed at the end of each of the character's description? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MinionOfCthulhu (talk • contribs) 06:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

They didn't seem necessary so I removed them.--The Not-So-Funny-Comedian 02:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

there is some japanese voice actores but they dont use there japanese voiceInsert non-formatted text here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.212.57 (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Madeline Kahn Inconsistency

From this article: "The film was directed by John Lasseter and is also the last film appearance of Madeline Kahn."

From the Madeline Kahn article: "She also voiced Gypsy the moth in A Bug's Life. Kahn received some of the best reviews of her career for her Chekhovian turn in the 1999 independent movie Judy Berlin, her final film.

There appears to be an inconsistency.129.59.75.215 (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

a bugs new life makers

a bugs life is made by disney —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.212.57 (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually By Pixar. 70.62.142.66 (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Flick Edit

Propose removal for the text: He is friends with Dot and the Circus Bugs. Under Flick's character description. He is not "friends" with those groups. 70.62.142.66 (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Photos

I honestly think there should be at least one photo of the characters or an important scene in the movie, such as Flik and the bird contraption. Can somebody please add this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.68.23.33 (talk) 02:43, May 27, 2012‎

Screenshots of the movie must be used sparingly, as they are copyrighted. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Omit tracklist?

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.

---

My efforts to omit tracklist and to convert relevant info into prose were reverted. Should we abide to MOS:FILM#Soundtrack that discourages tracklist that mostly has names of film scores, or should we ignore it? --George Ho (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It is standard practice to include a soundtrack tracklist in the film's article. Koala15 (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Mostly which is against what the guideline says: "Track listings for film scores are generally discouraged since the score is usually composed by one person and the score's tracks are generic descriptions of scenes from the film. Noteworthy tracks from the film score can be identified and discussed in prose." --George Ho (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Inertia/standard practice is not always a good indication of what should be done. In this case, what does documenting the track listing add to the article? How is it notable? --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree as well. Soundtracks are usually space-wasting, trivial, nonsense in my opinion. How does it add to the pages content in the slightest? Wiki isn't Amazon.com. Ckruschke (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

I'm getting ready to nominate this article for GA so i guess we shall see what the reviewer thinks, plus all the Pixar movie articles do this. Koala15 (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess we can do something about those movie soundtracks then. George Ho (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, this probably isn't an issue for GA either way, which tends not to be very stringent about MOS compliance. But I would agree with those who would argue for its being cut and converted into prose; listing what each track of the soundtrack is called seems rather trivial in this case. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

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.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:A Bug's Life/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jionpedia (talk · contribs) 12:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

A very well-written article. Good enough to promote.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Don't get it delisted! Thanks, --Jionpedia ✉ 12:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a comment from a passerby, but I'm concerned about the speed of the above review; while this obviously a high-quality article, it's rare to have a GA with zero action points, passed the moment it's opened, and I can see issues in the article just at a glance-- for example, the garbled quotation marks in

Peter Stack of the San Francisco Chronicle gave the film four out of four stars, saying "A Bug's Life" is one of the great movies -- a triumph of storytelling and character development, and a whole new ballgame for computer animation. Pixar Animation Studios has raised the genre to an astonishing new level

And more significantly, the empty sections under "Awards" and "Video game". The award nominations in particular seem like a major aspect that need to be covered here. Can these be addressed? Thanks to everybody working on this one, -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

All done, thanks for notifying.Jionpedia ✉ 14:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your swift attention to it. A glance at some other sections didn't show any more immediate problems--overall it does really seem like good stuff--so I don't think a reassessment is called for. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

There was a recent discussion on the talk page regarding the soundtrack section, as it pertains to MoS compliance. Perhaps you'd like to weigh in explicitly to help resolve the debate. --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Soundtrack

Withdrawn by Koala15. --George Ho (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

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.

---

Since everyone is against having the soundtrack in the article would you support moving it back to A Bug's Life (soundtrack)?? Koala15 (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Per WP:NMUSIC, a soundtrack album must be independently notable from the film. As evident, the film's soundtrack is not independently notable. Even if it were, the prose should be large enough for separation. Unfortunately, the prose is too small for stand-alone article. Oppose proposal; added RFC tag for you. (You said "soundtrack"; you probably meant "soundtrack tracklist".) --George Ho (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Agree with all points from George Ho. We aren't talking about the soundtrack to The Blues Brothers or Top Gun or Star Wars Episode IV or The Sting or similar film where the soundtrack is imminently distinguishable and notable as a separate product from the film itself. Not trying to rain on anyone's parade, as I know we all have pride in ownership of our own products, but this soundtrack is simply background noise to the overall music community and is trivia here. Ckruschke (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Yes but it is common practice to put a soundtrack that is not independently notable for its own article in the film article. Just look at Toy Story, Toy Story 2, Monsters, Inc., Finding Nemo, Ratatouille, Toy Story 3, Cars 2, and Monsters University for an example that is common practice here. Koala15 (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Common practice is irrelevant if the material is not notable, or contrary to guidelines/consensus (with no good reason to make an exception). As the encyclopedia grows and matures, ideas change about what's notable and what's not. MOS:FILM#Soundtrack clearly states Track listings for film scores are generally discouraged since the score is usually composed by one person and the score's tracks are generic descriptions of scenes from the film. Noteworthy tracks from the film score can be identified and discussed in prose. (I think that guideline makes perfect sense, not that my lone opinion really matters.) This tells me that all the others should probably be removed as well. --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree - there are many many Wiki pages where the track listing seems to just be there to "cover white space and/or add content" and amounts to nothing more useful beyond that. My comments to date have not been focused on descouraging Koala15 or down-playing his efforts. Its more generically a comment on what I've seen as a proliferation of "I think this is interesting. Therefore I'm going to put it on this Wiki page whether it serves a purpose or not...!" Ckruschke (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Would it make sense to collapse the track list like this? So people can only open it if they want to? Koala15 (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

No.	Title	Length
1.	"The Time of Your Life" (performed by Newman)	3:14
2.	"The Flik Machine"	2:54
3.	"Seed to Tree"	1:01
4.	"Red Alert"	1:49
5.	"Hopper and his Gang"	3:21
6.	"Flik Leaves"	2:37
7.	"Circus Bugs"	1:27
8.	"The City"	2:35
9.	"Robin Hood"	0:59
10.	"Return to Colony"	1:33
11.	"Flik's Return"	1:24
12.	"Loser"	2:43
13.	"Dot's Rescue"	4:00
14.	"Atta"	1:08
15.	"Don't Come Back"	1:07
16.	"Grasshoppers' Return"	3:01
17.	"The Bird Flies"	2:38
18.	"Ants Fight Back"	2:14
19.	"Victory"	2:33
20.	"A Bug's Life Suite"	5:12
Total length:		47:30

Per WP:COLLAPSE, collapsing a valuable content is discouraged. Well, it doesn't say much about invaluable list or content. However, hiding the content gives people an idea that the tracklist is not important. They would rather skip the content and read the rest. George Ho (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Well if we can't have the track list in anyway shape or form does it make sense to leave the infobox there? Koala15 (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

If no one objects, feel free to remove the infobox. I don't mind, but what to do about predecessors and successors in the box? George Ho (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know but that's another reason why the soundtrack should be on Wikipedia in some shape or form. Especially since Randy Newman composed it, i would think that would make it notable enough to be on here in some way. Koala15 (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the infobox and track listing should be tied together. I'm not saying we should keep the infobox, but why does one depend on the other? --Fru1tbat (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Cause its an infobox album template and there is no album there anymore, so it doesn't make much sense to keep it there. Koala15 (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this will help: The track listing is not "the album". It's just a track listing. You can discuss an album without a track listing. The prose still discusses the album as a unique entity (i.e. not as just "the score") - reviews, release date, length, etc. Just because the album warrants discussion does not mean that the track listing must be included, and the fact that the track listing itself is considered non-notable does not mean the existence of the album is being denied or overlooked. The reason the track listing itself has been deemed unnecessary is that the names of the tracks don't really add anything. That doesn't mean nobody wants to mention the album. --Fru1tbat (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

So you have seen album's on Wikipedia without track listings?? I mean its a grammy award winning soundtrack why can't we just move it to a separate article like The Incredibles (soundtrack) or Cars (soundtrack). Koala15 (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I deleted tracklist of The Joy Luck Club (film)#Soundtrack as too generic. Prose is more substantial. George Ho (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

So at this you think we should remove all the soundtracks on the thousands of film articles that have them?? Koala15 (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

That should apply to non-notable tracklists of film scores, not a soundtrack that has a mix of songs and scores. However, we can put one or two songs into prose IF there are only two or one song among film scores in the list. George Ho (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Alright well at this point im pretty much finished with the discussion. I'm just gonna remove the infobox and move on. Koala15 (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you "withdrawing"? If so, can this discussion be closed now? George Ho (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Koala15 (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

---

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.

Thumper

Thumper the grasshopper is voiced by David Lander. Though he does not speak in the film, during the famous bloopers he does. I just noticed he wasn't credited in the voice talents section.

RhettGedies (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

American Film Institute recognition

The reference of the infomation about AFI's 10 Top 10 nomination is not valid yet. Please, allow me to change it to this link: .

Dr.saze (talk) 06:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on A Bug's Life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141015014546/http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?SID=4447 to http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?SID=4447
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150721114141/http://www.pixar.com/features_films/A-BUG%27S-LIFE to http://www.pixar.com/features_films/A-BUG%27S-LIFE

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Plot issue

I am writing to this page regarding the nature of the bird and the chicks near the end of the movie.

I have watched this movie and Hopper was shown eaten alive by the middle infant not all three of them. Also the bird is a female since she was shown living in a nest which had eggs in them half-way through the movie.

Also the group of bugs that includes Dim, Francis etc. are in a named group called 'Circus Bugs' which should be capitalised throughout the plot since that is the name of the group. Circus and Bugs are nouns in this case.

I am re-doing this change. Best, 86.152.141.191 (talk) 10:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

71.233.132.8: bird details

User 71.233.132.8 has edited the article but I'd say some of that would not be needed. 1.) I am uncertain about the gender of the bird as I don't know whether this thing is male or female. 2.) "Three chicks" seems unnecessary detail as pointed out by Sjones23 back in July 2017 as numbers are not needed. And 3.) I have not seen any instances about the bird having credited information and species would be unsourced anyway. Thanks for any opinions on this. Iggy (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC) (swan)

In terms of citations

@Koala15: (in response to this and this)

As according to MOS:LEADCITE: "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material."

I decided I should bring this to the talk page instead of just starting an edit war over the subject, but basically, I feel that it's redundant to include the exact same citations in the lead section for information that is already covered and sourced in the main section (in this case, the reception section). As it says, the lead is generally meant to repeat info from the body, as it's essentially a summary of the facts from the body, so citations aren't traditionally required to be in the lead, unless there happens to be any facts that are only located in the lead. This feels even more redundant to me considering that the same exact source is literally being used a whopping total of four times; twice in the infobox (North American BO total and overall BO totals) and once in the lead paragraph for the same information, in addition to being used in the reception section of the body for the same information... again. It'd be a bit different if it was that different sources were being used in the lead and in the body (although even then I'd argue that that constitutes moving the ref to the respective info in the body), or if it were being used to back up several different separate pieces of information which are all covered in that source, but when you're literally using the same citation four times throughout both parts of the article it's just plain redundant.

And that's why I removed the repeated ref's from the lead section of the article- to summarize, I think that it's quite unnecessary to repeatedly source the same information with the same reference, and that this one citation doesn't need to be used so many times. Input is appreciated. Cheers. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@TheDisneyGamer: You are generally right but this is a very common vandalism mode to corrupt this data and it makes it much easier for vandalism checkers to check if the cite is right next to the data being changed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a common misconception that MOS:LEADCITE says "No citations in the lede!!" It's doesn't say that at all. In fact, anything that is likely to be considered "controversial" should also be referenced in the lede... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. Thank you very much for the clarification, I will keep this in mind in the future. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Mistakes in the Plot

There are several mistakes in the plot's current revision: The Circus Bugs' names and species are not mentioned, the bird that lives across the creek from Ant Island is an orange-fronted yellow finch, Not just Dot, Francis was attacked by the bird as well, and Hopper actually had his monstrous enforcer, Thumper beat Flik. Sstanford2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstanford2 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The Circus Bugs contribute more to the plot as a group than as individuals, so listing each one isn't necessary; the species of bird is neither pointed out in the film nor a necessary detail; Dot's rescue matters more to the Circus Bugs gaining the colony's respect, and Francis's situation doesn't figure into the bigger plot; you're at least correct on that last point, and the wording has been adjusted. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Off-topic chat

Ants' species in the Film This is not to be mentioned in the plot, but what species of ants do you think the ants in the film are? I've heard some people believe they are leafcutter ants, because the older princess/heir-to-the-throne's name is Atta, a genus of the aforementioned ants. Sstanford2 (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC) This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the associated article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. Based on the film, the species is entirely fictional as there are no recorded instances of ants speaking English. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Plot summary issue

On May 25, I restored the plot to the last stable version. A few hours ago, an IP, 87.11.133.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), reverted these changes, with potentially hostile edit summaries and also violated the three-revert rule. Rather than getting into an edit war and violating WP:3RR, I'm going to hold a discussion here. Should we restore it to the stable version, since it was better before the IP changed it? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: I reverted the changes the IP made to the stable version, as it should be kept during discussion. Regarding the content, I find the previous version much more concise and easy to understand. The IP's version contains many awkwardly worded phrases and I don't find it much of an improvement to the previous version. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 09:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

That IP was probably used by Davide palladini (talk · contribs), who reverted the edit again. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, my edit of "the ants trick flik into accepting his purpose to seek help from stronger bugs, secretly certain they would get rid of him" makes sense and it is really easy to understand. So calm down and think of yourself! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davide palladini (talk • contribs) 09:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's still too much detail and the previous version is a lot concise as per the guidelines at WP:FILMPLOT. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Not even, the IP's (and I guess Davide's) edits are just merely switching a few words out with another and making it more incohesive and unclear. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 10:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I've also reported the user here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

HEY HEY! Don't worry it was much concise what i edited today. What's the matter? The edits i made (and they were actually concise and clear, not like other naive editors made) were:

1. The ants trick Flik into accepting his purpose to seek help from stronger bugs, secretly certain they would get rid of him. 2. Hearing that Hopper fears birds inspires Flik to propose the construction of a false bird to scare away the grasshoppers. 3. With their enemies gone, Flik has improved his inventions along with the quality of life for Ant Island; Hopper's younger brother Molt, and a few ants become new members of P.T. Flea's troupe; Atta and Dot respectively become the new queen and princess; The ants congratulate Flik as a hero, and he and Atta have married, and they bid a fond farewell to the circus troupe.

REASONS FOR THESE WERE:

1. The ants are the one who suggested to send someone, and that inspired Flik to purpose to find stronger bugs. 2. Flik did not create the false bird, he only proposed the construction. The ants are the ones that created the false bird under Flik's operation. 3. The final scene in the film is chronological and should not be disrespected.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Davide palladini (talk • contribs) 12:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but if a user challenges your edits, you must not continue to insist on your edits until a consensus is reached. Also, please sign and date your comments. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey! That was a comment! I've have to insist on my edits, because if not, that would be too confusing! By the way, you sometimes need to think for yourself if you wanna make a plot actually more concise. So my edits were not VANDALISM but GOOD WILLS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davide palladini (talk • contribs) 12:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

While your edits may be in good faith, the proper thing to do if a user reverts your edit is to take it to the talk page to reach a consensus, not revert again. As an IP, you have already made four reverts within 24 hours and the most recent edit you made is your fifth revert, which is a clear violation of WP:3RR. There's no need to get that upset. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment It is 20 years since I saw this film so I do not remember the finer details. However, these seem to be the disputed changes and here are my obersvations:

1. The original version of the first paragraph is superior in my view. It is clear who is making the proposal, and how can you be tricked into accepting your own proposal? The colony saw it as a chance to get rid of Flik and this is clearer in the oirginal version.
2. I don't recall the events in the second paragraph at all, but if Flik didn't actually create the false bird then this should be clearer.
3. In regards to the third paragraph, did Flik perpetrate a deception or dishonesty? Deception usually involves trick of some kind, while dishonesty is just a lie.
4. I have a slight preference for the original wording in the fourth paragraph.
5. The fifth paragraph could do with some work either way. Do Molt and the ants have a choice in joining the Flea troupe, and is it established that Flik and Atta are married?

Betty Logan (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

ANI notice

I have made administrators aware that there is negative editing behaviour going on the article so that Sjones23 won't get blocked for violating 3RR though the user is likely to know that already. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. As an experienced user who was involved in edit wars before, I know my limits. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2021

86.52.183.241 (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Cast Dave Foley as Flik Kevin Spacey as Hopper Joe Ranft as Heimlich Denis Leary as Francis Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Princess Atta Hayden Panettiere as Dot Phyllis Diller as the Queen Richard Kind as Molt David Hyde Pierce as Silm Jonathan Harris as Manny Madeline Kahn as Gypsy Bonnie Hunt as Rosie Michael McShane as Tuck and Roll John Ratzenberger as P.T. Flea Brad Garrett as Dim Roddy McDowall as Mr. Soil Edie McClurg as Dr. Flora Alex Rocco as Thorny David Ossman as Cornelius

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

A Bug’s Life release

November 25 1998 not November 20 Anonymous0697 (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

T-rex roar

Include Dim, a rhinoceros beetle, roaring like a Tyrannosaurus rex from Jurassic Park 174.24.104.56 (talk) 12:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment where is the source for that claim and is that important in what the film is about? Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring between two release dates

If I'm right in what I am thinking, the release date should be the earliest one in the source given which was November 20, not 25. Obviously the same person operating two IP addresses on the same day in the UTC time zone doesn't. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:FILMRELEASE says release date in country that produced the film. Not the later wide release date which the IP is insisting on changing it to. This is well-sourced. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree with WP:FILMRELEASE after reading as well as what I thought. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)