Talk:Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Two versions of this article

There is already a draft of this article here. Typically, an article isn't moved to the mainspace until filming has commenced. This article should not be here unless filming has started. Are there any sources that can confirm this? If not, this page should be deleted and all edits should be made to the draft until filming starts. - Rmaynardjr (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Production

I've added a cleanup template to the "Production" section because the writing is very poor. There is too much indiscriminate detail and overly frequent use of dates. Examples of indiscriminate detail:

  • "As of May 2014, no director or cast member has been confirmed."
  • "...which also happens to house the Harry Potter Studio Tour: The Making of Harry Potter."
  • "On October 7, 2014, Rowling alluded to the various projects she's working on via her Twitter account and later tweeted an anagram that teased one of those works. The anagram read, 'Cry, foe! Run amok! Fa awry! My wand won’t tolerate this nonsense,' and Rowling later confirmed, after much speculation, that the tweet referred to the script for the first Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them film. She also confirmed the solution of the anagram in another tweet: 'Newt only meant to stay in New York for a few hours. Circumstances ensured that he remained... for the length of a movie, anyway. X'"
  • "On July 13, 2015, it was announced on MuggleNet that Warner Bros. would be holding an open casting call on Saturday, July 18, 2015 for girls between the ages of 8 and 12 for the significant role of Modesty, 'a haunted young girl with an inner strength and stillness' and 'an ability to see deep into people and understand them'; this was the same way that actor Evanna Lynch got the role of Luna Lovegood for the Harry Potter films."
  • "On July 16, a photographer tweeted a few images from the set of Fantastic Beasts being built in Hertfordshire, England, near Warner Bros.' Leavesden Studios."
  • "Actors posted some images on Instagram during their preparations for the film."

In addition, almost every sentence in this section has a date. This is basically proseline, a timeline written in prose. The sentences need to be woven together by context, not merely by chronology. We also do not need to constantly identify the reference in text; this is better done if references are opining or if references are conflicting in detail. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources needed for cast

We need sources for everything in Wikipedia, and in particular we need sources for the cast of this unreleased film. Since it is not possible for any normal human to consult the "Credits" of this film yet, a citation to a news article or similarly reliable secondary source is needed to confirm that any given actor is playing a particular role and other details, such as character description or associated plot. Elizium23 (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Comic relief

The original book had 80% of porfts go to Comic Relief are they giving Any profits to them with this film like they did to the book — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.157.176 (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force#Rename articles

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force#Rename articles. Elizium23 (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Do not remove hidden comments

Please do not remove the hidden comments, which are there because many people come to the article and immediately try to edit it against consensus, guideline or policy. They are intended to supplement the talk page. So please leave them there for the benefit of a stable article. Elizium23 (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Cinemascore

Cinemascore is a company that conducts audience surveys. 

On CinemaScore, audiences gave the film an average grade of "A" on an A+ to F scale

It does not make sense to say "On Cinemascore". It would at least make sense if you wrote "On the Cinemascore website" but the website is irrelevant, it isn't some unreliable web based poll (like the ratings from IMDB). It should say "Audiences surveyed by Cinemascore gave the film an average grade ..." which is consistent with the wording in many existing film articles. -- 109.79.55.62 (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Article unlocked, so I went ahead and fixed it. Hopefully it will stay fixed and hopefully people will choose a sensible wording when adding Cinemascore to other articles. -- 109.77.242.196 (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Billing order

The credits/billing block are available on the film's official website (click "Credits" on the bottom right of the page). I was hoping to change the cast billing order in the infobox and lead section (and, possibly, the Cast section), since, according to the template page for the infobox, the names of the actors should be listed in the same order as in the billing block of the poster. However, since I can't really write all of this in a citation, I'm putting it here so that, if I change the billing order, my edits won't be reverted. Zuko Halliwell (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The last sentence in the Preproduction section is in need of correction: Jon Voight and the others are identified in the list above. Given the "edit wars" comments here, I am reluctant to attempt a correction, but I did want to note the error. Ralohmann (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:FILMPLOT

Per WP:FILMPLOT, summaries should be 400-700 words. At present, the synopsis tips the scales a little beyond 700. So some trimming would be appropriate and welcome, whilst additions and bloat will be reverted with great prejudice. Thank you for your cooperation. Elizium23 (talk) 03:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Plot question

Isn't it one of Newt's flying creatures that subdues Graves/Grindelwald or is it a spell? Mezigue (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was a creature, too. The spell thing was changed twice by an WP:SPA anon IP. I say change it back. Elizium23 (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought so too. It wouldn't make sense for Newt to be able to overpower Grindelwald with a spell. Mezigue (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Reception

Speaking of "cultural niceties", is there any reason why the reception section is divided into North America and "the rest of the world"? This is particularly jarring given this is a British production and the UK had the same general release date a second the US. I see two Harry Potter films I looked at do not have such an approach. – The Bounder (talk) 08:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

That is the case with most international films because some industry body breaks up the figures like that, or something. I have protested in the past that calling the US and Canada "North America" is massively inaccurate (as Mexico is left out) but was told it's just industry-speak and that is that. Mezigue (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
It's not a case of the naming. Why the cultural imperialist approach of breaking N America out separately, when the home production country of Britain is shoved into the section of 'rest of the world the US doesn't care about'? The closest parallel to this film, the Harry Potter series, does not take such a backward view of the world, neither do the Bond film series. It's a rather crass approach for what is supposed to be an international, not American, website. – The Bounder (talk) 13:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Breaking is important as has been done with numerous other blockbuster films. Unlike small indie films whose grossed a worth mentioning on in a few paras, tentpole flicks’ box office grosses goes on and on. Why? US and Canada, China, UK, Japan and Korea sometimes needs each separate para since they contain too many infos. This is not a bias page that puts UK first of India first or China. The notion and what's practiced has always been US AND CANADA because they are the biggest market. And so intricate details are given for their weekend performances until they are pulled out from theaters. I have been editing box office section for the past 5 years fr blockbuster films and this is the trend. The only three exceptions are the three biggest films – Avatar, Titanic and Star Wars: The Force Awakens whose grosses are reported in mixed. User:DancingMarvel —Preceding undated comment added 18:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I suggest you have a look at the Harry Potter films (a very close parallel to this one) who do not follow such a bias. Neither do the James Bond films. It seems extremely odd to hide the information from one of the co-production countries deeply away from the head, while trumpeting up one other territory. - The Bounder (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Instalment

WP:ENGVAR suggests, "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms, especially in article titles. For example, glasses is preferred to the national varieties spectacles (British English) and eyeglasses (American English); ten million is preferable to one crore (Indian English)." Perhaps we should rethink whether "instalment" should be used at all in this article. It is fairly standard for WP:FILM but I think in such an American-British crossover it's going to be constantly misunderstood and vandalized. We see that even inserting loud hidden comments has not kept the peace but indeed stirred the pot. I suggest that we eliminate the word from the article and decide upon synonyms and circumlocutions to avoid using it at all. Elizium23 (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The term is a common one, and it's only the minor difference in spelling that is the problem (with an American IP being disruptive at the moment). Education is always a good place to start, so i have explained the language variants (with a link to ENGVAR) on their talk in the hope that this helps matters. – The Bounder (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I have been curating Harry Potter-related articles for over 6 years. If I have learned anything, it is of the transient nature of 90% of the editors, especially in this topic area, and the overall age and maturity of all involved editors. Despite their ability to read 800-page books, the juvenile contributors to this topic area are largely unaware of British cultural niceties, and therefore we frequently see attempts to "fix" all kinds of British spellings. Also popular is the attempt to "fix" the title of Philosopher's Stone to Sorceror's Stone. So it seems to me that if we can at all avoid "fandalism" and edit wars and hurt feelings and blocked users, we should err on the side of caution. Elizium23 (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
If this was written in American English, and people tried to change it constantly to the British English spelling, I expect we'd see strong resistance to the idea! Shall we go and "fix" American spellings just because of cultural insensitivity means we cannot comprehend that there are other countries in the world? No, of course not: we use appropriate encyclopaedic language and try to inform and educate about what you call "British cultural niceties" (and what I call normal spelling!) "Instalment" is the correct word to use and is present on thousands of other articles without problem: changing it to a nebulous term is not what Engvar is all about. - The Bounder (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
@Elizium23: Do you know, I'm not sure any word is actually needed. For example, in the lead, "It is the first instalment in the Fantastic Beasts franchise" looks okay. Could the word just be ellipted? If not, "instalment" is a little generic, so maybe "film" would be better, especially if we need to identify the subject as such, as one could argue that the book is actually the first instalment? Adam9007 (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
You may get rid of one that way, perhaps two, but removing others will lead to sub-standard grammar. "Instalment" is the correct and appropriate encyclopaedic language to to use, regardless of the IPs who do not understand our guidelines or policies. - The Bounder (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read WP:ENGVAR again. Specifically the part I quoted. Do you like having edit wars? Elizium23 (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Do I like having edit wars? What a rather odd question to ask.
I have read ENGVAR, and it does not say anywhere that we cowtow to IP edit warriors who are unable to understand what we do and why. I have standards of language, particularly British English, and see no reason to lower standards from what is appropriate just because some people are unable to appreciate that there are more variants of English than their own local version.
Once Fabulous Beasts comes out of cinemas, viewing figures, and the associated trouble from American IP editors, will drop, but there is no need to be bullied off what is correct just because of their poor practice. – The Bounder (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay, you are new here, so let me explain a few aspects of Wikipedia practice to you. We edit collaboratively here, by achieving consensus. This doesn't mean we all have to agree on something, but it often means that some of us have to compromise in order to move forward and resolve disputes. It also means that we pay attention to what other editors think, even if those editors are transient, anonymous, uncivil, or incompetent. It is important not to develop an "us and them" battleground mentality where we are, say, defending a fortress from an onslaught of outside attacks. Attacks happen in the form of malicious vandalism, but malice simply isn't tolerated on a long-term basis here, and malicious editors are easily dealt with through channels. The vast majority of editors here today are good-faith editors. While Wikipedia's standards can be exacting, they are not particularly high, especially for articles that are not WP:GA or WP:FEATURED status. We should not hold ourselves or other editors to unnecessarily high standards when the integrity of the Wiki is at stake. Furthermore, I don't think the issue at hand is really one of lowering standards, but simply adapting to the reality of the situation on the ground. The reality is that the prevailing consensus is against writing "instalment" simply because so many editors have come by to alter the word. At this point, you are the only one arguing to keep the status quo. Unfortunately with only three editors participating in the current discussion, we are at an impasse unless you should choose to change your mind, and it looks like that will not happen. But I hope that you will at least take this as a learning experience for your edification when issues like this crop up in the future. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the lecturette, but I am well aware of how things are undertaken here. To say that I am the only one arguing to keep the consensus is something of a straw man. This 'discussion' was only opened yesterday and so far the status quo has not really been adequately challenged by anyone. The consensus is firm: IPs ignoring the notes to try and force their preferred version of bad spelling is not something that alters consensus, as that is done through discussion. None of the IP editors who force their spelling against the long-standing guideline of ENGVAR is doing this with any sense of good faith (ignoring the notes in place is evidence enough of that), and if any wish to come to discuss this here could have an effect, but they are ignorable if they go so far against one of our long-standing guidelines. – The Bounder (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
@Elizium23: By being against writing "instalment" in an article where we are supposed to use British English, you are in favor of doing things wrong just so you don't have to change it over and over. Then should we vandalize the articles ourselves so that no one else vandalizes them? Facu-el Millo (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Would it be helpful at all to wrap the word in the {{not a typo}} template? Ex: {{not a typo|instalment}}. Similar thing happened at Mad Max: Fury Road. Can't say that the template solved the problem, but maybe it would help here. Or is there another word? Chapter? Part? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
The template may help, although the IP edit warriors are ignoring the notice hidden in the text: instal<!-- IN BRITISH ENGLISH, "instalment" IS SPELLED WITH ONE L -->ment. The idea of a different word has been discussed at the film project (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Should we avoid using British English terms in a British film to avoid American IP edit warriors?), and the general weight seems to be that the word is fine, but the behaviour of the IPs in disruptively ignoring the template notice has been sub-par, and there is no reason to go outside just to appease edit warriors. - The Bounder (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Video games based on the film unknown

The film doesn't have a video game adaptation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.65.183.123 (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring over basic English

Elizium23, if you could stop edit warring for just a minute or two, please cast your eyes up the page to read the #Instalment thread; then go to this Film Project thread, and understand that you are edit warring against a specific consensus. (And if you ever try to bully me by inappropriate use of a warning template on my talk page again, I'll drop you at ANI without a monent's hesitation). - The Bounder (talk) 08:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I read the previous thread and I get that some editors will argue over spelling and I get that other editors don't feel any need to change to use words that are common to both English and American. It is fine that some editors don't feel like changing anything but if other editors (like me) do feel it is worth the small effort to make the changes why would anyone insist on reverting back to the a troublesome wording that can so easily be avoided? My understanding of MOS:COMMONALITY was that choosing a common word instead was preferable to having a great big warning comment in the wiki source. I'm in agreement with Elyzium, I don't get why anyone feels so strongly that the article must use the word installment. -- 109.76.164.59 (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
(Disclaimer: coming from WT:FILM) I'd keep using "instalment". Anyone who understands "instaLLment" also understands the meaning of "instaLment". Should we cast out all words ending in -ise/-ize and -our/-or as well? Daß Wölf 23:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Not all words wholesale, but the guideline is clear: if commonalities can be found then they need to be used rather than forcing a dichotomy of language into the prose. Elizium23 (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Wofl I wouldn't be so harsh as to characterize it as "cast out" for starters. I didn't think it was any kind of a bold change, I was working on the principle of keep it simple. My take from the previous discussion was that people didn't think it was worth the effort, but I'm not asking editors who aren't interested to make any extra effort, I'm just asking that they don't try and prevent others who want to do more and make these small adjustments. I'm not asking for any new rules or policies just a bit more restraint on those reverts or a better explanation why the word instalment/installment is so much better than any other choice of wording. -- 109.79.55.78 (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Maybe I've been wrong in assessing the situation. From what I understood, this dispute is about whether we should be using "instalment" or "film" in certain sentences. From the lead: "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is a 2016 fantasy film directed by David Yates ... prequel of the Harry Potter film series, the film was produced ... The film stars Eddie Redmayne as ... It is the first film in the Fantastic Beasts series..." I think "instalment" is a welcome change here, as this was getting quite repetitive. The other example: "After Alfonso Cuarón declined involvement, Warner Bros. announced that David Yates would direct at least the first instalment of a planned trilogy." Yes, we could use "part" or "film" that here, but why? The word was in use here since article creation, and some people have opposed the change, so the change should be reverted and consensus established before continuing. However, no good argument has been brought forward in favour of changing it except MOS:COMMONALITY, which I can't imagine applies in these situations, as "instalment" and "installment" are different spellings meaning exactly the same thing (unlike any of the examples mentioned at the MoS page). "Instal(l)ment" is the common word here, and simply has two regional spellings. Given these arguments and the fact that there doesn't seem to be an agreement between two sides here, I think we should stick with "instalment". Daß Wölf 18:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
As I pointed out at the film project talk page the last time this issue came up, commonality can be helpful if spelling variations are causing genuine confusion but it is not really a solution to dealing with a disruptive agenda to change an article from one spelling variant to another. This is a behavioral problem and should be dealt with as such. Also, commonality really has to be pursued in good faith i.e. if you initiate it only on British-English articles and not on American-English articles in equal measure then in all fairness that is not an agenda of "commonality" but an eradication of British English under the guise of commonality. Commonality only works to a degree too, because it is not a catch-all solution for every single spelling variation. Some spellings and words simply cannot be reconciled (think "theater"/"cinema"). Betty Logan (talk) 12:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film). 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:

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) 18:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Plot point: OR or not so much?

There is an oft-deleted plot point that I have recently again removed, that I think deserves some discussion and consensus. The sentence in question is: "Queenie visits his shop, and his memories seem to be sparked" or similar words. The latter half has been dismissed as WP:OR, but I don't think it is. The whole point of the scene is to show how Jacob's memories have not been completely wiped out: his pastries are in the shape of fantastic magical beasts and his customers comment on it. When Queenie appears, he smiles at first, as if at the pleasant sight of a pretty woman, but then he clearly reaches his hand around to his neck where he was bitten, and a renewed happiness changes his expression: it is clearly meant as recognition, connecting her with his since-healed wound and his past memories. I think it is rather ridiculous not to admit this point while we leave in the fact that Queenie shows up at all. Either take it out entirely or describe what happens. I think the intent is plain as the nose on our faces. Elizium23 (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

All we see is her turning up in his shop and him smiling at her. The reasons behind the smile are unstated in the film and any reason we try to apply is nothing but OR. I really don't think we can't double-guess any intent, which is unclear. (The couple I followed out of the cinema were arguing about whether he recognised her or not). - The Bounder (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
That is not "All we see". How do you explain him touching the wound on his neck? Elizium23 (talk) 07:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what my personal explanation is: the film does not make the point clear. I think it's too much of a stretch to say that he recognises her. - The Bounder (talk) 07:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
The film makes two things abundantly clear: he remembers something (or the scene wouldn't exist), and upon seeing Queenie he remembers his wound. Elizium23 (talk) 08:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
That is absolute text book OR. - The Bounder (talk) 08:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

"Queenie comes to visit the shop unexpectedly" is a seriously flawed wording and needs to be changed. He can't possibly expect someone he doesn't remember. If it was very carefully worded to say something like he touches his neck as if he remembers but I still think that it is stretch the plot section should only describe what is shown but don't infer or imply or guess at what the writers intent might be or what the character may or may not be thinking. I agree with Bounder on this one. (I thought he was falling in love with her all over again, not recongizing her at all.) -- 109.76.164.59 (talk) 13:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The current wording about her glancing at him/catching his attention is quite good, better than what I wrote and without the speculation problems we had before. -- 109.77.139.50 (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Someone changed it again, I took another stab at rephrasing it to say what we see without adding any speculation. -- 109.77.248.1 (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Country of origin

There's an edit war about the country of origin. I found the following so far:

I don't see entries yet at the other usual places I search, such as the British Film Institute or New York Times film database. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


Also, a few weeks back, an IP user who also was in the edit war changed the whole article from American English to British english without any consensus. Since this is a joint movie, so there are no WP:TIES to british english, I will be changing it back. This article was changed at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fantastic_Beasts_and_Where_to_Find_Them_(film)&direction=next&oldid=629818298

There are obviously far stronger ties to British English than American English. Siuenti (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Are there though? That would be my first assumption, but the movie is bankrolled by an American Production company, and is set in America...not sure if there are stronger ties to blighty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:74E2:F268:93A9:EB3D (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
The film is directed by a British director, written by a British author, based on the same author's book, produced by three British filmmakers (including Rowling) as well as an American writer (who wrote most of the Harry Potter series, a British film series). The film was shot exclusively in England, according to the filming section of this article. Where the film is set is ultimately irrelevant (Take Blood Diamond, for example: the film is classified as German-American, but takes place primarily in a multitude of African countries and partly in England). I'm not sure if there is any sort of precedence for this, but I'd suggest we use British English, considering this film is a spin-off of the Harry Potter films series, and the article for each film in that series is written in British English. -RM (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Oy. Sadly, that argument doesn't hold water on wikipedia, as much as we'd love it to. See the talk page for Motorcycle tyre — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:B12A:3E57:FCBF:7759 (talk) 06:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I suggest removing "American-British" altogether from the opening sentence per WP:FILMLEAD; surprisingly, most articles don't follow this guideline. This could help to mitigate the edit warring to some extent. As for the WP:ENGVAR, I think RM has a good point. -- ChamithN (talk) 07:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
A ton of articles follow that guideline. Look at

Brooklyn (film) Harry Potter (film series) Me Before You (film) All films which the same IP editor tried to solely britishise. They are all similar in the lead. Just the breaks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:B12A:3E57:FCBF:7759 (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

You mean they don't follow the guideline? What the guideline says is If the film's nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), it should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section. But, it's the contrary in all those articles you just linked. -- ChamithN (talk) 08:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Good call! I never noticed that guideline. I've seen it so many times as the examples I've shown that I assumed that was the way to go. What's the plan then, should we change all the offenders to the guideline, or just go with the way the articles are written, and put a double-barrel origin in the lead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:B12A:3E57:FCBF:7759 (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
According to the guideline itself, editors should attempt to follow the guideline, but it is not always necessary to do so. Changing the opening sentence across multiple articles to reflect the guideline may require a separate discussion. Still, I personally think, in this context it's best to follow the guideline. -- ChamithN (talk) 08:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Either way the article could be improved to use more English that is undisputed, and avoid any unnecessary Americanisms or Britishisms. The plot section is more than little verbose. For example the plot section says Newt arrives by boat (ship would be more accurate BTW) and then redundantly also says "Leaving the harbor" which could be removed entirely (to avoid harbor/harbour). The plot section needs a good bit of copyediting. -- 109.78.192.26 (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Origin revisited

It is appropriate to put the United Kingdom and the United States in the "Country" field in the film infobox. Template:Infobox film says of this field, "preference is given to reliable databases like BFI, AFI, or trade publications", and BFI mentions both, not only the United Kingdom. As for the opening sentence of the lead section, due to past issues with false equivalence in mashing up countries, WP:FILMLEAD states, "If the film's nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), it should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section." Since the BFI mentions both the UK and the US, this means no "British-American" or "American-British". Instead, the lead section should identify the book and author's British roots and that Warner Bros., being an American studio, produced the film. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I see that despite having a supporting reference from the British Film Institute, people are still removing the dual-country production status in the infobox. Just to clarify: this is within the MoS guidelines, and conformation comes from both the BFI (in their infobox lookalike and the British Council too. These are fairly unimpeachable British sources. – The Bounder (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

to Erik you are trying to Avoid the British production company just like you always do and did in the past, trying to take credit for American, when the film is being produced by a British company and British filmmakers, trying to change the film's nationality because you don't like it when it comes to being a British film. I know who you are, and your habits. This film is considered British, Because it is from a British Production company Heyday Films that produced this film, not because it is based on a British novel book. This film can be considered British-American, just like The Danish Girl (film) or Carol_(film), because they had British and American production companies producing them. But This film Fantastic Beasts is only being produced by 1 production company which is a British company Heyday Films, So this film is considered 100% British.

and This film is not a joint production. since It was only produced by 1 production company Heyday Films. and Warner Bros is only being a distributor company not a Production company for this film — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.174.86.37 (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

It may be best not to attack other editors motives, particularly when you are on shaky factual ground. I have provided sources from two official British bodies - British Film Institute and the British Council - neither of which have any axe to grind in adding incorrect information. (Just for the record, I am British, as the comments I make below about not replacing some British spellings should show: I am all for ensuring there is no American cultural bias here, but not at the expense of correct information). - The Bounder (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
the sources from British Film Institute don't even say it's a Joint production film, when the reality there's only 1 production company that produced this film which is Heyday Films, and Warner Bros is only being a distributor company NOT a Production company for this film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.174.86.37 (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The BFI lists it's a dual-country production; the British Council says it's a dual-country production (and shows a second production company too, as does the sometimes questionable IMDB). – The Bounder (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Carlosjema, can you please explain why you've decided to edit war incorrect information into the opening line without? The lack of explanation in the edit summary makes it doubly confusing, given that it's incorrect. - The Bounder (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

the sources from the British Council is not correct, When The film is only being produced by 1 production company Heyday Films, and 1 or 2 sources is not enough. Just give me other sources that say Warner Bros is a production company for this film, as you claim, BECAUSE the Reality is Warner Bros is only being a distributor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.174.86.37 (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Given there are a couple of sources that list two production companies, do you have anything that says Warner is not a production company? Just you claiming there is only one isn't strong enough (you've said my one or two official sources are not enough: you have provided none to back up your claim). Just to reinforce the claim, I'll add The British Film Commission as another source that shows Warner as a production company. – The Bounder (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

2 sources are not enough and incorrect, Warner Bros is already being said in the article that it is a distributor. Because Heyday Films is a Production company for this film. everybody realizes and knows that. and All the filmmakers, the screenwriters, and producers are all from Heyday Films, and You can't get away from this fact that there is only 1 production company Heyday Films. so stop changing and accept the truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.174.86.37 (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

You keep repeating your opinion, but not given any sources to back it up. I have listed three sources that state exactly the opposite of what you are claiming, and these are all official bodies, not some biased US media working to some nationalist agenda. In addition to the three official sources I've provided, I'll add The Numbers and Cineuropa. So far I've given you five solid and reliable sources. You've given none to back up your position. – The Bounder (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Carlosjema, This is the second time I have pinged you to use the talk page, as well as requests on your talk page and in edit summaries, and you continue to ignore discussion, and simply edit war to your preference. Cyphoidbomb, is there anything that can be done with people who ignore the talk page to edit war continually? - The Bounder (talk) 07:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is a reference that it's not a dual country production [1] if it's really a dual country production Why don't you just dare to add another production company in that section? Time to accept the truth and stop changing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlosjema (talk • contribs) 07:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/fantastic-beasts-find-review-946770
At last, you've found your way to the talk page: now please learn to sign your posts. Unfortunately the source you have added does not state the film is British or that it is a single production country. It is certainly a much weaker source than those presented so far in this thread, which are official sources (the British Film Institute, the British Film Commission and the British Council, among others). I really fail to see the silly nationalistic reason behind presenting false information. – The Bounder (talk) 07:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - First off, personal attacks should be avoided. Now to the real issue. Both arguments have merit. If there is a single production company, and it's from a certain country, than that country should be the country of origin. However, when you have WP:RS saying that it is a UK/US production, that carries a tremendous amount of weight. The Hollywood Reporter is also a very reliable source. Most of the stuff I can find on-line is derived from PR, which is put out by Warner Bros., who is handling the marketing/distribution. They are all similar and say things like "Warner Bros. Pictures presents a Heyday Films Production, a David Yates Film" -- in film parlance this means that WB was the distributor, and Heyday was the production company, and the film was directed by Yates. Based on that, I would lean to saying it was solely a UK production. But it is difficult to discount BFI (just like it would be difficult to discount AFI). While neither of those sites are infallible (no source is), but they are the most reliable sources, imho, when talking about films. My inclination, based on current sourcing, is to go with the UK/US listing, based on the strength of the various sources. If more information comes to light, we can edit at that point. Onel5969 TT me 13:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • On one side, we've got people using original research to argue a point that's not found in reliable sources. On the other side, we've got AllMovie, Radio Times, BFI, and British Council, all of which say the same thing. I'm going to side with the reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the best comment I've seen here is from Onel5969, who acknowledges that the "pro-UK" argument isn't unreasonable, but advocates following the most credible sources instead. Wikipedia follows reliable sources, which does immeasurable good for the quality of the articles. It's the rule that editors should follow here and always. In this case, the best sources list it as a joint UK/US production, so that's exactly what should go in the infobox. However, I wouldn't quite endorse Bounder's description of a "silly nationalistic reason behind presenting false information," and even have reservations about "false information." Reliable sources aren't infallible, and this is one case where I'm scratching my head over them. If an American company orders some German sausages, pays for them upfront, and sells them around the world, they don't suddenly become American-German sausages. It's perfectly possible for a US company to fund and distribute foreign produce without making a blind bit of difference to the country of origin. As per the PR, that seems a fair analogy for the Fantastic Beasts movie. There are times where editors will disagree (sometimes understandably) with reliable sources, and those occasions do chafe. Jas mc 2016 (talk) 14:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Please remind me ...

Wasn't there a consensus that this should only be listed as a UK production? Someone keeps also adding US but I thought that Warners are only the distributors, so it doesn't count and that production company is UK only (unlike the Harry Potter films). If my understanding is correct I think a comment in the wiki source might be necessary to advise people against adding US. -- 109.77.248.1 (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Box Office

With all due respect for the work that went into it, this article has the longest Box Office section I've ever seen, and I suspect it's too long to be useful (i.e., if nobody's ever going to slog through the thing, it's not serving any purpose by being there). Any thoughts? 2600:8806:6300:C4:68F5:DDD6:39FE:E957 (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd be reluctant to do much more than trim the edges. For example do I think the section could convey most of the same information without name dropping so many other films. That and a bit of general copyediting maybe the broadly the section covers all the information, we're lucky to have it so well sourced.
Fairly sure I've seen longer Box office sections. Subsections are also a possibility. -- 109.77.248.1 (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of curiousity, can you point me to an article with a comparable or longer Box Office section? I just showed it to a friend who agreed with me that it's insanely long. I took a glance at the article for tha PoA film and the section there is two paragraphs, which can actually be read. 2600:8806:6300:C4:70EA:EE40:607F:942A (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm always reluctant to remove anything added in good faith that is adequately sourced, but Wikipedia frequently throws out the baby with the bathwater. You haven't mentioned any specific problems yet, only that the section is long. For my money the marketing section of the article is far more problematic, not sourced and of dubious notability. As a whole the Box Office section works, it's difficult to separate out which details are less important, as you'll end up with the usual Anglo-American view Wikipedia defaults to when for a change detailed worldwide information is actually available.
Your meaning is very unclear when you write "tha PoA film". I take your point that it is long, twice the length of Doctor Strange (film) and longer than Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2. I'd still bet there are articles with similarly detailed box office sections but I'll leave it you to disprove that claim if you care enough.
I suppose you could consider that editors often mistake news for something they should add to an encyclopedia and that when the film finishes in cinemas the most notable things will be the final totals and the opening weekend figures, not the week by week changes. Any records it may have broken will probably be broken by another film soon enough (if they haven't already been broken by Rogue One). There's definitely some information that repeats
If you aren't too bold and instead trim in several smaller edits to give people a chance to explain if or why something genuinely notable and should be retained. Start small, go from there. -- 109.79.133.85 (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The section has been tagged as being too long but without any specifics yet mentioned here on the talk page.
Most articles only manage to describe US and UK box office. This article also describe international box office at length. It also details IMAX figures too. Subsections would be a good start to help identify that actually most of this information is good despite the section being unusually long.
Greater brevity may be possible, see above comments, but please try not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. -- 109.79.64.74 (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

BAFTA

And the BAFTA Award nominations?OscarFercho (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

BAFTA nominations have been added. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 05:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MatthewHoobin (talk · contribs) 20:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


Here I'll be reviewing the article Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film).

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate. I give my props to the uploaders/contributors of the images in this article; they complement the text rather nicely.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Putting this on hold until issues below have been addressed.
Comments
  • Citations needed: Three citations are needed in the article, required for these sentences which can be found within the article:
In the Filming section: Principal photography ended on 28 January 2016.
Was not able to find a source to support this so it has been removed from the article. Rusted AutoParts 18:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
In the Marketing section: A quick-to-sell-out signing took place shortly thereafter. and
Due to demand, the fan event was expanded to a number of other US and international locations.
Couldn't find sources to support those sentences so removed. Worked out anyway as it aided in trimming the Marketing bloat. Rusted AutoParts 18:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Excessive detail: The Marketing section seems to be excessively detailed. There's mention of different specific poster design releases, and the last paragraph in the section is a bit lengthy. Additionally, the Box office section is excessively detailed. Both the Marketing and Box office sections should be shortened to some degree.

–Matthew - (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@MatthewHoobin: I'll begin working at these issues tomorrow. Apologies for the late response. Rusted AutoParts 01:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Trimmed marketing. Rusted AutoParts 18:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
@TropicAces: has trimmed the BO section a bit. I wasn't sure which bits should and shouldn't be removed so I conferred with them as I've seen them edit those sections before. @MatthewHoobin: would Tropic's trimming be enough? Rusted AutoParts 14:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
@RustedAutoParts: I'd say that some of the box office information in the Other markets section that doesn't involve box office records should be removed. For example, the part about the film having the largest opening for a Harry Potter film in South Korea is notable, but including South Korea's opening was worth $14.2 million from 1.94 million admissions between Wednesday and Sunday and accounted for 68% of the total weekend box office doesn't seem necessary to me. There also seems to be, unless I'm mistaken, some conflicting info now that I look closer at it. For instance, the film is said to have opened in Australia at $1.6 million, and then, in the same paragraph, at $7.4 million. Sorry for not catching that in my initial review. This section seems to be the most troublesome in the article. Other than that, there's a bit of an excessive succession of citations in the United States and Canada, right after the sentence ... of which 388 were IMAX screens, and over 3,600 were showing the film in 3D. This can be fixed by removing a few of those citations or grouping the sources and adding a Notes section above the References section in the article. –Matthew - (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
The South Korea opening has been removed. The sources for the 3D screens trimmed down to 3 sources and the Australia BO opening was edited to reflect accurately what the source used stated. Rusted AutoParts 18:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
@RustedAutoParts: Sold! To GA status it shall go. Good work! –Matthew - (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Rusted AutoParts 20:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fantastic_Beasts_and_Where_to_Find_Them_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=1051096923"