Talk:Blade Runner 2049

'One of the best sequels ever made'
This statement, claiming that some critics described BR2049 as one of the best sequels ever made, has been removed. I think it is fair to include it, with especial stress on the 'some critics described' part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.137.121 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Change to list-defined references
After Walter Görlitz's made me notice and according to WP:ILCLUTTER, I'm here in order to gain consensus to change the references from inline to list-defined. you might be interested in participating. El Millo (talk) 03:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I prefer in-line. Easier to organize and read. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Check the way I did it. I use hidden text to separate the section in the References section. Isn't it best organized that way? El Millo (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I checked and you're using only  in the body and full references further in the Reflist. There are 160 reference and 39 of them are used more than once. If there's only one use of the reference, there's no need for a name, and it's easier to have the first instance named and all the rest reference that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That what list-defined references are. It's in order to avoid clutter in the edit text. El Millo (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I know how they work; I know that they add unnecessary size to the article; I know that it confuses editors; but regardless, the change needs consensus. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, Walter Görlitz, are you generally against list-defined references or specifically in this case? El Millo (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Why are you making this about me and putting the discussion on your footing? It would be like me asking you if you're against WP:CITEVAR in general or just in this case? In short, I'm not answering your question as it's irrelevant to the problem you created.
 * 2) Do not ever change comments left by others as you did in your last edit here. If I make a typo, point it out and I will change it, as I just did above. If it causes your editor problems, I might consider fixing it, but you might also want to consider changing your editor. Wrapping something in a code tags does not require a nowiki code as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. You're the only one that has participated so far, so I want to understand your stance better. Regarding WP:CITEVAR, I wasn't aware that consensus was required for a change like this.
 * 2. I change them when it's something as insignificant as that, for example a  for a  . It's mostly just things that make the edit text be highlighted in the wrong color, as I have the Syntax highlighter activated. As it's not even a typo, I don't feel it's worth bothering the editor who did it, and it doesn't even change the way it looks in the published page. But if you want me to bother you then I will: please fix it.
 * I don't know why you're getting angry. I just want to know if you're against list-defined references in general, or if there's a specific reason why you're against making the change in this article. Understanding your stance is a step towards either I convincing you or you convincing me, since no other user has participated yet. El Millo (talk) 05:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw this, but don't really have a lot to say.
 * Yes, consensus is needed.
 * You should abandon your editor since it causes unnecessary coding to be inserted to make it work for its own use.
 * Just because I disagree with you does not mean I'm angry with you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I sensed anger in your refusal to answer my question about you, and assuming I had an intention other than understanding your point of view. A question which you still haven't answered. El Millo (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * After re-reading it, I can see that. It was more defensiveness than anger. Sorry for the confusion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * After re-reading it, I can see that. It was more defensiveness than anger. Sorry for the confusion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Any other opinions here? El Millo (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Planning to eliminate citations to unreliable sources
I am specifically challenging this edit by User:MacCready on 22 March 2019 and this edit by User:TropicAces on 11 January 2018. It's clear the editors haven't properly reviewed Reliable sources and Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and the result is very sloppy. As discussed in the Perennial sources table, Forbes Contributors are treated as self-published sources and are reliable sources only insofar as they are talking about themselves. Any objections? --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I hold no objection to removing the Forbes source, but IndieWire, /Film and Hollywood Reporter are all sufficient, established publications to cite the film being a bomb (it objectively lost money). TropicAces (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources don't seem especially problematic to me. In any case, the edits appear to have been made in WP:GOOD FAITH and don't merit a swipe at the abilities of the editors concerned. Maybe discuss the merits of each source and clarify why you think the Daily Telegraph or Hollywood Reporter fail WP:RS. Cnbrb (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought the citation to Perennial sources should have been clear enough in and of itself but apparently it wasn't. I am planning to eliminate only the citations to Forbes Contributors and statements based on those citations. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Social commentary - to be removed
This is not an encyclopedia for feminists. The encyclopedia is supposed to be objective, not politically correct. So what that there are some sources of information, if they are irrelevant? Is it supposed to be relevant just because some inferior reviewer wrote it that way? Will you give every opinion here?

I propose to introduce the following rule to NPOV: write as if 50 years ago it was also written that way. Pawel.jamiolkowski (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No. This film was released in 2017, not 50 years ago, and this is the contemporary response to it from highly reputable sources and from the creatives themselves. —El Millo (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Reviewing this section, the content appears to be reliably sourced. I do not see any policies or guidelines being violated. The section is clear with in-text attribution about who said what. If there is an issue with balance, then there should be a discussion about if we have looked for everything from all reliable sources. For example, I do see this from The Conversation. Furthermore, the section is focused on portrayal of women, and there could be subsections to cover other subtopics. I am seeing in Google Scholar some articles related to capitalism, and I also see two philosophy-related books about the film. In short, I can see a case for expanding commentary, not removing it in its entirety. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hilarious, how this section has attracted more triggered male complaining over the past 5 years than anything else. Just because you personally disagree with something is not a reason for it to be deleted it from an article. A rational adult can read something, find it interesting and still disagree with it. Cnbrb (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The reality is that academic takes, no matter how badly written or reasoned, are not in violation of Wikipedia policy. The solution has always been to expand the commentary to include reliable sources that expose the foolishness of a given article. But just wanting to eliminate the context of contemporary perspective itself is not an answer. There's plenty on this page, both complimentary and negatively critical, that I think doesn't hold up in certain ways, but it's a reflection of the reality of quasi-pundits. We've all got to deal with it. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with the sentiment about the social commentary being out of place.
 * I do not propose deletion however it is very clear and despite the tag of "Social Commentary" It is without a doubt feminist critique(A line is thrown to justify the name social commentary).
 * I propose either renaming the section feminist critique or simply trimming down the section because they are going too in depth.The references are very good, one of them directly to one of the actress but as stated before the section is too much in volume even when compared to climate change and environment which in my opinion deserves more lines. NotPixel (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)