Talk:Descendants 2

Soundtrack album split
I have undone an improperly done WP:SPLIT of the soundtrack section. There has been no discussion about this and no consensus to do a split at this time. Also there is no significant coverage in reliable independent sources about the soundtrack album (trivial listings only), and the album hasn't charted so WP:NALBUM is not met. WP:TOOSOON for split. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've reverted another split attempt made by the same IP . At this point I agree it's too soon for a split. No ranking of the album on the Billboard 200 right now - might change in the next couple of weeks, since the album was just released, so will reevaluate when/if it appears on that chart (or another appropriate record chart from outside the US). MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Another unattributed split was just attempted by User:Mecj2 without discussion – I have reverted in the meantime. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I think that the soundtrack section of this article is now ready to have it's own Wikipedia article. The soundtrack meets more than 2 of the criteria per WP:NALBUM. The soundtrack charted in more than 10 territories around the world and has been certified gold in the United States. Also, there is enough material to warrant a stand alone article. Just wanna know your thoughts on this before performing the split. Thank you! ɢᴀʙʙʏᴍɪx01 02:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Fully unjustified, as per WP:SIZESPLIT – that section absolutely doesn't unbalance the article, and should stay here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * At 11,020 characters of readable prose, this article doesn't justify a split on length alone. However, looking over the article, the soundtrack section seems to take a disproportional amount of size compared to the main topic of the article, the movie itself. Generally the soundtrack isn't that important compared to the proportion of the article covering it. Given the soundtrack does meet WP:NALBUM now, a separate article is justified with just a short summary remaining in this article. There is enough content and sources to create a quality soundtrack article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point. I'll also upload the cover of the soundtrack and add additional chart placements I found. Thank you for your responses. Greatly appreciated! ɢᴀʙʙʏᴍɪx01 03:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:FILMSOUNDTRACK also supports a stand-along soundtrack article given that it is separately notable. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Uma is "Uma"
The character's name is "Uma". The fact that she was called "Shrimpy" in a couple of throwaway lines of dialogue is basically "trivia", and should not be included as a character "name" in the 'Cast' section. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Why can't ratings be sourced from Deadline?
There are a few users who added the premiere rating for the movie, sourcing from this Deadline article. However, these changes were reverted as the ratings are not considered to be "final numbers". Deadline is classified under the WikiProject Television/FAQ page as a reliable source. I appreciate the editors striving for accuracy for the article, but I would like to clarify why can't this Deadline article be used as a source since Wikipedia considers Deadline to be reliable? ~ Appleseed w (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Deadline is a perfectly reliable source to use. We use it all the time to source when a series has been renewed for another season. However, we currently only have the preliminary numbers for ABC, and that's why we're waiting for the final numbers on Monday. ABC is a broadcast network, and broadcast networks work a little differently than cable/satellite networks, and that's why numbers change between the preliminaries and finals. For example, they pretty much rely solely on ratings for their revenue while cable/satellite networks don't as they not only get revenue from ratings, but also from the people's subscriptions. To demonstrate, look at the preliminaries for Thursday here—click on the chart to see the whole chart as it's being obscured by the comments sidebar—and compare the numbers there to the finals here . Notice how the numbers changed. The final numbers is all we really care about. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 02:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that makes sense! (forgot to say earlier) ~ Appleseed w (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * To follow up here, the preliminary vs. final ratings for this film on ABC, in particular, were substantially different. Also, Disney's press release over the weekend that claimed "13 million total viewers" for the film was based on preliminary ratings, and was completely off-target (or, at least, was highly misleading) – the final total ratings across all 6 networks was only 8.9 million, not 13 million. So there's little upside to using preliminary ratings – it's better to wait for the "final" ratings reports after a few days. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2017
After 6 months not several 2A02:C7D:BBA1:D900:E531:8540:8DA:D3F6 (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌. Personal evaluation. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 21:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Descendants 3
Because we do not talk about this in the article?, obviously there will be a third part, I think that was clear.-- Philip J Fry : Talk
 * No reliable source that I know of has confirmed another sequel. Until that happens, the article should make no mention of potential followup sequels. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Summer
Please point me to the policy in which we can ignore MOS's. --  Alex TW 17:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's directly from the source. That's WP:V which is a policy. MOS are only guidelines, which are suggestions. And here it's suggesting to "avoid" when it's ambiguous – here is is not ambiguous, as it's directly from a source, and is referring to an American production. BTW, Einstein, BRD refers to you in this situation, not me – you removed sourced content, so it's up to you to restore the previous version until you establish consensus for your position. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'll take this to WT:TV. We remember what happened at Tangled concerning tag-teaming and "winning" discussions. --  Alex TW 17:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Mid 2019 would work and mean the same thing. We don't need to copy stuff exactly as long as the meaning stays the same. Dropping "Summer" removes some of the precision given in the source for the premiere time. Making it clear it was a direct quote from the source is also reasonable in my opinion and meets the intent of the MOS. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes – I like/approve of your recent edit, as a perfectly fine way to handle this issue. In this case, the source didn't say "mid" 2019 (unfortunately), so we need to go with what's in the source. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Geraldo. Your edit was a perfect compromise. Also, Alex, remember that, as IJBall stated, MOS is only a guideline, not a policy. According to a dictionary, a guideline is a general rule, principle, or piece of advice. The key term here is general. In other words, guidelines aren't absolute top-down rules that must be followed 100% of the time. I don't know how many times we have to explain this to you. Yet you continue to make up your own interpretations of both guidelines and policies. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 17:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Reverts and Protection
If this page requires protection from anonymous editors, please request it when required, as certain editors have recently violated WP:3RR by reverting (whether involving the same or different material) more than three times within 24 hours. --  Alex TW 21:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Alex, give it a rest already. Just because consensus turned out to be in your favor this time does not excuse your behavior prior to that. Removing unsourced content is not edit warring. Now, go be a WP:DICK elsewhere and stop trying cause trouble for us out of spite just because you can't handle being wrong in most cases or being challenged. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 21:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't care how it turned out either way. I'm just civilly letting people know they need to watch actual policy before someone uninvolved comes into the fray - if I wanted to cause trouble, I could have gone straight to WP:AN3, but I didn't. You are welcome. --  Alex TW 22:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure what you're going on about here as nobody came close to crossing 3RR, not even you. Now, please just drop it, and go do something productive. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Aw, thank you very much, sir. Not. Right, sure you are... You're in no position to tell us what to do. If there's a problem, then others can talk to us, not you. So fuck you, and have a nice day. Civil enough for you? Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 22:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you must know, it was you, IJBall. 4 reverts in less than 24 hours (1, 2, 3, 4). As for Amaury, if you'd like to continue personal attacks, I can head over there per WP:PA (another policy). But I'm once again feeling nice. Enjoy your day! --  Alex TW 22:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Geezus, what are you babbling about?! Only the first two were actually reverts that were relevant. The other two are completely unrelated. (Please try convincing an Admin that that is a 3RR violation – I dare you.) Now buzz off Alex – you are wasting everyone's time here with your whining. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:3RR: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. If you would like me to, I can? --  Alex TW 22:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Go for it – I want you to report me to 3RR: let's see if they take any action, or even consider it edit warring. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You're feeling nice? How generous of you. Not. And where was that when you were attempting to bully us with this recent dispute? Ah, that's right, nowhere. Also, I guess you forgot about this: Give to others what you expect to be given back to you. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 17:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Right back at you. If you want to play these games and be a dick, then I can also play these games and be a dick. If you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen. If you want to report me for "personal attacks" because you can't handle a swear word when you're the cause of these tensions, go right ahead. I have no history of such issues, so if you want to see me blocked, good luck with that. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 22:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)