Talk:Enola Holmes 2

Reviewer Note
There is a myth in Wikipedia, based on a misinterpretation of film notability guidelines, and in particular of future film guidelines, that films are considered notable once they have begun production. Films that are in production are only notable if the production itself satisfies general notability guidelines, which is only occasionally the case. This film does not satisfy film notability at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Context, the above comment was warning editors who created a WP:DRAFT article when the film was in the very early stages of development. It was far too soon for the article to be added to mainspace. As a release date has been set and the first trailer has been released, I think we're safely past that issue. -- 109.77.198.234 (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Cast section should match the end credits
Please note that same as the first film Louis Partridge is credited as "Tewkesbury" without any other names or titles. The WP:FILMCAST guidelines say that "All names should be referred to as credited". Before changing the names in the cast section to anything other than what is shown in the end credits please discuss and gain consensus first. -- 109.76.195.65 (talk) 02:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * David Thewlis is listed only as "Grail" in the end credits not "Superintendent Grail". -- 109.76.195.65 (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Dr. Watson is listed in the credits without his first name. (Mr. Bill Crouch gets his name in full.) -- 109.76.128.10 (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Lead section
I'm not quite sure about how the lead section has been rewritten, but something about the emphasis doesn't seem quite right. I'm not sure the right things are being highlighted and given their WP:DUE emphasis. For example it would seem more important to first point out that this is a sequel to the 2020 film Enola Holmes (film) or that it stars Millie Bobbie Brown. Even pointing out that it is a story derived from Sherlock Holmes seems like an important thing to state before getting on to other details. Highlighting the director and the writer first might be appropriate for some films but not every film and not this film. I might take a shot at rewriting this later when things settle down a bit. -- 109.76.195.65 (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Rewrite is a significant improvement IMO. -- 109.79.74.129 (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Plot section
I added a reference to the plot section but some editors have deleted it without explanation. I understand that the plot section does not normally require references as the film itself is the source of the plot but I thought it might be helpful to include a reference to a longer more detailed plot summary from a reliable source such as the Radio Times. Although the plot section does not strictly need references that doesn't mean that it cannot or should not include any references, I'm not sure that the editors who have deleted the reference without any explanation understand that. I think the article is improved by keeping it.

I also want to start a discussion about the mid credits sequence, or stinger or epilog, or whatever you want to call it. The WP:FILMPLOT guidelines say Mid- and post-credit scenes should generally not be included in the plot summary but that they can be if there is local consensus. I know editors will continue, in good faith, to add the appearance of Doctor Watson but there should be discussion to establish relevance first. The rest of the plot section may need to be adjusted to establish that relevance. One of themes of the film is that Enola needs to work with others, and as she learns this for herself she also advises Sherlock that he needs a friend. The setup and appearance of Doctor Watson could be justified as the payoff to this theme if the plot summary adequate foreshadows it, but if the plot section does not properly establish relevance then it is meaningless cameo and (per the guidelines) should not be included.

I would also note that the plot summary reference explaining the ending does not even bother to mention the appearance of Doctor Watson. -- 109.76.128.10 (talk) 11:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Editors keep adding it back in, but no one seems to care to discuss it. It would be better to establish local consensus before ignoring the guideline or making exceptions. -- 109.79.75.196 (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Warner Bros.
I want it distributed by Warner Bros.! 2804:214:81B6:182F:940D:231E:185:5A6 (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * That doesn't matter. Stop adding false information to articles. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The above anonipv6 editor seems to have a serious problem understanding the reality here, despite people trying to explain in several different ways that Warner Bros was not involved with this film or the first Enola Holmes film. This persistent disruptive editing has been going on since the first film was released. WP:NOTLISTENING. -- 109.77.205.15 (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Persistent and delusional. Not only does Warner Bros have nothing to do with this film HBO Max has less than nothing to do with it. Please get help. -- 109.76.202.131 (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)