Talk:Fantastic Mr. Fox (film)

Headlines

 * Wes Anderson Enlists Bill Murray For ‘The Fantastic Mr. Fox’ —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The Fantastic Mr. Fox is the last appearence of the 1994 20th Century Fox logo :-( --Henrytvwhiz (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Soundtrack Personnel
My name is Alex Mirabella and I have added a section regarding the personnel for the soundtrack. I understand that Wikipedia warns against adding the personnel for a film's orchestra but the film did not utilize an orchestra. I understand that the songs by Georges Delerue utilized an orchestra but the recordings for these songs were already existing. Please allow the soundtrack personnel to appear on this article as it does not go against any rules previously written for this site. I just wish to inform people of the musicians who helped in creating the soundtrack. Alex Mirabella —Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

Plot section seems unprofessional
While I don't doubt that the plot as it is given on this page is accurate (I live in California), I was reading through it and it seems to be, in form, very different from other Wikipedia film article plot summaries. For example, character quotes are interspersed throughout the summary: Just like this except it's something you've never seen before in a Wikipedia article!. (talk) 07:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? It looks fine to me. - 98.208.98.195 (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Specification
The plot needs to specify a key detail. Around the middle, it is said that Mr. Fox's house is in a tree. It then goes on to say that that said house goes under siege by the antagonists, and that the family escapes by digging. Given that the house is in a tree, it needs to be specified what exactly is happening here, to avoid confusion.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  07:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I misread and misunderstood what the original writer meant by in a tree. To this end, I have altered the text to make this more apparent.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  07:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you've seen the movie or not, but their house isn't under a tree. Their house is the inside of a tree and the dig through the floor to escape the farmers.  AniMate   21:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't, and thank you so much for the clarification, I'll correct my mistake now, and clarify further that it isn't like a tree house.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 05:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, you already fixed my error. Thanks..  but I still feel there should be a bit more clarification, however, I do not wish to go about that the way I had planned, as I don't think it would flow that well with the rest of the article.  Do you know of a way we might do this?—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 05:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Goof
The scientific names used in the movie are incorrectly formatted. "The genus name is always written with an initial capital letter. In current usage, the specific name is never written with an initial capital. For example, the entire tiger species is Panthera tigris" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.65.58 (talk) 11:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Awards
Fantastic Mr. Fox became a Nominee for the 82nd Academy Awards: http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/82/nominees.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colorgetic (talk • contribs) 19:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Reception
I think it should be noted that the top critics at RT have given this film 100%, which is higher than UP's rating. Many other film articles note the Top Critics response in their reception section so it would not be out of the ordinary. Jack mcdowell (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Box Office
The box office numbers seen on this article need to be updated. The total grosses of this movie are as of now $41,026,048. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andulias (talk • contribs) 11:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Spaghetti western music
In the chase/fight scene near the end the main theme from "A fistful of dollars" is playing. Then a chorus of children start singing the names of the three villains to the tune. If you read the credits at the end its listed with the rest of the music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.28.65 (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Comparison with the book
Should this article state how the film differs from the book on which it is based? At present, the book article contains such a section - but as that is the original work, I suggest it belongs here. Achillea (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither article should have such a section unless reliable sources have made note of the differences. Doniago (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I am reading this article after watching the film. This article would be much more useful to me if it compared the film to the book. -96.237.4.73 (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Fantastic Mr. Fox (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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100128111245/http://lineboil.com:80/2010/01/who-animated-fantastic-mr-fox/ to http://lineboil.com/2010/01/who-animated-fantastic-mr-fox/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080731182222/http://www.timeout.com:80/chicago/articles/music/39791/from-the-uk-to-the-magic-kingdom to http://www.timeout.com/chicago/articles/music/39791/from-the-uk-to-the-magic-kingdom
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5m2lEZqVv?url=http://www.goldenglobes.org/nominations/ to http://www.goldenglobes.org/nominations/
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5p6kTm4hN?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oscars.org%2Fawards%2Facademyawards%2F82%2Fnominees.html to http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/82/nominees.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100131024421/http://www.nbrmp.org:80/awards/awards.cfm?award=Special%20Filmmaking%20Achievement to http://www.nbrmp.org/awards/awards.cfm?award=Special%20Filmmaking%20Achievement

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fantastic Mr. Fox (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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012044310/http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2007/09/26/wes-anderson-enlists-bill-murray-for-the-fantastic-mr-fox/ to http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2007/09/26/wes-anderson-enlists-bill-murray-for-the-fantastic-mr-fox
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726072341/http://screencrave.com/2009-12-14/15th-annual-critics-choice-award-nominees/ to http://screencrave.com/2009-12-14/15th-annual-critics-choice-award-nominees/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Cast and plot
There is no reason to repeat the names of the cast in the plot, because that's what the cast section is for. By the same token, there is no reason to repeat plot details in the cast section, because that is what the plot is for. This is just unnecessary repetition that serves no useful purpose. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 13:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm only going to put back some details not all.

ArchAngelAvenger (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

How is this (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fantastic_Mr._Fox_(film)&diff=828683438&oldid=828483802) a cast and plot bloat?

ArchAngelAvenger (talk) 09:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I do appreciate your efforts, but in this case I don't think it's really an improvement. You've linked common terms, which generally isn't something we should be doing. You added parentheticals, which is a pet peeve of mine and to my mind means that we're not adopting as good a WP:TONE as we ought to, and in the Plot specifically suggests to me that the details aren't needed. Similarly, what song(s) the animals dance to isn't pertinent to the story. You also added a number of non-principal voice actors to the Cast section, which isn't intended to list every person who acted in the film. I do apologize if I'm coming off as overly-harsh here, but I just don't think the changes you're making are leading to a better article. I do appreciate you bringing the question here though! DonIago (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the point of your last revision was, as it appeared to address the most minor of my concerns noted above while doing nothing to address the more pressing concerns, including the parentheticals and addition of superflous cast members. DonIago (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect and no rudeness meant, may I ask what are the concerns now?

ArchAngelAvenger (talk) 07:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I mentioned them in my last comment here and they're basically identical to what I said in my first comment. DonIago (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with DonIago's comments immediately above and his comments from yesterday. I really fail to see the value of these added details. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 15:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

But that does not mean they do not have value even if some fail to see it.

ArchAngelAvenger (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * True, but Wikipedia works on the principal of consensus. If multiple editors are disputing your edits, most likely you shouldn't be making them. Alternately, you can consider dispute resolution, but to reinsert edits without getting a clear consensus would constitute edit-warring. DonIago (talk) 04:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

In case you did not notice I have tried to take into account what others have been saying. In the most recent revision I performed I took out the parentheticals. So it is not like I am not trying to compromise at all.

ArchAngelAvenger (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * But at this point you should be running text past us first, not plugging it in and then hoping nobody will object to it. You know there's at least two editors contesting your changes, so you shouldn't be changing the article until this discussion has run its course. DonIago (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

"But at this point you should be running text past us first,": Do you mean yourself and "TheOldJacobite"? Forgive me but you are starting to sound as though you have authority here when you do not thus you sound rather arrogant in your way of speaking.

"...not plugging it in and then hoping nobody will object to it.": I would agree with that point post the last revision I created.

"You know there's at least two editors contesting your changes,": I am definitely aware of that.

"so you shouldn't be changing the article until this discussion has run its course.": Well where are we with the discussion? What are the issues with the revision that I last did that you reverted?

ArchAngelAvenger (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I was hoping to avoid being this blunt, but frankly, I didn't see that any of the changes you made were improvements to the existing article, and none of the revisions I looked at addressed all of the concerns I brought up before, so I don't know why you keep asking me to reiterate them. Thank you for your understanding. DonIago (talk) 05:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The reason I am asking is because I am trying to work out what is still a problem as of the last revision I created of this article.

ArchAngelAvenger (talk) 06:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, then- I don't feel any of the changes you made were improvements, and unless any editor speaks up here willing to express a belief that at least some of your changes were improvements, I hope you will understand that you do not have a consensus for your changes and that consequently re-inserting some or all of them, especially in light of the fact that you know they're contentious, might be construed as edit-warring. If you want to pursue this further, you're welcome to contact WT:FILM or consider dispute resolution. I don't see a point in further discussing this without the involvement of additional editors. DonIago (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with . It's time to put this matter to rest. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 13:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I would be happy to try achieve some sort of dispute resolution but how do we do so?

ArchAngelAvenger (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you click on the highlighted text "dispute resolution"? DonIago (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes I did but I am unsure about what to do from there on. Forgive me if I sound stupid.

ArchAngelAvenger (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Conveniently, if you're having trouble understanding how dispute resolution works, you can ask a question at WT:DR. I'd even encourage that approach since it may encourage editors there to improve the page to clarify whatever you're having trouble with. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 04:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I have placed something on the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Was that the right thing to do about this dispute?

ArchAngelAvenger (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

In terms of what was stated on the Dispute resolution noticeboard, specifically "No other editor expressed an opinion to the contrary, and despite some effort by me to discuss why the edits weren't improvements AA continued to express confusion and potential WP:IDHT problems, and thus we find ourselves here.", I have some things to say: "No other editor expressed an opinion to the contrary,…", true but we (myself, yourself (Doniago) and TheOldJacobite) have yet to get any other editors seriously involved yet. "...and despite some effort by me to discuss why the edits weren't improvements AA continued to express confusion and potential WP:IDHT problems,…", You have not explained what was still a concern as of the last revision I created so of course I am still confused. How am I expressing WP:IDHT problems? ArchAngelAvenger (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the fact that this discussion is still going on, a full month after it started, is a good indication you are not hearing our comments and responses to your edits and to your questions here. How much clearer can we make it? --- The Old Jacobite <i style="font-family: Courier New;">The '45</i> 02:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * AAA, if you want to continue the discussion, it's on you to get other editors involved, as you attempted to do by opening the DRN case. Jacobite and I clearly feel both that there's no significant merit to your proposed changes and little point in continuing the discussion, so why would we make the effort to involve other editors? Also, I have repeatedly said that I didn't feel any of your changes were improvements. How is any of that unclear to you? Frankly I think you're being pointy and should drop the stick now, and I may not respond to further comments that appear to be an effort to continue beating a dead horse rather than a clear effort to move this along. Jacobite and I have tried to work with you on this, and I at least cannot understand why you are having trouble understanding what I believe to be clearly-worded statements. Bluntly, I'm only responding now because I see the DRN case was closed and felt you deserved a response in light of that. DonIago (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

To TheOldJacobite:

"Well, the fact that this discussion is still going on, a full month after it started, is a good indication you are not hearing our comments and responses to your edits and to your questions here.": Or it could mean that I simply disagree and are trying to get some clarity on this matter.

"How much clearer can we make it?": Frankly, a lot.

To Doniago:

"AAA, if you want to continue the discussion, it's on you to get other editors involved, as you attempted to do by opening the DRN case.": Fine.

"Jacobite and I clearly feel both that there's no significant merit to your proposed changes and little point in continuing the discussion, so why would we make the effort to involve other editors?": Maybe I am imagining it and if so I apologise but it sounds like you do not want to have to accept that perhaps your view is not the most valid or accepted one?

"Also, I have repeatedly said that I didn't feel any of your changes were improvements.": You have not fully explained why.

"How is any of that unclear to you?": You (neither of you) have fully explained why.'

"Frankly I think you're being pointy and should drop the stick now, and I may not respond to further comments that appear to be an effort to continue beating a dead horse rather than a clear effort to move this along.": How am I being "pointy"? Why should I drop it? So you don't have to accept that your view is not the most potentially correct one? How is trying to gain understanding beating a dead horse? Does a clear effort to move this along mean just agreeing with you?

"Jacobite and I have tried to work with you on this, and I at least cannot understand why you are having trouble understanding what I believe to be clearly-worded statements.": Is it trying when one refuses to explain to another where there is a source of concern and treating them as though they are being deliberately troublesome or stupid? They are not fully explained statements.

"Bluntly, I'm only responding now because I see the DRN case was closed and felt you deserved a response in light of that.": I will say thank you on that count.

ArchAngelAvenger (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC about the cast and plot
Was this (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fantastic_Mr._Fox_(film)&diff=829186844&oldid=829161433) still a cast and plot bloat? ArchAngelAvenger (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * No - one word is removed, one word is added. The net change in the number of words is nil. This cannot be considered a bloat of any kind. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment "The plot! Always the plot!" Yes, it's plot-related RfC time again. :-) What's the name of the place where original work is officially allowed to sneak in and grow its malevolent branches? It's where we get to describe the plot. Away with the bothersome requirements for damn sources! Plot sections are where Wikipedians cam demonstrate real skills. Seriously, we can have RfCs about plots until U.S. Congress understands social media or the sun goes out, whatever comes earlier; the rules are just too lenient. For this RfC, what can one say except that as long as the word-count rule is satisfied and the English is not mangled, any version is OK. What diff does it make? -The Gnome (talk) 06:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No the cast members added mainly have named roles, the plot additions add clarity. Atlantic306 (talk) 10:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, at least the Cast changes. The cast members added are not principals, and the plot details added are insignificant to the overall story. I probably wouldn't make an issue of the plot changes in and of themselves, but the cast additions are unneeded. Then again, I wouldn't have elevated this to the level of an RfC either. DonIago (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly in regard to the cast changes. As  pointed out, the added plot details are insignificant, but they are not as much of a problem as the expansion of the cast.  The discussion of these changes has now been going on for months, and I really have to ask why all of this is necessary. ---<b style="font-family: Georgia;"> The Old Jacobite </b><i style="font-family: Courier New;">The '45</i> 16:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * That link appears to point to a single edit. Please consider restating this RfC more clearly. DonIago (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * How so on both counts? ArchAngelAvenger (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know what part of "that link appears to point to a single edit" is unclear. Given our prior difficulties communicating and my inability to come up with a way to more clearly state my concern, unless other editors would care to try to clear up your misunderstanding there's not much to be done here. DonIago (talk) 06:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * How does "that link appear to point to a single edit."? I know what the words mean but I am trying to understand how it does so. How should I restate this RfC more clearly? What part of it is unclear? ArchAngelAvenger (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You do realize that the edit the link points to involves a change to a single word? I suspect that wasn't the diff you had in mind, especially since it's not even an edit you made. DonIago (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not sure what we're even talking about here, after looking at that link, which illuminates nothing. ---<b style="font-family: Georgia;"> The Old Jacobite </b><i style="font-family: Courier New;">The '45</i> 23:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: The provided diff has been updated. I believe it would have been better practice to strikeout your existing link and insert a new one rather than simply overwrite what you had before...which in a worst-case scenario could have essentially invalidated the RfC. As you've only essentially received one response in any case though, I imagine the "damage" is minimal. DonIago (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "The cast members added are not principals, and the plot details added are insignificant to the overall story.": What is your basis for that? "I probably wouldn't make an issue of the plot changes in and of themselves, but the cast additions are unneeded.": How are the cast additions unneeded? ArchAngelAvenger (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What is my basis for which? The cast part or the plot part? That the plot details are insignificant to the overall story is, to my mind, self-evident. If they didn't occur, does the story change? Nope. Regarding the cast, read WP:FILMCAST, or look at the majority of film articles that include a Cast section. The Cast section is intended to list the prominent roles in the film, not be an exhaustive list. DonIago (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Categories: "Animated adventure films" and "Chase films"?
Are the aforementioned genres appropriate in the Categories section? Most sources label this as an "animated adventure" (Rotten Tomatoes, IMDb). As for "chase films", the film pretty much involves the wolves being hunted or chased by the farmers (thereby fitting under "American Chase films" category). What do you say? 124.150.67.252 (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * We categorize articles based on the article's verifiable content. The only mention I see of "chase" is in "Eric Chase Anderson", so I can't support any categorization of this film as a "chase film" at this time; that would seem to be original research as a "chase film" is a specific type of film, and we can't make that claim based solely on plot elements, just as a film with comedic elements isn't necessarily considered a comedy film. IMDb is absolutely not a reliable source, and I don't trust RT's genre classifications (I'll take AFI, BFI, and AllMovie before RT), so I question your claim that "most sources" label the film as an "animated adventure" given that RT and IMDb are the only two you provided. DonIago (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, maybe "chase film" is far-fetched. But most importantly, and (hopefully) to your satisfaction, the film's entry on AFI includes "adventure". As for BFI, there are no genres listed unfortunately. I don't think BFI even includes genres? And finally, AllMovie just has "comedy". 124.150.67.252 (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Then it's just a matter of updating the film's genre classification (either in the lead or elsewhere as appropriate) and then adding the category, as at that point the category is supported by content within the article. DonIago (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Can I proceed with adding "adventure" in the lead (or any place I deem fit)? 124.150.67.252 (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've expressed any opposition to updating the genres listed in the article text provided they were reliably sourced. I believe the only reservations I've expressed had to do with adding categories that weren't supported by text within the body of the article. DonIago (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Section on Gaza
The section about the similarities to Gaza seems unrelated and not important enough to include. It comes from a single article with no byline (as far as I can tell) and is (subjectively) a bit of a stretch by the author.

I feel it should be removed as it's unrelated to anything else in the article. Much appreciated, friend! -Avery Trashmouth 17:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree that it does not belong, especially if it is an unusual connection which would warrant more than one commentator. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Since the Israel-Gaza connection is from a review website and therefore pertains to film review, should that entry be revived and placed under the "critical reception" section of article? It was there before, albeit briefly. Moreover, The Jewish Chronicle is a legitimate source. 118.208.106.99 (talk) 03:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have doubts as to whether The Jewish Chronicle can be considered to be objective in matters regarding Gaza, unless there are other sources that claim that it can be considered neutral regarding Gaza. DonIago (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The reviewer claims that a certain character (Peabody) covers the siege similarly to how real life reporters cover Gaza. These reporters could might as well be pro-Israel or pro-Palestine. Here is the actual comment, verbatim, from The Jewish Chronicle source:
 * "Though at one point Brian Cox as the TV journalist covering the farmers’ siege of the Fox’s hill does sounds oddly like the reporters covering Gaza, there is no trace in the film of Dahl’s unapologetic antisemitism."
 * I think this full statement (as the context matters) seems fit in the article's review section, because it does pertain to Roald Dahl's antisemitism (or lack thereof in the movie) -- The author merely says that the film doesn't contain antisemitism, but points out a similarity to the conflict. Maybe other users can discuss this as an alternative suggestion? 118.208.106.99 (talk) 08:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you might consider strengthening your case by providing additional sources. DonIago (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Two points come to mind here:
 * With "Critical reception" sections, we are compelled to sample individual reviews because sources that summarize reviews rarely go into depth about trends across multiple reviews. Sometimes Rotten Tomatoes has a decent critics' consensus passage from which we can determine what of an individual review to sample. Like if RT says critics praised a film's visual effects, that can lead us to quote from a review what that critic liked about the visual effects. In absence of that, the general overview of a specific review should be summarized. I find the Gaza point in the Jewish Chronicle review to be more of an aside that feels like it would be shoehorned in.
 * We also need to consider WP:EXCEPTIONAL, where exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I think the Gaza point is an exceptional claim, and I do not see this point reiterated in other reliable sources. For comparison, the film The Babadook is considered a gay icon, which is an exceptional claim, and there are multiple sources talking about that (Vox, The New Yorker, Polygon, Vanity Fair, Rolling Stone), qualifying that point for the Wikipedia article.
 * So in essence, the point is too apart from the topic to belong in any particular section. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)