Talk:Malignant (2021 film)/Archive 1

Requested move 24 September 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move to the proposed title, however there is no clear consensus on which of the alternative proposals is best, therefore this is with no prejudice against speedy renomination to a different target. (closed by non-admin page mover)  SITH   (talk)   21:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Malignant (2020 film) → Malignant (film) – Old page is a redirect, release date of film is currently unknown Kaito Nakamura (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose, but it should MOVE to Malignant (upcoming film) (since release date is unknown). There's already an article for the other film, "Malignant (2013 film)". "Malignant (film)" would be a WP:PDAB/WP:INCDAB. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose proposed move, Malignant (film) should instead be either disambiguated or retargeted to Malignancy (disambiguation). Oppose also a move to Malignant (upcoming film), since this is only a transient title of no long term value which would eventually end up at WP:RfD. Support a move instead to Malignant (James Wan film) which will still have purpose as a redirect once the release date is known. PC78 (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Paintspot Infez and PC78. The nomination is malformed since the entry for Malignant (film) [moved by nominator to Malignant (2013 film) one hour before submission of this nomination] has existed since March 2015. Would support, however, PC78's proposal for a move to Malignant (James Wan film). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, however, the page should be kept as Malignant (2020 film) until a release year is known. Once a release year is confirmed, it should be changed to Malignant (year of film). Kaito Nakamura (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Huh? This is your nomination, and if you now say the present title should be kept that is explicitly not "support" for a move. In fact, it might be fair to interpret this as a tacit withdrawl of the nomination. PC78 (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose this proposal because Malignant (2013 film) exists. Since no release date exists for this film, it should be moved to Malignant (upcoming film) for now. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Malignant (film) may be a redirect, but it is a redirect to a different film. The fact that there are multiple films by this title already rules out any possibility of renaming the 2020 film to Malignant (film). Even the nominator of this move agrees with this, which is baffling in itself. If anything, the page Malignant (film) should be converted into a disambiguation page for the various films by this title. I can handle that. --Nicholas0 (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose multiple films called "Malignant", so the proposed title is bad in all cases -- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 06:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Untitled James Wan project" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Untitled James Wan project. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose to merge Malignant Man into Malignant (2020 film). The graphic novel article consists of a single sentence about the novel, and the rest of the article is about the film. Every source in the graphic novel article is for the film. The only information about the novel that would be added to the film article is that it was published in 2011. Thoughts? Schazjmd  (talk)  00:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. They’re different formats. One is a graphic novel and the other is a film. Simple as that. In fact, I don’t even know why the article contains ‘based on Malignant Man’ as there are zero sources to confirm this. Plot details are being kept confidential so I’m not sure how “Based on Malignant Man” managed to make it into this article in the first place. Kaito Nakamura (talk) 08:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , this source states that the movie is based on the graphic novel; also this one and this one.  Schazjmd   (talk)  14:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , either way, they’re two different formats, and when the film releases, the plots would differ. So we can’t have a merge of these articles. Kaito Nakamura (talk) 02:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your comments, I'll withdraw the proposal. Schazjmd   (talk)  14:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Change name from Malignant (upcoming film) to Malignant (unreleased film)
As of now, there are currently no plans for a new release date from Warner Bros. for the foreseeable future, so its best we change the title from upcoming to unreleased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.110.238.1 (talk • contribs) 15:18, July 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * Please sign your post after leaving a message on the talk page. The film is “upcoming”, not unreleased. There are no sources that point to the film being cancelled/unreleased. Warner. Bros have not stated a release date, however, the film is scheduled to release sometime in the future without cancellation. KaitoNkmra23 (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur that "upcoming" is fine. "Unreleased" is more appropriate for a film that was produced but never got released (which is pretty rare). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "Upcoming" is the more appropriate choice, unless there is news that this project has been abandoned. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * While I agree, we need to consider the case where this film is never heard of again. There are cases where the last thing we hear about a film is that it is pulled from schedule and then no reputable source talks of it again. At what point then would it be best to change our language about this film? BOVINEBOY 2008 23:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, we don't, because we know there's a very clear reason this was pulled from the schedule: COVID-19. Until RS state there's anything else involved in the decision, this is a total red herring and non-issue. Or to be super-specific, it can be revisited once COVID-19 is over, aka at least a year from now, barring some kind of shocking development. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I agree. I was just posing a hypothetical. 00:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

way too early for move to "(2021 film)"
Given the film still has no specific release date and the impact of COVID-19 on cinema in general, it was way premature to move the article title to "(2021 film)",. "(upcoming film)" was fine. I suggest reverting the move. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Per this article, it is part of the WB/HBO 2021 release schedule. I think it is safe for us to use the year since a reliable, independent source uses the date. BOVINEBOY 2008 10:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)