Talk:Once Upon a Time in Hollywood/Archive 2

Marvin Schwartz vs. Marvin Schwarz
So there is a Marvin Schwarz on IMDB who is credited as the producer of Hard Contract. There is also a Marvin Schwartz who has six credits. However if we look at the actual credit for Hard Contract I believe it's actually credited as Schwartz. This has all been very confusing for me. Schwarz actually might be Schwartz. Or it's possible the name got confused. For now, a film producer named Marvin Schwarz is credited for Hard Contract. I'll try to dig deeper. I don't know if anyone else can gain some insight on this. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

My grandmother was a Schwartz. But it can also be spelled Schwarz. Both mean the colour black. Colour/Color! However, all Jews will be Schwartz, never Schwarz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.3.62 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Character descriptions
These character descriptions really need to be reduced. They're simply far too detailed for a Wikipedia article about a movie that fictionalizes them; readers can certainly go to the Manson family related articles to get these details. The whole article is seeming somewhat fannish. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 21:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The Tate murders are referenced in the film. The scene where Booth beats up Grogan is a reference to the Shorty Shea murder. When Kasabian deserts the group in the film it's a reference to Manson deserting them after the LaBianca murders. There have been criticisms that the film doesn't represent Helter Skelter or the group as white supremacists. It's a theory but there are other theories as well. Some of this information isn't available anywhere else on Wikipedia but it probably should be. The movie doesn't fictionalize the people. It fictionalizes the events but at the same time references the real life events. The descriptions are there to connect the dots. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

For now I will tie the descriptions into the film and edit them a little as well Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I’d recommend keeping the cast list short and dealing with the historical vs fictional aspects in a separate section in the article. Assume people will click on links.  --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 19:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the issue there is that those links don't describe how those events are referenced in the film nor should they. Also, not all that information is provided on those links. Some of the Family members don't have their own pages, yet their roles are still important to the film. Someone suggested looking at the Titanic film cast list and it seems similar. But there is a section for portrayal of real life people so I can certainly see how some of the description and references and tie ins can go there but again I have seen similar cast sections on Wikipedia. Other than Titanic, Pulp Fiction comes to mind. But of course we can rearrange it. Also, in your opinion, should we move the portrayal of real life people directly under the cast section? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thing is, when I look at the cast list for a movie, what I really want is "who played what role". But why, for example, do we need "Share met Bobby Beausoleil on the set of the Western softcore porn film Ramrodder, which they both appeared in. Beausoleil would later introduce Share to Charles Manson" in the cast list? Or in the article at all? People are quite capable of clicking on the Catherine Share link. Why do we need any of the detail on Susan Atkins? Or Leslie van Houten? Non-historical aspects of their portrayal can be discussed in the fact v fiction section. As far as position in the article, I don't have an opinion. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 21:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there is any description of Van Houten but I understand your point. My thoughts are it gives context to the characters, the story, and the connections of the Manson Family, both within their group as well as to other people portrayed in the film. For example LaVey was connected to both the Manson Family and Polanski. I know you can read about some of that on his page. When I look at a cast list of a film I'm interested in enough to look up on Wikipedia I would like to know this information. I'm fine rearranging it though. I can create a sub section for the Manson Family under real life portrayals and copy and paste a lot of stuff. I'll have to reedit it as well, so it'll take a little while. Before I do though, are you saying this should be done for all the characters or just the Manson Family? Should this be done to all Wikipedia movie pages or just Once Upon a Time in Hollywood? Because other film pages have existed for much longer on here with long character descriptions in their cast list. I don't necessarily think this page should be singled out. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Singled out"? It's "singled out" because I'm interested in the movie (loved it) so I'm paying particular attention to this article at the moment. Also: there are plenty of other editors, and you're pretty focused on this article; perhaps you should step aside for a moment and let other editors develop it more. (You've made 775 edits to the article, over 25% of the total, and fully 97% of your Wikipedia edits.) --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 23:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The reason it's important to note that Beausoleil and Share met on a film set is because this film is about the film industry and partially the Manson Family's relationship with it. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem with other editors developing the page. But my involvement with it isn't stopping anyone else, so I don't follow that logic. Obviously I am dedicated to it and if I find valuable information to add, I don't see why I shouldn't. A lot of my edits have been finding references for information others have added but not included citations for. Others, like other music, and part of the Cliff Booth character description was in response to other editors request that those things be included. If I continue to find things of value to be added I don't see why I shouldn't add them. As you stated 75% of the edits weren't mine. Also a lot of my edits have been in to response to conversations I've had away from Wikipedia with people who've told me what they'd be interested in reading about the film, as well as in response to clearing up questions they have about it. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

775 edits is 82% of my edits, not that it matters. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm adding an update. Since this conversation the character backgrounds have been separated into a separate section with that I believe are clear explanations of why and how the information ties into the film. The cast list is seperate and only a list. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * There is far too much detail on the character descriptions that aren't proper to the film - not even being referenced in it - and are much more appropriate to the actual Manson articles. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

No. You deleted the real life reference to the movie theater scene and to the Bruce Lee fight which were both big parts of the film. Also Manson's connection to McQueen. When historical characters of such magnitude are represented it's definitely worth while to show how it all fits and connects. A lot of that stuff isn't in the Manson article. But even if it's appropriate there, it doesn't mean it's not appropriate here as well. All the stuff written about in the Manson Family is either referenced in the film, or by Tarantino or ties in thematically. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article is overwritten right now. For example, the paragraph beginning "Jay Sebring was a Hollywood hairstylist and ex-boyfriend of Tate" has almost no relevant information in it. Way, way too much detail. Popcornduff (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * (after edit conflict), I'm discussing here, per WP:BRD. Evidently, I'm to feel that these character descriptions are way too long and over-detailed. In the Manson Family section (which I haven't even got to yet), the narrative jumps incoherently from film to reality and back again. What does it add to the article on a film to know that in real life, one of the characters portrayed in that film was in a motorbike accident four years after the film's setting; or that two of the characters met for lunch once in real life; or that the mask worn by characters in a completely different film were based on a mask not worn by a character in this film?! You have three lines devoted just to a fight between Burt Ward and Bruce Lee which has no relevance whatsoever to this film! I get that you're a fan, but this is a Wikipedia article. WP:ROC, WP:DETAIL, WP:NOTTRIVIA, and MOS:POPCULT exist for reasons. So, too, does WP:OWN. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't do . It's really annoying to have to search through the page source to figure out where I've been mentioned. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 22:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not about being a fan. The lunch is important because it's shown in the film. So this is saying not only is it in the film but it also happened in reality. The Booth Lee fight is a reference to the Ward Lee situation. Lee acting arrogant. Being referred to as Kato. Ending in a draw. How Tarantino has referenced the show earlier is also showing how it connects to other films of his. Perhaps the Kill Bill reference would be more appropriate somewhere else though. That I can understand. Overlaps in his films are still relevant to this movie though. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The motorbike accident. The reason the last shot of him in the film is on his motorcycle is because it's an allusion to his accident. He rides free even though later on it ends in tragedy or does it? Because history has changed. Either way that's why the scene is in the movie. Otherwise it wouldn't be there. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Popcorn Duff. I completely agree that the caption is confusing. I didn't originally add the picture and that's something I've thought as well. I'll change it. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

This talk page was started because descriptions in the cast section were too long which is why they were separated. I also understand if the section should be divided into more sections. But I don't understand deleting references altogether. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Samurai, I'm afraid you have three editors opposing you now and we need to do something about it. Popcornduff (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

No. The first editor thought the descriptions were too long for the cast section. I did do something about that. The cast section is now only a list. However, I will restructure it again and we'll go from there. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Descriptions are still too long. People have lunch; this was not an "important" lunch. It was a quick scene. Lee had a scene with Burt Ward - and? We don't need three lines describing an unrelated scene - even if the scene in the film is based on Lee/Ward. The motorbike is shown presumably because Stacy used a motorbike as a mode of transport. The examples I picked were random - the same applies to just about every character. And, as I mentioned, I haven't even started on the Manson family seciton. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * (after ec) "I will restructure it again and we'll go from there." Alternatively, you could stop with the ownership and take the advice of other editors. You currently don't have consensus to keep the overlong character descriptions and needless detail, and it will be removed. Per the WP policies already outlined. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

In my restructuring I'll be deleting things as well. And moving things out of character descriptions. I'll I'm asking for is a chance to do that. But real life inspirations for the scenes are important. I don't understand how you think what a movie is based on isn't relative to the article. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Details of the day Tate was murdered that are included in the film I assume are there for a reason. The movie's be n made and released. Maybe you're right and that scene shouldn't have been there but it was and we didn't make the movie. So being that it's there and this is an encyclopedia page about the movie why shouldn't it be included? Our opinion on its relevance is overshadowed by the fact it's in the film. I get your point about the motorcycle stuff. The way it's shot, it seems to allude to it but that is loose. I get it. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Although it happening four years later is tricky because the timelines of our universe are changed within the context of this film. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The film is fiction - very loosely based on real events. Every detail of the day Tate was murdered in real life doesn't need to be in the character background for the fictionalised Tate shown here. I did not say the scene should not be in the film - don't put words in my mouth - but I am saying we don't need to read about the supposed real-world connection that in your opinion justifies the inclusion of a factoid in the character background section. Have you even read the policies and guidelines I linked? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes I did. And I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I believe you said it wasn't important. All I'm saying, is it was in the movie. The links you provided are for guidelines. I think we disagree about the importance of various aspects. However, it is no longer in the character description. The character backgrounds are much shorter now. Hopefully that is more of what you thought it should look like. If you feel very strongly the line about the lunch should be completely removed from the page then so be it. It's not a huge deal either way. I think the page flows better now and is set up more appropriately. Please look at the character backgrounds now and tell me how you feel. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll just delete the line about the lunch. To me it's fine but it doesn't really matter. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Whole thing feels much more like a fan magazine article than an encyclopedia article. The detail is ridiculously deep. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 21:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm curious about any of the editor's thoughts on the Pulp Fiction page or Titanic page or some of the other pages that have existed for years on Wikipedia. You all must feel they're overly detailed as well. Why have they existed that way for so many years? Should the Once Upon a Time in Hollywood page be held to a different standard? If so, why? Or am I wrong? If I am, how so? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, those articles are also far too detailed for encyclopedia articles; they also read, albeit to lesser degrees than this one, like fan websites. (I don't mean that derogatorily; a lot of interesting details about movies, games, and musicians are gathered together on those sites.) But I'm not editing those articles; I'm editing this one and at the moment I'm part of a growing WP:CONSENSUS that the detail in this article is excessive. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 22:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok. So the first editor thought the cast section was overly detailed. That was changed. Also that a fact vs. Fiction section would be more appropriate for some of the detail. That has now been added as well. The other issue brought up was the character backgrounds which is now much smaller. So what specific details are you referring to? And also if we are editing this page shouldn't we follow examples of previous Wikipedia movie pages like Pulp Fiction and Titanic regardless of feelings? Isn't there something to be said about precident? If we're examining it from the perspective of Wikipedia those pages are certainly relevant to the conversation. What is being conveyed to me is that this page is being held not to a Wikipedia standard by those criticizing it, but rather its own. Otherwise those pages should be addressed first as they've existed for much longer. That being said, what specifically do you think is over detailed? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

My apologies. I realize you are the first editor. I should've looked. So I guess your concerns weren't addressed. Hopefully the more simple cast section as well as the fact vs. Fiction is more in line with what you were mentioning earlier. I was attempting to address some of your concerns. Clearly there's still an issue though. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand I'm outnumbered here. However others have edited this page and some of the stuff that was deleted earlier was not added by me. Some of it was worked on by multiple editors. Some of it I already edited way down when other editors added it. There are definitely those who want this page to contain stuff I don't understand. So as far as consensus I understand what you're saying but there are certainly other editors who would disagree with you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) Can you please use indentation in your replies - it's standard practice on talk pages. 2) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to refrain from improving this article. 3) Could you please use edit summaries? They exist for a reason, namely to aid collaboration. When you make a whole slew of major and minor edits without summaries, we're forced to examine each one to see what you've done. 4) Why do you have a problem following Wikipedia's conventions, including WP:ROC, WP:DETAIL, WP:NOTTRIVIA, and MOS:POPCULT?  Most of the pop culture and Tarantino-universe sections reads like total fancruft and will need to go.  Moving over-detailed and irrelevant material from the character backgrounds to other sections just means we have other sections filled with over-detailed irrelevancies! Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is what happens when I add indentation to my responses. I've tried before and it looks like this every time. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Obviously I didn't see it that way. Please stop talking down to me. Calm down. I understand what you're saying. I simply have a different perspective. I don't have a problem following guidelines I just interpreted them different than you. That's all. I've been trying to work with you. I get your point. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So what do you think the : and :: and such at the beginning of other people's commenrs do? --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 00:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Obviously I didn't feel the information was irrelevant. Just because you say it is doesn't make it so. Just like me thinking it was relevant doesn't make it so either. It's called two different ways of looking at things. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Was the last question for me? I don't understand. Am I not seeing something because I'm on a mobile device? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I got you now. Thank you. I never knew that. I appreciate it. Your assumption that I knew anything about that was wrong. But nonetheless you taught me something. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * what I read is that pop culture reverences can be referred to but needs to do so in an organized way. Which to me means it needs to be edited to flow better and read more like an article. Not deleted completely. To me that means a collaborative effort would be to edit something better. So, if you're good at that one wat to approach it would be, clearly this editor isn't as skilled as me and I could help make this read better and make more sense. Instead your reaction seems to be, let's delete it because it's the easiest thing to do. And when I put it into another category your reaction is that now I'm somehow creating more work for you, rather than trying to improve the page and make more sense of things. Honestly, how can you possibly think that was my intention? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * My point about the Pulp Fiction and Titanic pages was not that they needed to be trimmed but rather that they've been on here for years and no one has gone and deleted a bunch of stuff off of them. I was saying look at them as examples and precedent because other movie pages on Wikipedia are relevant to this one if we're talking about how things should be edited on Wikipedia. The fact that other editors have been editing other movie pages on here in a similar fashion should mean something. That was my point. And it's most definitely relevant to the issue. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
I've no interest in Titanic apart from wondering how I'll get those 3 hours of my life back, but yes,, let's look at Pulp Fiction. It's an excellent article! Still room for improvement, like almost every article - but it's a pleasure to read! It's well structured with a good, logical narrative flow, and - despite being just over 15,600 workds, approximately, it contains relevant and interesting information - not trivia - about the production, plot, cast, characters, reception, influence, critical analysis, awards, etc., covered in 11 main sections. It merits a well-deserved "B" class in our rating system. Not bad at all for an article covering one of the most influential and well regarded films in the history of modern cinema.

By contrast, this article (despite being about a film still on general release in cinemas!) is already over 17,300 words long and covers 14 main sections already - before awards season hits (yes, I know it's won awards already). It's currently rated as "C" class - "The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup." - (my emphasis added).

I'm interested in improving the article, yes, but not if I'm going to have to fight you over every bloody "obscure fact from a listicle that I find interesting!" that needs to be removed. There are now at least three editors telling you it needs to be trimmed. You've made a start, that's good. I'd say it needs to lose a good 5,000 words. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This also needs to lose some awful sourcing. What, for example, is https://rxstr.com doing as a source in Wikipedia at all? And multiple Wordpress blogs (I know there isn't a categorical restriction on blogs, but there's nothing special or reliable about the ones here.) --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 14:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I think some of those sources help at the moment. Perhaps they can be replaced with better ones depending on how the page ends up in the long run. The Pulp Fiction page does contain many things about references or what you refer to as trivia. It's just as you point out, it's written much better. Of course it's been crafted over many years. I believe this page should be longer than that one. Maybe but not now but certainly when it's finished. Because not only does it involve more influences and references than Pulp Fiction, it also portrays a large amount of historical people, some of whom have presence like few others. Lee and Manson come to mind first. So of course we have to consider their involvement in the film but that should not be limited to how much screen time they're given. More should be considered and it has been. With everything written about Lee's portrayal and the way Manson's presence is felt through the entire film. I think pop culture references and Tarantino universe references especially about Manson have a place on the page. Although, I can see how it's excessive to you. I certainly think it needs to be reworded. A lot of the writing is choppy. I just don't think improving the page means throwing so much out. That's where we disagree. In editing it things will get trimmed down and some will go. That's that natural development of things. However, your first edit was deleting what I felt strongly were real life references to key parts of the film. Namely, the movie theater scene and the Bruce Lee fight. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I used Titanic as an example because of the historical characters. Not because of anyone's taste in film. Even though Manson and the Manson Family have their own pages, how they're referenced in the movie isn't going to be on their pages. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * How they're referenced in this fictional film might merit a sentence or two to a couple of lines in their own articles. The point is - even though the film uses some characters based on real people, they are fictional portrayals of those people. We simply do not need the excessive level of detail still present, both in the character background sections and in the other sections. It's poorly sourced and much of it seems like conjecture, if not outright WP:OR. Several editors have already said this to you, both here and I see too on your own talk page and the talk page of others you're engaging with (apparently I wasn't the first to remove the excessive information about West and Ward!) So you've known for a while about our policies. (Speaking of, you should read WP:CANVAS and WP:OWN). The verbiage about the movie theatre scene and the Bruce Lee fight might merit inclusion in an listicle or a fan wiki, but they don't merit inclusion here. Again - the article needs to lose about 5,000 words.  Others may go higher or lower, but the only one saying the article needs to be longer is you. We'll be editing it to make it more relevant, concise and readable. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not totally disagreeing with you. However, you're the only one who's removed the Lee, Ward thing so you're wrong about that. Also this page does not contain OP. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * You keep providing links. My canvassing was done to see how other's felt besides those on here. And where obviously I was hoping others shared my perspective I didn't know if they would. When they stated they disagreed with me, I still encouraged them to join in the conversation. Again no one else has mentioned the Ward and Lee situation or tried to remove it. One of the editors I canvassed provided the tag. Also she stated that some things should be trimmed down and some removed. Not only did I encourage her to join the conversation but I also encouraged her to edit and help improve the page. So don't try to make me out to be something I'm not. You continually misportray me and seem to be getting personal. You are attacking my credibility, when your own is in question. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Give it a rest, Samurai. Regardless of the fine details the article is overlong and overdetailed. Let some other editors trim it down. Popcornduff (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I hear you Pocorn. That's where I'm at now. Thank you. I just don't appreciate the false accusations and information provided by Bastun or his condescending tone. I'm sure you can understand that. Happy editing. I ask that you don't delete the real life references as they're important to not only understanding the film but the inspiration behind it as well. Also, and hopefully this is already your thought process. In editing I think it's always better to approach something with the perspective of rewording and trimming rather than complete deletion. Maintaining content is important. That's basically what I've been trying to say. So I completely understand the validity of your argument. Please don't be completely dismissive of my perspective in editing. Than you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I keep providing links because despite your huge number of edits, the vast majority of which are just to this article or about this article, you're still very new here and don't seem to be aware of things like WP:NOR or WP:CANVAS. In fairness to you, Samurai, you're correct, it wasn't the trivia on Bruce Lee once being in a fight scene with Burt Ward that you edit-warred over, it was the trivia that Adam West and Burt Ward can apparently be heard in the end credits that you edit-warred over. By the way, please don't post on my talk page about articles - the place to discuss an article is on its talk page, where everyone can see what's been written, centrally. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Right. And the archive stuff was cleared up between me and the editor who reported me, so it's moot and has nothing to do with you. It happened right after I started editing. I think if you want to talk about that the way to do it is by messaging me. I don't think it belongs on the talk page. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I get the no original research part. What I don't get is why you're including it. Everything I added is based on references. Perhaps there are better references to add. Also as far as what you've referred to as trivia. You pointed out how well constructed the Pulp Fiction page was. It has things on it like information about a hammer that appears for about five seconds in the film and a movie it may be a reference to. Can you explain to me how that's different? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * My canvassing was done to see how other editors I had worked with felt. As I was hoping they felt the same way as me, perhaps that's a little grey. Thanks for that link, as I was unaware of that policy. Nonetheless when stated they disagreed with me, I was interested in that as well. I canvassed three editors. One who stated that she thought more in line with you, although I'm not sure to what extant as it seems people have different perspectives on what should be trimmed, I encouraged to participate. Not for my argument, as that wasn't hers. So that doesn't really fit into that policy. It doesn't state an editor can't canvass at all. In the future if I canvass, I'll make sure my questioning is completely neutral though. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * No. Something glitched out. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Box office "turn-even" figures
I've seen a couple of wiki articles on movies where they mention the so called turn-even figures based on a single source. The same goes to this article: "By some estimates, the film will need to gross around $400 million worldwide in order to turn a profit after production, marketing and talent deals.[146]"

These are estimates by a single source that have not been corroborated. As such, they should not be written on Wikipedia as a corroborated statement. Jonoz (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not the one who added it but I have read it multiple places. It's not just from a single source. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

If you can find a source that estimates a lower figure then you can add it as well. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

There is only one source and that's the THR. Other articles on the matter refers to them.

A single source like that puts out a highly speculative number. Why is it part of the Wiki article? Jonoz (talk) 06:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Like I said. I'm not the one who added it but I've read it in two different articles, which both mention multiple sources. I'll message the editor who added it and see if he might be able to explain his reasoning to you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I found another source that says $250 million. Quite a difference. For now, I'll add that as well. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Fake ending
I've re-removed the paragraph about the Wikipedia fake ending. It's unimportant to the film itself (though it might conceivably be worth mentioning in an article about hoaxes on Wikipedia), and WP:DENY is the best approach to take with hoaxers. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 15:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Popcornduff (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree too. -- Mazewaxie ( talk  •  contribs ) 17:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Works for me at this time. However, if the matter is brought up again in some retrospective of this film, we should re-discuss it. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * , is this in the right section? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the trimming of the Bruce Lee section
Some sketchy edits are being made with regard to trimming this section down. For example, this piece:

"According to Lee biographer Matthew Polly, "Bruce was very famous for being very considerate of the people below him on film sets, particularly the stuntmen. ... So in this scene, Bruce Lee is essentially calling out a stuntman and getting him fired because he's the big star. And that's just not who Bruce Lee was as a person.""

has been reduced to

"According to Lee biographer Matthew Polly, "Bruce was very famous for being very considerate of the people below him on film sets, particularly the stuntmen. ... So in this scene, Bruce Lee is essentially calling out a stuntman and getting him fired because he's the big star.""

Furthermore, Shannon's response to Tarantino calling her father arrogant has been removed entirely.

Tarantino and his film are making negative assertions about Lee's character. Statements refuting these assertions being removed or altered is certainly questionable and somewhat suspicious. TheTouchdownMaker (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * They're just excessive and repetitive. It's not being done for any nefarious reasons. Although I can't personally speak for the editor who removed most of the excess in the quotes. I'm sure it was done to to do just that. Remove excess. If you look at the section there is no side. What isn't productive is to put how everyone feels about the whole situation or excessively long quotes that don't add anything meaningful. Please address this under character descriptions. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * They're neither excessive nor repetitive. They're offering a different perspective of the argument and they are being removed, leaving only one side. TheTouchdownMaker (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * How is leaving long quotes by Kareem, Polly, Shannon, and Linda, and a short quote by Bruce that present one side, a quote by Moh that presents both sides, and quotes by Tarantino and LeBell that present another side leaving only one side. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. Are you saying that it's unfairly biased against his portrayal because there's more weight in favor of him being misrepresented? Because if so, you might be right. However, if you're saying it's the other way around I'm not getting you because there's a lot more of that side represented. Personally, I don't care so much as long as it adds to the section. But what my concern is, is that you really want to represent Shannon Lee with the section, rather than it being about the controversy surrounding the portrayal and the shades of grey involved with it, while representing multiple perspectives. It's certainly understandable why she feels the way she does and no one changed the initial quote by her saying how Hollywood treated her father and continues to do so. But when two separate editors have made attempts to trim down excessiveness in response to concerns from four other editors that the page contains excessive deatail and we've been making cuts to every section in response, for you to make accusations that it's some kind of effort to create a certain narrative is ridiculous. Especially if you read it and realize no such thing occurred. Instead of continuing to leave excessive detail and long quotes there perhaps you can aid in the communal effort to trim the page. How do you think that section could be trimmed and still read the same? Because honestly, it's excessive. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * And why would you remove Linda Lee's quote from her book when bringing it up unless it is you who is attempting to create a narrative? You reference a quote to the quote and then leave it out in an attempt to narrate? That's not good at all. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Removing the quotes that you removed constitutes bad faith editing. Previously you have attempted to mangle quotes so that people who are supportive of Lee are appearing to insult him, and you have made several inaccurate paraphrases of quotes. You are the one who is trying to push an anti-Lee narrative.TheTouchdownMaker (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, the quotes you reverted were not changed by me but another editor. If you wish to address him please view the pages history and message him. When you previously started a section on here anonymously complaining about my paraphrasing I stopped and let it be reverted back to full quotes and other editors edited it from then on. So that was addressed and that paraphrasing no longer exists. However, accusing me of doing something with edits I didn't even make is strange. Please review the pages history and discuss it with the editor who actually made those edits as it seems you are confused. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Also the editing on the section was done in response to concerns from other editors that the whole page contained excessive detail which is discussed under character descriptions. The whole page is discussed on there. Not just character descriptions. So I encourage you to bring it up on there. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're actually interested in having an adult compromise instead of pointlessly edit warring and insulting me, then let me propose this: let's just removed the second paragraph altogether, since the statements therein do not directly refer to the controversy between Tarantino and Shannon. And Shannon's final response to Tarantino must be kept in the third paragraph. It is bad faith to omit the last response of a back and forth exchange, which is what you did with regard to Shannon.TheTouchdownMaker (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * No. I omitted her feelings about not being involved, which isn't relevant to the portrayal. If you're referring to anything else that was done by another editor. So before we do anything are you referring to the quote I removed or the quote that was removed by another editor? Also, it makes sense to leave in Tarantino's response to the way he depicted Lee in a section about his portrayal of Lee, so we don't want to remove that altogether. Also if we have him putting words in the mouths of Linda and Bruce Lee it's only fair we have they're quotes on the subject as well. Leaving out quotes about his portrayal from the man who portrayed him also doesn't make much sense. I definitely feel what you're proposing would be an unfair narrative and not a compromise that would present neutrality but be heavily one sided and from people who had nothing to do with the film. Also the LeBell quote is the only quote from someone who actually worked with Lee on the Green Hornet, so in no ways does that work. What quote by Shannon do you want to add back? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

and Are you both aware of the WP:3RR rule? --Sid95Q (talk) 02:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, the section is not about Shannon Lee and Tarantino but if you think it is that might explain the miscommunication. It's about the portrayal of Bruce Lee in the film, why those involved portrayed him that way, and other's objections and criticism of it. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 03:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I will be the bigger person and refrain from undoing your edits anymore. I have restored Polly's complete quote and restored Shannon's final statement because omitting her response to Tarantino is a misrepresentation of the controversy.TheTouchdownMaker (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok. I'm not sure that's being the bigger person though as it is still edit warring. And what you added back was not deleted by me in the first place, which you've continually ignored, even though you can check the pages history to confirm it. Also you edit warred again after Sid just posted the policy against it, completely ignoring him and the policy. I don't know if you were warned prior but if so you might have just got yourself blocked. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Since you two obviously aren't getting anywhere, I recommend giving WP:DR a thorough read and considering WP:RFC as a way to find a consensus. ST47 (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I appreciate it. Does it matter that the information he just added back was originally removed by another editor? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

This section is still way too long and needs to lose at least a paragraph. I'd suggest removing the final paragraph. That will still leave the main points as made by Shannon Lee, Mike Moh, Matthew Polly, and Gene LeBell, rather than the current "He said... she said" back and forth. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * That pretty much makes sense to me. The only possible issue is, if it's about Tarantino's portrayal of Lee, does it not make sense to have his reasoning for it? I'm not sure. But I'd leave in a quick sentence about what he said and maybe not that it too has been disputed. But for the most part I feel the last paragraph is excessive. I like the actual quote from Linda Lee's book but it's not necessary for the page if we don't refer to it. The other editor can't respond at the moment because he's still blocked. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, thank you for your response. We clearly needed another editor on here. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * If you don't think anything about Tarantino's reasoning is important though that's fine with me if it solves the issue. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * No, you make a good point about Tarantino. I've edited out some of that last paragraph but left in Tarantino's quote and what Lee said himself (which seems relevant!) No problem with re-insertion if you don't agree. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I did not state that the word count was irrelevant. I stated that it’s not an excuse to be overly detailed or add information that wasn’t mentioned in the film, simply because it’s under the word count. You added nothing of substance and character descriptions including things that were never mentioned in the film. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Numbers reference
I'm starting this because an editor has continued to add this reference even though nothing is added from it. There is no point in adding a reference without adding any content from it. The mojo site has the exact same information and is already being used. Another editor would keep removing the reference but the other editor just continued to add it. Now I have been deleting it and have messaged the editor who keeps adding it. He said he's adding it because the two sites have different numbers for some other movies. I don't understand the relevance of that to this page especially because nothing is being added from it. Hopefully this page can help clear this up. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 3 December 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 not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 15:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood → Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood – As referred in the following: Film title card (Amazon link), IMDb, Sony Pictures website, Metacritic, reviews in prestigious newspapers across English-speaking nations (New York Times, Boston Globe, Guardian, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Globe and Mail, Financial Times), notable film and pop culture magazines (Variety, Film Threat, Screen International, New Yorker), BFI Sight and Sound poll, AMPAS, Box Office Mojo and Encyclopædia Britannica. Cinema Clown (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The poster puts them after the word "in," not "time." Also, the poster the article uses doesn't use the ellipses. It just isn't necessary. Songwaters (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * @Songwaters Here is the poster that the article uses. Zooming in at the portion below the title design, it quite literally says: Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie in "Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood" Cinema Clown (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, my mistake. Songwaters (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * @Songwaters That's fine mate. Would appreciate if you add a Support comment if there are no other issues :-) Cinema Clown (talk) 09:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. As nominator. Cinema Clown (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC) (struck through as nominator=automatic support, but as seen below...  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC))
 * Support per detailed nomination. The ellipses are indeed part of the on-screen credits. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral note: The original nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose - Given the name without the ellipsis gets 75 million ghits, I think WP:COMMONNAME applies. Also, I know we have redirects, but really, we're expecting readers to put that in a search box? Give me a break... Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Bastun just made the best point. I agree with that. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. Starting with 1) When Harry Met Sally... and continuing with 2) Hush...Hush, Sweet Charlotte, 3) if..., 4) Big Girls Don't Cry... They Get Even, 5) That Was Then... This Is Now, 6) Sometimes They Come Back... for More, 7) Sometimes They Come Back... Again, 8) Oh... Rosalinda!!, 9) Master Harold...and the Boys (1985 film) or 10) Norman... Is That You?, to name but ten titles — and there are hundreds of others — WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS to a very high degree, thus demonstrating that ellipses, commas, question marks, exclamation points and other symbols that appear in on-screen titles are reproduced in the main title headers of Wikipedia articles delineating those films. Redirects without symbols are expected to be always provided as assistance to users who may type the title without the symbols. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support I would air on the side of the fact that the official title on IMDb, which I consider the semi-official voice for the industry lists the official title as such, the name should be changed with a redirect from the title without ellipsis. (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7131622/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0) CaffeinAddict (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * imdb.com is not an authoritative source by any means and it is notoriously incorrect about many things. In fact, Wikipedia articles about films are not permitted to use imdb as their sole source of information. This is such a well-known issue that there is even a special template and category for articles considered poorly sourced due to their reliance on imdb: Template:BLP_IMDb_refimprove, Category:All_articles_sourced_by_IMDb --Nicholas0 (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Neutral note: Neither is correct. The film is titled "Once upon a time in...Hollywood. Every poster, advertisement and other media shows it SPECIFICALLY with three dots FOLLOWING the word "in", and if you want accuracy, that is exactly how it should be. Short of that, if there are overriding reasons for SEO to keep it simply "Once upon a time in Hollywood", then fine, but if you are going to change it for the sake of accuracy, then at least BE accurate with your change. The dots do NOT come before the word "in" in the correct titling of the film.
 * Comment Once again, going off of my IMDb sourcing, it's actually 'Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood'' CaffeinAddict (talk) 06:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's quite confusing how this poster, for example, has the title with the ellipsis in two different places (look at the graphic v. small text). P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 18:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment and semi-support Anyone can edit IMDb, and they don't have a good discussion board like Wikipidea does, so that's a terrible source. Typically, you always go off the name listed in quotes at the bottom of the poster where all the credits are listed. In this case, the title is Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood with no spaces either. This is also how the title is presented in the offical Golden Globes nominees. Someone smarter than me that knows how to use Wikipidea better than me should suggest this as a standard. ALWAYS go off the title that is listed in the small little credits of the film's official poster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Sullivan 1997 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The ellipsis seems to be just a marketing ploy or a fancy addon to a title, not an official title depiction. Cardei012597 (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: From what I understand, the official title is Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and the title is merely "stylized" with the ellipsis. As far as I can tell, the ellipsis is merely there in the promotional images in order to draw a similarity to the films Once Upon a Time in the West and Once Upon a Time in America. Just because something is printed a certain way on a poster does not necessarily mean that it is the official title. There are countless examples available to prove this. If someone were able to find an interview with Tarantino where he states that the ellipsis is not merely for the stylized posters but is actually part of the official title then that would be something that could be used as an argument. --Nicholas0 (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - even then, WP:COMMONNAME would overrule WP:OFFICIALNAME. E.g., we have articles at United States and Bono, not at "United States of America" and "Paul Hewson". Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * But then I would make the argument that the most "common" version of a name is surely the one without the ellipsis. So once again we are back to Oppose. The only argument anyone has made so far to keep the ellipsis is their belief that they are somehow part of the "official" title, which I have stated is not necessarily the case with poster art. The ellipsis is neither official nor common. It is superfluous and problematic. --Nicholas0 (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as unnecessary. The current common-name title suffices. The ellipsis is not necessary to repeat throughout the article body. Reliable sources writing about the film seem to go back and forth in using the ellipsis, so we are not compelled to use it here. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's an unnecessary detail. I also suggest we remove the tag at the top of the page now as this has been on here for some time now and no consensus is being reached. Also the oppose has more votes. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Moved here from a section above - per my talkpage, user's UI is bugging and put their comment in the wrong section. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Erik.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per all previous such votes. Cartoon Boy (Cartoon Boy) 22:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The ellipsis is not even consistently used. Sometimes it's placed after "Time", sometimes after "in". Bluesatellite (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Ellipsis is merely a style choice. WP:COMMONNAME is without the ellipsis. Rusted AutoParts  04:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Erik, too. The ellipsis seems to be for the stylized title. Daerl (talk) 12:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.

Plot summary too long?
The user Samurai_Kung_fu_Cowboy has been reverting literally every edit I make to this article, typically without explanation. My edits were/are to the plot summary section only, and after my edits the word count stood at approximately 650, well below the 700 recommended by the Mos. When questioned on his behaviour, he responded that "The plot was edited down after a discussion that the whole page was too long" and then claimed that wordcounts are irrelevant in plot summaries, which is absolutely incorrect. Perhaps I'm missing something but I can find no prior discussion on this talk page in which a consensus of any kind was reached on this subject. SolarFlash (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Not released in China?
I don't know how to verify if the film was or was not released in China but these articles imply it wasn't. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 14:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Connection to Other Tarantino Films
Not sure if this page is protected or not, so just leaving this here. The third Italian film that Rick Dalton stars in, "Operazione Dyn-O-Mite!" is directed by Antonio Margheriti, which is the name used by Eli Roth/Sgt. Donny Donowitz to get into the film premier with Pitt in "Inglourious Basterds".EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin&#39; (talk) 07:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Went ahead and put it into the article. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin&#39; (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Remember to source your edits. <i style="color:#999999;">SolarFlash</i><sup style="color:#0033FF;">Let's talk about it 02:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * FYI, the original article said that the title of Quentin Tarantino's movie is based on two Sergio Leone film titles; in fact, it is actually based on three. I have rewritten the opening sentence of the film's Pop Culture References thusly:
 * The title is a reference to director Sergio Leone's second western/American trilogy, Once Upon a Time in the West, Once Upon a Time… the Revolution (which producers insisted on retitling Duck, You Sucker! ), and Once Upon a Time in America.
 * Asteriks (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

"2009"
Not sure why I can't edit the page, but there's a reference which says "Tarantino discovered the centerpiece for the work in 2009 while filming a movie", with a citation. But the citation doesn't say 2009, it says "About 10 years ago". Tarantino only filmed one movie in 2009, "Inglorious Basterds". If we say this incident happened in 2009, we're saying that it happened on the set of "Basterds", and I don't think the facts demonstrate that, and the only person who can say for sure has deliberately not specified as far as I'm aware (the cited article doesn't even have a quote from QT about the timeline, and he is the only source that would actually know). I have seen Tarantino discuss this in a few places, and he seems to make sure that he never says anything specific enough to identify the actor, or the exact year (and very little of what he has said about the inspiration would point to "Basterds"). I'd request that somebody who can edit the page change the language to something like "Tarantino discovered the centerpiece for the work while filming an earlier movie", since there is no source for the "2009". EDIT: I have found a source here in Tarantino's own words where he says "more than a decade ago", and that it was before "Death Proof". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwmNiCN1JlI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.201.237 (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I should add this. I am not as experienced as some of those who do this who have plenty of time. But here goes. I saw the movie and was very impressed with it as fantasy movies based on truth go especially getting to see all the retro depictions of the late 60s in Los Angeles. I then became very intrigued with the introduction of the Manson Family interweaved into the plot and getting to see what would have likely been some typical encounters with them. However, I was a disappointed not to see more interactions with them - including Manson himself - in the movie such as with the freak scene of Laurel Canyon which was not even given a subtitle of plot in the movie. Historically speaking that had a lot to do with how things played out in relation to their murders. Its there for anyone who wants to read about it. Of course that interaction was made even more insignificant given the unique ending - while very entertaining - more or less buried any reasoning behind the attack other than to suggest it was some random "piggies" targeted at the start of a "revolution". Once I slept on seeing the movie, after a week or two, I began to feel it short changed the audience by not exploring the Manson connection with some others in that Laurel Canyon scene. Again, its there for anyone who wants to read about it. The ending of the movie as such had too much of a "feel good" ending with the hippies beaten at their game that seemed to me almost dismissive of other things going on with them at that time. A certain "closure" sense about the real tragedy that seemed conveyed in part hence faded quickly. Of course a movie can do whatever it wants to do but I am wondering if such a flippant choice with its "once upon a time" story ending given the subject matter is perhaps burying something that should be further explored. There's more to it than maniac hippies that murdered some random "piggies". If anyone wants to add to this and discuss it I would certainly welcome the opportunity. If you are curious there is some very interesting reading and you tube videos about what I've mentioned here. If this should fit in a better section then please add it there. But I surely hope this is looked at in relation to the movie. While it is entertaining and quite enjoyable, it does not give an even close to accurate picture of things. I believe many expected given the subject matter to see something a bit more in depth. As it stands it is true to its "once upon a time" ness which is to say fantasy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevefnp2 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What suggestions do have for impproving the article? This is not a discussion board; if you want to have a conversation about the movie, you'll need to have it elsewhere. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 01:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2020
The language of this article suggests that the fight between Cliff and Bruce Lee was imagined by Cliff, when there is no indication in the film that it was a daydream as opposed to a memory of actual events. AugusteArgoud (talk) 05:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * From dictionary.com reminisce: 1. to recall past experiences, events, etc.; indulge in reminiscence. DonQuixote (talk) 05:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Article title change
The real name of the movie is “Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood” The [...] should be added to reflect the real name of the movie. Patate324 (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:COMMONNAME most sources ignore the ellipses, so we stick with that. We note the presence of those in the footnote a but that's the only place where its reasonable to mention. --M asem (t) 17:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

"Lacks a double chin"
No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.68.34 (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

"The Manson Family" section
This little section is problematic in tone. "Manson was convicted...due mainly to a theory..." Says who he was convicted due to a theory of race war (as opposed to, y'know, getting his followers to commit murder on his behalf?) And why are we bothering at all with the real-life explanations for the crimes? They don't address anything addressed in the movie. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 19:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I think a lot of the criticism towards the film was about how it was portrayed and what wasn't included. I think it's fine in the controversy section because like Tate and Lee it's about how historical figures and events were and weren't portrayed. It was a criticism brought up surrounding the film and published in articles. As far as the wording, I see what you're saying. Perhaps it should be changed. I don't know. The theory is a big reason he was convicted though. There are varying accounts as to whether or not he ordered the murders. What Helter Skelter provided was not only a narrative that he ordered them but as to a sensational reason as to why. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2020
"In addition to receving critical praise for his performance" should be "In addition to receiving critical praise" Sfvermeulen (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, as it leads into a sentence about how his character received praise. There's a distinction between the praise for his performance and the praise for his character. Rusted AutoParts  04:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Spelling error fixed. SolarFlash<sup style="color:#03F">Discussion 04:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It was a spelling error. My bad, I thought the editor was suggesting removing part of the sentence. Rusted AutoParts  06:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Solar Flash
I'm bringing this up in here because I've tried discussing things with this user in the past but was not able to. He is now removing edits that are connected to the film. Last time I tried to discuss anything directly with him he had me blocked for six months. My hope is that bringing it up on here will lead to an actual conversation that doesn't allow him to revert my edits because of his personal issues with me. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. You got blocked because you were repeatedly edit warring. I strongly suggest you find something else to do on Wikipedia. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 19:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It was for edit warring with Solar Flash. We were edit warring which I most definitely did. He continued to do it even putting a narrative into the plot section that was never mentioned in the film or alluded to and that is still there. He reported me and I was blocked. I am also guilty of having previously edit warred as is he is you look at his editing history. But because I challenged his ability to editorialize, through edit warring, which is against the rules, I was blocked. This is a nuanced topic and pretending it was only one simple reason or only because of me is misleading. Nothing I said is "Bullshit." The fact that you subjectively side with him and ignore the fact that he has literally added editorialized information to the plot section and only cited it after having me blocked speaks. That I have failed in decorum and following rules should not give others a pass to abuse Wikipedia and my legitimate criticisms shouldn't be swept under the rug because of my mistakes. I am now following proper protocol and have moved on to editing other pages and yet my concerns are still being brushed aside because of personal issues, and legitimate edits are being reverted and blindly defended because of retaliation. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you delete this particular discussion please? There should not be a discussion strictly about an editor on a talk page for a movie. This is getting into personal attack territory. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy is simply trying to settle a personal beef and it needs to stop. SolarFlash<sup style="color:#03F">Discussion 21:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * If our personal issues are effecting the integrity of the page, they are not only about the two of us. As you removed both of my first two edits back on here and I haven't added any more. One because you said the actor did not appear in the film even though the section mentions at least two other actors who did not shoot scenes for the movie either. The other on a section that was added by someone else and had existed for months before I added a short sentence. Minutes later you deleted the section. Since I believe you appear to be using the way you personally feel about me to edit the page it is relevant. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you even read what anyone else writes? If you did you'd understand that I did not revert you, I simply moved the material you added to a section earlier in the article dealing with that exact topic . You were not reverted, do you understand? The material about the Bounty Law TV show was in the article prose twice. I removed the second instance because it was redundant and, so as not to piss you off, I kept the material you added and put it in the proper section. You really need to find other hobbies because this is not constructive for anyone. SolarFlash<sup style="color:#03F">Discussion  22:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think bringing up my hobbies is at all relevant but it certainly shows your animosity towards me. Regardless of your explanations, I find it highly suspicious that you changed that section minutes after I added to it when it had existed for months prior. And also reverted my only other edit as you claim it wasn't relevant enough when I have given you both the Tom Cruise and Jessica Lange examples that have been on the page for quite some time and are in the exact same context as the Culkin sentence. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Macaulay Culkin audition
Am I the only one that thinks Culkin's first audition in eight years being for this movie is relevant to this page? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't believe this is relevant to this particular film and no undue weight should be given to it. We're talking about an actor who does not appear in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and is not typically associated with this film in any way . Is Culkin's association with this film prevalent in reliable sources? It's a minority viewpoint. As I advised you earlier, consider adding the material to the Culkin article where it may have some relevance. Here it has none. SolarFlash<sup style="color:#03F">Discussion 18:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * An actor such as Culkin making his first audition for a film in eight years is relevant to the casting section of the page. Just as it discusses that Tom Cruise and others were considered for roles. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * All I'm hearing is an opinion. SolarFlash<sup style="color:#03F">Discussion 18:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Correct. We're both presenting our opinions on the relevance of this. Him auditioning for the film and it being his first in eight years is a fact. You do understand the difference? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * But Jessica Lange and Tom Cruise being mentioned in the casting and pre production sections of this page are also fact. The have been for months. Two actors who also never shot scenes for the film. And the bounty law section being added by another user months ago is also a fact. However, you removed it minutes after I added a shirt sentence to it. Which is definitely suspicious as to your true intentions. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Today is your first day back after a long-term block. You are taking a decidedly combative and adversarial approach and should not be making baseless accusations about other editors' "true intentions". Keep it up and see what happens. SolarFlash<sup style="color:#03F">Discussion 18:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't believe it's my first day back. But you reverting both of my edits seems combative to me. Am I not allowed to call you on it? Are you not reverting all of my edits? And because I think you are doing so maliciously you threaten me? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I did not revert both your edits. I reverted one and explained my revert clearly in the edit summary. The second time I merely moved the material you added to the relevant section . Chill. SolarFlash<sup style="color:#03F">Discussion 19:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * And just to be clear you believe the Bounty Law section should have always been removed? But after months you didn't remove it until minutes after I added a sentence coincidentally? That is possible. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok. So why do you think it's relevant to include Cruise and Lang but not Culkin? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This will be my last response, as there's nothing more to say. You attempted adding material to the "Production" section about an actor who allegedly auditioned for the film and didn't get the part. The Manual of Style is clear that this section should "set out the key events that affected its production, without detailing all of the day-to-day operations or listing every piece of associated news and trivia". I firmly believe that your edit constitutes trivia, as this is clearly not a key event in any way . Again, mention it in the Culkin article, as that is where it's relevant. The guidelines override your opinion, sorry. SolarFlash<sup style="color:#03F">Discussion 19:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok. Then should we remove the sentences about Lange and Cruise as well? The audition wasn't an allegation. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Removal of cast members listed on IMDB
Unfortunately an editor who was just informed not to revert my edits or have contact with me just reverted one of a cast member listed on the IMDB cast page for the film Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * IMDB is not a reliable source. --M asem (t) 19:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

No editors whatsoever have been told not to revert your edits, but you have been warned that even a single revert on your part will get you blocked yet again. Facts matter. SolarFlash<sup style="color:#03F">Discussion 19:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

section on murdering Manson's cult
This section has very little to do with the movie. It's a restatement of the Manson case. Needs trimming to only what they have to do with the film. 50.111.44.55 (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to Riley's criticism of the portrayal of the revisionism surrounding the murders? If so, it does not go into detail about the criminal case at all. It just briefly states Bugliosi's theory and that Riley thinking Tarantino not portraying it was irresponsible and watering down white supremacy. There's one more paragraph after that which has multiple people close to the incident, including those who committed the murders and things they said which provide motive for the murders that had nothing to with white supremacy or Bugliosi's theory to offer a counter point of view to the criticism Riley proposed to the portrayal of the Manson Family and the murders. It's in a section labeled "Character Controversies," and does not provide details of the case. And Tarantino's ending being completely different then reality has a lot to do with the film. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to split characters into own page
I am thinking of creating a page for the characters especially now that the novel exists. This would include the Character Details section from this page and so it would be removed from here and added there. This page would also serve for characters mentioned on the novel's page as well as future additions, including the play and extended release. Putting this here for thoughts, feedback, and any possible pushbaback and objections. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Additionally I would add the character controversies to the character page as well unless there are objections. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Might I suggestion trying to possibly craft a standalone section on the historical accuracy of Once (both film + novel) which can include the real life characters and the ones created for the works. While a standalone list of characters is usually okay, that's usually for series, not individual works, but I'm looking for some larger part of the topic here that likely can be discussed separately, and to me, the historical accuracy and deviations have been their own subject. --M asem (t) 01:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * For clarity I created the page I was thinking of. Keep in mind he wrote a play, a second novel, plans to release an extended cut, and a series related to this, so that's why I'd like to do this now. I figure when future information comes out it could easily be added to this page rather than being split. I'm also trying to take some of the load off this page. Here it is for you and anyone else who'd like to look at it. User:Samurai Kung fu Cowboy/sandbox. As far as historical accuracy, I don't think there's enough for that to have its own page at this point. There's nothing about that on the novel's page. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 01:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Although perhaps we could include the historical accuracy here as well. I can certainly make that work. Thoughts on how it is now? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 01:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If the historical accuracy is split to a separate page, you'd still want a summary here per WP:SS (but obviously you dont need the character details here) as well as at the book page. --M asem (t) 01:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you think I should incorporate the Historical Accuracy into the Characters page or leave it here? Do you think what I created in my sandbox is strong enough to be its own page? Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would try it in draft space - as well as the Character Controversies sections (keeping in mind that if they do end up in the split article, that you'd leave short summaries on this film page), and just see how to work it all out. Present it as (and I don't know exactly how QT was thinking here) framing it how QT wanted to present the history and deviate from it, and then introduce all the characters and facets of it. --M asem (t) 05:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

"Comedy-drama"
Why is this film described as a comedy? Just because there are a couple of funny bits here and there in no way makes it a comedy. Richard75 (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Because it's described as such in the sources Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Which edition of Tarantino's book being used for citation?
Which edition of Tarantino's book are you using as a citation? The currently listed ISBN number of corresponds to a London UK edition that is published by Weidenfeld & Nicolson ( https://www.weidenfeldandnicolson.co.uk/titles/quentin-tarantino-2/once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood/9781398706149/ ), a division of Orion Publishing Group, which is not the same as the US edition that is published in New York by HarperCollins ISBN 978-0063112520, which can viewed on GoogleBooks, but there is no mention of any of the characters's existence after 1969, so there is no mention of Trudi Fraser's career concerning her Academy Award nominations. I have access to the US ebook version and it seems identical to the version being displayed on Google Books. The current citation being used is mixing information from both the UK and US editions, but this needs to be fixed since this is making it more difficult for persons need to verify citations when pagination is not the same. -- 96.64.134.61 (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I have a copy of the novel. The correct pages are listed. Anyone with a copy can varify it. It doesn't mean everyone can or needs to. It's completely acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I also have a copy of the book, but the page numbers that you have listed DOES NOT have the information that you claim in THE EDITION THAT I HAVE nor the edition available on the internet via Google Books. WHICH EDITION ARE YOU USING since the listed ISBN you have listed DOES NOT AGREE with the listed publisher? THE ISBN that you claim to use is for a UK publication, but you are claiming to be using a US New York City publication? The new two different editions are of different publication. length 23.25.58.41 (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Fixed the ISBN Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Link to original Mike Moh interview.
https://birthmoviesdeath.com/2019/07/29/mike-moh-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywoods-bruce-lee-breaks-down-his-fight-wit 2600:1012:B06B:BC9A:605C:5421:48EF:AC17 (talk) 02:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)