Talk:Paddington (film)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Dana boomer (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Image question
Rather than the slow-burn edit war that seems to be going on, perhaps a discussion may be more appropriate. There are two images, one with the wrong names and dates, and one with the wrong date. It seems better to have less misleading information on show, rather than more, to be honest. - SchroCat (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Can't go against that argument to be fair, though I have raised the language used in the edit with Mr Cat. Quentin X (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, if you do a shitty edit, I'll call it a shitty edit! - SchroCat (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, if that's your level...... Quentin X (talk) 08:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My "level" is good content that is correct and in line with the MoS. If this is your level, then I'd be more concerned about that than other people's use of the word "shitty". - SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose I could take that as a personal attack, but I'll let it lie. Remember, oldies as well as newbies can make mistakes at times so remember to be civil. Toodles. Quentin X (talk) 10:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The film, however, certainly doesn't look shitty; ah well, that's this Christmas sorted in my house! Cassianto talk 10:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If they don't use the word in tne film, I'll be taking the kids. Can't see Paddington swearing. Mr Curry on the other hand......especially considering who is playing him. Quentin X (talk) 10:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Spoiler alert!!!!! The film opens with Paddington getting off the train which has arrived late and for which he has been charged £2,800 for the short and uncomfortable journey. As he gets off he is not in the best of moods as he has a numb arse, pins and needles down one leg and was wedged inbetween someone on their phone talking loudly about her best friend Chardonnay's chlamydia results, and a fat bloke who smelt of last nights dinner. A solitary walk down the chewing-gum-stained platform towards the gate, Paddington meets a rude and uninterested porter who looks him up and down and hurriedly ushers the little bear through the gate as if he was an inconvenience. As it is raining heavily outside, Paddington decides to pay £29.99 for a cup of radioactive bath water (station coffee) and wait for the weather to die down.  Hungry, he decides to sit down on the only seat in the station, one adjacent to a sleeping, alcoholic tramp and opens up his lunchbox: tired, cold, fed-up, lonely, and skint, Paddington utters the first words of the film: "For f*cks sake, marmalade fecking sandwiches again!  Bloody hell!"  Cassianto talk 11:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

upcoming v forthcoming
Since the articles creation a year ago the article has identified this as an "upcoming" film. A few days ago, John Snow as part of a widespread campaign went about "correcting" the word to "forthcoming" despite the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film where the closest he got to any support was "not doing a systemic change and being fine with use of "forthcoming" in cases of WP:RETAIN". But that does not apply here as there was no "forthcoming" to retain. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * and from what I can tell, the single UK source uses "upcoming" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Lazy-arsed journalism may be your measure of good English, especially when you quote one of the tabloids, but it isn't mine. - SchroCat (talk) 06:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * i am fine with blacklisting the daily fail from any use, we can replace it with other lazy arses with a better overall rep like the guardian or the bbc if you like.--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And no project has blanket power over any article, with local consensus applying. We have that here, and it's not being done in a widespread systematic manner. There is no issue in having it, so move on. - SchroCat (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * exactly what local consensus are you claiming? you have you claiming a RETAIN based on two days and me claiming RETAIN based on a year. And one POV warrior who was acting against the consensus on the film project page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  06:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Upcoming – Projects are there for a reason, to (try) avoiding the same old conflicts with each article, so you'd need an overwhelming consensus to successfully ignore one's guidance. But as it stands now, we have your local consensus too, should I invite some other people in here who've been cleaning up John Snow's mess? -Oosh (talk) 06:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

1. That's a misrepresentation of a project's "power" (which is limited), and it's simply not true to say an overwhelming consensus is needed. 2. You do not also have local consensus, that's just not close to the truth. 3. Asking others to join in would be CANVASSING, which I am sure you know it would be. 4. I am not saying a blanket reversion on all the troubled articles is needed, but his argument has some merits, and use on one or two articles is entirely acceptable for a completely and grammatically correct phrase in BrEng. - SchroCat (talk) 06:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is another front in the same discussion. It is not canvassing to alert those in the primary one. Esp. if you refuse to voice your view within it. At best it's nothing inefficient, at worst it looks like an attempt to set a precedent of what is a false consensus. -Oosh (talk) 06:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. There are no precedents on Wiki as people can and will always (and quite rightly) point to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The film project do not have the power to outlaw a correctly formed and acceptable phrase on one article. Yes, a consensus that the blanket changes were wrong is fine, but on a case by case basis, the use is entirely acceptable and proper. Please also point to a diff that states or suggests that I have "refuse[d] to voice your view" on this issue. - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Using upcoming was also "...correctly formed and acceptable phrase...", it sat there without challenge or issue until John's crusade, his changes were reverted and we should find ourselves solely in the discussion phase of WP:BRD except you decided to war on it. As there is no consensus (despite my facetiousness earlier), WP:RETAIN should be in effect and "upcoming" restored, until a true one is formed to the contrary. -Oosh (talk) 07:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you have finally told the truth on the consensus point. Rather than wikilawyering round the point, which is never the most constructive use of anyone's time, try and take a slightly more broad and flexible view on this. So one article uses the phrase "is a forthcoming film": so what? Is that really the end of the Wikipedia and all mankind? Despite it having been introduced by someone who was being disruptive, the end result is actually an improvement - in BrEng terms, at least. Having said that, it isn't the only use here, so to delete it simply because of who introduced it is not constructive in the slightest. - SchroCat (talk) 07:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course not which is why I've only reverted once, and have no intention of doing so again, unless a consensus is reached. But you do realise that argument could equally be used in defence of retaining "upcoming"? It could have done without the hyperbole btw. -Oosh (talk) 08:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I participated in the discussion at WT:FILM, and I did some research comparing "upcoming" to "forthcoming". While a lot of sources used the former more than the latter, traditional British press was the opposite: "The Independent has 253 vs. 1,400. The Guardian has 488 vs. 1,160." I stated that I am fine with using "forthcoming" for predominantly British films, and agreed per WP:ENGVAR and WP:STRONGNAT. For what that's worth. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The british press seems particularly lacking in interest in this project with the only source being used in our article the daily mail which uses "upcoming"11:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that tabloid uses "upcoming". The Daily Telegraph however does not. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * i see your telegraph and raise you a guardian and a bbc -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And you're still focusing on journalistic English, rather than an encyclopaedic tone. There is something of a gulf between the two. - SchroCat (talk) 12:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The point made related to items in the article. I think Erik has made the point well, and SchrcCat and I also agree that forthcoming is most suitable here.  Time to move onto something productive, eh? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Quad or portrait poster
Why are editors insisting on using a quad poster in the infobox when we have a regular one? They are both British, i don't see the issue. Koala15 (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not "quad or regular": for British cinemas, quad is regular, and the portrait is the less common poster. Yes, both are used, but quads are particularly British. There is no reason not to have it, and many British films on Wiki carry the quad poster as the IB image. I'll flip it back to you: why are you insiting on using a portrait image? - SchroCat (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean a portrait? I don't understand why we wouldn't just use the regular poster. They are both British, and as far as i know we don't have to use the quad. Koala15 (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I mean portrait, as opposed to landscape, the two common page orientations. Quad is landscape. You are right, we don't have to use the quad, but we don't have to use the portrait either. As I've already said, quad posters are a particularly British, and are the norm for British cinemas. For a British film it seems more appropriate to use a British format poster for a British film. I don't know why you have such a strong opinion against this regular format? - SchroCat (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The following statement had been in place for over three years before Film Fan edit warred to remove it, in breach of talk page guidelines and his 1RR restriction: "" -SchroCat (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No breach has been made, I am allowed to alter my own comments. —  Film Fan  23:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You really do need to look more closely at what you can and can't do. You can't remove consensus-'building comments after over three years; you are under a 1RR restriction and you've breached that; you can't edit my comment (and as I just posted the above, that is now my comment. If you had struck your comment first time round, all would have been good, but as you've been disruptive over the deletion of the comment, I'm going to hold you to the letter of the policy. - SchroCat (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's really adult of you. Well done and congratulations. —  Film Fan  00:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And your edit warring to remove a comment that has been there for three years was mature? Not even close, so don't try and get snarky with me when your own petulance ends up biting you in the arse. - SchroCat (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia formatting favours one-sheets to quads. And one-sheets are no less common than quads in the UK, so it makes sense to use the one that fits the page better, as agrees. —  Film Fan  22:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's something of a straw man: the formatting can't can fit either portrait or landscape images, and there are plenty of examples of both in articles of all standards. - SchroCat (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "the formatting can't fit either portrait or landscape images"? What exactly do you mean by that? There are examples of both, because quads are used as much as one-sheets in Britain, and historically were used almost exclusively, but both are common in these modern times. —  Film Fan  23:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Predictive text fixed. Please do not remove your comment from three years ago. You may have changed your mind ince then (entirely acceptable), but it alters the appearnace of the three year consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The consensus brought about by me, in stepping in to a disagreement between you and Koala15. What's the consensus now? —  Film Fan  23:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Still the same. No policies, guidelines or arguments have been put forward to change the consensus. Consensus isn't about !vote counting. - SchroCat (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither were any policies or guidelines put forward last time, so the consensus is indeed the vote count. —  Film Fan  23:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have a personal preference either way, but I would suggest that in the case of non-free images that require an FUR our policies perhaps slightly favour the landscape image, simply because it is smaller in area than the portrait version, when fitted to the standard infobox width. The smaller size isn't detrimental: you can still clearly make out the image and title, so in such cases it is more in the spirit of criterion #3 of WP:NFCCP which says we should aim to minimise our usage of/dependency on copyrighted materials. Betty Logan (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. When you click on the image, it shows the original size of the upload anyway, so criterion #3 doesn't apply to this argument. —  Film Fan  23:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course criterion #3 applies to this argument. You have already acknowledged that by reducing the size of the original upload yourself. 220x326 pixels is roughly 50% larger than 250x188 pixels, and since the image is not use in any other article there is no reason to make it 50% larger than it needs to be, which is essentially what you are proposing. Betty Logan (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. I happen to have reduced the image to that size, yes, but the guideline is 100,000 pixels, so I needn't have made it so small. Whether it's portrait or landscape doesn't come into that argument. —  Film Fan  00:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You are misinterpreting the WP:IMAGERES guideline which states "images should be rescaled as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale, and no larger ... most common pictorial needs can be met with an image containing no more than about 100,000 pixels." The 100,000 pixel size is a basic upper limit, but within that limit the guideline is clear that images should be as small as possible. Obviously, for images that are only used in an infoboxes the landscape image is more compact than the portrait version. Betty Logan (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong, Film Fan. - SchroCat (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong, how? —  Film Fan  23:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A !vote count is not a consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ...except when that's all there is to go on. —  Film Fan  00:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, not even then. - SchroCat (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

US Release date
Can anyone find a source for the film's US release? — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Is Indie Wire okay? (The date is at the bottom of the article.) Luthien22 (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Critical reception
 If "Rotten Tomatoes sampled 30 reviewers and judged 97% of the reviews to be positive" means it "received generally positive reviews from critics", then the section: "Paddington received generally positive reviews from critics. Rotten Tomatoes sampled 30 reviewers and judged 97% of the reviews to be positive." says "Paddington received generally positive reviews from critics. Paddington received generally positive reviews from critics." This is repetitive, redundant and says the same thing over and over and over and over. If, OTOH, the first sentence does not simply restate what the second sentence says, it is POV. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Nope. It's neither POV (it's supported by the entire section), nor is it repetative (it's a summary). It softens the impact of having the despicable Rancid Tomatoes opening the section (always a dodgy rationale for having them in there anyway) and helps readers quickly get a grip on the reviews. It's probably why the majority of recent film articles we have open with such a summary statement. - SchroCat (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (My second revert here was a mistake from following through several open pages. My mistake.)
 * If RT is "despicable" and "dodgy" why summarize it? Elsewhere on WP, an RT score of 97% is called "critical acclaim" (heck, even the flatly incorrect "universal acclaim"). Here, it's reduced to "generally positive", apparently because a dodgy 97% + "generally favourable" + ""honouring...everyday quirks...while subtly updating" = "generally positive". Maybe, in your opinion it does, which is fine, but it is your opinion. Yes, we have a lot of summary statements in such sections. We also have a lot of changes from one summary to another summary -- neither one is objectively wrong, they are opinions. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would rather not have the deeply flawed and questionable RT, but the general consensus is to include it, and that's why it is there. But it is not relied upon totally, and Metacritic balances it, and individual reviews actually inform readers. As there is no single source to define the approach of the critics, we balance them out to something a little more generic. I see you've been deleting the phrase from a number of articles (based on no consensus I know of) and I suspect most of those will be reverted at some point or other. - SchroCat (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's a selection of the edits you figure will be reverted:
 * 97% is "generally positive"
 * 76% is "positive"
 * 67% is "largely positive"
 * 39% is "negative"
 * 39% is "mixed"
 * 21% is "generally negative"
 * 19% is "negative"
 * 0% is "negative"
 * Therefore, "generally positive" is more positive that "positive" which is more positive that "largely positive". 39% is "mixed" while 39% is "negative". Unlike the case with positive, "generally negative" is not as negative as "negative" is. These are opinions, nothing more. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * As I've already said above, we are dealing with more than just the one RT score. You are trying to compare apples and pears and not seeing why we don't just refer to a deeply flawed guess from RT. - SchroCat (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * When you originally reverted my change, you said the summary is not POV because it was supported by the "following statement" (the RT score). Next, it became a summary of the whole section. Now the summary discards the RT statement that immediately follows it and merely regurgitates "generally favourable" as "generally positive". We're back to it being redundant.
 * The statement does not summarize the RT score, it ignores it. The statement does not summarize the section as it ignores one of the two sources in the section that it might reasonably summarize. The statement summarizes metacritic's "generally favourable" -- already in the section -- as "generally positive"?
 * People mostly liked it. Virtually everyone loved it. People like it, mostly.  - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * As I mis-typed and should have written "following statements", you're basing this on my typo, nothing more. As I am now bored of having to repeat, this is based on a number of sources (where the fuck have I discarded RT? I'm constantly repeated that "we are dealing with more than just the one RT score"). As we are describing numerous sources, it is fine to summarise it as we do. Time to move on and stop wasting time - this has gone beyond any reasonably constructive approach. - SchroCat (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not merely synthesis, it is bad synthesis: given A ≠ B; (A + B) / 2 ≠ B.
 * Here's a suggesion:
 * "Paddington received 'generally favourable reviews' on Metacritic, with a score of 77 out of 100, based on 9 critics. Rotten Tomatoes sampled 30 reviewers and judged 97% of the reviews to be positive."
 * This keeps your preferred "generally favourable/positive" at the beginning bumps RT back a bit and removes the POV/SYN. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've a better idea: leave it alone and move on. There is no POV or opinion, except your rather arrogant approach here. Moving Metacritic to the front makes no odds (almost as flawed as RT), and what we have works as well here as it does on countless other articles, including Good and Featured articles. Enough distractions: time to find better things to do. - SchroCat (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I support SummerPhD's proposal to cite "generally favorable" with the Metacritic reference. We could also search for periodicals that summarize what critics thought so we do not have to interpret the Rotten Tomatoes % into prose, which is against consensus anyway. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 00:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is one example of how we can say how the critics liked it and why especially. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 00:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Erik, please read the above properly before weighing in. I have never said we are interpreting RT into prose. The line summarises the section, not an individual part of it. I've said that several times above already, and it is quite tiresome to have to keep repeating myself. I'll do a full search later, but this (admittedly unreliable) source points in the right direction. – SchroCat (talk) 07:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't summarize the section, it restates the Metacritic summary. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

'''No. It. Does. Not.''' - SchroCat (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We cannot create a summary sentence based on individual reviews. That is original research via synthesis. A summary sentence must be based on a reference summarizing the reviews. We should not do that with Rotten Tomatoes since it is just a percentage, but we can use Metacritic or the link I provided above. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Erik, as I am about to repeat directly to you for the second time, and in this thread for the Nth time, it is not on individual reviews, nor on RT, nor on MC. It summarises the lot. Just to make it even more clear, if either of you had bothered to check the article, I added a source this morning that backs it up. Both of you have comented this morning without bothering to check, despite me saying that is what I would do. Enough. Time to move on to matters more constructive. - SchroCat (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed your addition, I'm busy at the moment. Is your source this}? I was about to correct the title, add a convenience link and change the statement to "very positive", but wanted to make sure I was looking at the right article. - [[User:SummerPhD| Sum mer PhD] (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing a reference. I've revised it to attribute the wording directly and to state that it is from British critics. To draw a single conclusion from multiple sources is synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's nonsense - but good luck going through all he films ensuring they keep within your narrow POV. Start with the FAs and works down from there (and I'll lay dood money that neither of you bother to take the task on, at least not with the FAs. - SchroCat (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The incivility is uncalled for. We have had numerous discussions about tackling consensus wording, such as avoiding "mixed-to-positive", which is an inappropriate synthesis of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. I understand what you are saying here, the general "feel" of the section, but considering the long history of disputes over such wording, we need to attribute directly. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added the full article title and a convenience link. Thanks for the source, SchroCat. I think this is resolved. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it's an absolutely shit source that will be out of date in a very short space of time. Still, if your campaign against this terrible blight on the encyclopaedia is to go ahead, such a minor fuck up won't make that much of an impact. Either way, I've not seen any of you take your campaign onto the film FAs as suggested. Perhaps you'd like to make a start shortly, otherwise people will begin to wonder why you've started such a major upset on this article over nothing. Either way, your pettiness on such a minunte non-issue has driven me off this page. Good luck looking after it. - SchroCat (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What is your problem? You said here that you are aware of the policy of WP:CIVIL, but you do not seem interested in following it and treating editors with consideration and respect. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My problem is people on petty little crusades that take up time and patience while not improving anything. BTW, well done on dodging the points above. Trot along to push the point on the film FAs now - I'm taking this off my watchlist. - SchroCat (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Great. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And that's a particularly petty and silly thing to post. - SchroCat (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with SchroCat on this. You have been told several times that your edits are flawed yet you both still choose to assert your own POV.  I think, like SchroCat suggests, you both move on and concentrate on something else.  Cassianto talk 21:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The paraphrasing was disputed, SchroCat provided a source, we have quoted the source directly. Manual_of_Style/Film Like I said, I think this is resolved. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a shit source and a doubly shit resolution. It'll be out of date in a day or three. I doubt you'll be around to sort out the situation, but seagull editors are often like that. I have no doubt you'll be ignoring Cassianto's opinion as muchas you've ignored mine, but that comes as little surprise. You sorted out any of the FA film articles that have this plague on them? - SchroCat (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, the material in the section is now verifiable. If you find there is a problem here in a few days, feel free to address it. If you'd like to address issues in other articles, feel free to do so. If you'd like to assign tasks to me, I am not interested. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Didn't think you'd have the nous to take your little crusade to other articles. You'd be deservedly shot down in flames in. Over something so petty and wrong. I won't be back, so feel free to leave another childish little piece of grave dancing. - SchroCat (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The material in the section is now verifiable. Now with reformatted dates. I hope this settles the issue. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Production companies
has repeatedly added a bunch of companies to the infobox such as in this edit on the grounds that they are all mentioned in the opening credits. That may well be the case but not every film mentioned in the credits produced the film, which is specifically what this field is for per the instructions at Infobox film. Let's look more closely at what the credits actually say, which the British Film Institute helpfully list: "* Rights © Studiocanal S.A. © TF1 Films Production S.A.S.

A Heyday Films production: Heyday Films In co-production with: TF1 Films Production with the participation of: Canal+ with the participation of: Ciné+ with the participation of: TF1 with the participation of: Amazon Prime Instant Video Presents: StudioCanal In association with: Anton Capital Entertainment"
 * Production

The credits only clearly identify two companies that produced the film: Heyday Films and TF1 Films Production. It is not clear at all what the "participation" of the other companies amounted to, but the credits probably have good reasons for why only two companies are listed as producing the film and the others as "participators". The StudioCanal case is more complex; the credits credit it as a "presenter" rather than a producer, but it was the main financier, and along with TF1 Films production it is a copyright-holder. Allmovie also regard it as a production company. On the basis of the secondary sources, the rights ownership and the ambiguous nature of the "presenter" I believe it is appropriate to include StudioCanal as a production company along with Heyday Films and TF1 Films production. I do not think it is appropriate to list the other companies as production companies because the credits themselves are not explicitly clear in this regard. Whn a primary source is not expliciclty clear we are supposed to secondary sources to interpret them per WP:WPNOTRS, and secondary sources do not consider these other companies to be "production" companies. I am also pinging who have also been involved in this dispute. I am also pinging too who may be able to lend his credits expertise to this dispute. Betty Logan (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You just defeated your own argument. Cnal+, Ciné+, TF1 and Amazon Prime are listed under 'production'. They are credited as participants. So, they are, therefore involved in the production. BFI has them listed for a reason. They are even credited in the opening credits in the film, in case you haven't seen it. MyNameIsASDF (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * They were involved in production. Not the same as "producers" of the film. The credits only list two companies as "production" companies. Infobox film clearly states to "Insert the company or companies that produced the film." Betty Logan (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Overlinking
Yes, Wikipedia has articles on petting zoos, pigeons and millions of other topics. No, we should not link to all (or even most) of them.

Per MOS:OVERLINK, do NOT link to: Everyday words understood by most readers in context. The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar: Common occupations Common units of measurement Dates.

Most readers are familiar enough with English to know what a petting zoo, earthquake, bear, the Internet, etc. are. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 22:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The IP editor who has been restoring the overlinking in the past few days has now registered an account as . I have given them a WP:3RR warning as they have restored the overlinking 5 times over the past two days over two editors without edit summaries or discussion.


 * Please review Wikipedia's Manual of Style article on this topic at MOS:OVERLINK. If you feel there is reason to ignore the MOS standard here, please explain. If you do not understand the problem, please ask. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I can live with "petting zoo" being linked but the editor is clearly violating the MOS in regards to the other terms. It may be advisable to get the article semi-protected. Betty Logan (talk) 02:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, good luck with this. I've tried to communicate with this editor and their earlier IP(s) over this and over another topic about which they also have a bee in their bonnet. No sign of communication taking place at all yet - please see their edit history. It's hard to see what is going on here ... best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 08:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2019
Samuel Crossley Osborne (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ – there is no actual request here so nothing on which we can act. Please have another look at the instructions above (they said: This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y") or ask for help if you are stuck. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * PS That said,, I am delighted that you are now trying to communicate with other editors. Finding a cooperative, collegiate, collaborative, consensus-based and cheerful (I am running out of nice editing things that start with C but you get the idea) way forward with this is much, much more likely to lead you towards a happy editing career here than your previous approach was. And there's still a discussion waiting for you to join it at Talk:Northern Lights (novel) if you'd like to talk about tinned bears! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)