Talk:ParaNorman

Orphaned references in ParaNorman
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of ParaNorman's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BOM": From The Bourne Legacy (film):  From The Expendables 2:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Critical response
Per WP:FILMMOS, the "Critical response" section is for professional film critics only, with limited exceptions for "notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film." Neither the National Review writer nor the Huffington Post writer qualities as either, so the paragraph about the gay character belongs in a separate section.

It's important to adhere to the MOS, since already editors at at least one other page are saying, "Well, if ParaNorman does it that way, why can't we do it that way here?" --Tenebrae (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, neither writer says it's the first openly gay character in a mainstream children's animated film. The HuffPo guy mentions the gay character in a single sentence just stating the character exists, and the National Review writer says directly, "This might not be the first time a kids’ movie had a gay character, but it’s the first subplot I remember." A claim of something being a first is an exceptional claim, and exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing. This has no sourcing at all for the claim. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)