Talk:RoboCop

source check not done
Looks like you mixed up this film with "Aliens" at "Modern reception" section: Seems like your mistaken some sources and description with "Aliens".--Jarodalien (talk) 06:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) It has been listed as one of the best films of the 1980s: numberone by Consequence of Sound, the source you provided said 23;
 * 2) numbersix by ShortList, the source said 18;
 * 3) numberseven by Empire, the source said 69;
 * 4) Rotten Tomatoes listed the film at number139 on its list of 200 essential movies to watch, the source said 159.

sources to mine

 * —  Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 02:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

"Calvin Jung" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calvin_Jung&redirect=no Calvin Jung] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

1987 Nixon image
Perhaps we can come to a compromise here? I'm not sure what you mean by "Nixon centric editing"; I didn't add content that wasn't already in the article, other than providing the image itself which helps give context to the surrounding text, and changing the order to be chronological, since the image was made public prior to the release of the home video VHS. I'm not sure how that fails WP:UNDUE. Happy to open a WP:3O if we can't agree. Will hold off on editing for a response. Thanks, Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No compromise is required, opening the section with 3 sentences talking about Nixon shaking hands isn't necessary and chronological order doesn't take precedence over the most logical reading order which is discussing the home video itself. The Nixon aspect is a minor part of its promotion and not the main point of the section, yet you added a separate sentence just explaining the image and where it came from plus the title of the article section, all before we get to the date, format, or any information about the actual subject of the section. The image itself, IMO, fails NFC, how does it help understanding of the text? It's not difficult to imagine someone shaking hands with an actor in a costume and so the image doesn't add anything since we have an image of the RoboCop outfit in the infobox. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * While I agree that that order is more logical, the previous wording suggested that the promotion occurred following the film's release, which is false. I clarified the wording to fix this. You removed a primary source (higher quality than the two used) which I will restore. Regarding "It's not difficult to imagine someone shaking hands with an actor in a costume and so the image doesn't add anything since we have an image of the RoboCop outfit in the infobox" this argument would seem to apply in any other context (e.g. any other image put on Wikipedia, fair use or not). Caleb Stanford (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest you read NFC, the non-free images are to help understanding where text alone is not sufficient, such as showing what an ED-209 looks like. Showing Nixon, who can be found in free images, and an actor in a knock-off RoboCop costume which can already be seen in the poster is not something that cannot be described in text alone, so the image fails point 8: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The previous wording doesn't suggest anything regarding the date of promotion, it just says Orion promoted the release, and disregarding that promotion can happen at any point, it is not detrimental to the reader's understanding whether the promotion happened before, during, or after release because that isn't the point of the text, it's only singular purpose is that they got a former president to promote the film's release. Pulling rank on reference quality is also not necessary, who says it is higher quality and even if it were so what difference does that make when nothing sourced is questionable, the other references are easier to access and not at risk of link rot, and the only thing your sources add is that the image appeared in Billboard magazine? If you disagree feel free to invoke a third opinion. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Btw, a minor thing, I would prefer you not label a wording "Copyedit (minor)" if it is a revert. Caleb Stanford (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)