Talk:Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour

Structure
Hi. The content you've added under "Production" is not really about the production of the film, but about the release and distribution of the film; hence, my edit.  ℛonherry  ☘  04:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The only prose under the "Production" section that is about the production is "On August 31, 2023, American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift announced that a recorded version of her ongoing Eras Tour concert tour, which was scheduled to run from 2023 through 2024" and "The film was directed by Sam Wrench and recorded at the SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, California, earlier that month". Everything else is about how the film is released, distributed and went on-sale.  ℛonherry  ☘  04:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In filmmaking, "Production" means everything leading up to a film's release — that's filming, announcement, enlistment of cast and crew, editing, behind-the-scenes developments, etc. "Release" discusses the actual release, which hasn't happened yet. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks.  ℛonherry  ☘  04:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Reference style
I just saw that the reference style got switched to WP:LDR. Can we discuss reference style going forward? While I know some editors prefer that style, I find the LDR style pretty inaccessible as it prevents the use of popup citation templates in the visual editor and requires working in the source to view references. In general, I try to minimize how much I work in the source versus the visual editor because I'm more likely to make mistakes (learning disability with some dyslexia overlaps). Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's actually the other way round, the article began with LDRs, and then somebody changed it without discussion, which contravenes MOS:CITEVAR: Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style, merely on the grounds of personal preference or to make it match other articles, without first seeking consensus for the change. I feel LDRs would work better for this specific article just because of how many references are duplicated across the article. For good-quality film articles, LDRs are also the norm as it aids editing with less cramped paragraphs in the source editor. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's been in the non-LDR style for a couple of days but I didn't switch it. I opened the discussion due to MOS:CITEVAR. While it may be less cramped in the source (although the full reference should only appear once), I still standby that it makes the visual editor less accessible. Being able to view & edit references in the popup citation box on the visual side directly impacts how likely I am to edit an article (for example, I tend to avoid editing MCU articles for this reason). Sariel Xilo (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, does the visual editor not work properly if an article uses LDRs? If so, that sounds like a major issue which I would suggest bringing up with whoever is responsible for developing the tool — there's a reason it's still in "beta" after all these years. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize it was still in beta 🤣. In the visual editor (both in Vector2010 & Vector2022), when you click on a reference it states: This reference is defined in a template or other generated block, and for now can only be edited in source mode. You don't even get what the reference name is so you have to switch to source if you want to make any changes or view it. If I'm editing an article in LDR style, I tend to have the article opened in two tabs so I can flip between the visual editor and the normal reading mode (because you can view reference when hovering over it in the reading mode). Sariel Xilo (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if we were to do away with LDRs, if you view a reference that is defined in another section (because again, the references on this article are repeated multiple times across the article), you would encounter the same problem. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As long as the reference isn't inside a LDR (or something like an infobox), it can be seen even if the first use is within another section since the visual editor is the entire article at once (for example, the way ref style is at Taylor Swift). Sariel Xilo (talk) 05:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, the article I was testing VE on had the second instance of the ref in the table, which is why I said that. Now, this may sound a little harsh, but I don't think we should be making formatting decisions about an article just to accommodate the Visual Editor's (many) limitations. The vast majority of editors use the source editor to edit, in large because many things do not work properly with the VE. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. And it was me who removed the LDR-style referencing. I found it hard to edit/cite using the visual editor. I was not aware that LDRs were the original ref style of the article; Apologies for changing that without prior notice. Nevertheless, I would like to contest the decision to keep LDRs in this article. It's harder to edit, as I'm primarily a visual editor. I know InfiniteNexus prefers LDRs, but assuming he can still efficiently edit on non-LDR-articles as well, please consider reinstating the article to the non-LDR style. Thanks.  ℛonherry  ☘  05:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:CITEVAR, an article's original citation style can be changed if there is consensus to do so, so I'm not the only person in control. But I will allow more editors to weigh in first. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Distributors
There's currently an WP:EDITWAR on which distributors should be listed. Per sources, the deal was originally made with AMC and then Cinemark was brought on board; these were the only two distributors who were informed before the official announcement. Not sure why Jweismuller & various IP editors are removing the Cinemark details. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no edit-warring dispute, just the same person removing sourced content without an explanation, akin to vandalism. "Jweismuller" was created a mere hours ago. This is disruptive behavior, and the onus is on the objector to argue for the information's removal on the talk page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * https://investor.amctheatres.com/newsroom/news-details/2023/TAYLOR-SWIFT--THE-ERAS-TOUR-Concert-Film-Shatters-Advance-Ticket-Sales-Records-at-AMC-Theatres-26-Million-in-Ticket-Revenue-Sold-on-Thursday/default.aspx
 * If you read the official statement from AMC it says AMC is the only distributor and has secured deals with Cinemark and Regal as exhibitors
 * "AMC is also acting as the theatrical distributor, securing locations and screens with numerous other movie theatre operators throughout the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. AMC already has secured deals with major theatrical exhibitors Cinemark and Regal in the U.S., Cineplex in Canada, and Cinepolis in Mexico, to show TAYLOR SWIFT | THE ERAS TOUR concert film"
 * You have the wrong facts on this one. Jweismuller (talk) 04:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * But at least two of the sources in the paragraph included Cinemark as distributor (in an indirect way, I guess):
 * IndieWire: The only exhibitors who knew about the deal were the film’s partners, AMC and Cinemark...
 * Collider: ...and negotiated with AMC and Cinemark in order to screen it. (The source that it's referencing is this one from Puck, but it's paywalled)
 * However, there's also some sources that only stated AMC as distributor:
 * Association Press: In an usual move, AMC is also acting as distributor for the film. ("The Eras Tour" will additionally play in other chains.)
 * The Hollywood Reporter: AMC Theatres — the world’s largest exhibitor — pulled off a coup in nabbing distribution rights to Taylor Swfit’s concert pic...
 * Business Insider: But unlike practically all releases that play at its multiplexes, AMC is also the concert film's distributor. (also referencing the Puck source)
 * Variety: For the first time, AMC is acting as distributor as well as exhibitor, and the company will be making the presentation available to unaffiliated theaters... So far, those jumping on board to show the film include Cinemark and Regal in the U.S....
 * (There are probably more, but I'm too tired to find it)
 * Hopefully I'm not interpreting this whole "distributor" thing wrongly. Jolly1253 (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Jweismuller's claim directly contradicts what sources in the article very explicitly state. AMC's press release, a primary source, may not be used to source anything but straightforward and uncontested facts about themselves, per WP:PRIMARY. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in the articles you mentioned it states that Cinemark or any other theaters except AMC is the distributor. Exhibitors are not the same as distributors. Jweismuller (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * But that's the thing, no? In the case of Eras, where the producer decided to circumvent traditional distributors (film studios), AMC is BOTH the distributor and exhibitor. And Cinemark is the global counterpart of the same.  ℛonherry  ☘  17:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Thank you for listing this out. I really do not understand editors who have such disregard for facts that are simply omnipresent in sources just because they personally do not believe it. Cinemark is mentioned as the film's global distributor in so many reliable sources and yet someone decided to remove them? Umm.  ℛonherry  ☘  17:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * AMC is the only global distribution part. AMC also made the deal with Cineworld after they refused AMCs initial offer....
 * https://www.boxofficepro.com/taylor-swift-the-eras-tour-concert-film-will-go-global-in-over-100-countries-worldwide/ Jweismuller (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please also link those sources you claim to state that cinemark is a distributor!! Jweismuller (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As seen above, both IndieWire & Collider (which is citing the Puck) both refer to Cinemark as the secondary distributor. Both AMC & Cinemark were informed of the existence of the film before the press release announcing the film because they're the distributors. (As an aside, I've gone over to the noticeboard to report edit warring). Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * AMC is the only distributor.
 * Nowhere on Cinemark's investor relations page is there any claim of distribution rights. On the other hand AMC has in fact listed their role as distributor.
 * Citing biased news sites is not the same as a company's investor relations page, whom are bound by fiduciary duty to accurately report financials. 2600:387:F:781A:0:0:0:4 (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2023
In the 1st paragraph, Change this: Directed by Sam Wrench, produced by Swift, and distributed by AMC Theatres and Cinemark Theatres, it is scheduled to have its world premiere on October 11, 2023, and be released in theaters worldwide on October 13, 2023.

To This: Directed by Sam Wrench, produced by Swift, and distributed by AMC Theatres, it is scheduled to have its world premiere on October 11, 2023, and be released in theaters worldwide on October 13, 2023

"and Cinemark Theatres" should be removed. They are not a distributor of the film, they are only an exhibitor.

In the "DISTRIBUTION and ticketing" section,

Please delete: "Cinemark Theatres and other circuits were also granted distribution rights to the film." Cinemark was not granted distribution rights, no other circuits were granted distribution rights. AMC Theatres is the distributor in the US.

Citation #15 from indiewire is not accurate.

Source: John Merriwether Vice President, Capital Markets and Investor Relations AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. Labsr4me (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. See the above discussion; the fact that Cinemark serves as distributor is directly attributed to reliable sources, including IndieWire and Puck. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2023
No mention of how critics reviewing the film had to sign contracts saying their reviews must that the film is “Without defect”, must name the film the favorite for Best Picture AND publicly advocate twice monthly for the film to win best picture or face civil and criminal charges? Felipflop (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Felipflop Do you have a reliable source for this? Jolly1253 (talk) 01:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that's a vandal who added blatantly false factoids to the article a while ago.  ℛonherry  ☘  17:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2023
“Need to remove Cinemark Theaters as a main distributor, that is false information as AMC Theaters is the only distributor for the Taylor Swift eras tour” 184.148.70.185 (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2023 (2)
AMC is the only distributor of this film. NOT Cinamark!!!! Please remove your info that states Cinacrap is a distributor. AMC had 100% Distribution rights for this film. Sbara2222 (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * C'mon. It's just not true. The film is available at Regal Cinemas. Just pull up the Regal Movies app. Supermann (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

AMC is the only distributor for Taylor’s Eras Tour Film
AMC is the only distributor of this film. NOT Cinamark!!!! Please remove your info that states Cinacrap is a distributor. AMC had 100% Distribution rights for this film. Sbara2222 (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC) Sbara2222 (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like we've got a WP:SOCKFARM here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Splitting Reception
@InfiniteNexus, it is in the best interest of the article to split the reception section up for easier reading. There are Wikipedia guidelines and Wikipedia rules and the suggested subtitles for film articles are only conventions and not an absolute necessity. Nevertheless, WP:MOSFILM lists Box office and Critical reception as separate sections and do not enforce/suggest grouping all of them under Reception either.  ℛonherry  ☘  07:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason I think box office and critical response should be kept together is that they are directly related to each other. Box office grosses indicate how well a film did with audiences, while reviews indicate how well a film did with critics. They are both assessments of the film's performance. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Except one section is critical commentary and the other is about the film's box office. They're not "directly related". The "both assessment of the film's performance" is an indirect relation. It does make sense to keep critical reception and box office together as Reception when the prose itself is very little, as it is the case with a large amount of film articles on Wikipedia. And it also makes sense to split them up when the contents are too large for one section.  ℛonherry  ☘  07:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I think I can live with "Industry response" being a level 2 heading, but I don't think it makes sense for box office and critical response to be in separate sections. Another way we can structure things is by combining "Distribution and ticketing" and "Pre-sales" into a new "Pre-release" section, and then re-merging the reception sections. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I do not understand "I don't think it makes sense for box office and critical response to be in separate sections". Why does it not make sense? Because they're not related in terms of sources or prose content at all. Please explain  ℛonherry  ☘  07:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Generally, box office is included in a reception section because it is simply another aspect of reception (showing how well a film does financially compared to what critics thought of it) so I agree with InfiniteNexus on putting it under a "Reception" heading. I think the issue is that the "Pre-release" section is a long play-by-play and could be reduced. I moved one paragraph which was focused on AMC (ticket infrastructure, stock prices, etc) from "Pre-release" to "Distribution and ticketing" but other details could probably be trimmed or moved up. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I do understand that they're both forms of "reception", but my point was that it is not a direct relation like InfiniteNexus claims and it is a reach to group them especially when they're both big enough in size to be separate sections. Nevertheless, I do agree with you on the proposed "pre-release" section; I feel that's unnecessary.  ℛonherry  ☘  12:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2023
No word on how AMC and other distributors’ legal counsels are advising theaters not to refund patrons for film disruptions because they interpret it as a violation of the non-disparagement clause of Swift all theaters and employees were forced to sign in order to show the film? Felipflop (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2023
The film is not only one of the most successful of its kind, but has an undoubtedly earned “critical acclaim” in multiple high quality sources. Could someone correct the lede? Which only mentions “positive” reviews to reflect “critical acclaim”? Here is another recent high quality source saying as much from Rolling Stone: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/taylor-swifts-eras-tour-concert-film-box-office-numbers-1234852110/amp/

All this, and the aforementioned reasoning, should satisfy MOS:ACCLAIM. 96.93.193.114 (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅  Philroc  (talk) 08:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

On stage without stadium audience
Article: "The film was recorded at the first three of six Los Angeles shows of the tour."

In the film, Swift says to the audience in the stadium that would be the last of her shows in the US, if listened correctly.

I also had a strong impression that several of the close-up scenes (in particular those with a multitude of dancers and facing center to the stage) were not recorded with the original stadium audience, but looked more like "studio recordings" on that stage without the large audience. This impression was reinforced by the lack of zooming out from close-ups to stadium size. Background lights then look different than with the stadium audience. Dancers seem to look to the cameras with particular facial expression. As scenes from three shows were mixed together anyhow, it would be possible that different camera action on the resective days leads to that impression ... but could the film have become such a surprise if the audience had recognized that filing action? Finally, the synchronization does not always seem convincing; this of cource also can happen with pictures from three original shows being blended with one audio track per song and is no proof of adding non-audience sections. (BTW, is Swift always singing live and without playback on her tour?) Meerwind7 (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's related to the surprise songs, at least that's what I think. Digitslain12 (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

What is going on?
Please talk it out here before making disruptive edits that obscure the stability of the article. Tagging everyone related to respond;  ℛonherry  ☘  11:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * And, from my side, I have two points to make. (1) This concert film article does not require the entire plot of the film. This is a concert film and a short summary like the one in the last stable version of the article suffices as the rest is covered in the synopsis of the tour article. (2) Much of the images that were added to the article had no relevance to the adjacent prose. And these images are not stills from the film, but rather photographs from the actual tour. If anything, one image of Swift performing can be added to the "Background" section in relation to the tour, minimally.  ℛonherry  ☘  12:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * - I'm sure we are all contributing in good faith here. Now, you criticize us for making the article unstable, but you reverted all three of us. The article would be much more stable if you did not revert. You're the #1 editor on this article, and I'm not seeing any compromise on your part on content you don't like. My hours of effort put in - gone like that - frankly, does not feel good at all.  starship .paint  (RUN) 14:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Everybody is contributing in good faith here. I did not say otherwise. And I restored the article to the last stable version. Nyxaros reverted your edit before and only restored you now. I'm merely asking everybody to talk out the actual points here before implementing the edit on the article. It's how WP:ONUS works.  ℛonherry  ☘  14:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Now, down to the content, I will address the most pressing issue - I've read the entire article, and outside of the footnote of the missing songs and the ending credit songs there is zero content about the actual songs sung, and zero content about what the Eras/acts are (the $19.89 price referring to the 1989 album does not count). To figure out what songs are being sung in this concert film. readers must click on the link to the tour's set list, but that is not completely accurate, readers must now come back to this article to click the footnote [b] and mentally work out what 7 songs are in or out, from 44+ songs. Why are we making things hard for readers?
 * There are two more reasons on why we should add the songs. (a) As NME notes, Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour is a concert movie in the true sense. There’s no behind-the-scenes extras. The film is literally a countdown clock into a concert of 40 songs into credits, nothing else. So why are there no information about the songs or the acts? (b) WP:DUE. Reliable sources identify the full lists of songs as important. Full articles have been devoted to them. (1) Variety, (2) TheWrap, (3) Digital Spy, (4) The Mary Sue, (5) NME, (6) Today. The songs and acts are obviously relevant, and they are important, see (a), and they are covered by multiple reliable sources, see (b), and they help readers, not trouble them. So why remove?  starship .paint  (RUN) 14:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If anything, we can have the set list in the synopsis. Copypasting the entire concert synopsis from the Eras Tour is redundant. If the readers want to know all those details of clothing and dancers and aesthetics, they can simply click the "See also" link and read it. According to WP:PLOT, those details do not matter. What matters is the set list that Swift included in the movie. Therefore it's best to include that alone.  ℛonherry  ☘  14:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you,, that is something I am willing to compromise to instead of having the 700 words synopsis. Though, I do see two issues without the 700 words synopsis, (1) readers will have to mentally subtract and add songs to the fuller synopsis to match the film, and (2, which is fixable) I believe that there is at least one mistake in the synopsis, the light beams surrounding Swift are for Don't Blame Me , not Delicate  . I think I will discuss the photos another time, perhaps after the others weigh in.  starship  .paint  (RUN) 14:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The film synopsis is clearly not a (direct) copypaste from the concert page, and there is no such thing as not writing a synopsis just because a film isn't a "fictional" work. Use set list on a concert tour page, not on a film. Film synopsis should include a summary of the film, not song titles. If there is a serious problem with the summary (there doesn't seem to be at the moment), fix it instead of removing it completely and WP:EW. ภץאคгöร 15:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That is NOT how a WP:CONCENSUS works. You cannot give other editors ultimatum to force your POV. Consensus should focus more on what is best for the article and less on your personal wishes.  ℛonherry  ☘  16:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The synopsis is already there in the tour article. What is best for this concert film article is that, like Starship suggested, a list of acts and songs in the film to be provided in the synopsis, instead of a redundant replicate of prose already covered in the parent article. You are wrong about "there is no such thing as not writing a synopsis just because a film isn't a fictional work", there is such a thing when you are trying to improve an article and not just blindly and textually following a rule established for conventional film articles when it does not improve a said article.  ℛonherry  ☘  16:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal of the plot summary & images - as outlines above, this plot summary is distinct from the summary developed for the tour article & improves readability so a visitor doesn't have to jump through multiple articles. It is also following the MOS for films. Similarly, adding images (especially if they're from the Commons) is often recommended in the WP:FA process. Images from the CA leg of the tour when the concert was recorded for this film make a lot of sense as they're the best option under fair use. I think the larger concern (as raised by  in edit summaries) is that 's current behavior is veering into WP:OWN - reverting multiple editors multiple times before starting a conversation, calling the other editors actions "disruptive" when their WP:EW reverting is disruptive (even their setup of this discussion leans on that), and claiming others need to show WP:ONUS, when clearly they need to make the argument for removal because multiple other editors have pushed back. While Ronherry's wheelhouse is mostly Taylor Swift articles, the history of this article shows they often revert to the line of 3RR and if reverting fails, make various rephrasing changes without often engaging in discussion. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Immediate example of my last point, Ronherry has now started to  instead of leaving it until the discussion has finished; the stable thing would be to draft the plot summary in this discussion. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the allegation that I was adhering to the behavior discouraged in WP:OWN. Even if you perceive my edits as so, that was not my intention. WP:ONUS states that contended content should be discussed in the talk page before they are added back to the article. And that's the reason why I removed the prose and initiated this talk topic, which nobody attempted to do. Nevertheless, I do not wish to further prolong this dispute and would like to reach a consensus for the good of this article, as I'm planning to bringing it to GA status. Regards.  ℛonherry  ☘  18:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Plot summary draft
Currently, we have two versions of the plot summary; I don't see the need for such a drastic reduction in details but hopefully, we can draft out a version here instead of going back & forth in the article itself. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The trimming was performed as per WP:BLOATED. The former version was too detailed for a film summary and is borderline WP:FANCRUFT.  ℛonherry  ☘  18:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think either of those opinion essays are relevant; WP:BLOATED recommends an appropriate amount of detail & WP:FANCRUFT recommends following style guides (especially with fiction). Per MOS:FILMPLOT, "plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words" and the original version is 694 words. I think it has an appropriate amount of detail (costume & set design of each era as part of the description of the various musical performances) while following the manual of style guide for films. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, the trimmed version has 540 words which is more closer to the median of "400-700" than the original. I think the trimmed version has just the right amount of necessary details.  ℛonherry  ☘  18:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What's bloated and what's fancruft is subjective. Now, since I wrote the long version, I'm obviously OK with it. But, I'm willing to compromise so that we can come to an agreement. would you like to identify three/four most important removed details that you would like to restore, and rank them, so that we can consider them and restore some?  starship  .paint  (RUN) 01:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * - your thoughts on the below? Perhaps you could also weigh in like Sariel Xilo.  starship .paint  (RUN) 02:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't want to be associated any further with this over-extended topic. As long as it is a well-written summary (for starters, a section that does not show the song list as a film synopsis), I'm OK with it. FYI, there is no such requirement as "more closer to the median". ภץאคгöร 19:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I highlighted in green below a few of the costume/set details that I think help indicate how the performance changes with each musical era. Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you . I have merged the roughly eight fragments you highlighted, into Ronherry's edit. I have added just one change of my own. The result is a summary below 600 words., what do you think?  starship .paint  (RUN) 09:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Given that we appear to be at the WP:CYCLE portion of this essay on WP:BOLD, I've updated the summary to the version Starship.paint drafted above. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine with all except the cabin part. "bucolic A-frame" are two adjectives not required to describe a cabin in a film summary.  ℛonherry  ☘  19:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Upon further reflection, I agree with that the specific shape and description of the cabin is not that important and can be removed. Thank you  for including the content and Ronherry for accommodating.  starship  .paint  (RUN) 03:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been reading and writing English for 40 years and had never seen anything described as "bucolic" before! Turns out, it's not an insult. Thanks to the whole crew here for bringing this to my attention, personally; "professionally", yeah, nobody needed to know this. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Bonus Songs in Plot Summary
Should we include those? I think it's fine unless you want to remove it. Digitslain12 (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The details are already in the Release section (last sentence is on the extended version) so I don't think they're needed in the Synopsis section especially as it doesn't indicate where in the film they've been added. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ok got it. Digitslain12 (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Date for India incorrect
"...in India, where the film was released on November 3, 2024..." 162.223.105.206 (talk) 05:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Disney+ surprise songs
Maybe the "reliable sources" from Variety got it wrong? It's rather "I Can See You," "Death by Thousand Cuts," "Our Song," "You Are in Love," "Maroon," "You Are On Your Own, Kid" in this order. They totally miss "Our Song" and "You Are On Your Own, Kid."Supermann (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Cost
It would be nice if there were some explanation as to why a movie about a singer's world tour costs in the millions to make. For me, as a lay person, it makes no sense. The concerts (i.e., production) are (is) already paid for; all that is needed is filming what's there and then editing etc.136.36.180.215 (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)