Talk:Ted 2

Ted (franchise) deletion
For more consensus, could I ask users to leave a vote at Articles for deletion/Ted (franchise). Thanks. CDRL102 (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Summary vs. synthesis
I removed this material: "Despite receiving mixed reviews by critics, Ted 2 became a box office success, grossing over $215 million during its theatrical run." It was restored with the edit summary "This is a perfectly acceptable summary of the article contents, and is an essential part of any TV/film article."

Breaking it down: I get that it feels like we should be able to say a film is fantastic/good/average/bad/poor reviews, audiences loved/liked/disliked/hated it and it made or lost a little or a lot of money. For a community theater production, we might be able to get definitive answers. We might even be able to verifiably state any of those things. For this film, we can't determine any of those things. Instead, we can directly state what independent reliable sources actually had to say. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Despite receiving mixed reviews...": My personal experience is that there is often little to no connection between reviews and box office. Currently in the top 10 at the box office Secret In Their Eyes (40% at Rotten Tomatoes), Love the Coopers (21%) and The 33 (43%). Mall Cop 2 opened at #2 and made $107 million with a 5% at RT. "Despite" -- not included in any source -- is synthesis, based on what you think should be happening but isn't.
 * "...mixed reviews...": Presumably, this is based on the 48% on Rotten Tomatoes and/or Metacritic's 48 out of 100, "mixed or average reviews". Combining material from two sources to say something new is synthesis. If you are summarizing one aggregator's summary, there is no benefit to reinterpreting what they said. They can clearly say what they are saying. Summarizing a summary is an odd notion. Summarizing several summaries would be a meta-analysis of meta-analyses. Metacritic recognizes that mixed reviews and average reviews are not the same thing.
 * "...box office success...": As I do not see a source that says this, I guess this is taking the budget for production of the movie and comparing it against the box office gross, which is synthesis. Let's say a film cost $68 million to make. (Even to get to this point, we have to assume that there is a box of receipts somewhere of all expenses that are attributed solely to the production of this film, an absurd idea.) If the film makes $68,000,000.01 at the box office, it's a "success", right? Everyone got paid and there was profit left over. It's obvious. That $.01, though, has to pay for advertising, anyone receiving a portion of the gross, movie theaters' take, etc. Clearly, that $.01 would not be a success. So the questions you would need to answer would be: How much money gets taken out of the gross before there's a "profit"? How much of a profit would qualify this as a "success"?
 * It's not synthesis if it is a reasonable expectation. A film that is panned by critics is not expected to succeed at the box office. The wording of that sentence is very consistent with encyclopedic writing about films and their reception by critics and audiences. I don't see anything that is not a direct summary of the sources. There are very few options: good, bad and mixed, and mixed fits best. As for success, $215.7 million gross against a $68 million budget is NOTHING like your example, and is a clear success. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 15:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "A film that is panned by critics is not expected to succeed at the box office." We cannot assume this universally and should only make the connection if it has been noted in secondary sources. I support separating these items from each other. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Songs not on the soundtrack
and : In the bold, revert, discuss process, we seem to have reached bold, revert, revert, revert. I'd like to suggest discussion... - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure. The problem is, editors seem to think that bold equals content addition. In this case, bold was content removal, since it was in place without dispute for quite a while. I have no desire to change that part. If someone else does, they are more than welcome to argue their point. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 03:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently, prefers the FU approach. Another blank content removal happened shortly after my reply above. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 07:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You really think its worth writing that the "Law and Order" and "Jurassic Park" theme songs were used in the film? Its all unsourced and trivial. I don't see your point. Koala15 (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... Surprisingly, the battleground mentality hasn't resulted in either side surrendering. We seem to be up to bold, revert, revert, revert, attack, revert, attack, revert, attack.
 * 1) Please stop editing until there is a consensus.
 * 2) Please discuss content, not editors.
 * 3) Please explain why you feel the content is or is not trivial or encyclopedic. Mentioning a relevant policy or guideline would be helpful. Once there is some kind of discussion, I'll weigh in with a third opinion. If that doesn't help, you certainly have other options. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not unsourced because of WP:FILMPLOT, what is clearly seen/heard in the movie is a primary source. Not trivial because it's a part of the film production. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

"White nigger"
Why delete? [] Steven McIntire ALLEN (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Because it is, at best, a trivial detail having little to do with the sentences that precede and follow it, and adding nothing of value to the overall plot summary (which is supposed to be a summary -- you do realize we don't need to mention every "gag" in the movie here?); and, at worst, the use of a highly offensive term to many which completely loses its potential humor when presented here out of context. That you found it amusing when you watched the movie does not mean that it must be mentioned here. The edit now having been reverted by both  and by me, I suggest you not make it again unless you can establish (here on the Talk page) why you think it is essential that this information appear in the article.   General Ization   Talk   00:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not find the gag particularly amusing. Being a white nigger, I thought the remark enlightening, and wondered if the term was actually in common usage. When I found that Wikipedia had a page explaining the term, I thought other users might appreciate the explanation. Please forgive me for being the ignorant a&%hole you appear to think I am. Steven McIntire ALLEN (talk) 00:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to make any criticism of you except for what I perceived as a lapse in editorial judgment (twice repeated). It would take a lot more than that for me to conclude that you're an ignorant a&%hole.   As it stands, if folks want to see if the term "white nigger" is explained here on Wikipedia after watching the movie, all they need to do is type it into the search bar.  General Ization   Talk   01:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not provide them the link? Steven McIntire ALLEN (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Because the purpose of the Plot section is not to educate people about slang terms for Catholics or French Canadians; it is to summarize the plot of the movie, omitting any non-essential details (and this is most definitely non-essential).  General Ization  Talk   01:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What section do you suggest? The term applies more widely than the groups you list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcintireallen (talk • contribs) 01:38, 4 March 2016‎ (UTC)
 * I suggest it might be discussed at List of religious slurs rather than here; there is no other section of this article where it would be appropriate to mention it. And yes, I was aware it had other uses, but chose not to list them all in my comment above.  General Ization  Talk   01:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The slur is not religious. You wrote the Plot section is not the proper place. Are you suggesting there will never be another viewer with the same question I had? Shall I make a Slurs section on the Ted 2 page? Steven McIntire ALLEN (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What part of "no other section of this article where it would be appropriate to mention it", "a trivial detail' and "most definitely non-essential" did not you not understand? You are correct; I think it is highly unlikely there will be another reader with a question about "the use of the term 'white nigger' in Ted 2", and if there is and they do not find it here, it will not be a great tragedy.  General Ization   Talk   02:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ignorant a&%hole stands corrected. Again. Steven McIntire ALLEN (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, never my statement nor intention. But we do have a term for it here: see WP:IDHT.   General Ization   Talk   02:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I will take your "#$% off in the spirit in which you intended. Steven McIntire ALLEN (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hasbro HQ location
Does the film imply it's in NYC? Thought it was actually in RI. Apesbrain (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

"Liam Neeson as Trix Customer" citation
The link is broken, but presumably it never gave his character's "name". Does this information actually just come from the closing credits? Can we just delete the citation if that's the case? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)