Talk:The Conjuring Universe/Archive 1

Requested move 4 April 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The Conjuring (franchise) → The Conjuring Universe – The poster for Annabelle: Creation referred to this series as "The Next Chapter in The Conjuring Universe", as did its trailer. A single piece of marketing for Kong Skull Island referring to the film as being set in the "MonsterVerse" warranted the page's name being changed from Godzilla-Kong Cinematic Universe, so there is no reason the same doesn't apply here. The trailer for Annabelle: Creation also featured a logo for "The Conjuring Universe", and the Annabelle film has spawned a film series of its own. I would have kept this page as "The Conjuring (franchise)" if the studio hadn't given the series a name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotExsisting (talk • contribs) 16:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I would argue strongly against such a move: this page should be kept at The Conjuring (franchise). In the MonsterVerse case, the studio has applied for a trademark on "MonsterVerse", which is a far stronger justification for the move than simply one poster referring to a particular name. Even given that, I don't think an article name should be changed based on marketing (certainly not the first piece or two of it as we are not on a deadline)... it should be if related sources (in this case, the entertainment press) start referring to it by a WP:COMMONNAME on a regular basis (such as with the Marvel Cinematic Universe), not simply because one other (possibly bad) example exists.
 * As for the case for keeping it as "(franchise)", you have the following fairly large franchise examples: Alien (franchise), Saw (franchise), The Matrix (franchise), Friday the 13th (franchise), etc. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - per the reasoning laid out by Joey above. Franchise is consistent with other properties. Spanneraol (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It should remain franchise as it is not commonly referred to by the proposed name as of yet. Whether it will or won't be referred to this way remains to be seen but  --  Dane  talk  21:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now per . We need to see "The Conjuring Universe" explicitly used. This recent article does not do that, just saying "the Conjuring universe". When they start doing this, I would probably support such a move. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Inclusion of "Cast and characters" section to the article
Someone please include "Cast and characters" section to the article. Taniya94 (talk) 04:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A franchise page does not include that as it would be duplication: the information is already available at the articles for the individual movies that make up the franchise. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is quite acceptable to have a table showing recurring cast/characters in a film series, and it is in fact very common in this type of article. However, in this case there do not seem to be many recurring characters, so it is probably fairly pointless.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 25 April 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 📞 contribs 02:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The Conjuring (franchise) → The Conjuring (film series) – Per WP:NCF we should use "film series" as a disambiguator, unless the series is a multimedia franchise. This is not the case here, as this only relates to films. Rob Sinden (talk) 07:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support A no-brainer since the property hasn't been licensed across other mediums. Betty Logan (talk) 08:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – As in the proposal, not a multimedia franschise; just a series of films. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per others. It is essentially a film series and has not gone beyond that in any real way at this point. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Conjuring Universe
I am talking about this topic down here since the discussion/proposal above was closed in April. Though the franchise is known as a franchise of a couple film series therein, continued marketing for Annabelle: Creation continues to state varied versions of "The next story in The Conjuring Universe" as though this is the film series official title. Though we cannot WP:CRYSTAL and whatnot, what is to be made of this? The phrase has also been used in the marketing for the first Annabelle film as was previously stated. Perhaps The Conjuring Universe is the name of the franchise while the separate movie series therein are "the Annabelle series", "the Valak series" (The Nun/The Crooked Man), and "The Case File of Ed and Lorraine Warren" (see The Conjuring 2 poster) aka "The Conjuring series"? Anyway, I guess this is something that the studio is hoping will take hold and spread. Otherwise, why even use such a wording? <- rhetorical question.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Page move
I just noticed that this page seems to have a history of people moving it around. Before anyone tries moving back to The Conjuring Universe (which isn't simply isn't acceptable) or The Conjuring (film series), I would recommend reading and/or responding to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films).  Dark Knight  2149  23:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As you can see there is an existing consensus for the move to The Conjuring (film series), and per WP:RM you should not have reversed the move. If you feel the conclusion was wrong then you should re-start the formal move process and explain why. Betty Logan (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * See my response at the discussion I linked above. By continuing to hammer the nail, you are inadvertently beating a dead horse.  Dark Knight  2149  01:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If there is a stronger argument for moving it back then that should be done through the proper process. That not only achieves the aim of restoring it to your favored title but it also gives you legitimate recourse against subsequent unilateral moves. I certainly don't think it is "beating a dead horse" for other editors to be able to view the viewpoints and decision process that results in the naming of an article. Betty Logan (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, the "dead horse" I was refer to was telling me the same thing once, again, again, and again. Plus, we should wait to see where the naming convention discussion goes, before starting a separate one here.  Dark Knight  2149  02:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if you think people are getting at you. For my part I only raised the point once (at NCF where the discussion is taking place) and I thought I better repeat my comment here for the benefit of editors who watch this page. Betty Logan (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Understandable.  Dark Knight  2149  02:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 12 July 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. The discussion over at WP:NCF is interesting, although a little unfocused. If the decision is to ultimately to move everything to "franchise", then this can be revisited along with everything else. For now, though, there is a clear consensus not to move this one. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The Conjuring (film series) → The Conjuring (franchise) – Per User:Darkknight2149 in a recent edit summary: ''A series is a straight-foward film and its sequels/prequels. A franchise has spin-offs, reboots, ETC.'' I figured an RM would be best. 67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The disambiguator (film series) is correct per WP:NCF. No evidence has been put forward that a series is limited to "a straight-foward film and its sequels/prequels"; this seems to be the nominator's own opinion. According to my own POV a spin-off film is essentially just another type of sequel, often one that focuses on one of the minor characters. Does Rogue One belong any less in the Star Wars series than the prequels do? Is Finding Dory not part of the same series as Finding Nemo? Are the Daniel Craig James Bond films not a part of the long-running James Bond series? If a film's existence is primarily defined by its relationship to a previous film then it's part of a series; the particulars of the plot do not really matter to an encyclopedic treatment of the topic because we should not be adopting an WP:INUNIVERSE perspective anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 05:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Technically, Rogue One actually is separate from the main saga films. It's part of a Star Wars Anthologies series, that is distinct from the main Star Wars films. Also, the Daniel Craig films are a reboot of James Bond, and are therefore not the same series as the previous films. As far as I'm aware, Finding Dory is the sequel to Finding Nemo. Annabelle has splintered off into a series of its own, despite still being in The Conjuring franchise. And, lastly, WP:INUNIVERSE does not apply here for the same reason it didn't apply at Draft:Dark Universe (film series). INUNIVERSE only refers to when we treat something from a work of fiction as existing in real life. It has no bearing on this discussion.  Dark Knight  2149  01:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per 's reasoning above. Without a significant change to WP:NCF, this is a non-starter. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Naming guidelines can change as a result of naming discussions. I expect a significant change to NCF would follow any consensus here, if necessary. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Whether or not this page will be moved will probably be determined by the consensus at WP:NCF. I don't see any reason to have two discussions on the same topic.  Dark Knight  2149  20:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My own rationale, after thinking a bit on it: A film series can constitute a franchise all on its own. This article appears to be about a franchise. Unless there are parts of the Conjuring franchise that this article does not touch on, the word fits, and there’s no need to use anything more specific per WP:PRECISE. If there are aspects not covered in this article because they don’t belong here, someone should make a franchise article. Support, but not for the originally stated reasons. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Betty Logan. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you share your own take on the matter, so it’s not just a WP:PERX vote? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's an essay, and it holds no weight. "Oppose as per X" is common accepted practice at AfD and elsewhere. I am not going to rehash an argument made by another editor when it perfectly encapsulates my feelings on the matter. Meanwhile, please stop badgering the !voters. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussion Elsewhere: I'm just going to reiterate one final time (in case people may have missed it) that the result of this discussion will most likely depend on the fate of the proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(films). I'm pointing this out because it's nearly impossible for said proposal not to heavily impact this move (or, potentially, a lack of a move). I won't be paying much attention to this discussion from here on out (though I will be at the NCF discussion), so you'll have to ping me if you have anything to say specifically to me. Cheers.  Dark  Knight  2149  01:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Betty Logan and for the reason that, as I've pointed out on the NCF talk page, there is no clear line between reboots, remakes, spinoffs and sequels. Almost all sequels, and more so the cheaper and less SF/fantasy-focused ones, contain a generous amount of retconning, and it's really up to the studio to decide what they'll call it. E.g. consider The Fly II. Is it a sequel or a remake? Suppose it was made today, 30-odd years after the preceding film. It would only need a new title and a promise of another sequel to be branded a spinoff. Daß &thinsp; Wölf 20:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * None of the fuzziness you speak of applies to this particular case. We draw the “spinoff” line in this very article. We have the main Conjuring series, and we have a number of spinoffs. This article covers multiple films and film series in equal depth, not just the main one named in the current title. That’s why the current title seems insufficient to me. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Leaning oppose. I agree that this is something that should be resolved at a higher level, for uniformity throughout the project. However, I tend to believe that a group of films stemming from a common origin film should be described as a film series. bd2412  T 18:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

3 Unnamed Recurring Characters
The three people from the opening scene of The Conjuring reappear in the opening scene of Annabelle. I ask my fellow Wikipedians to find out said characters names and the names of the actors they were credited as. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.60.192.241 (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Talitha Bateman as Annabelle Higgins
Why was Talitha Bateman removed from the Recurring Characters list? She played young Annabelle Higgins in Creation. Also, the Annabelle demon's name was given as "The Ram", which is who Joseph Bishara played. Samara Lee played Annabelle Mullins, though I suppose she, with Talitha Bateman, also played "The Ram" in the form of both Annabelles (not a word, sorry).

Pintendo (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Definitive evidence of title of franchise
https://www.warnerbros.com/blogs/2017/07/11/my-annabelle-creation-contest "All you budding filmmakers out there, especially those with a hair-raising bent, can now show off your cinematic skills by creating your own short horror film ( two minutes only, so we do mean “short”! ) and submitting it to the My Annabelle Creation contest, which officially launched this past Friday. That’s right, James Wan himself and the other creators of The Conjuring Universe are looking for fans to share their creation of evil inspired by the series of films that began four years ago this month with the release of the blockbuster hit The Conjuring. Since then this incredibly popular theatrical franchise has seen the release of 2014’s Annabelle, 2016’s The Conjuring 2, and the upcoming Annabelle: Creation which begins haunting theaters on August 11. The winning auteur will receive a trip to Los Angeles to meet with the director of Annabelle: Creation, David F. Sandberg, or an executive from New Line Cinema. The entry deadline is July 27, so time to start yelling, “Action!” Be sure to read all the rules and guidelines here: https://www.myannabellecreation.com "

An official Warner Bros. source referring to the series as both a "theatrical franchise" and The Conjuring Universe, which is what Annabelle: Creation was marketed as being a part of. Can we change the title now? 92.60.192.241 (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * You know what, I'm changing it. The Annabelle: Creation Twitter page refers to the series as The Conjuring Universe. https://mobile.twitter.com/annabellemovie/status/897495916612997121?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet 92.60.192.241 (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The user Nurseline247 tried making this same argument. Posting from Ireland, that user was largely unsuccessful in this regard. Now here you are, presenting an identical argument, and doing so while using an IP from Ireland. Don't you think it's about time to give up on this idea of the Conjuring as a Universe? A Universe is something which is all of space and time — something which the Conjuring is not. The term itself is an auxilliary one, meant as a bit of hyperbole on the part of the producers and other monied interests who created it, all to describe something they wish to increase the marketability of: films produced and released sequentially under an original tentpole called The Conjuring.
 * Does the Conjuring universe include restaurants, libraries, and swimming pools? If those things are already included in the known universe, and aren't any different in the Conjuring universe, why then does the Conjuring need to be something universal by including them in theirs? You would say that swimming pools don't count as part of the Conjuring universe. I would say, if a universe is everything, then they would. You would say, "Well it's only the things in that universe related to the film series, not swimming pools." Then I would say, "Exactly." So then why don't we just call it a film series then?
 * If anything, it is a universe of films, or a serial. The term 'Universe' by itself can never replace the gold-standard of descriptions for these sorts of things: film series – because no other description fits what they are, as succinctly and concisely. — Spin tendo Talk 03:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Dude, chill, what's your deal? I just discovered this series. I saw Annabelle: Creation in cinemas and binged the rest when I got home. I entered a couple of competitions to do with the film also. They called the series "The Conjuring Universe" in the official announcement so I figured I'd give it this name. Stop getting so het up about this. It's only a movie. I'm sure you have better things to do with your life. I mean, nobody has the time to be on Wikipedia everyday, right
 * FYI, not all Irish people are the same. Don't be racist.
 * 92.60.192.241 (talk) 11:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ireland is a wonderful country with a richly enduring history and culture. That your location exists concomitant to that of a past editor is no doubt a coincidence — that I mention it as such should only be taken as evidence that the editors of this page and community are no longer remiss to the operation of duplicate accounts. I hope we may rely on your support of this important endeavor. As far as the term is concerned, I believe that the media's use of "universe" as a common noun and not as a proper noun (i.e.,  u niverse as opposed to  U niverse, particularly in the example provided here) demonstrates the appropriateness of it being referred to as a film series. — Spin tendo Talk 12:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Just saying here, the Official Twitter Page for Annabelle: Creation (see above link) does say Uinverse with a capital U. Furthermore, this isn't "the media", but the makers of the film itself; hence why it's noteworthy (at least in my opinion.
 * On a separate matter, do you know who won that My Annabelle Creation contest so it can be mentioned on this page?, or do you know if the winner has been announced yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.60.192.241 (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Content creators have no input on articles covering that which they've created, per: WP:COI; And, I'm unaware of that contest's outcome. — Spin tendo Talk 03:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Does the Conjuring universe include restaurants, libraries, and swimming pools? If they are depicted or otherwise referenced in the films or supplemental material, yes, of course it does. But these fictional swimming pools are not noteworthy; such information would better fit a dedicated Conjuring wiki. One could make the same argument about the Marvel Cinematic Universe as you did here, but that is what the fictional universe is called. Also, I think you’re misapplying WP:COI; content creators absolutely have a say in what their content is named. (Of course, it helps if WP:ISes also use that name. I have not investigated whether this is the case here.) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with you wholeheartedly on WP:IS. I think that there may be what I like to call a mirage of nomenclatural correctness going on here. When it comes to names, however great the level of control studios obtain through advertising and a large diffusion of doctrine amongst their fans, there always seem to be some nonstandard naming practices left "sticking out". People add to and distort the film companies attempts at nomenclatural doctrine — a doctrine which informs people of the right way of referring to their cinematic releases — the right way according to the studios, of course. You mention that content creators "absolutely have a say in what their content is named." I often believe that say can be an illusion. The studios understand very well that the process of addition, re-creation and modification of film titles is constant and in all liklihood destined to go on as long as there are organized groups of content creators and content consumers — all with their own different ideas on what the best title should be. Unfortunately, consumers are never quite as nomenclaturally correct as the creators would like them to be. — spin tendo talk 08:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I often believe that say can be an illusion. I disagree as a matter of fact, but I think this may just be a matter of semantics (i.e., you’re using words wrong ). The creators, studios, publishers, etc. indisputably have a say over what a product is called. They have absolute control over the official name, which is distinct from what a thing is called by the media or the public. But the fact that people are free to ignore the creators’ influence doesn’t negate the existence of that influence; that is, it’s not an “illusion.” That influence is no more an illusion than it is absolute control. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

What the franchise is marketed as is irrelevant. If a DVD says "The Batman Anthology" on a box set, we don't suddenly rename the article Batman Anthology (film series). Also, this article is about the franchise itself, not the fictional universe that the franchise is set in (Warner Brothers can refer to "The Conjuring Universe" in their marketing all they want). And, as it stands, this isn't a shared cinematic universe composed of multiple distinct franchises, like the Marvel Cinematic Universe or the DC Extended Universe. It's just a single series, and its spin-offs. So no, I don't see any reason to move the article to The Conjuring Universe.  Dark Knight  2149  22:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Newly added "Nurse" section
By consensus, I mean a simple consensus, not a lengthy, drawn out discuss and vote session. I'm open to it being deleted anytime — I just rewrote it now because it was appallingly written and cited. I wonder if any of it is even germane to the article, or if it's just WP:SPAM — spin tendo Talk 04:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Material has been present in the article for >3 weeks without objections. — spin tendo talk 06:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 5 May 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page as proposed at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 17:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The Conjuring (film series) → The Conjuring Universe – Warner Bros. and New Line Cinema have officially titled this movie series as The Conjuring Universe, being marketed as so since the release of Annabelle: Creation, and will continue to do so in future installments. James Wan, one of the creators of this franchise has often stated this franchise as it's own shared cinematic universe. Angelwazza (talk) 05:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose not en.wp style or format. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose While there is a decent trend towards this, it doesn't seem to have gained enough mainstream use to make a change right now. The current name is "safer" in that regard, in that it provides a clear description of the topic. Maybe after a couple more films this might be worth revisiting. -- Netoholic @ 08:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Just saw this now, but will add my 2cents here. While you may not want The Conjuring Universe, for whatever reasons, the current title - The Conjuring (film series) should be for an article that deals with the The Conjuring film series. This article, however, deals with the whole franchise. So at the very least the title should be changed to reflect that - The Conjuring (franchise). On on a side note, if Marvel Cinematic Universe, DC Extended Universe and Arrowverse are ok on Wikipedia, I fail to see how the "not en.wp style or format" argument is a valid one. --Gonnym (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I just saw this now as well, having caught up on the movies over the past week. In reply to you, the article does indeed deal with the whole franchise - the whole franchise being films. A short film is still a film. At the moment, there is no other related media. --  Alex TW 14:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , I meant that the The Conjuring (film series) would logically talk about The Conjuring, The Conjuring 2 and The Conjuring 3, while Annabelle (film series) would do the same for Annabelle, Annabelle: Creation and the Untitled Annabelle film. Calling this article The Conjuring (film series) is wrong in the sense that it talks about both film series and related films The Nun, The Crooked Man and the short, while it uses a title more fitting for the 3 actual Conjuring films. See this header as a representation of what I meant - The Conjuring (film series). The Conjuring Universe would have been the best choice, seeing as that is the official name. --Gonnym (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If they were completely different movies and unrelated, I would agree with you. However, The Conjuring came out first, which paved the way for spin-offs and prequels, and thus all the movies are related and based off of the first movie The Conjuring. Therefore, this is a film series about The Conjuring. A film series, film franchise, movie series, or movie franchise is a collection of related films in succession that share the same fictional universe, or are marketed as a series. Not just those that share the same name. Consensus has disagreed upon "The Conjuring Universe", and thus, we use what we have. --  Alex TW 01:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you that the moves need be different or unrelated. Wizarding World includes the Harry Potter series and the Fantastic Beasts series. Fantastic Beasts isn't unrelated, its actually a prequel to the events of Harry Potter. Anyways, just wanted to add that RS do actually call it The Conjuring Universe like IGN, Digital Spy, MSN/Digital Spy, Looper, Indie Wire. Can't really find a real justification in the previous discussions as to why this name wasn't valid. Gonnym (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is noted. Nevertheless, a film series is still a collection of related films in succession that share the same fictional universe, and after several RMs, they have all disagreed upon the usage, and thus we have WP:CONSENSUS. --  Alex TW 02:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 26 August 2018

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. bd2412 T 18:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The Conjuring (film series) → The Conjuring Universe – There has been some debate about whether or not the studios involved really seriously referred the the films as The Conjuring Universe or not. Yesterday the studio released a featurette for their newest film The Nun. The video has each of the individuals involved in the films referring to it as such, along with the video being titled as such, as well as an official logo that was also a part of the video. James Wan discusses the franchise as being a horror film comparitive to the superhero shared universe franchises. They layout a timeline for the films, and also elaborate on why they decided to make "The Conjuring Universe" as a whole. I have attempted moving this page several times, but it will not allow it seeing as The Conjuring Universe article page already exists. We simply need to have an admin move this page, so as to keep the editing history. The studio refers to the films as such, the video displays the reality of it, and has an official logo. If you would Like to see the additional work I did on the page view the edit history on The Conjuring Universe page. Also the video I am referring to can be viewed here. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support given the reasons and reference provided.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support I agree with this change.--OWSLAjosh666 (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - As I've stated previously, the current title in my opinion is mispresenting the scope of the article, as it isn't just about The Conjuring film series, but also Annabelle film series and other films. This can be evidenced by the article headings. Currently we have an H1 header (article title) called "The Conjuring (film series)" and an H3 header called "The Conjuring series" - this is a bad article structure. As noted by DisneyMetalhead, the series creators and also RS are calling this franchise as a whole "The Conjuring Universe". This name also solves the previous problem with the article scope and structure. --Gonnym (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - the official logo for the universe is the kicker for this one I think. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – per the many "opposes" above, mainly WP:NCF. This is an obvious case of over-enthusiasm around adopting how marketers/creators talk about a creation, which is not what we do as that would be WP:PROMO. It's far too early to argue this is the WP:COMMONNAME for the series. The structure of the article is fine: "The Conjuring (film series)" is not the same as "The Conjuring series" and even if the structure were problematic, we would resolve that by fixing the structure, not changing the title of the article. You could easily call the headings: The Conjuring films, Annabelle films, other films, etc. This is a repeat of the misinterpretation that "series" is only narrowly capable of describing a group of films with the same base name, and if that is one's issue, that's an argument to make at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films), not here. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NCF might not support it, but if you look one line below at WP:NCF, you'll see it does. Also, I see no "opposes" above, or did you mean in previous discussions, where arguments which might have been true for that time, are no longer so, such as that from 6 months ago which was: While there is a decent trend towards this, it doesn't seem to have gained enough mainstream use to make a change right now or arguments which are just not true such as not en.wp style or format (see Marvel Cinematic Universe, Arrowverse), or are you referring to to the discussion which was over a year ago which has even less relevant arguments. While many like to throw WP:RECENT around, that article is not a policy nor even a guideline but an essay (which would still pass its WP:10YT), while WP:NCF#Media franchise is a guideline and holds much more weight. Regarding your comment to my argument, the structure is not fine. Saying there is difference in meaning between "film series" and "series" is just not true and even if it were somewhat true, thinking that READERS which do not edit Wikipedia film articles and are familiar with its terminology, will see that difference is just laughable; changing the header to "The Conjuring films" does not solve it, as that still means the same thing - a series of films which is part of the The Conjuring series. This argument does not need to be made at the WP:NCF as that guideline section is fine, it's the misuse people make of it - Star Wars (film series) is fine, as that does not mean the Star Wars franchise as a whole, just the film series and as I've stated in the beginning of my comment, you're citing the wrong guideline, which is why you think there is a problem. --Gonnym (talk) 07:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Joeyconnick: Just as User:Gonnym points out, just because an argument was accurate months ago, doesn't mean that it is still correct. The studio has officially named the 'film series' and are free to name it whatever they like. As of late, the common name used in articles is The Conjuring Universe. Read some articles and you will see as much.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - I also agree with this change. The creators, the studio and media outlets have adopted "The Conjuring Universe" as the official name for the series of horror films that include: The Nun, two Conjuring films and two Annabelle films with a third film on the way.--Filmmlif (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * The following has been brought to my attention/remembrance and further supports the suggested title change of this article -- Warner Bros. refers to the franchise title in their rules for the "My Annabelle Creation" at . This was done a year ago, and appears to be copyrighted. On their page they state, "The Video may include positive, non-disparaging, verbal/textual references to the The Conjuring Universe, [Annabell: Creation], and characters appearing therein (collectively the “Warner Bros. Content”), but not any trailer, film clip, image, music, or advertising material from or for [Annabelle: Creation] or any film in The Conjuring Universe or any talent appearing therein. Warner Bros. Content may only be used by an Entrant for entry into the Competition and in accordance with these Rules, and for no other purpose." The studio declaratively has referred to the franchise as-such for over a year. The films have collectively been referred to as such, within articles and their headlines for just as long. The studio, has also copyrighted franchise title. This all further supports the move argument in discussion.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Consensus
The general discussion seems to indicate that concerns and disagreements have been addressed and resolved. The editors who have supported the move also seem to agree that based on the studio's official marketing, in-house references, logo, and copyright statements - the film franchise as a whole is indeed named The Conjuring Universe. Additionally, the studio's progression towards naming it as such has been years in the making. The original doubts of whether the title would remain official or not have been resolved. The unbiased discussion points raised by each editor point these things out. Should this general conclusion persist, a closing for the requested move will be placed followed by the page being moved once again. This will be done in the proper order, by the correct process.--65.130.184.219 (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC) <---NOTE: This was me. I didn't realize that I wasn't logged in.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recurring cast and characters Blockquotes "table"
To prevent an edit war, as it seems 2 different editors changing the same thing got reverted by DisneyMetalhead, let's start a discussion. The use of the Blockquotes tag as a pseudo-table is incorrect usage and adds really no value that either a real table or no table can offer. I've reached out on this issue over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style where two other editors informed that the usage of Blockquotes also has WP:Accessibility concerns. That is so far 4 different editors telling you that the usage of Blockquotes as tables is incorrect. Can we please now fix this? --Gonnym (talk) 08:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree blockquote should not be used as the material it is being used for is clearly not a quotation, so its use is semantically incorrect. —Joeyconnick (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * According to the W3C, [//www.w3.org/TR/html5/grouping-content.html#the-blockquote-element the  element] represents content that is quoted from another source . This does not seem to be the case here: it is semantic misuse, and therefore an accessibility concern. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You've obviously have seen this as you've been editing this article. Care to respond? --Gonnym (talk) 08:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I gave up waiting, so I the  and, for the same reason, the  because it contains an embedded . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Users:, and -- I have not 'obviously' seen anything til just now. Otherwise I would have replied. Secondly formatting based off of the above statements, I agree with. If blockquote format is incorrect then edit away.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The Curse of La Llorona
There seems to be a lot of debate about the film The Curse of La Llorona and if it's part of the franchise or not and it's seemed to start an editing war. An article (https://variety.com/2018/film/news/conjuring-3-curse-of-la-llorona-director-1202967746/) keeps being linked whenever the film is added to the page, however the article doesn't say the director stated it's not part of the universe, it just has a random line at the bottom saying it's not with no source as being from anyone involved in the film. Tony Amendola is set to reprise his role as Father Perez from Annabelle, so even if it's not considered an official part of the franchise, it still deserves a mention on the page. Now that being said, there's a two options I'd like to suggest. We could either: --2605:E000:180F:BC:284B:2789:1949:6FC0 (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Put it back where it was under the Other films section with The Nun and The Crooked Man.
 * 2) Make another section titled Related films and include it under that.
 * We follow the sources. A reliable source does not need to provide a direct quotation from a film's director to be credible—any statement they make is deemed valid. Variety is about as reliable a source you can get in the entertainment world and they have no reason to lie. It would have been simple not to include the that La Llorona is  part of the franchise, so the fact they did is telling.
 * Second, do you have a source that Amendola is reprising his role from Annabelle?
 * Finally, the biggest clue/hint/100% confirmation is that there is no way the producers and studio WOULDN'T advertise it as part of the franchise if it actually were—there's no upside to not tapping that extra marketing oomph. The fact the posters declare it's from the producers of The Conjuring Universe franchise rather than "the next film in..." would be enough to not add it even if we did add total assumptions and ignore sourced statements to the contrary. The notion the film is part of the franchise is fan speculation and, barring new information to the contrary, statements implying it is are completely inadmissible to articles here at Wikipedia. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Recurring cast and characters section
The cast and characters section looks messy like it is now. I made an attempt to fix it as well as format it similar to other Wikipedia pages, but it was reverted back to the mess it is now, so I would like to suggest a few methods that would make it look more organized and less messy:

Methods 1: Most franchises will place films in the order they released, not in the order by series. Additionally, I don't think I've ever seen another page sort the characters by name instead of by when they debuted in the series. It makes the table look like a disorganized mess.

Method 2: The MCU way of doing things, rather than breaking it up by movie, break it up by series. Method 3: If people are absolutely insistent on keeping the table sorted by series with every individual movie shown, the the very least we should organize the characters by how they appear according to the table. I honestly feel any one of these would be a marked improvement over the table there now. 72.82.29.156 (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

New drafts for upcoming films
Two new drafts have been created for the upcoming Untitled The Nun Film and The Crooked Man. These should be changed to articles once either one of the projects release dates have been confirmed or when principal photography has begun. Please see my talk page to access these drafts. Thank you! Kaito Nakamura (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Short Films Section
Can whoever completely removed ALL information regarding the Annabelle: Creation short films contest put it back?? There was no need to remove the section as it belongs in this page. It appears that the section was removed due to the fact that these short films are not canon to the conjuring universe, stating that they were only made for a contest. Although they are made for a contest, the films are set within the conjuring universe, as stated by the director of Annabelle: Creation and the creator of the contest, David F. Sandberg himself. Please put it back in its place Kaito Nakamura (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I have a question. On Blu ray of The Conjuring:The Devil Made Me Do It as one of special features will be The Conjuring:The Lover #1 as a motion comic. And I wanted to ask if this counts as a shirt film? Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Wolves at the Door
I wanted to ask if it is worth mentioning that Eric Lapin who played Detective Clarkin in Annabelle reappears in Wolves at the Door? It makes it connected and in a way set in The Conjuring Universe although it isn't officially part of the franchise (like The Curse of La Llorona with the difference La Llorona had more connections)... Just asking 😅 Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * From memory someone added this to the article a few years back but got removed since no source could confirm that it was an official entry into the franchise nor was it of much notability. I personally haven't seen the film but it seemed to be a small cameo appearance since the director and writer also worked on Annabelle. KaitoNkmra23   (talk!)  01:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen the film myself yet. But am going to do it today, so I'll let you know if it was just a cameo. And I totally understand. Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 08:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah watched it, and forgot to say it. It was just a pretty small cameo. But the connection is there Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, as I saw few days ago here was a "edit war" about this film. Can we discuss it or you think that the topic is closed? In my honest opinion the movie should be mentioned. But that's just my opinion Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, this movie should be counted. It's exactly how universes works. A character from previous movie appears in it. And Annabelle is refrenced. The same was with La Llorona but there was also a flashback. Still, this is how universes works. Also people who did work on previous films worked on this. So yeah. It should be counted. If it was a theatrical release it would already be counted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD6:8B77:0:8432:A51D:329C:B203 (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't something like with Caged (2020) where an actor who plays a character in conjiverse appears in another movie and has the same last name as the character in conjiverse. Yup Tony Amendola plays a character with last name Perez in Caged (2020) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD6:8B77:0:8432:A51D:329C:B203 (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There's not enough coverage with reliable sources for it. La Llorona had plenty at the time of and even following release. You can't add your own information per WP:ORIGINAL. Unless you want to keep this discussion going I'd close this discussion. KaitoNkmra23   (talk!)  22:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * well I mean La Llorona was a theatrical release. And Wolves was released with no echo. Almost no one knows the movie exists. That's the difference between the two films. La Llorona was a theatrical release with some marketing, Wolves was a theatrical movie like in 3 countries with just one trailer released once and that's it. No one talked about it. And it has just 7 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. And yeah. Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it's linked. If not necessarily part of the Conjuring franchise, it is certainly part of the universe since it was the exact same character from Annabelle and it had the same creatives work on it. It should at least be mentioned on the page if it's not going to be added as an instalment of the series, considering it's the same world. ProBot1227 (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with you 100%. The same creatives, the same character played by the same actor. It's literally the same case as it was with The Curse of La Llorona Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't say its the same. Again, barely any media coverage and reliable sources to satisfy notability. KaitoNkmra23   (talk!)  07:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * it's hard to have any sources when no one knows this movie exists. It was released as quietly as possible because of controversies. La Llorona was in theaters its why you have sources on that. Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And that's great... but we go by the sources. If it hasn't been clearly "claimed" by producers, then we don't include it. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * So by that delete La Llorona it wasn't also called by the producers part of it. In fact the director said it isn't. But wait you keep fighting on that if someone removes it. Oh well. The movie needs to speak for itself. I bet if there was an article by screenrant or other news site about it, you would just let it in. But that there's just one source on the internet by small horror site, you're ignoring it. The film is evidence enough. Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you're getting the point here. The film itself can't be constituted as evidence. Multiple, reliable third-party sources are needed. KaitoNkmra23   (talk!)  21:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Are they really needed? Why? I don't understand why the film itself can't be considered as evince? Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Unsourced information tends to be considered as original research, which is not allowed per WP:ORIGINAL. Reliable sources are required per WP:RELIABILITY and WP:VERIFIABILITY. KaitoNkmra23   (talk!)  01:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

It should be noted that the Polish wikipedia considered it reasonable enough to add.

I'm not asking for much. Just a small reference to it on the page to denote the connection. It's clear that this appearance is more than an easter egg because of serveral things, like the timeline setting, the shared character, the shared creatives, and how Annabelle references the Sharon Tate murder.

It's pretty hard to argue it's not connected when you take into the facts. I do understand the hesitation to add it as part of the series, but a small reference like "additionally, Eric Laden reprised his role as Detective Clarkin in Wolves at the Door" couldn't hurt. ProBot1227 (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, at least in this way. Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)