Talk:The Houses October Built 2

There have been repeated attempts at removing any negative language about this movie from this page. This includes multiple reverts of the films Rotten Tomatoes score. Wikipedia should be a presentation of the facts and impartial as it can be - this includes making note of a movies reviews, even if they are negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.250.97 (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Astroturfing on this article
If you examine the history of that Wikipedia page in particular, I think you'll notice a trend of user(s) from a very similar ip address range '2601:600:' and '2603:3023' (both Seattle Comcast IP addresses) continually making edits to astro turf that particular page by removing negative content (they have constantly removed the Rotten Tomatoes critic score, which is low, and tried to replace it with the audience, which is higher, despite the critic score obviously being the accepted Rotten Tomatoes score on Wikipedia. They in fact, also, wouldn't even accept compromise edits where I tried to include both scores. ) I have tired to address this issue with this user/user(s) many times via their talk page, but have yet to receive any reply from them. I know we are supposed to assume good faith on Wikipedia, but because of all the proceeding events, I believe this user is editing the article in bad faith and biased way. 173.88.250.97 (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC on inclusion of positive reviews
Should the article include a couple sentences describing positive reviews of the film? Editors disagree in the above section and on the article. I am not well-versed on the subject, nor am I involved enough to have an opinion. jp×g 09:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Should not be included - I already outlined my thoughts below, but, I do go on a bit of a tangent there regarding the nature of the RfC, so just restating them concisely here. As it stands, the reception article of this film seems complete and balanced.  There are positive reviews along with negative reviews. This film's reception was overwhelmingly negative, still, both positive and negative reviews are presented in equal weight. This also seems fine and balanced, both view points of the film's reception are presented. To continue to load it with positive reviews, seem to misrepresent the reception that the film received and go against WP:NPOV.  In addition, this seems to be in line with the attitude expressed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Critical_response.  173.88.250.97 (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Should Producer career highlights be presented in lead?
I've seen it in this article and the film it is a sequel to. Various high profile films are cherry picked from one of the producer's careers and listed in the lead of the film. To me, the producers production history, seems unrelated to the content of the film itself, and reads more like an advertisement one might see on TV in order to drum up interest in a film. I'm interested in what other editors may think. Best. 173.88.250.97 (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

And just an update after doing some light reading in the style guide for film articles. Judging by what's written in the style guide for leads, I believe I am correct in assessing that the producers own career highlights should not be in the lead. The style guide does mention that the producer should be included if they are noteworthy, but does make no mention of listing their credits. Certainly, too, the noteworthy aspect of this producer in general may be debatable, but ignoring that, it seems like highlights of their career don't belong in the lead to this film. 173.88.250.97 (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)