Talk:The Matrix/Archive 7

The Wachowskis vs The Wachowski Brothers
, I concur with 's edits. Please leave at the status quo and discuss here. I will notify WT:LGBT of this discussion to determine proper wording. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The proper wording is the official credits from the film in the lead and infobox. After that the more colloquial term The Wachowskis in the prose is fine. Putting in Brothers every time they're mentioned is bad grammar. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As I outlined multiply, your rationale does not cover any edits made outside the Wachowski Brothers -> Wachowskis change, such as: Changing links to 404s or redirects, errornously changing citation titles to versions saying "The Wachowskis" although the originals says "The Wachowski Brothers", horrifying whitespace withing infobox, text body and citation templates, adding redirectal template "Matrix" by replacing "The Matrix" (the prior of which redirects to the latter), removing "The" from the sorting algorithm, deletions in the "Cast" section. These were my primary reason for reverting, though furthermore, you state (also here above) that giving the full term "The Wachowski Brothers" would go for bad grammar, fair enough, but having the exact opposite achieves the same effect, making your rationale not properly valid. However, this could easily be fixed by, by hand, having both versions in place in an acceptable fashion. This current back-and-forth is not an acceptable fashion. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 19:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * None of those side issues were a problem two days ago. Whitespace is common in the infobox, it allows everything to be lined up - it is not at all horrifying. But that was not why I reverted you. As for the citations, those were done automatically by wikEd. The templates were fine as they were, and you turned them into non-functioning red links until I took the time to fix them. You also restored unnecessary character info an IP put in. So it appears you are the one who made a few mistakes. If you wish to address those side issues, do them in separate edits. If you're going to put in mass changes in one edit, the reverting editor is usually not going to break them up. That is up to you. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That I have overlooked a few thing might have been, but after being made aware of those I did take care of them in a single edit. You did not outline any issues with "unnecessary character info an IP put in", and simply included it under your mentioned rationale. My whitespace issues does not only affect infoboxes but majorly citation templates, as they get harder to read and especially to edit, furthermore whitespacing in infoboxes serves badly for editors using the Wikipedia mobile editor or various external editors, and is not an improvement on desktop version either, rather smaller screens will see line breaks all the way down.
 * I am simply asking you to address your only issue by resolving that issue, rather than uselessly reverting good changes and not actually doing what your edit summary suggets you would like to have done (find a balance between the two terms; having one in the infobox and lead each and the other a vastly more times in the body is not a good balance). Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 20:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It is disputable that they were unambiguously "good changes", and again, it is up to you to do separate edits. That is long established proper procedure. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "Proper procedure"? At present you have only undone my changes without reason, only adapted to a very few ones I pointed out. None of your comments in any way state how my edits, apart from the "The Wachowski Brothers" overflow, had hurt the page code structure. If you were to revert me and I would do every edit again, it would have the 100% exact same outcome. You have been asked to undertake the edits necessary to comply with your edit summary: Resolve "bad grammar". The reversion, again, does not, as you just come to the opposite result, and overuse of "The Wachowskis". Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 20:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "The Wachowskis" is not overused in my version. I doubt anybody here would agree with your claim that it is. I explained above other problems with what you did. I suggest you repair the page before someone else reverts you completely. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Your version features "The Wachowskis" 33 times, while "The Wachowski Brothers" only four times, of which three are in tables, so technically just once. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 21:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Man can we not, there's only one way LGBT is going to go on this and it's not historical accuracy. We've had this discussion 50 times, just do what Gothic said. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur with DWB on this. The LGBT project is simply not neutral and push their agenda wherever they can and we won't get an unbiased outcome from their involvement. I believe there is a working consensus on the Film project to use the formal credits in the explicit context of authorship (i.e. infobox credits) but to observe MOS:IDENTITY outside of that narrow window. I also agree that reference titles should not be retrospectively altered either because of the bibliographic implications: if somebody needs to locate/repair the reference then they need to know the actual title it was published under. Betty Logan (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. And there was already a working consensus which I was trying to maintain. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Per my ongoing reasoning: The infobox should say "The Wachowski Brothers" (that is how they are credited). The first mention in the body should state something like "The Wachowskis, known at the time as The Wachowski Brothers" (state current stage name, explain stage name at time), thereafter use "the Wachowskis" (now lower case due to no longer being used as a proper title. References should always keep their original titles - if an article is titled "Jane Smith", and Ms Smith then married and became Jane Barlow, we do not go back and edit the title as the article was not called "Jane Barlow". Frankly that is the point here - point out how they were credited at the time, then thereafter give the current name. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a plausible solution. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 21:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I came here from WP:LGBT and I think perfectly encapsulated my opinion in the earlier discussion section when he wrote "My opinion is that the infobox should reflect the credits, and thus use "The Wachowski Brothers". The lead and first main body instance can use "The Wachowskis (then known as The Wachowski Brothers)" and everything else should use "the Wachowskis". This way we reflect the preferred nomenclature of the two as currently expressed, but also accept that at the time they were not known by that name, and to claim otherwise would not be correct." --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have adapted the article to suite this, though I switched around the history connection ["The Wachowski Brothers (now known as The Wachowskis)" instead of "The Wachowskis (then known as The Wachowski Brothers)"] as it appeared more accurate to my eye. I hope this is to everyone's favor. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 21:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Since it doesn't look like anyone has linked to this yet: Talk:The_Matrix/Archive_5 - RfC closed as using "The Wachowskis" in the lead. A previous RfC, for which I do not have a link handy, determined that the infobox (which, after all, is data rather than description) should reflect the names in the credits. It was the subject of much discussion before and after that more recent RfC, and several of us talked about organizing a broader RfC to come up with a standard way to refer to artists, authors, filmmakers, musicians, etc. whose work reflects a name that is contrary to their current identification (related to MOS:IDENTITY), but it never happened. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 23:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, that RfC closing was challenged. As said in the discussion below, This should not have been closed. There is no consensus for "the Wachowskis" in the lead sentence. Despite canvassing on Facebook, there's more votes for keeping the "Wachowski Brothers" or "credited as the Wachowski Brothers" in the lead. Normally when there is no clear outcome, you keep the status quo, and this page had previously reached agreement on using the name the filmmakers chose for their own credit. Most people in the WP Film project were unaware of that discussion, and were only able to comment after it was closed. Two things are clear from the discussion: the majority of the participants did not support "option c", and the majority of the participants supported included the formal credit "The Wachowski Brothers" in some form, by virtue of the fact taht the combined support for options A, B & D outweighed the support for Option C. The best solution for the lead sentence appeared to be "The Wachowski Brothers (now known as The Wachowskis)", which both preserves the original credit and acknowledges the later name change. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Yes, there were a couple people who didn't like the outcome of that RfC, and it was challenged as contentious RfCs often are. It was challenged and not overturned. I'd invite anyone to retrace the various threads (at ANI, for example) following the close for the arguments on either side. The A+B+D>C so obviously it can't be C is silliness, but I'm loath to relitigate. Regardless, again, there was no consensus to overturn, making refusals to abide by the close without a new RfC or other similarly formalized process disruptive. Consensus can change, sure, but you'll need something at least as well attended and/or formalized as that RfC. What did come out of the post-RfC threads, however, was a general sense that the RfC's outcome wouldn't apply to other Wachowskis-related articles. Which leads me to what I said above -- that we need a superseding RfC that determines rules for such a scenario beyond just this article and beyond just the Wachowskis. I'd happily work with anyone on either side of the matter to draft that RfC but I'm not about to open another one alone. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 06:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW simply "The Wachowskis" was not my first choice, either. That they were known as The Wachowski Brothers at the time is relevant and, IMO, should be mentioned at least in the first instance and in the infobox. The infobox is primarily about data and as such it may make sense to list their credited name (first and/or only). But in the prose we are not repeating data/credits but describing/explaining a film that was directed by people who exist outside of the context of the film. Those people are the Wachowskis, so that should be the primary way we refer to them (with Wachowski Brothers in parentheses, set off by commas, or something similar). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 07:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It is tempting to rehash all the various viewpoints on this, but it's all been laid out at the discussions I've linked to below. However, a quick word regarding the infobox... The infobox is defined as a summation of key facts that appear in an article. The idea that "The Wachowski Brothers" should only appear in the infobox goes against this very notion. That credited name should also appear in both the lead and in the body at least on first mention, and if I'm hearing you right, I think you agree. Questions remain, however... How often and at what point do we switch to "The Wachowskis"? How is the switch explained, or should it be? I think while many agree on the general premise of the compromise, few agree on how to implement it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Gothicfilm: While many of the points you make are reasonable and have been raised before to some extent, Rhododendrites is correct in saying the scope of that RfC and related follow-up discussions have transcended the talk page jurisdiction. It's reached a point where the next step should be a wider discussion at WP:VPP (likely in the form of a carefully-crafted RfC), as suggested at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive928. Guy Macon and Doniago offered up their assistance if there's enough interest, and at Talk:The Matrix Reloaded, Rhododendrites made an excellent proposal to collaborate on an RfC draft in a shared userspace. Perhaps a lack of interest is why this never went any further. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

This question has been settled by RfC at Talk:The Matrix/Archive 5. That being said, consensus can change, and it has been over a year since that RfC, so anyone is free to post a new RfC to see if the consensus has changed.

As I said a year ago, such an RfC should be first drafted as a subpage in userspace. The author should ask for help tweaking the format and wording of the RfC, meanwhile instantly deleting any attempts to answer the question asked -- that comes later when the RfC is posted and publicized.

The reason why this is important for contentious RfCs such as this is because it is so easy to miss being neutral in the wording of the question asked, or even to ask the wrong question. Any new RfC should specify whether this was just for the Wachowskis or for anyone in a similar situation, whether this was just for the one Wachowski film or all of them, whether it covered just films or would it cover music, what to do in cases like Wendy Carlos, where an original first issue album cover has one name for the composer but if you buy a copy today it has another name on the album cover (I still do not know whether the Wachowskis ever did something similar, changing the credits...) etc., etc. If you think of these things while crafting the RfC you won't end up arguing about them after it closes. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a quick side note that the amount of time that has passed since the last RfC shouldn't be a major factor. Almost immediately after the last one was closed, several editors expressed the valid point that consensus may not have been accurately gauged in the first place, considering the Film project was not notified. That's a glaring omission, whether intentional or not, and a new one is justified regardless of how much time has passed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement to notify any Wikiproject regarding any RfC, and you are dead wrong if you think that lack of such notification invalidates an RfC. Also, the close was challenged at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive928 and the result of that discussion was to not override the close. I highly suggest reading that entire discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No need to get defensive. I am simply expressing an opinion in the matter. I read the entire discussion before linking to it above, and since you have as well, you'll find that this opinion agrees with one of the views presented by DonIago. While DonIago's overall stance was in the middle, it's clear that uninvolved editors in some capacity support the desire to achieve a broader consensus. That desire was expressed and agreed upon in the "Call to close" section. And to be clear, I don't disagree with the RfC closure. I think Dionysodorus came to a reasonable conclusion based on an RfC result that was more complex than it needed to be (more than 2 or 3 choices can become messy in the end). That doesn't change the fact that I believe the RfC was handicapped by its narrow scope and limited participation. A better one can certainly be had, and I'm not sure you disagree with that, considering you offered to help should someone decide they'd like to move forward with another RfC.As for publicizing to the related WikiProject... No, it's not a requirement, but in a highly contentious area, it's the right move. In the opening of the RfC, it's even noted that the Film project was heavily involved in past discussions. The lack of notification makes a good argument for those that say the RfC doesn't have the backing of a broad consensus, regardless if the procedure followed was correct. It doesn't invalidate the previous RfC, but it validates the launch of its replacement. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My ears have been fiercely burning! :p
 * Requirement or not, I would ask: in a situation where one is posting a film-related RfC where broad input is considered desirable, why would one intentionally not notify WT:FILM? That seems self-defeating and just increases the odds that the RfC's findings will later be disputed precisely due to concerns that the consensus achieved was insufficiently broad. I'm speaking rhetorically here, but if I asked an editor why they didn't notify WT:FILM of such an RfC and their response was "I wasn't required to." (shrug implied), I'd be a bit taken aback. DonIago (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that projects with a declared interest in the article were not notified of the discussion is partly the reason we have come full circle and we are back discussing it again. However, I don't see much point debating the merits of a close—which I did feel was flawed—from a year ago. Consensus can change and a year is a long enough gap to revisit a decision with fresh eyes and in view of how the issue has been dealt with in the interim. The article has been more or less stable for a year now without aggressive enforcement (just one page protection over the course of a year) so I do wonder whether there is an appetite for another RFC; after all, the point of an RFC is usually to resolve an issue the local editors cannot resolve between themselves. Speaking for myself my main point of contention is that the actual contemporary professional credit should not be subject to revisionism. The infobox seems a good place to record the formal credit because that is where the bibliographic information is documented and that concession does seem to have survived the last year. Unless we actually want something fundamentally different to the status quo—and believe we can formulate an argument to convince the community to give way to us—then I question the wisdom of escalating this debate. Betty Logan (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * why would one intentionally not notify WT:FILM? / if I asked an editor why they didn't notify WT:FILM of such an RfC and their response was "I wasn't required to." (shrug implied), I'd be a bit taken aback. -- let's not invent context here. I started the RfC. I didn't "intentionally not notify WT:FILM" nor was it because "I wasn't required to". I didn't notify WT:FILM because I didn't post it to any WikiProjects. The reason we have the RfC system is to make it easy to ensure a broad group of people will see the RfC, not just those watching the article talk page. Especially when an RfC concerns content in a particular article rather than all articles or all articles of a given subject, it's not a requirement to post it to wikiproject talk pages. The RfC ran for the full length of time, was visible everywhere RfCs are visible, was in the WPFILM article alerts for wikiproject members to see, and anyone was free to post notices wherever. Regardless, if I knew how vehemently people would object to not getting a separate notice, of course I would have notified WTFILM (and, in turn, all of the other projectspace pages like WPLGBT, WT:GENDERID, etc.). I have no sense of any particular bias within WPFILM that would give me any reason not to. The point of "not required to" is that not notifying WTFILM does not invalidate the RfC, whether or not I would have done so at the start. It's a defense of process, not an explanation of strategy.
 * All of this said, I think we're all in broad agreement that we can certainly have another RfC, and that this RfC could not only be posted to WTFILM, but address the bigger picture question of how to apply GENDERID (or not) in such cases. I'm off to Wikimania next week, so don't want to get it started myself, but again, I'd be happy to help if someone wants to start a draft. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 01:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there isn't much appetite for another RfC. I still have a lingering concern that avoiding the credit in the lead with only a passing mention in the Release section doesn't do much to satisfy the purpose of an infobox, since it is claiming the official credit is a key fact. However, it probably wouldn't be wise to escalate it at this point (as Betty points out), as long as the recent dispute is resolved and official credit maintained in the article to some capacity. Should someone present a better reason to revisit it in the future, I'd offer my support. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Not sure if this would help to consider, but we could try to imagine how we would approach it if the official credit was "Alan Smithee" or if the person credited had since legally changed their name. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In the case of name changes—such as through marriage—I think the professional credit used at the time should be retained. The "Alan Smithee" credit is a special case because it is designed to be an anonymous credit and it is not used as a professional name. In the case of Alan Smithee credits I would favor using the person's professional name (along with "credited as Alan Smithee"), but I don't think it is analogous to this situation. Betty Logan (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. The professional credit used at the time of release should be retained. The use of "Alan Smithee" is not analogous to a later name change. - Gothicfilm (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Wachowskis continued
As we all know, the "Wachowski Brothers" do not exist. Thus, it seems problematic to quote the media who refer to that term. I suggest the compromise: "Thanks to the Wachowski[]s' imaginative vision, ... — that is, using the [] empty bracket function to show redacted content. In this fashion we will be able to show that it is the Wachowskis' film, not that of the nonexistent "Wachowski Brothers" (which likely constitutes deadnaming). I made this change in one instance and am interested in whether editors think it workable. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The infobox lists the historically accurate credit as it is seen in the film. Do not change without consensus. And you should not change quoted statements either. Starting a new section with a non-neutral name is unnecessary. (Name later changed and joined to discussion just above.) - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh dear fucking god. The Wachowski Brothers may not exist, but they existed, and they made this film. This film was not made by "The Wachowskis", it was made by "the Wachowskis", who were, at the time, working as The Wachowski Brothers.
 * To give an analogy, Bruce Jenner is now Caitlyn. But that does not mean that any athletics (?) results should be modified to say Caitlyn Jenner competed, because she did not, it was a person called Bruce, who just happened to later change their name.

The Wachowski Brothers never existed. It is incorrect to refer to a trans person as their dead name/gender even when referring to the time before they transitioned, because they were still women, even if we, or even they, did not know it at the time. I'm not suggesting that we should scrub all records of the fact that they were once identified as men, but they should absolutely not be credited as brothers in the first line of this article, even if that was how they were credited in the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicCasey (talk • contribs) 09:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Right. This discussion is over a year old, I think you'll be better off replying at the new discussion at the bottom. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 09:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I do understand the idea that, from a personal point of view, it may be that Larry was always Lana. But it would be inaccurate to say that someone called Lana is credited in this film.
 * , next time you think you'll go and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS how about you read the talk page and see that there are two topics in the past three years here - how to credit the Wachowskis, and whether this is a white saviour narrative. Repeated ad fucking nauseam. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Has there been a wider community consensus on these issues, including and specifically from individuals whose lives are affected by these policies? Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 07:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * PS: Caitlyn actually competed — it's simply that at the time she was identified as B**** Jenner, and had not assumed her true gender. So, the reality is the reverse of what you said. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 07:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There is community consensus, and consensus here, fought out over many many sections, that we use the infobox to say Wachowski Brothers, as they are credited that way. To say otherwise would be historically incorrect. I believe that the consensus beyond that is that they be identified initially as "The Wachowskis" (current working name), with a note that they were then working as "The Wachowski Brothers", and thereafter refer to "the Wachowskis" (as in some Wachowskis). That way we have the historically correct identity where it belongs, we identify them under their current name and explain that they were credited as something else. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a biographical article, there's a separate article for that. This is an article about the Matrix and who made it at the time. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Whose "lives" do you think are "affected by these policies"? — JFG talk 22:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Cleopatran Apocalypse: Please review the section directly above this one in its entirety, including links to related threads that involved editors provided. In addition to an RfC and multiple debates at The Matrix articles, there was a discussion at WP:AN. If you have something new to add or consider after reviewing all that, then feel free to continue the discussion here. Otherwise, this will just lead to distracting (and perhaps unnecessary) repetition. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's where we stand now: We have WP:GENDERID which primarily applies to biographical articles about a person. When referring to a person in other articles, "Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis." We also have this RfC about, roughly, what name to use when talking about a person in the context of an event during which the person used a name they no longer use. The impetus was Caitlyn Jenner. In articles outside of the biography, when should her name be used, and when should the name Bruce Jenner appear. The consensus was, basically, that there are times when we use the latter. For example, in Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics, the table of medalists includes the name Bruce Jenner.

So one of the open questions is whether a credit in a film's infobox is like the table of medalists. It's not a perfect analogy, though, because a film also has a definitive list of credits attached to the work itself. Many who have commented feel that at least in the infobox, the Wachowskis' name should match what's in the credits. There was an RfC a while back which found some consensus for that. Later, after much edit warring, there was an RfC about how to refer to them in the article's lead. There was some consensus to use "the Wachowskis" there (although, if you read the threads above, there have been some objections to that RfC).

We very much could use a much broader RfC that would apply to creative works (and not, in this case, athletes) and how to refer to people like the Wachowskis throughout the article.

My argument is that in an encyclopedia article (as opposed to tables of data), we're not parroting credits but talking about (and linking to articles about) people that exist outside of this work and continue to exist. I see no reason to use a name other than that which those people use. Those people in this case are the Wachowskis. We are not beholden to the text accompanying a work (for example, if a director's name is misspelled, one co-producer's name left off, or credits omitted entirely, we would go by the consensus among reliable sources and not strictly by the credits). That said, it should probably be addressed in some way. For me, that would be the first instance in the lead or the first instance after the lead, presented as something like "the Wachowskis (credited as the Wachowski Brothers)" and then just "the Wachowskis" thereafter. I'm ambivalent about what to do with the infobox. It is not defined as a copy of the credits either, but I get treating it that way (it's presented in a similar way to credits, after all, and typically appears next to a photo/poster/cover art of the work that may even include the relevant name(s) in the image).

In this response, I'm not advocating for a change at this point, but laying out a state of affairs as I understand it. We have a consensus for the way I've described above, and we would need at very least another RfC to change that. I say why bother just changing this article when the same issue could apply to any creative work... &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 02:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I just thought of an analogous situation that may help sort out this issue separate from hot-button matters of gender identity. Consider the following statements:
 * Apple created the Apple I
 * Apple Computer Company created the Apple I
 * Apple Computer Inc. created the Apple I
 * Apple Inc. created the Apple I
 * Apple created the Macintosh
 * Apple Computer Company created the Macintosh
 * Apple Computer Inc. created the Macintosh
 * Apple Inc. created the Macintosh
 * Apple created the iPhone
 * Apple Computer Company created the iPhone
 * Apple Computer Inc. created the iPhone
 * Apple Inc. created the iPhone

I would say that all of the bolded statements are accurate and none of the unbolded ones are, but that the subjects of all of those sentences (Apple, Apple Computer Company, Apple Computer Inc, and Apple Inc) are all the same entity, that went by different names at different times.

I hope this is helpful, if this debate gets renewed again, which seems inevitable. --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Why not both
What do people think of "directed by the Wachowskis, credited as the Wachowski Brothers"? It acknowledges the current name for the directorial duo while also acknowledging how they were credited in the film. (I apologize if this was already proposed.) Harej (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, this is the correct choice. That's how neutral sources do it, using historical gendered terms is now a practice only of intentional transphobia. The decision was made 2 years ago, and we know better now. It really stands out as awkward. What's the procedure for changing an outdated decision? Camipco (talk) 03:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd support changing the infobox in some way, either to "the Wachowskis" (preference) or "the Wachowskis (credited as the Wachowski Brothers)." I know The Matrix puts everyone in a philosophical mood, but we are not rehashing Saul Kripke's baptismal vs. Bertrand Russell descriptive names here. It's much simpler than that. Misgendering by accident can be an honest mistake. Insisting on misgendering and dreaming up arguments to justify it is just transphobic, and has no place in Wikipedia. It shouldn't be hard to give transphobia a biiiig wide berth while also maintaining a clear historical record? Franciscrot (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Profound philosophical and spiritual ideas?
I watched The Matrix after reading this article and was most disappointed. Science fiction can deal with significant ideas and the section "Influences" implies that this is true for The Matrix: "The Matrix draws from and makes reference to numerous cinematic and literary works, and concepts from mythology, religion and philosophy. The Matrix also makes reference to the ideas of Buddhism, Christianity, Gnosticism, Hinduism, and Judaism. The Matrix's premise resembles the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Andrew Godoski from Screened.com observed Neo's "virgin birth", his doubt in himself, the prophecy of his coming, along with many Christianity references. In The Matrix, a copy of Jean Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation, which was published in French in 1981, is visible on-screen as the book used to conceal disks, and Morpheus quotes its phrase "desert of the real". The book was required reading for the actors prior to filming." The section "Philosophical influences" also makes unsubstantiated claims of philosophical and spiritual profundity for the film. A review in The Guardian in 2010 presents a very different opinion: "The Matrix is a teenage boy's dream. There's action, fighting, cutting-edge special effects, murderous robots, evil authority figures, an overriding pseudo-conspiracy theory and, most wonderful of all, an ineloquent social outcast who eventually becomes a flying kung fu Jesus."

There is a misleading lack of balance in these two sections of the article. The lead should also deal with the differing opinions about this film. Rwood128 (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Machines or robots?
The word "machines" is constantly used for those in control of the Matrix: isn't a better term for these "sentient machines" robot? Rwood128 (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "The machines" is the terminology used within the movies themselves. I can't recall anyone ever saying the word "robot" in any of them, although yes, that does seem to me like an equally applicable term as far as common English goes. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, upon a moment's further reflection, "robot" has connotations of a computer-controlled physical apparatus, and even further connotations to most speakers (probably) of a human-shaped form; whereas many of the "machines" in the Matrix movies are disembodied artificial intelligences with no physical form (that we ever see), and the actual physical robots that we do see are never humanoid, but more squid-like. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would also point out that a robot isn't necessarily sentient either. Betty Logan (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but normally "machines" are not capable of thought or feelings, while it has been claimed that future robots may eventually have them. I doubt that the artificial beings (machines) in The Matrix have feelings, other contempt for humans and a concern for their own safety. Rwood128 (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We should defer to the film in nomenclature I feel - the enemies are not robots, they are Machines. Don't try and inject terminology which is not used unless it's necessary. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Bracha Ettinger and impenetrable jargon
The paragraph about Bracha Ettinger's feminist psychoanalytical theory makes little sense, so most of it should be deleted, unless there is someone with the expertise to translate it into plain English. Rwood128 (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I hesitate to delete but this discussion is too abstruse for an encyclopaedia. Quotations from the works of Griselda Pollock and Heinz-Peter Schwerfel might be helpful here. Rwood128 (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It now appears that Griselda Pollock and Heinz-Peter Schwerfel are not linked with Bracha Ettinger. I will delete the paragraph, unless evidence is forthcoming that Ettinger's feminist matrixial theory had some influence on The Matrix. Rwood128 (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

References and Notes
Should the long quotations that are included with some references be moved to "Notes", to indicate clearly that there's more information? Rwood128 (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)