Talk:The Wolverine (film)/Archive 1

Question about Mania reference
This article used to cite Claremont and Miller's 1982 series as a source for the script makes no mention of it in the article. Has the article been edited with that reference removed? The article does cite Comingsoon.net as a source but that article has been removed as well.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This might be a good replacement. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No more Aronofsky
Today's headline. I was really hoping to see this produced, but unfortunately, it serves as an example of why WP:NFF exists. Let's keep an eye on this project to see if anyone else picks it up. If not, maybe we can talk about merging it to the X-Men film series article. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Fox indicated that they intend to keep moving forward, so I would keep the incubator until they scrap the film all together.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Spelling
Kenuichio Harada is not correct. The real name is Keniuchio Harada, as you can see here: http://marvel.wikia.com/Keniuchio_Harada_(Earth-616) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.34.59.91 (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting, http://marvel.com/universe/Silver_Samurai spells it "Kenuichio".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but if you read the biography of the character in that page it is "Keniuchio". There is a mistake under the voice "Real Name".
 * Kenuichio Harada, Harada Kenichirō, Kenuichio Harada, Kenuichio Harada Argento Surfer (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

http://misc.thefullwiki.org/Keniuchio_Harada_(Earth-616) http://japandailypress.com/tag/keniuchio-harada http://loganfiles.com/SilverSamurai.html http://comicbookrealm.com/report/character/802/silver+samurai


 * Given it's a fictional character, I suppose it could be anything, but I'll just say that "Kenichirō" is a common Japanese name, while I've never heard the names "Kenuichio" or "Keniuchio" in the fourteen years I've been in Japan, and find them unlikely (though I'm constantly surprised by people's names).  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 07:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Two films
It appears that this is a sequel to two films: X-Men Origins: Wolverine and X-Men: The Last Stand.

Anonymous173.57.37.111 (talk) 03:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, yes and no. I dont think any reliable sources have released it saying so as yet....Thats the big debate. MisterShiney    ✉    07:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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. 

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The Wolverine (film) → The Wolverine – This is the primary topic for this specific article title ("The Wolverine"). The actual animal is covered at Wolverine, and any search result issues can be addressed via a hatnote in the article linking to the animal, and then the disambiguation page. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose As a Character he is known as Wolverine/The Wolverine. To avoid confusion we should just leave it as it is. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  MisterShiney    ✉    10:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The film is not the primary topic. There are dozens of other articles that one could easy be referring to of equal or greater usage. The article "the" is not a sufficient qualifier.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course the film is the primary topic.. and any confusion from search results can be handled via a hatnote. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose the character is the primary topic, if there is one. For "The Wolverine", either redirect to the character or point to the disambiguation page. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think that this article and the one on the character having names that close would lead to confusion. People would constantly be going to the wrong one. "The Wolverine" should redirect to the disambiguation page. - Dracuns (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. There is no need for the parenthetical disambiguation unless there is another Wikipedia article titled "The Wolverine". As to whether or not the primary topic is the movie or the character, I would say 2 things. First, it doesn't really matter much as the movie is about the character, so anyone typing in "the wolverine" into the search box will get to an article with links to the character very early in the article. But I do think "The Wolverine" is (or very soon will be, once the movie comes out) the primary topic, as anyone typing in "The Wolverine" into the search box will most likely be searching for the article on the upcoming movie. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose as I do not think the article title is distinct enough to drop the disambiguation term. Like TriiipleThreat said, "The" is not a sufficient qualifier here. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's actually a very good qualifier because it precedes the primary term. And a hatnote can handle people who reach the page in error (those looking for the animal or the comic book character). That it redirects to a larger dab page filled with Wolverine related terms is wholly unhelpful to readers. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, "the wolverine" is a distinct term (and the link has redirected to the animal's article since 2009). Terms like the bear and the fox are not like that. The question is, does "The Wolverine" in titlecase unambiguously refer to a film? I do not think it does, especially as a film that is not out until later this year. I do not think that readers arriving at the disambiguation page is a bad thing; I have seen some evidence that hatnotes are not as useful as thought and that arrival at disambiguation pages give readers proper access to a variety of topics. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If someone takes the time to capitalize "Wolverine" (and thus, goes to The Wolverine), I very much suspect that their intent is to find the article about the movie, or less likely, find the article about the Marvel Comics character. On the other hand, if someone types in the wolverine, I would accept that they're more likely looking for the animal in nature as opposed to the comic book character or this film. I think a redirect to a dab page is a waste of article namespace; we have an exact match for this exact spelling/capitalization, why steer readers away from what they're looking for? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose "The" is not enough to make it clearly distinct. Many new users may type in "the" before the name of articles for many different reasons.  We should not have "the" lead to a totally different page than the same word without "the".  That just does not make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But if you type in the latest movie, "The Wolverine" you should be steered to a disambiguation page for exactly matching the title of the movie? Is logic used at all here? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment to the opposers: you can argue that there may be a small portion of false positives for those searching for the animal when they type "The Wolverine", but on the opposite end, I can guarantee you that there will be close to zero people typing "The Wolverine (film)" in to the search box as a first-try to reach this article. Who are we hurting by putting the article at the exact title instead of redirecting them backwards to potentially unrelated material? —Locke Cole • t • c 07:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is worth noting that if one types "The wolv" in the Wikipedia search box, The Wolverine (film) pops up first. I don't think either way really hurts, but I think having the disambiguation term makes it more clear-cut. Also, the film article is getting many more hits than the general disambiguation article, so people are overwhelmingly arriving at the film article in other ways (probably Google search results and/or other Wikipedia pages' interlinks). Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 13:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Post-credits scene
Confirmed word from Jackman here (spoiler) is that there is a post-credits scene at the end involving Wolverine and the adult Professor Xavier and Magneto that is a tease for the next film X-Men: Days of Future Past. In the article for X-Men: The Last Stand, the last line in the plot section mentions the post-credit scene that occurred in that film, so I expect to see that here, too, from some editor. I am not working on this article. 5Q5 (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The Wolverine redirection
There seems to be a dispute at The Wolverine. Earlier it was decided that "The" was not a significant enough disambiguation, which is why the article currently has the disambiguated name, The Wolverine (film). So what is the point of redirecting The Wolverine here and not Wolverine (disambiguation) or Wolverine? If the film is the primary topic then the article should be located at The Wolverine.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Per the previous discussion, it was decided that this was not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for The Wolverine.  Therefore redirect should not point here either.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Precedent: Typing in "the joker" offers "The Joker" at the top of the drop-down search list which links to Joker (comics) (no "The" in the title). "Joker" alone is not even a link option. If you type in the single word "joker," the first three options are "Joker (comics)," "Jokerit," and finally "Joker" (a disambiguation page). So, in this case, Joker goes to a disambiguation page and The Joker redirects to the non-primary topic Joker (comics). If "The Joker" can redirect to a non-primary topic fictional character use, then why can't "The Wolverine"? Coincidentally, they are both characters of comic book origin. 5Q5 (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you're right. We can redirect the page here and include a hatnote pointing back to the disambiguation page like at The Joker.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia search box issue: "The" Wolverine
I notice that when visitors to Wikipedia enter "wolverine" in the search box on any page, the list of drop-down entries presently does not include a link to this movie article. You have to enter it as "the wolverine" to get a direct-link search result. I wonder if there is any way to fix that or are you telling me that this movie is or will be listed under "T" in alphabetized lists? 5Q5 (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Following up on this, I just did a test search for "day the earth stood still" and a drop-down entry link appeared for "Day the Earth Stood Still" which took me to the original The Day the Earth Stood Still film. Someone has already created a redirect page for Wolverine (film) and it links to this article but does not show up in the entry list for "wolverine." Is there a limit on the number of drop-down entries in searches? People won't be able to easily find this article unless they know to add "the." A shame. 5Q5 (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe we could modify the hatnote at wolverine to include a more direct link to the film article, at least for the short run? In addition, querying "wolverine film" or "wolverine movie" in search engines puts this film article at the top of results, so I do not think it is too problematic. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Typing "wolverine (film)" in the search box causes the link option "Wolverine (film)" to appear and typing "the wolverine" causes the drop-down option "The Wolverine (film)", both which link to this article. I guess the people who just type "wolverine" are the ones who are going to have the problem finding this article. 5Q5 (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅. Per editor Erik's suggestion, I revised the hatnote at the Wolverine article. I hope it survives. My entry in the edit log reads as follows: "At top revised hatnote to a 2-use template to provide a direct link to the 2013 film The Wolverine. This template is allowed under WP:OTHERUSES." 5Q5 (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, didn't see the discussion here. I changed it back. The character as far as I know is widely more searched than the film. So a link to just the disambiguation is needed, and people can navigate from there. Creating a link to this article over others feels like WP:RECENTISM.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done:. Quote: "I changed it back." Mmmn, you are not a very believable person, TriiipleThreat. Not only did you not change it back as you claim above in your apology, I notice you also tampered with my logical edit on the wolverine disambiguation page. You don't happen to work for DC Comics or a rival studio, do you? Your edits suggest continued attempts to weaken the public's ability to easily locate this article. 5Q5 (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Whoa, whoa, whoa. You need to assume good faith here. TriiipleThreat has done a lot to make sure comic book film articles on Wikipedia are in great condition. He might have taken a different approach than you intended. Did you see the current hatnote in this article? Most readers come here through Google anyway; searching "The Wolverine" lists the film article at around the top, plus Google provides a summary box for the film to the right. If you're wondering about TriiipleThreat's actions, just ask straightforward and don't come up with unnecessary assumptions. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 13:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Reply from 5Q5: editor TriiipleThreat took less than four minutes to delete my dual-use hatnote atop the wolverine article, allowed under WP:OTHERUSES, and I've been waiting three days in good faith for the reversal action claimed to have been made, but wasn't. Further, on the wolverine disambiguation page, TriiipleThreat reverted my logical reordering of The Wolverine (film) from second place in the list to fourth place. The Wolverine is closer to the term "wolverine" than is "X-Men Origins." Is there a policy that says disambiguation lists are chronologically based and not by relevance according to terminological similarity? I am writing as someone with etymology credentials in real life. Note that I have not reverted his reversions because this is not an issue worth warring over, for me, but I think you regular editors to these types of articles need a little feedback on your actions from time to time. 5Q5 (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)  Wolverine (comics), a Marvel Comics character
 * Wolverine (comic book)
 * X-Men Origins: Wolverine, a 2009 film based on the Marvel comics character
 * X-Men Origins: Wolverine (video game), a video game based on the 2009 film
 * The Wolverine (film), a 2013 film based on the Marvel comics character (5Q5 moved this up to second place and TriiipleThreat moved it back down.)
 * Wolverine (video game), a 1991 video game
 * "Wolverine", a segment of the television series, Marvel Anime
 * When I said I changed it back, I meant I changed it back to the revision before you edited it. The dual-usage hatenote was out of place as there are more than two uses of the term, "wolverine". Infact if there is another usage that should be placed along the disambiguation page it should be Wolverine (comics) not The Wolverine (film). With the number of likely searches for Wolverine its better just to link to the disambiguation page and allow readers to navigate from there. As for the disambiguation page itself, there is no guideline either for chronology or terminology. However if we were going strictly on terminology the video game and animated series would be placed before the film as there is no "the" in those titles. How about we compromise with a reverse chronological order? That way this film is placed before Origins.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I don't really care any more. Leave everything like it is. I was very upset that I wasted about 10 minutes figuring out that dual-use hat note's elements and you deleted it in less than four minutes, even though there was consensus by two editors. The distributors wrecked the marketing of the movie in the U.S. and the die has been cast. However, it is doing very well internationally where I believe better posters are in use. My real-life name is connected with the film industry. In your post immediately above you accidentally wrote "dual-usage hatenote" but I'm not suggesting a Freudian slip. :) This issue is resolved as far as I'm concerned. Have fun everybody. 5Q5 (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Which poster to use in the infobox?
Since someone is opposing the official theatrical release poster, preferring to use a teaser poster, I decided to bring this to the talk page. (Is there a manual of style on film posters...?)

1. The theatrical poster (linked above) is used on AMC's website, as well as Fandango. The same style is used for other individual characters in the film.

2. Variants of the teaser poster is also used in international promotion. It was initially used as part of a set of "motion posters". The editor who wants to use the teaser poster says, "THIS IS THE MOST INTERNATIONALE RECOGNIZABLE AND PROMOTED POSTER WORLDWIDE" - which doesn't mean much nor is it verifiable.

Any comments? &#124;&#124; Tako (bother me) &#124;&#124; 06:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Is there not going to be another poster released closer to the film's release date? I'm looking here and here and do not see any posters with a billing block. If we need to choose among the current ones until then, I would prefer one that shows a live-action Wolverine over the artwork. It could be either the one the IP editor was trying to add, or it could be this. I think that the film poster should be an identifying image for readers, and until we get a final poster with the billing block (which would be likely circulated before the film's release), we should go with something with an element that is recognizable. This is the kind of thing that doesn't have any specific rules, though, so I'm open to hearing other arguments. It just seems like a temporary situation now, hence my recommendation. EDIT: Wow, I see that the film is coming out really soon. Is there really no poster with a billing block right now? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 11:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The film probably doesn't have a billing because the main cast is a bunch of Japanese/foreign actors. Nothing to bill besides Hugh Jackman himself. The problem with using that live action poster is that it's clearly a teaser poster, not a theatrical release poster, with the labeling "coming soon" and isn't being used as the main poster by websites like AMC, Fandango, Rotten Tomatoes, Box Office Mojo, etc. The art poster, on the other hand, has the film's drop date and is being recognized as the theatrical poster by all the websites and companies listed. Suzuku (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I can tell you as absolutely fact that "Coming soon" posters without credits are used in the lobbies of theaters as the official release poster during the film's run. I see it over and over again in Regal Cinemas multiplex theaters. I hope a change can be made from the current artsy one to one that actually shows Hugh Jackman in the flesh, such as this one comicbook.com/blog/2013/03/25/the-wolverine-motion-poster-released-2/. Personally, I think the producers and Jackman would agree. 5Q5 (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I hope this please everyone This offical poster has a release date, actor name and The title of the movie and a great source (British Board of Film Classification) http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/wolverine-2013-10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdremix540 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

This USA &UK offical poster has a release date, actor name and The title of the movie and a great source (British Board of Film Classification) http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/wolverine-2013-10) This Poster is in ROTTEN TOMATOES & IMDB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdremix540 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC) ]
 * That may be, but please see the comments above. Insulam Simia (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

YES THE ADS MEAN SOMETHING BUT THIS REPRESENTS THE MOVIE MORE ONCE AGAIN This Poster is ON ROTTEN TOMATOES & IMDB AND REGAL. GOOGLE IT THE POSTER RIGHT THERE. HOW MORE PROOF DO YOU NEED. NO CARRIES OYUR POSTER
 * Please stop your shouting. Insulam Simia (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok yes the characters ads mean something but this poster represent movie better. Its has The Actor, Actor's name, The Title, Release Date. The poster is on Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB and Regal Theaters site. Goggle it he poster right there How more Proof do you need. little sites carry your poster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdremix540 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, could you link where they are used? I don't see your poster being used on RT, IMDB or whatever the other one is. Insulam Simia (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Insulam Simia (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * , are you seeing the artistic poster or the photo poster? I think Wikipedia might be showing the photo poster in the film article while the file page shows the artistic poster. is endorsing the photo poster, and now that I see that it is used on the main film websites, I fully support using it. Rotten Tomatoes and Internet Movie Database show the photo poster. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by artistic poster, as the poster used right now in the article is the photo poster, but has only a very subtle difference; that is showing "COMING SOON" at the bottom (most commonly used) rather than showing the release date. Insulam Simia (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Dont put claim out there Trust me, I love Sumi e painting poster way better better than the one im posting. The fact you cant be bias. PS Im a painter and drawer. the fact this poster represent the movie better. Its has The Actor, Actor's name, The Title, Release Date. The poster on the article is suppose what best represent the movie the most. That how its always been done on http://en.wikipedia.org PS The Link are right here http://www.regmovies.com/ http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_wolverine_2012/ and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1430132/ and has a release date

need better reasons to support your reason this poster represent movie better. The The Actor & name,Title, Release Date. Its on Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB


 * Jdremix540, the poster you are trying to use is a UK poster, not North American. It is using the UK release date for the film, July 25, rather than North American date, July 26. Furthermore, we do not use the word cinema in our release posters, we use theatre. Only the UK uses cinema because that is what they call their theatres.


 * RT, and especially IMDb which we do not use as a source or justification for anything, using the poster is not proof that is the primary release poster. Not that they are even using the same poster you are attempting to use, just having the same photo does not count. Having "coming soon" does not fly.


 * Finally, AMC Theatre, Regal Cinemas, BOM -places we actually use as sources of information and a template for things on this site- are using the artistic poster as the official theatrical poster, it is even being used in Wolverine ads. Get over it. It's a unique poster, but that is because this film does not need a name billing as Hugh Jackman is the only billable name in the cast, as has been stated earlier in this talk page. Having a cast billing and ads is not a prerequisite for a release poster, but having a date is.


 * You do not have any legitimate argument whatsoever to use the poster you are trying to use, so please stop making the article an edit battle. We've already established what is the official poster in North America. Suzuku (talk) 21:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * , there is no specific rule about which film poster to use. We tend to choose the original poster whenever possible, but in this case, I think it is worth choosing a poster that visually represents this film. In this case, we see the starring actor and the film title. I'm in favor of the photo poster over the artistic one. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Erik, I never said there was a rule about it. The problem with using the photo one is that there is no North American version of that poster with an actual release date on it. The one Jdremix540 is trying to use is a UK release poster, as evidenced by the July 25 release date statement and use of the word cinemas. Having "coming soon" on it makes it a teaser poster, not a theatrical release poster. The fact that AMC Theatres, Regal, BOM, and even Wolverine ads are all using the artistic poster is reference and poof enough that it is to be considered the North American release poster, as I and other have already stated in this page. We've been through all this already, the artistic poster is the release poster. Suzuku (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Section break
I have requested page protection of this article at WP:RFPP due to edit warring. I am also notifying WT:FILM so additional editors can weigh in about which poster to choose. Please read the discussion above and add your comments below. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

To reply to above, for the film infobox, we want to include an identifying image for the topic. We have a variety of valid options, but the key selection is not necessarily contingent on what American moviegoers see on opening weekend. If we use the photo poster, the title is recognizable, and the starring actor is recognizable. I think this is better than the artistic poster. We should also consider the long term, after this film completes its theatrical run, we want to continue having an identifying image. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * For one thing, I don't see how the artistic poster makes the movie unidentifiable. It's The Wolverine on a Japanese-style poster, in The Wolverine movie page, it's obvious what it is for. It is alluding to the film being heavily influenced by Japan. In many ways it tells more about the film than the photo does. It just having Hugh Jackman on it is not justification enough to say it is more viable than the artistic poster.


 * All of what you mentioned eventually comes down to hearsay, which is why we didn't focus on it in the original debate. We generally use North American posters for North American produced films, that is why you don't see Avengers, Captain America, or any Hollywood, American based film page using British release posters. The only legitimate viable poster to use is the artistic one. It's the one the websites we get our info and templates are using, the poster actual national theater chains are using in their promotion of the film, the poster 20th Century Fox are using to market the film. Suzuku (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Suzuku guess what you dont see Avengers, Captain America, or any Hollywood, American based film page using the word Theate in their poster. legitimate viable poster becuase this is the First teaser THAT HAS NO TITLE NO ACTOR OR ACTOR NAMES on it and doesnt not represtnt the movie the best way. Suzuku DONT USE THREATS. I dont need report u.You can report me it just prove your Ignorance Give that poster to a general person NO ONE WILL KNOW THE FILM OR THE TITLE & WHO'S STARRING IN IT  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdremix540 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Im sorry.Its not that I don't agree Suzuku but how does this poster best represent the flim, I believe the other poster represent the flim better.


 * I'm going to try and make sense out of that paragraph. As I said, whether or not the poster makes the movie identifiable is hearsay. In my opinion, showing a Wolverine poster with Japanese art and the release date of July 26 2013 makes it obvious what the poster is for, not to mention it's on the Wolverine movie page. It's clearly in association with the Wolverine movie, having Hugh Jackman on the other poster does not make it anymore viable in telling the what the poster is referring to or telling more about the movie in general, otherwise actual national theatre chains would not be using it. The Japanese art tells a lot about the movie itself, and in many ways more so than the photo poster. So, again, all of that is hearsay in this situation. Both posters have merit on that account, and therefore using that as justification for which should be used over the other is flawed.


 * Your point on Avengers or Captain America using the word cinema/theatre is ridiculous, because they use neither. When an American poster says "coming to x this date" it uses the word theatre, when a British release poster does it it uses the word cinema. Literally anyone who knows what they're talking about will tell you this. We don't call our movie going establishment cinemas in America, we call them theaters, cinema is a British terminology. This is literal fact and common sense on the nature of movie releases. What Captain America, Avengers, or any Hollywood release you look up here does use, however, is the North American release date of the films...which is what makes them North American posters and was my point the whole time. I never said the posters use the word theatre in them because they don't use the "coming to x" terminology in them. The only time I mentioned cinema/theatre is to point out to you that UK poster use the word cinema.


 * Finally, what is not flawed is what companies/websites are using the poster and what poster have (correct) release dates on them. The artistic poster has this going for it, the photo does not. The artistic poster is the most viable from all discernable, unbiased evidence. Suzuku (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

We should not be using the teaser poster. Koala15 (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment It is irrelevant if a poster is a "teaser" or doesn't have a release date on it (readers can get the release date from the infobox); the sole point of our fair use rationale (the legal thing that allows us to use this non-free artwork) is that it identifies the movie to little old grannies who have seen it advertised on billboards, and non-English speakers, and people with reading difficulties etc i.e. it is there for identification, not for the sake of having the official poster in the infobox. Now if both of them are in wide use then both are acceptable. If one of them is unequivocably the American edition then we should use that, since it's an American film. If both posters are in circulation in US theaters, then I favor the one that includes the title and where a principal cast member (Hugh Jackman) is identifiable. Betty Logan (talk) 05:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I can confirm that my local Regal Cinemas 16 screen theater is using the dreaded b/w art poster, except that it contains the title and credits block at the bottom, which the one currently shown in the article does not. While I hate the art poster, if the distributor has made the grand mistake of using that as the official release poster in the U.S., then they should pay for their mistake and that's what we should use. The film is currently flopping at the U.S. boxoffice: ‘Wolverine’ Howls For $21M Friday And Will Whimper For Weakening $56M Weekend. An art poster with credits needs to be found. 5Q5 (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I found this American poster http://www.movieposterdb.com/poster/223aef74 and I believe this solve just about everything from or release date, title, actors and etc.Finalfive5  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finalfive5 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Finalfive5 this poster seem to solve all the problems about the other poster like title, actors, release date, etc. Hope everyone can agree on this poster.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdremix540 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Im sorry but dont you agree this poster solve all the problem that the other poster & that poster seem to be facing I think this poster is the best fit as far it show the title, actors, release date, & it is not  at teaser poster dont you agree logically  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdremix540 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Multiple precedents for "month and day" poster use: The posters for the Marvel-based films Captain America: The First Avenger, The Avengers (2012 film), and Iron Man 3 just show the month and day and no year, so the live-action cast poster with Hugh Jackman and cast should be acceptable. By the way, the posters in the Iron Man 2 and Howard the Duck articles are "coming soon" versions. I went through Wiki's entire list of Marvel-based films. 5Q5 (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Caution
Even if I hadn't seen the movie at a press screening, which I did, I would caution that, just as in Iron Man 3 and other Marvel movies, its characters may not be direct translations from the comics. When cited sources describe the comics character, they are not describing only the comics character unless the source specifically says it's describing the movie character. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You know I hate you right? ;) lol. A justified caution. I second it. -- MisterShiney    ✉    18:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources seem to check out except for bit about Viper. If they the others turn out be incorrect, we can change it at that time.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm leaving the article alone at this point, but I do have to say that the cite for Viper reads, "Viper, who has a long and complex relationship with Wolverine through [sic] the comics." (The writer misused "through"; I believe he meant "throughout".) It's referring to Viper and Logan's relationship in the comics &mdash; it doesn't say it's their relationship in the move. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Cool. Now, The Hollywood Reporter cite for Will Yun, says "Lee will play Harada, more commonly known as The Silver Samurai. He possesses an electrified suit of samurai armor and is the illegitimate son of the crime lord." Since this was from July 2012, THR could not have been talking about the movie character, since the Silver Samurai isn't "commonly known" anywhere but in the comics. The article is describing the comics character. It doesn't say anything specifically about the movie except "Lee will play Harada...." The tricky thing is that in this case, there's a print citation, from a magazine called Total Film, and without a quote from that source we don't know what it's claiming. God, I wish I could say more!   : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem with adding a quote is that the same source is being used for multiple references. Heres what the sources says verbatim in the column space of the article:

Silver Samurai (header) Will Yun Lee (sub-header) Lee plays Kenuichio Harada, the illegitimate son of Shingen and a Japanese mutant who's able to charge his katana with 'tachyon energy', turning it into a sort-of lightsaber that can cut through almost anything. "He's an important character in the comics," Lee says. "I hope I do him justice." --TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Theres also a bit more in the body of the article where Lee talks about the physical demands of his training.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, that does indeed look as if Total Film is describing the movie's character. Gotta give you that! Although I will say, Lee only says "him." Hmm....!


 * Argh! Ah, well, another couple of weeks. And you're totally right, of course, that we have to respect WP:RS. Thanks for going the extra mile and looking up the print cite &mdash; that was good of you.


 * BTW, the movie's genuinely good. I was relieved to see that. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

My edit saying Viper should not be linked to Madam Hydra was reverted, citing "reliable sources". Looking at the articles from Twitchfilm and EW that were published before the film came out do not strike me as reliable sources. Yes there is a character called Viper in Wolerines back story but the character in the film is a mutant with powers quite unlike Madam Hydra. At the very least it should not be a blind link, and there is no need to link it twice. I would understand one link in the Cast section, with proper text to explain that Dr. Green is based on (but not the same as) an existing character, but a direct a direct link as the article stands is not accurate and misleading. -- 109.76.233.90 (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless we have sources stating otherwise, we should not be removing verifiable material from the article based on original research. It's quite common for filmmakers to take liberties with characters they are adapting, as was the case with Silver Samurai, Harada and Yukio in this film alone.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The two sources are weak, they are before the film came out and they make assumptions. The sources do not say Madam Hydra, they only mention Viper. The character is more than artistic license, it shares only a nickname in common with Madam Hydra. It's a big stretch, and looks to me exactly what the above warning was cautioning against in the first place. The note of caution mentions Iron Man 3, take a look at Iron_man_2 where it is explained that Whiplash is an amalgamation of characters. Madam Hydra should not be linked in the Plot section, and the link in the cast section should explain that the character shares a codename but has entirely different abilities. -- 109.76.233.90 (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're entire premise is based on original research. So unless you have sources that state otherwise, we go with what we have. Per WP:FILMDIFF, "Writing about changes between a film and its source material without real-world context is discouraged." And omitting sourced information based on your own viewpoint is WP:POV editing. So please provide countering sources to support your argument.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You are asking me to disprove a negative. The original research here is the claim that Dr. Green and Madam Hydra are the same because of a shared codename/nickname, despite the characters being entirely different in looks and powers, with the only sources being weak speculative, published even before the film came out. -- 109.76.223.24 (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * What is stated comes from information published in reliable publications, and even refer to Viper's history in comic books. Most of the information in the Production section was published before the films release, it doesn't make it incorrect unless proven otherwise. Calling the character Madam Hydra (a name the character has only recently retaken, after not using since the 70's) is not a prerequisite for inclusion. So again please provide sources to that counter the ones currently being used.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm underwhelmed by the two sources in the cast section (Twitchfilm and EW). Perhaps there are other sources I'm supposed to be looking at, but these are right after the link to Madam Hydra and these are the references I expected to make the connection clear and unambiguos.
 * I don't appreciate being accused of edit warring, I've made only two changes, and the second change was after engaging in discussion here and was a good faith effort to clarify the character description of Viper. If you would like to clarify the character description in your own words, to better show the disconnect between the mutant Dr. Green (Viper) and the Madam Hydra (Viper) I'd be happy with that, but a wholesale revert of my edit does not address my concerns at all, it looks like you think the wording is perfect and entirely reject my point that the connection is not as clear as it should be.
 * Another way this might possibly be improved is if the Madam Hydra article had a Template:Anchor for Wolverine, and we linked to that specific part of article instead of just a vague link to the whole article, leaving new readers to figure out how these two very different characters are connected (and I still think the connection is tenuous). -- 109.76.223.24 (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A few things, I do appreciate you coming to discussion but editing disputed content in the middle of discussion is problematic. Also as I pointed out earlier, per WP:FILMDIFF, "Writing about changes between a film and its source material without real-world context is discouraged." Perhaps linking to Viper (Madame Hydra) is an appropriate compromise.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Also here is a more recent (same day as US release) article making the connection between the film and the comic book character.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Article being vandalise again
Looks like there is some vandalism going on with the article, especially in the plot section where a whole paragraph of nonsense was added, moved, and merged into an existing paragraph in the plot (the rubbish about the nissan gtr)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.123.180 (talk) 13:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination
-- Jos   eph   09:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: per GAN instructions, GA nominee template moved to top of talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Australian?
Is this an Australian co-production? I see it being shot there but I don't see any production companies from there. Can someone clarify this? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, Hugh Jackman and his production company, Seed Productions co-produced the film. Also the government of Australia "injected" $12.8 million into the production.--TriiipleThreat (talk)
 * Later sources don't seem to indicate it was an Australian co-production. Perhaps this is like an Iron Man 3 type deal where China put money into the production and then pulled out of making it an official co-production later on. I've removed it for now and cited information. It needs some back up on it's initial release. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2014
175.142.91.59 (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Empty request Technical 13 (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2014
124.82.61.139 (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.  Little Mountain  5  07:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2014
On November 15, 2013 , actors Hugh Jackman , Hiroyuki Sanada and Rila Fukushima came to Malaysia to catch the world debuts including 2014 Nissan GTR , BMW M3 and BMW M4 at the Kuala Lumpur International Motor Show 2013 (KLIMS13). 113.210.9.115 (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The Edit button shows that the article is semi protected till January 24, 2014 even when it is March
The article needs new info about when the sequel to the film will be released but the article lock doesn't let me update it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.57.129.119 (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Premise
Could we add a sentence or two about the premise being that Wolverine will be in Japan following the events of the previous film? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Thanks. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

How can critics and Wiki ignore that Hugh Jackman is Clint Eastwood as a super hero? The aping of Clint the squint is so obvious even Jackman once told a reporter he tends to be Eastwood in his Wolverine movies. He even added he met Clint Eastwood and told him "People say I resemble you"..and Eastwood just mumbled, shook his head and walked away. S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.116.55 (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2014
I'd like to add a few more people to the casting list that have major roles in the film.

108.206.221.5 (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC) If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

Infobox country and Gross
I have updated the information in the Country and Gross parameter with additional citations. Typically 1 citation is sufficient, but since there is a discrepancy betweeen the citations, I have included all of them. If desired we can discuss and get some guidelines on judging multiple discrepant information. Unless there is information to indicate some of the sources are not considered reliable sources, there seems to be no reason to remove them.AbramTerger (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Proper practice is to leave an article as it was and discuss. Not to "include them all", which just happens to coincide with your preferred version. You should have left the Country field as it was and discussed it. You have never given a reason at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film - where we go by Production companies and their countries - why non-production companies or countries should be included. Three times Warner REBORN added in the UK despite WP:BRD and WP:3RR. I explained on his Talk page the three production companies given in the film's main title credits - 20th Century Fox, Marvel Entertainment and The Donners' Company - are all American. Rather than discuss it he put in the UK a third time, also adding Ingenious Media as a production company even though it's listed as "made in association with" buried in the film's end credits crawl with additional minor companies. Ingenious is a UK media investment and advisory group, not a production company. It should not be added to the infobox simply to justify adding UK as a production country. Now AbramTerger has added UK again even though it is not representing a production company and is disputed. Disputed info is to be left out and discussed, then only added if WP:CONSENSUS is arrived at to include it, so I have taken it out. Discuss at will. - Gothicfilm (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This discussion has continued to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. --Warner REBORN (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film has closed. Any new discussion should continue here., , , , , , . Based on the WP:Compromise proposed by [Thank you, NinjaRobotPirate], I have edited the article with what appears to be the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS solution. Though it is not my preferred, it is something I can live with and I believe meets the requirements of WP:NPOV without any WP:Cherrypicking that I have been pushing, but also keeps the cleaner infobox that  has not been happy with in other proposed compromises. It also seems to me to be consistent with the no WP:OR policy as well as the WP:V and WP:WEIGHT policies that  mentioned. Some of the posters at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film alluded to other sources with more detailed information of the breakdown for this film of how some of the sources chose the country/countries and I think that would be interesting to add to the section as well. I only used the sources that I knew about and they are a little scant on the details. Hope this finally resolves the issue.AbramTerger (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The "see below" solution looks clumsy to me. Another compromise would be to not use the "country" parameter and add the country acronyms in brackets after the production companies. That way readers can still at a glance see which countries produced the film. Betty Logan (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I would disagree with Betty Logan as that solution would be an odd one that hasn't been used before and could complicate matters in the future. I think to keep it how AbramTerger modified it to. If further information comes to surface in the future we can expand the "country of origin" section. I too, am not fully happy with the result but then I expect others aren't too. We should leave this behind us and make do with the solution. Thanks again --Warner REBORN (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with that it is "clumsy" [I prefer listing the countries directly with citations, I don't need the verbiage in the "Country of Origin" section, but I agree with  that adding countries to production companies seems "odd". It is also important to note that the country of origin parameter is NOT just about the production company (if it were, it would seem to be redundant), but also about financing. Companies have subsidiaries and may be registered in multiple companies. I mentioned this before as an example: the Japanese company, Sony, has a US Subsidiary, so Sony films are usually classified as US, not Japanese. I mentioned this before, but I think the whole "country parameter" in the infobox is archaic and in many ways has lost its meaning, but that is a tangent, we don't need to go into here...AbramTerger (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Out of the two proposed solutions I am inclined to agree with . Though odd, listing the countries next to the production companies is less intrusive. I think adding a section or sub-section lends WP:UNDUE weight to the issue.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That solution ignores all the references to the country of origin and treats it as a production parameter, which I don't think is the intent of the parameter. if it were, why even have it separate? I think less odd and less obtrusive is what I proposed initially which is done with other films that have disagreement in the country (see eg Rush (2013 film) which has 4 possibilities in 5 citations in countries.) AbramTerger (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The nationality is determined by the production companies. That has long been the standard. It would not be useful to add Japan to films that had financing from Sony. We list both company and country because many readers may not know the nationality of the listed companies, particularly if they're independent. I would actually be for listing the country after each production company. It would help clarify things. But that would be a new format.
 * The Rush example looks terrible, an unnecessary Christmas tree of links. A footnote there would be much better. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I realize I'm coming into this discussion late, but is it really appropriate to devote an entire subsection to the debate over the country of origin? It seems to me that this paragraph would be much better as a footnote or something along those lines. Wouldn't that work just as well? --Fru1tbat (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "See below" in the infobox does look clumsy. It should include the one country all sources agree on with a footnote. The Country of origin section would be okay if it actually explained the issue. Merely stating that there is controversy (and a minor one at that) with no further explanation beyond naming the countries should indeed be a footnote. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree that it looks clumsy, and probably goes against WP:SELF. It should state both countries in the infobox (remember, this is a summary of the key points), with a footnote next to them with a further explination. A comparison would be if a film had two directors, with the first one leaving after 6 months of filming, and the final film only containing one or two scenes that he directed. You'd list them both in the infobox, and have a footnote/paragraph in the body of the article to explain the detail.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Tried a compromise per WP:BRD to examine and discuss. It removes the new section that was added and puts the info into a note (it could also be a long reference if desired). It includes the 2 countries cited in the infobox (listing only one would violate WP:Cherrypicking). Does this remove the clumsiness? Can we all live with this?AbramTerger (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I made some minor changes to the wording but I like this approach much better.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think this solution works very well (it's so nice, I'm surprised it wasn't arrived at sooner!). --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (incidentally, "is" is not a preposition - it's a verb. Agreed that the new wording reads better, though.) --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL, very true :) --TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I offered that solution, but it went nowhere. Perhaps I should have just done it and seen the reaction but I was trying to not continue the edit-war that had been started...AbramTerger (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * At last. Glad this is over, but surprised it took so loooooonnnnnnnggggggg! --Warner REBORN (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Starring credits
@112.208.77.48: Template:Infobox film states "Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release. If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits." Since there is no billing block on the poster in this case, we are to use the top billed actors on the screen credits, not the DVD cover. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The onscreen film credits are most reliable. A poster billing block is 2nd. A DVD home video cover is 3rd at best. This was discussed at length at Template talk:Infobox film. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2015

 * Haruhiko Yamanouchi as Yashida: the head of Yashida Industries, a technology zaibatsu. Yashida has was rescued by The Wolverine in a 1945 Japanese POW camp near Nagasaki. During the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, Logan rescues Ichiro Yashida and shields him from the blast. Years later when Yashida is dying he wants to personally thank Logan for that same rescue by giving him the opportunity to become mortal by transferring his healing power elsewhere, for good. Yashida however, has ulterior motifs which is seen when he puts on the adamantium Silver Samurai suit and a lengthy fight between the two begins.
 * Ken Yamamura as young Yashida

65.130.26.70 (talk) 07:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC) THIS needs to be added. All the other X-Men films have good explanations of what the characters are here on Wikipedia. As of right now the descriptions are limited. Ken Yamamura deserves to be credited with his part of the movie -- and though they never call Yashida 'The Silver Samurai' -- they call his armor this throughout the film. There's no question as to the fact that he IS the Silver Samurai. The locked protection crap fanboys have setup on this website is ridiculous. Fix this.
 * No, we just need enough in-universe information to give the reader a basic understanding of the character. The cast section is not meant to recount the plot section. Think of it as a playbill. Also, the plot section is very clear of what the Silver Samurai is.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Japanese Language
I still believe that Japanese should be listed in the language section of the info box. The movie takes place in Japan, features many Japanese actors, and contains much Japanese dialogue which is subtitled. As per Template:Infobox, I believe that it falls under "clearly bilingual or multilingual films." For comparison, Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence is listed as both Japanese and English, and it contains around the same level of bilingual dialogue as the Wolverine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TopHatProfessor1014 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "Clearly bilingual" would mean roughly half. The Japanese dialogue in this film is nowhere near half, or even a quarter. Per Template:Infobox film language guideline, only the primary language should be listed. You need to get consensus to go against that. Stop WP:edit warring. As for Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence, it was released as the first English-language film by director Nagisa Oshima, and should be listed as such. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)