Talk:West Side Story (2021 film)/Archive 1

West Side Story (2019 film) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect West Side Story (2019 film). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Jalen D. Folf  (talk)  20:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:EDIT WAR Discussion copied from Talk page of User:Wainathan Cligne
Hello, I'm K6ka. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, West Side Story (2020 film), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 17:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to West Side Story (2020 film) fails to cite a reference to verify the information you added concerning the film's language, and so it has been reverted. Please use the article's Talk page if you wish to seek a new WP:CONSENSUS for the assertion. Thank you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Do not continue to WP:EDIT WAR, as you did with your recent edit to West Side Story (2020 film). If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at West Side Story (2020 film). Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 00:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Is MGM doing the film?
No sources say Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer is doing this film. 98.235.131.222 (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see any sources confirming this either. Barte (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed it as unsourced. Barte (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Good. I don't think they are any sources saying The Mirisch Company is doing the film too. Is there? 98.235.131.222 (talk) 03:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Mirisch deleted. Barte (talk) 04:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This makes me wonder about the two extended cast paragraphs, as well. Many names; all unsourced. Barte (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like a source was added. Thank you. Barte (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you. Some things on here were unsourced, so they had to be removed. 98.235.131.222 (talk) 04:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC notice
There is a request for comment whose outcome may affect this article: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. Nardog (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Disney / Fox / Amblin ?
Can we agree on who is doing what? If we stick to primary sources, which seems appropriate here, As I read all this, Disney is the distributor. Amblin, via Spielberg, is the producer. But I could be wrong. Thoughts? Barte (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Disney says "The film is now in production for Twentieth Century Fox" and "will be released by The Walt Disney Studios in the US on December 18, 2020."
 * Amblin implicitly claims a production credit by listing the film on its website. The notes say "'West Side Story' is produced and directed by Steven Spielberg"
 * Fox, now a subsidiary of Disney, doesn't list the film on its website.


 * I'd remove anything we're not sure of, and wait until clearer official announcements are made. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see any ambiguity in the distributor: Disney Studios claims it, Fox does not. And I don't see any arguments to the contrary here. I've changed it. Barte (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

On the 20th Century Fox website front, not sure if it really applies anyway but it seems it’s not been updated recently, as they still have Kings Man listed for February when it was moved to September. Regardless WSS does seem it’s more under the wing of Disney for distribution. Rusted AutoParts 05:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's Disney's extended release schedule. Whether the film is from Disney, Fox or Fox Searchlight, Disney says it's releasing it. Barte (talk) 06:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

See this RfC which is about this: - The general consensus here is to retain the credited distributor ("20th Century Fox" or "Fox Searchlight Pictures") and as such, to not unilaterally change names of credited subsidiary distributors to their parent, "Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures". IMDb describes it accurately as distributor is listed as "Twentieth Century Fox (2020) (USA) (theatrical) (through Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures)" which explains the internal working document pdf listed above which is about who is doing the work, not what Disney d.b.a. brand Disney chooses to attach to the distribution credit. We report the credited name. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer. Barte (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with Geraldo Perez and hadn't seen this discussion until now. While it's not disputed that Disney is the parent distributor, Fox is the credited label on WSS (as noted even by the document above), so I also believe we should retain Fox here.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Per the RfC discussion (interesting reading) which I hadn't seen before, I also agree. If the film poster billing block or film credits say otherwise, we can change it. Barte (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Filming locations with references
Unexplained removal of filming locations. Leave referenced material in place.Djflem (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * --your recent edits seem to have deleted the date of the beginning of the shoot and the source for it. And the filming section now reads: Filming took in Harlem and other Manhattan locations in New York City. There ten days of shooting Paterson, New Jersey., where a set was built. Shooting also took place in Newark. It wrapped on September 27, 2019. Note the incomplete sentence. I couldn't figure out what you were after so I reverted, but perhaps you can instead fix. Thanks. Barte (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

TSG??
Is TSG Entertainment involved in this? because no other sites I see involve them. 172.116.214.66 (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The cite of the film production notes says: "Made in Association with TSG ENTERTAINMENT." So involvement? Yes. Does the infobox properly list TSG as one of the production companies? I'm not sure.  Barte (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Dedication
Re: the film's dedication, there's no mention in the press kit, including eight pages of credits. Is there a dedication in the film itself? Could be? Who knows....I will know right away, soon as it shows. Barte (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The Toronto Star and NJ.com articles confirm that Steven Spielberg has indeed dedicated the film to his father, Arnold. Hope these help. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That does help. I've added a sentence based on the 'Star' cite. Thanks. Barte (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Cast list
Do we need to list all of the non-notable ensemble members? It would be more useful/encyclopedic to list only the speaking parts among the ensemble, if that is possible. If anyone thinks that we must list everyone, how about in a sub article that has a "complete" cast list? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Musical Numbers
While I agree that too much of the Music section contained only information related to the soundtrack album, I firmly believe that the Musical Numbers subsection should not have been removed. This is a musical and those musical numbers are original elements of the film, and the film should not be dependent on a derived soundtrack album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay-Jay Nolan (talk • contribs) 17:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree. A simple list of musical numbers, and which characters sing solos in them (or Jets/Sharks/Company), is essential and should follow the musical numbers actually heard in the film, with a footnote to note any changes in the soundtrack album. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * When including a list make a table ideally but it is excessive. As there is another page dedicated solely to the music of the film it is completely unnecessary and excessive to include it on the main page. That's the reason Wikipedia has split pages. To avoid putting all the information on one and it certainly doesn't look good just to include all the info and then have another page that repeats it. The soundtrack page should be deleted and fully incorporated into the main page or the section on the main page should briefly mention it and provide a redirect. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree. This is a musical film.  The musical numbers are an essential part of the main article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Then it makes the soundtrack page obsolete and unnecessarily repetitive at this point Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * There are elements of the soundtrack entry that are specific to the album. The rest, including the background section, belongs here. Per Ssilvers, this is indeed a musical film and where the film and album overlap, I’d expect the film entry to take precedence. Barte (talk) 06:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Right. The soundtrack sold separately from a film is not necessarily the same as the musical numbers actually performed in the film, which, btw, should not be listed in this tablular format like a soundtrack, but rather in the simpler, shorter form that they were listed in before. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreed--the earlier shorter form should be used. The song list for the film entry cites the press kit, which on page IX lists the songs as they appear in the film, along with with composer, lyrics and performance credits. No time length is specified. So at the very least, the two lists don't exactly overlap and can be presented in their respective entries. Barte (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I combined the score/performance/soundtrack under one section. I think there's now just three duplicated sentences between the two articles. That seems reasonable to me, but they could be removed from the soundtrack article if they still offend. Barte (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Criticism
The Criticism section is overwritten. See WP:UNDUE. The point can be made far more concisely: "Some members of the Puerto Rican and latinx communities objected....". The section should be boiled down to an efficient paragraph. I think the critical reception section is also too long, but not as radically. BTW, the Ansel Elgort controversy should also be included, but briefly. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The Elgort thing should not be included. People having issues with casting because of things unrelated to the film is of undue weight. As far as the rest, I agree it's excessive. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with the length of the criticism section, proportional to the article itself. Yes it could be shorter, but I think the specifics are worth pondering and fit within a broader pattern of critique for all kinds of artistic works. Barte (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I've re-read this as of Dec. 15, 2021. The first half of the Criticism section is still repetitive and quotes writers who had not seen the film before they criticized it.  So the first half of the section violates WP:UNDUE, or at least WP:BALASP and should be streamlined. The last half is more focused on the actual film, but it also could be tightened up without losing the essence of the quotes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * You don't need to see a remake to question whether the earlier film should have been remade. And that, seems to me, is the crux of the section: not the quality of the work but the decision to make it in the first place. That said, the section continues to expand, while some of the critical praise it received was lopped off. I'd prefer to cover the controversy by restoring some or all of the latter. We're not cramped for space. Barte (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Kind of amazing that the article is so long, with a massive "accolades" section, for a film that has only been out a few weeks and is already a bust and box office catastrophe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaino44 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Was there similar outrage from Polish Americans for changing the ethnic composition of The Jets from a Polish gang to a generic white gang? ThreeRocks (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * They're called Polacks in the film, so, in short, no. Shoestringnomad (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Accolades chart--reverse columns?
Would it make sense to flip the "Ceremony" and "Year" columns on the Accolades chart? That way, the horizontal lines bridging the "Ceremony" and "Category" columns would be continuous. Barte (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Film accolades are not supposed to sort by year. I have made changes. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think that fixes the problem. Barte (talk) 04:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)