This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Film: American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

@Deathawk:, @Koala15:

This would probably be a good time to review WP:EW, and start a discussion about your respectively preferred versions of the article before you both wind up with at WP:ANEW. You may both consider this a warning. TimothyJosephWood 14:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to contact this user previously about the issue and I did so again. It's frustrating because while I always try to explain my edits he rarely does. Regardless of that though my intent is making the production section look less like a press release and more like a proper encyclopedic article per other film articles and WP:Proseline --Deathawk (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the looks of it. You "tried" on their talk exactly five minutes after I posted here. Reverting and leaving edit summaries doesn't count as trying. TimothyJosephWood 14:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first one was under the headline "Proseline" I did not name the article in question however I assumed since we had both recently been in conflict with the article in question it would be obvious or, in the case that it wasn't, he would seek clarification. I left the second meassage before I received the ping here in an attempt to clarify the situation, because I agree this is getting ridiculous. --Deathawk (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm throwing in my 2 cents on the situation: I'm in agreement with Deathawk that the production section should not look like a press release. I also agree with his contention that there is no real reason why it's important that we note something happened on July 12 vs just July or even simply 2009. Adding specific dates without explanation makes the article look like a series of unrelated events and can basically become a mess. If Koala15's edit of the section does look like a press release, it can be considered advertising, since we are not a soapbox or means of promotion. There were two versions of the film made, something which Koala15 glossed over in his recent edits. With regards to WP:PROSELINE, Deathawk's version looks less like a press release and more of an encyclopedic entry similar to other GA-class film articles like Monsters, Inc.. If an edit gets reverted, the proper way to discuss it is on the talk page to get a WP:CONSENSUS, not revert again.

Meanwhile, I reverted the article's production section to before this issue began and copyedited some of it, and I already asked around at WT:FILM for their input on the situation. We'll see what can be done for this matter. In the meantime, we should refrain from reverting the production section. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the content has been restored again by Koala15 without explanation. No discussion was taking place for months, so I've reverted it per WP:BRD and am going to ask Cyphoidbomb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Erik (talk · contribs), two uninvolved users, for their thoughts on the matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well my opinion is that Koala15 needs to seek consensus for these changes via discussion on this talk page, per WP:BRD. The waiting-until-nobody's-looking-to-restore-preferred-version gambit is admirable for the patience it takes to commit to the long game, but it's a weasel-y way to edit, because it's clear that other editors had a problem with the phrasing. Just to get the ball moving a bit, can someone please articulate what the problems are between these two versions? I see that Koala's opted for more date specificity. What else is problematic? Is there any way to incorporate elements of Koala's changes? Is there a happy medium? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective, I think we should expand the production section since it has no information about post-production and we need to expand on the development, pre-production and filming given how short the section is in general, using the Doctor Strange film article (a GA) as a reference. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that specific dates are unnecessary. If anything, they are misleading because an announcement does not mean the production-related event happened on that very day. The point of having some dating is to provide a general outline of the production process. There is also the problem of passive language ("it was...") that is poor writing and lacks conviction. Looking at it now, I would be fine with collapsing the casting paragraph even further. The "Cast" section shows the character names. That paragraph could be further distilled to say that a couple of actors joined in February 2014, and the rest joined the following April and May. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathawk:, @Timothyjosephwood:, @Sjones23:, @Erik:, @Cyphoidbomb:, Koala15 has just been machine gun-reverting edits to pages on a minute-by-minute basis all month, without reason or provocation- they're not engaging in discussion or consensus because this is just one of many pages they're reverting edits to in a day. I don't understand their reasoning for this kind of behavior, but it doesn't appear to be anything unique to this page. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 01:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted another reminder on Koala's talk page to participate in this discussion. I certainly don't think it's appropriate for them to silently stonewall progress here, when people are trying in good faith to discuss. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I honestly forgot this article existed. I'm not really seeing anything obviously disruptive on first glance through their contributions. Lots of reverts but not a clear disruptive pattern. If there is such a pattern you should probably bring it up to them on their talk page, and if that is unfruitful, consider filing an WP:ANI report, but only if you have unequivocal evidence in the form of diffs. TimothyJosephWood 02:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just switched it back because the section was poorly written for months. But it looks like someone fixed it, so I'm fine with it. Koala15 (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Koala15:, Assuming we're talking about This edit that you made, this was what the whole conflict was over. So I'm really not seeing how now that it reverted back to the way I had it worded that you're suddenly ok with it. I'm not trying to be mean or put you one the spot, but I honestly don't really understand what we're arguing over or were arguing over. This would honestly be easier if you just used the edit summaries to explain what you're problem is with the previous version before you revert it. I'm not just talking about me, I think you'd also have an easier time with editing conflicts if you did this. It's hard to construct an article if you're just reverting it back for mysterious reasons. --Deathawk (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is someone going to write an adequate summary of it? If I had checked this article before renting it on Shaw, I would have rejected it because a lot of the really bad movies don't get summarized on wikipedia, except this one turned out all right. I'd do it myself, but I don't remember some details, plus I'm not that good at writing wikipedia style summaries. 68.150.99.94 (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]