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

Literature Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Popular culture (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular culture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Popular cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular cultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular culturePopular culture

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Yeah, actually. You might recall more than three weeks ago Betty Logan said well above:

I honestly don't know if Godfather 2 was referred to as a prequel at the time of the release. The reference for that claim didn't bear it out, but since it was specific about where the claim was i.e. the press pack, I left it in for the time-being, with a citation tag. I suggest leaving it there for a few weeks and if no-one produces a source then pull it.

Now's the time. I don't believe The Godfather Part II press pack had any such reference in it. In any case it's not backed up. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may not have noticed that I was trying to point you to a discussion you missed. It hasn't been 3 weeks because it was addressed shortly after it came up. Discussion is the end of Talk:Prequel/Archive 2#History of usage. From the link there, User:217.18.20.226 inserted Virgin Film for (what are now) the two sentences in question in 2006. Since this source is likely to have the material that the IP cited to it, we AGF that the IP was correct. I inserted the details but linked the citation to the second sentence only, not both. Feel free to check the book out if you need more verification.

Accordingly, it's backed up. It's also not contentious nor extraordinary. I would appreciate it if you could self-revert now, as deleting this sourced sentence is not an improvement. If you have an additional RS that impeaches the first RS, please advise. Thank you for your consideration. JJB 01:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't buy that as RS. An IP from 2006? No, you need more than that to claim Its first known use in film was in the original press pack for The Godfather Part II (1974) in an encyclopedia. To me that is "contentious and extraordinary", if you're going to use that as a standard. It is highly dubious - I don't know of any journalist who picked it up and used the term at that time, as would be expected if they saw it in the film's press kit. I don't believe anybody's going to further back up that claim, either. Once again you want me to prove a negative. It's been more than three weeks since Betty Logan and I agreed it should be pulled. No new source was found since then. Take it to Despayre at WP:RSN if you want. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I misplaced the section head. The IP is not the source, a biographer of Lucas named Jim Smith is. You might not have read the footnote that says that; you'll need history to see it. AGF sources like this are used all the time in WP for this sort of noncontentious (unrelated to any significant controversy), ordinary (unremarkable and fitting for its source) claim. Your view that it is dubious is OR, and your basis (being your own knowledge of journalism) demonstrates that. To expect journalists to repeat the word "prequel" is an argument from silence. Any library containing Smith (see WorldCat) will back up the claim. However, it's also easy to defeat without proving a negative; you simply find a hypothetical RS that says something like "Smith wrote an unauthorized biography of Lucas". Again, you are not hearing the fact that, shortly after Betty recommended pulling it if no source turned up, I turned the Smith source up, so your view of 3 weeks of inaction is mistaken. However, your recommendation of RSN is excellent and I trust Despayre will confirm what I am saying about AGF sources: "verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources". JJB 02:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, you got your RSN review and Fifelfoo says not RS for the claim and did not comment on the AGF question in several go-rounds. As an etymologist I disagree, and I feel an exact source quote would change the situation, but I am not reinserting at this time. A second opinion is also possible.

For posterity, the claim came from Smith, Jim; Hardy, Rebecca (March 2003). "Virgin Film: George Lucas". ISBN 9780753507551. The source was used for this text: "Its first known use in film was in the original press pack for The Godfather Part II (1974), where it is used to describe the sections of the film that take place before the events of The Godfather. Francis Ford Coppola credits George Lucas with devising the term, which Lucas and Steven Spielberg later used to describe the opening sequence of their joint project Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) during publicity for its release." JJB 08:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I found the RSN comments a bit odd. We don't need a scholarly etymological source, just a reliable source that the word was actually used, preferably quoting it verbatim. But on the other hand, much as it pains me to agree with Gothic, taking a citation on faith from an IP editor is a bit weak, with the only verifiable fact being the title and cover of the book. Also, even if it were true, since absolutely no one else seems to have noticed or quoted that, it's a bit of an outlier and didn't enter the reviewers' lexicon then. (Which, by the way, makes demanding contemporary descriptions of the Apes film as "prequels" an impossibility.) Barsoomian (talk) 09:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo said it was Not reliable for such an extraordinary claim regarding the quote above. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade should also come out. Its short opening sequence is a prologue, not a prequel. The vast majority of the film takes place after Raiders of the Lost Ark. Everyone agrees it's a sequel. Only this inaccessible Lucas bio apparently associated the word prequel with it, as has now been archived on this page just above. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is the prequel. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This citation from Big Picture Big Sound was repeatedly deleted by Charlr6.

DuHamel, Brandon (2008-11-20). "Planet of the Apes: 40-Year Evolution Blu-ray Collection Review". Big Picture Big Sound. So, in effect, Escape from The Planet of The Apes, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes and Battle for the Planet of The Apes are prequels to the original saga.

I took it to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Prequel_--_Big_Picture_Big_Sound RSN and Fifelfoo's verdict was :

DuHamel is a paid staff writer on an edited outlet, his ambit is reviews of movies in a particular physical format. It doesn't seem to be a greatly controversial analysis, and the article appears to represent it reasonably.

So, please no more summary deletions. Barsoomian (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it you want to keep this reference in so much? There are other references to support it which are more acceptable articles than a review written in an informal way. He says "So in effect", he might as well say "so it kind of is a prequel". And that one person replied back and thats it? You went and ran to get some help. There are other sources to back up the claim which are more reliable, why is that one so important to keep in? Might as well source a Jeremy Jahns or Catherine Reitman review from YouTube if they did a review on the film. They get paid to watch movies and then make video reviews out of them, but I know that if a YouTube video was referenced it would get taken off, even though Jeremy Jahns and Catherine Reitman are 'paid' just like DuHamel is paid to write reviews. Charlr6 (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted it twice without discussion. Obviously you won't listen to my opinion. So I got an authoritative opinion from people who actually know what a reliable source is. That should settle it. If you still disagree, the topic is still open at RSN. Barsoomian (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I won't listen to your opinion? You never listened to mine! Don't act all innocent here. And it was from one person not 'people'Charlr6 (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The RSN is where acknowledged experts on WP:RS are to be found. Try your Youtube comparison there and see what they say. Barsoomian (talk) 09:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The experts on Wikipedia. Great. You ran all the way to them in fear of me taking it out again. So much for dissuasion from you too. Saying I didn't listen to your opinion, you never listened to mine. You just went straight to the 'authorities' of Wikipedia. You still didn't explain why it was so important for it to be kept in.

But I'll be the mature one here and leave politely without running to find help as I can't fight my own battles. End of. Charlr6 (talk) 09:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the references twice, with no attempt to discuss before or after. So I got an expert opinion. You'd prefer it if we just argued for the next two weeks? You really think it's about "fear"? Try "exasperation". I'm sorry, you'll have to "fight your battles" somewhere else. Barsoomian (talk) 10:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted them and you didn't listen to my opinion. So don't say I didn't listen to yours when you didn't listen to mine anyway. You reverted what I did, I read what you wrote and then replied back giving more of an opinion. You didn't listen to mine and went straight to the 'higher authorities' of Wikipedia. You didn't make any attempt either to start a discussion either. Don't try to just make me seem like the bad guy here. You were too 'exasperated' to even bother yourself to start a discussion. "This person disagrees with what I said so I'm going to go to the Wikipedia Police". Charlr6 (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted. You never "discussed". Edit comments aren't "discussion". You never thought of just questioning the source on the Talk page without edit warring? And RSN isn't "the police". I didn't complain about your behaviour there, or even mention your name. I just asked them to settle the issue of the source, not which of us is more macho. I'm sorry you missed out on having a good battle. For God's sake: look at the tens of thousands of words above in arguments, round and round. Finally settled ONLY because we took the question to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. It's not cowardly not to want to waste weeks arguing about this. Barsoomian (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you deleted my edit, just like I deleted the other one. And if edit comments aren't a "discussion" then you never gave an opinion. Not everybody goes onto a talk page to discuss a deletion of something when they think it will be fine. They just leave an edit comment. And when did I ever say I wanted a battle? I never started a battle. And you still never answered why the reference should still be listed even though it has other sources to back it up, it wouldn't be naked statement randomly placed on Wikipedia. And if you don't want to waste weeks arguing I find it funny how most of your time it looks like on your contributions you actually spend your time on the 'Prequel' page. Seems like another editor who treats a page as its 'baby', but then will just say they are 'trying to keep it up to standards' and look after it. Charlr6 (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You erased the work I did to make the reference. Twice. It wasn't a trivial amount of work. And you wasted more of my time to put it back each time -- I couldn't just revert after other edits had been done. I'm not going to justify this to you now. I might have if you'd opened a discussion rather than edit warring. Not now. Barsoomian (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know you can just go onto an old edit and go onto the old edit page to get what you need instead of re-creating it. Keep it on paste. But still you didn't explain why it has to be there. I understand you say the review can be referenced as its by a man who gets paid to do what he does and all that, but still not why you want it to stay there, even though there were two other sources I believe to back up the films being a "prequel". And you still didn't say on the edit comment "look at talk page", which I then would have to see you have created a discussion with why it has been left there. I didn't go over 3RR, and I believed that as there were other sources to back up the claim, no one would miss this deletion of a reference. So I didn't start a discussion. If I was supposed to start a discussion explaining the deletion then every person on Wikipedia should start a discussion explaining why they are either adding or deleting something from the article. Charlr6 (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After one delete/revert you knew there was a problem. That's when WP:BRD tells you to discuss. You just edit warred. I was the one who opened the discussion after you started that. Maybe the 30,000 words of argument above give you a hint as to why I want to include a new source. In a rational argument, one source would be sufficient. But this isn't a rational argument, so multiple sources are necessary to counter those who would just delete regardless if they think a source is "mistaken". Clear? My last word on this anyway. Barsoomian (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't do a 3RR. I've never heard of BRD, too many Wikipedia rules to remember. But I would have started a discussion but you already beat me to it. Charlr6 (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were several unreleased works in the lists. I have removed most of those and added a note to discourage their inclusion. Since it's often debatable whether a work actually is a prequel, waiting till it has been released and assessed seems sensible. And many announced works are delayed, cancelled or changed beyond recognition by the time they actually are released, so descriptions made beforehand are often negated. I have left The Hobbit though, as it's due for release in a few months and the plot is well attested. But nothing scheduled for next year or later.Barsoomian (talk) 06:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't see this. Didn't think it would be a big deal as the new Monsters Inc film is quite anticipated and everyone would know its a prequel already, even by the teaser trailer. You say that its debatable if a work is a prequel, but there have been tons of sources saying that the film is a prequel. Even the Wikipedia page says it, and it isn't going to get cancelled as Pixar know it will do good. As out of all of the films I know of that are prequels coming out in the future (as in 2013+), Monsters Inc is the highly anticipated it seems, not just by me though. But do you think we could include it then? Oh and I'm not saying you mean to, but it seems that as you posted this, and as there hasn't been a reply since my one, well it seems almost like you are trying to OWN the article. Which Wikipedia is against. But I personally think that before deleting any future prequel works, small little ones don't count, but big ones such as The Hobbit and Monsters University do count, because there is enough proof to show that they are prequels, that there should at least be some sort of small consensus on it before you engage this sort of act of not letting there be any prequels that haven't been released yet. But remember that you don't OWN the article, and no offence but you can't stop someone (I'm referring to the other person, not the revert I did) from adding Monsters University in, because everyone knows it is a prequel now. Charlr6 (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't start of by accusing me of WP:OWN, twice. That is extremely offensive and hostile. Good way to make this really unpleasant and personal right from the start. And I see the last time you were active here you were repeatedly deleting my references, so you're being pretty hypocritical.

Look at the history of the article and all the speculative films added to this page in the past. I cleaned them up and opened this discussion here, and no one had bothered to comment in the two months since then. Not because I was stopping anyone, but because no one cared.

Any statements about unreleased works require a high standard of proof. If you insist on adding an unreleased film, include a citation to a reliable source that unequivocally proves it is a prequel. That's what I had to do when films I added were challenged. And put the film in the correct place in the table, it's not hard. They're ordered by date of original. Barsoomian (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never accused you of OWN more than once, I just mentioned it twice. And it is not extremely offensive and hostile unless you take it that way, but people don't own any articles. I quote you from a previous time, "...You never 'discussed'...". You never discussed with anyone about unreleased works, you just made the comment on here and then started it without any consensus from anyone, which in some way is also similar to owning an article.

And I care, and you know yourself that the new Monsters Inc film is a prequel. Just because barely anyone else edits on the page doesn't grant anyone the permission to act like the boss, and then almost enforce a certain rule and follow it before anyone has agreed or disagreed with it.

The question is, if I was to find a reliable source, which there would be many for it, would you allow its addition? It is a worthy film to mention. And also there isn't a "citation to a reliable source that unequivocally proves" every single one of the movies on this list are a prequel. Most of them don't even have any references so there is nothing to source them, nothing at all. So why would sourcing The Hobbit make a difference? Contradictory if most can go without but one has to. Charlr6 (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with the accusation of ownership/"being the boss". etc. I'm sick of this crap. Take it to WP:ANI if you really believe that.

Not every film is cited. But those that are challenged must be, otherwise it just degenerates into an edit war. Feel free to delete "The Hobbit" if you want to challenge it. I didn't insert it and won't defend it, I'd prefer to wait till films are released when we actually know what we're talking about. Do you really not see that statements about unreleased films are inherently more speculative than those about ones that actually exist? Barsoomian (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You never challenged Monsters University though, you just reverted it and say it shouldn't be mentioned because it hasn't been released. That isn't challenging it. That is more of a reference to a kind of 'rule' you endorsed yourself without an consensus.

And why such the sudden offence to being accused of ownership? Hate to see what you are like in real life if someone says something you don't like and then you make it out to be that its something that has been happening and said against you for hours and hours. Kind of like my teenage 15-year-old hormonal sister who gets offended at the tinest thing and makes it out like that has been said or happened tons of times already.

But do you really not see that listing prequel movies that are already in full production and are already well known before they are released should be mentioned? Because like said, already in full production like The Hobbit and Monsters University and are well known before they have even been released. So they should be mentioned. Small little ones like a prequel to a small relatively unknown movie doesn't matter as much, because no one will care for that as much as they would for The Hobbit and Montsers University. Charlr6 (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting a film is an implicit challenge. The response would be to prove and cite your point with a few lines in a reference footnote. If you can't be bothered to do that, and prefer just to keep attacking me, we have nothing more to discuss. Barsoomian (talk) 01:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I am so sorry, didn't realise that deleting a simple thing at all on Wikipedia meant it to be such a challenge. How was I supposed to know as I've never seen anyone delete a single simple necessary thing and it was a 'challenge'. So how was I supposed to know I am supposed to prove and cite a point? Maybe you should find some Wikipedia rule about not including unreleased films on a page, instead of making your own rule up and then following and enforcing it before anyone else can have a say. Wikipedia and all its contradicting and made-up rules. Place filled with unprofessional people pretending to be professional. At the end of the day its mostly just a bunch of trolls and nerds on the internet editing articles. And thats not directed at any in particular before you decide to take offence to that as well.

And you are the one who chose to be offended by my comments straight away. Not my fault if you are acting like my hormonal 15-year old sister. Infact you've acted EXACTLY like what she does. Take great offence at the simplest and calm statement towards her.

And you said on the edit comment 'As previously discussed on Talk page, unreleased films are not included in this list'. Nothing had been discussed on the talk page about unreleased films not to be put onto the list. I never agreed to that, neither did any editors because no one commented. No consensus was reached. It was just you making your own rule up for the page and enforcing it yourself without any say from anyone else. You can't just create a rule up and endorse it yourself without any agreement with anyone else. And then take away any edits about a unreleased prequel. Now that is definitely almost like a WP:OWN.

Can't just create a rule for a page and enforce it without any say from anybody else.

I could create my own rule up now, like that there has to be a source for every single prequel on this page, if not it gets deleted. I won't let you or anyone else have a say in it though as its my own rule I'm creating and going to enforce and then pretend its been discussed on the talk page, even though its just been discussed by myself. Very similar to what you did. Charlr6 (talk) 03:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You resent so much being asked to provide a simple reference that you insult me over and over and threaten to destroy the page over it. Very mature. Barsoomian (talk) 04:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I resent so much being asked to provide a reference? You never asked for a reference straight away. Maybe if you didn't act the way I'm seeing you, then I wouldn't have 'insulted' you. I'm not the one who took great offence straight away like a hormonal teenage girl, which is a fact, most teenage girls are like that. And I'm not threatening to destroy the page, I'm pointing out that you created your own rule then endorsed it without any consensus and still haven't commented about it. And what I said about me creating my own rule is exactly like what you've done. And if you get offended by being accused of OWN, then don't endorse a rule on a page by yourself and then say its already been 'discussed' on the talk page, even though its just you. That is clearly like trying to own a page. Creating a rule yourself and endorsing it without any consensus. Very mature. Charlr6 (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly did ask you for a reference straight away, in my very first response to you under this heading (00:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)). And your continued violations of WP:CIVIL, with your accusations, name calling and obsessive references to your your sister is disturbing. Barsoomian (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did not ask me straight away, after I put it back in you reverted my comment and said "As previously discussed on Talk page, unreleased films are not included in this list.", that isn't a asking to provide a reference. And even on here you didn't ask for references, you just said that things should have references. And you say that its not hard to find a reference then add it in the right place in the article. If its not hard to find then you would have yourself found a reference straight away. Wikipedia seems to be for civility but funnily enough not for helping each other. And I have gone out of my way to help other people find references, even though BURDEN says its down the original person. And obsessive references? Yes, of course. But you are seriously acting like her.

Oh, and once again, you didn't give any response to you creating your own rule up and endorsing it on the page without any consensus from anyone and then say its been 'discussed' even though its just you. Charlr6 (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to provide a references in my very first response above.

"you didn't ask for references, you just said that things should have references". I said neither. I said "If you insist on adding an unreleased film, include a citation". If you can't understand that simple sentence, you should not be editing here.

"And you say that its not hard to find a reference". Wrong again. I said "And put the film in the correct place in the table, it's not hard." Which you ignored, since you put it out of order.

"BURDEN says its down the original person." Correct. You wanted to include this film. It is thus up to you to justify it when asked.

"Wikipedia seems to be for civility" Not from you. Barsoomian (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "include a citation' is not a question asking for one, it more of a statement than question like "if you want your own dinner, cook it yourself". If you can't understand what a question is and how to ask "can you find a source please?" then you should not be editing here. I never put anything out of order, I reverted your edit back to the original one made by the other person. And I don't even get how there is a right order in the table anyway, because its one of those tables you can sort it into alphabetical.

And you still haven't responded, almost avoided the entire thing about you creating your own rule and endorsing it and make it out like its already been discussed even though its just you. Pretty sure you must be avoiding it now, if you weren't you would have mentioned it again saying something like "I thought it wouldn't matter because its a page not many people go on", but I still don't ever recall a Wikipedia rule where it says you can add any rule you like and endorse because not many people edit on there. Charlr6 (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The table is CHRONOLOGICAL, as I explained above. And you ignored. But you'd rather just follow what a random one-edit IP editor did regardless if it screws up the table.

Now your problem understanding the word "discuss":

discuss 1.To speak with another or others about; talk over. 2. To examine or consider (a subject) in speech or writing.

Obviously I was using the word in sense (2). There was a problem with additions of non existent films to the list. I removed them and discussed my reasoning here on the discussion page. In any case, this is no more than an application of the general principle of WP:V. The plot of an unreleased film is pretty hard to verify. And none of the unreleased films added had any references, most didn't even have a real article link. It's up to the person proposing an inclusion to justify it. Barsoomian (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I ignored? Erm, you ignored me saying that I put back the edit the other person made. I didn't see it was in the wrong place, so don't blame me for someone else's mistake.

You know exactly that the word 'discuss' means more talking to people than just examining things. And you don't understand wikipedias consenseous. "To speak with another or others about", talking to people. "To examine or consider (a subject) in speech or writing", what you did wasn't examine, you just created a rule, and you didn't consider, you just put the rule in straight away.

Most films here don't have references on them. And 'the plot of an unreleased film'? What are you on about 'plot'? This is a page listing movies prequels, not listing movie prequels and its plot for each film.

And once again, you ignored what I said about you can't create your own rule on a page then enforce it without any consensus. We can't follow dictionary rules as Wikipedia has its own. If there is going to be a rule for a page, several people will have to either support or be against it. You are in the wrong for creating a rule, then enforcing it before anyone else can have a say in it. And if someone adds in an unreleased film you delete it and say its been discussed. The meaning for 'discuss' it mostly about talking to people, you know that, unless in the part of the world you come from you don't ever talk to people and DISCUSS your daily life. Charlr6 (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here we have the problem in a nutshell: I cite definitions from reliable sources (e.g. a dictionary). You just make stuff up and insist you're right. I've answered all your questions several times over and you still can't grasp simple facts, or understand simple English words. Barsoomian (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell? I do know what discussion means, and its most used definition is talking amongst people, you know that and are trying to make me look stupid even if you now say yo aren't. And yes, making stuff up about 'discussion', because of course discussion doesn't mean talking and discussing ideas or daily life does it? No, no.

And you still made no comment about you creating a rule, then enforcing it without a consensus. This is wikipedia, where there needs to be a consensus for sort of things like that. But as it seems you won't, after all you do keep replying to my comments, I'll be the better person here and leave it be. Charlr6 (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I "made no comment"? See my post above. (17:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)). It seems you are blind to anything you don't want to know. This is just an application of WP:V as mentioned a few times: "All the material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that requires a source but does not have one may be removed". Barsoomian (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you really didn't. Verifiability still doesn't answer why you think its acceptable to create and enforce a rule without any consensus. It seems you are too arrogant to answer the question properly and why you think its acceptable to create your own rule, enforce it and then continue it without any consensus from anyone else. Before it said "Please do not add unreleased works to these lists" and then you changed it to "Please do not add unreleased works to these lists without a reliable source that it is actually a prequel". So the verifiability only comes in, in the past day when you changed that. "Please do not add unreleased works to these lists" is just saying literally "do not add unreleased works of any media onto this list". So there was never anything before you changed it about putting references up. So don't go talking like it has always been the case, because as we both know most of the 'prequels' on the list don't have a source. Surprised you haven't taken down everyone that doesn't have a source. Good day sir, and have fun OWNING the page and controlling it with your own 'rule'. If there as no 'rule', then it wouldn't seem more like you were owning the page. Charlr6 (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I modified the request I put on the page after the discussion here with you -- that's an indication that I listen to other people and consider the facts, that I don't think I "own" the page, but you think it's a proof of a coverup. That's all it is, a request (note the word "please"), not a rule, which obviously I have no power to enforce anyway. You got your cartoon on the list, all you had to do was verify it, which is according to WP:V, not my "rule". Previously no one adding unreleased films ever entered discussion, they heard a rumour of some film that might be made and put into in the wrong place and usually screwed up the table, so it was just reverted. You got exactly what you wanted, and yet you still complain. It seems you just don't like to have to prove things or listen to anyone's opinion except your own. We should all just allow Charl6 to decide every issue and not worry about citing references. You even ignore a dictionary because you think your own definition of a word is the true meaning.

"most of the 'prequels' on the list don't have a source". I already explained several times, as the title of this section of the discussion page, the problem is unreleased works. That's in the first paragraph of the discussion here. And also as I quoted from WP:V: "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation". That is exactly what happened with Monsters University. I challenged it, when the reference was supplied it was not a problem. It's not me making up my own "rules". I had works I thought should be here that were challenged and removed by other editors, so I found citations to WP:RS so they could be included. The only problem here now is your carelessness in editing, failing to read policies, failing to read what people actually say and going off half cocked, insulting other editors and generally disregarding normal rules of conduct. Barsoomian (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lion king 3 is a prequel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Nice try. Lion King 3 is an interquel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.156.136.229 (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an alternative to "prequel"? That portmanteau bothers me. John Link (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I appear to have run into a gray area in the definition for the prequel page.

When we say: The definition is, a prequel is a literary, dramatic, or cinematic work whose story precedes that of a previous work,[1][2];

Followed by: All "prequels" are, by definition, essentially sequels, It seems there is a chronological implication of time as per definition of our premise.

I am worried that this inference does not accommodate "all" scenarios. Say in the The Lord of the Rings trilogy, we were to watch a film out of order.Therefore, by definition, the movie that came before it is now a sequel because it is a prequel,which is a contradiction.(Q.E.D)

Could it be that I am reading into this too loosely? Any help,or comments over the matter would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers!

The Magicians Nephew cannot be the earliest prequel in literature, off the top of my head there is an example from 1952, The Crown of Violet, a prequel to The Hills of Varna. There may well be other examples. PatGallacher (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]