Jump to content

Talk:I.S.S. (film): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
reply
No edit summary
Line 15: Line 15:
You didn't even attempt to answer the question. Can't get consensus if you're not going to address the issue.
You didn't even attempt to answer the question. Can't get consensus if you're not going to address the issue.
:You haven't asked a question about this article that I haven't answered. Being included on this list is part of what makes this film notable and hence it is included. Whether other articles include the information or not is not what we are discussing. And the info had been included by many other editors on this article making it a standing consensus. You have made the bold edit without good reason. <small>[[User:Bovineboy2008|BOVINEBOY]]</small>[[User talk:Bovineboy2008|2008]] 00:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
:You haven't asked a question about this article that I haven't answered. Being included on this list is part of what makes this film notable and hence it is included. Whether other articles include the information or not is not what we are discussing. And the info had been included by many other editors on this article making it a standing consensus. You have made the bold edit without good reason. <small>[[User:Bovineboy2008|BOVINEBOY]]</small>[[User talk:Bovineboy2008|2008]] 00:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, "this article." Getting all semantic here. Okay, let me rephrase for your pedantry then. Why is this piece of information notable to "this" specific article but not to any other of the other hundreds of films that were also on this list. And this info was not included by "many other editors." There was literally ONE editor who included it. ONE. And he's retired. And the fact that you have to lie to try to make your point confirms that you're wrong.

Revision as of 00:46, 8 October 2021

Okay then, tell me how a movie being on a list of screenplays not released in 2020 is in anyway relevant or notable, and not the stupidest piece of trivia ever? Hey, the movie also didn't come out in 1962, we should include that fact too, right?! If you think that information is relevant, then you need to create a consensus to have this piece of information included on every page of every movie that was ever on this list instead of starting an edit war. I'm guessing you're involved in the company in some way to insist on this.

The Black List is a significant list of unproduced scripts that has been covered by many mainstream sources to the point where it is notable just to be on the list. This is not just a mention that the script existed in 2020, but that it received enough buzz to be included on a very specific industry list. This content is usually included in reports of the film and not just as a one-off mention. It would be appropriate to include here as it indicates why this particular film is notable. BOVINEBOY2008 00:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you go include it on every single film pages? Why edit war over these two pages?

Your edit was reverted because you did not explain why you removed sourced content. You need to seek consensus now about this article. BOVINEBOY2008 00:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't even attempt to answer the question. Can't get consensus if you're not going to address the issue.

You haven't asked a question about this article that I haven't answered. Being included on this list is part of what makes this film notable and hence it is included. Whether other articles include the information or not is not what we are discussing. And the info had been included by many other editors on this article making it a standing consensus. You have made the bold edit without good reason. BOVINEBOY2008 00:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, "this article." Getting all semantic here. Okay, let me rephrase for your pedantry then. Why is this piece of information notable to "this" specific article but not to any other of the other hundreds of films that were also on this list. And this info was not included by "many other editors." There was literally ONE editor who included it. ONE. And he's retired. And the fact that you have to lie to try to make your point confirms that you're wrong.