Talk:Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

Split out accolades

As awards season goes on, it's become clear that this film is one of the major contenders, and is thus subject to be listed for more nominations/wins. As the accolades section is already taking up a substantial portion of the article, might it be wise to just split it off at this point?--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes indeed Anna (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

To the cascading IP addresses reverting due to "spoilers"

Please read WP:LEAD and WP:SPOILER. The function of the lead is to give an overview of the article. Since the bulk of many film pages is the plot (and it's always a substantial portion), it is not acceptable to say, "x is a 2017 movie about a man with a truck." You have to give an overview of the plot, not the most barebones premise conceivable. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you, Justin, but I do think that we can have an overview of the plot in the lede without revealing the one detail of the sheriff's suicide. I think that one detail can be left out. Just my opinion, of course. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine--I have no problem with some different wording but the film is not just about the billboards: it's is fundamentally about the changes in character that happen as this stunt unravels, a man reassesses his life, the woman who took action is harassed, etc. Far, far too many film articles here are in the form I mentioned above with only a dozen words given to the plot. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that WP cannot exclude content on the basis of spoilers. But for a film or a book, I expect those spoilers to be safely quarantined in the "Plot" section. I can reasonably expect to get a non-spoiling synopsis from the summary paragraph, or non-spoiling information (where possible) about the production or cultural impact. For that reason, I think the spoiler should be kept out of the opening paragraph. The same information can continue to live under "plot". 24.23.243.9 (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

You have simply repeated the same argument, clearly without having read WP:SPOILERS or WP:LEAD. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I completely and totally disagree with this. It's a huge spoiler for the movie, containing events that take place well into the second half, and that aren't mentioned in any of the promotional material. It's honestly just a dick move to keep putting it back. When people go to look at the opening paragraph they want to know the PREMISE, not the entire plot. People shouldn't have to be spoiled on this movie because of this Justin guy's weird attitude about this. 82.10.113.92 (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Did you read WP:SPOILERS or WP:LEAD? Do you understand that Wikipedia is not spoiler-free but presents encyclopedic information? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Our spoiler policy doesn't mean that people should include spoilers simply because we can, nor should spoilers be avoided because simply because they're spoilers, rather the material should be evaluated to determine whether or not the material serves an encyclopedic purpose. Given that most material mentioning the synopsis, does not seem to include this information, I think we should err on the side of caution. If however there is significant developments regarding the spoiler either in the production or in the reception of the film, than yeah we should cover it, but it's probably not lead material. --Deathawk (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

(in reply to Koavf, formatting got weird on this page): I think the current summary of the plot in the lead section is more than adequate. The sheriff's suicide happens nearly halfway through, and while it definitely affects how the film unfolds (obviously), the film is primarily about Mildred Hayes' public outcry about the unsolved murder of her daughter. Full agreement that spoilers shouldn't be avoided just because they're spoilers, but this isn't that. The detail of Willoughby's suicide is a plot development, it's not part of the premise, which is all the lead really needs to cover. Sock (tock talk) 16:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sock: That is not all we need to cover: the lead is supposed to be representative of the entire article and just saying that she sets up billboards and is angry does not represent the plot, which is several hundred words and has several developments after the billboards are erected. I have brought up this issue at WT:FILM several times and others have tacitly acknowledged the problem but no one wants to fix it. @Deathawk: the fact that many articles are insufficient doesn't justify this one being incomplete as well: there are a lot of articles that have unsourced claims as well but we don't let new unsourced claims slide because of it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Koavf: I've just looked through the archives for WT:FILM from the past year and your name didn't appear once, certainly not when discussing this film. Maybe you're just trying to drive a point home, but non-specifically saying "others have tacitly acknowledged the problem" with no links and no recent discussion on the place you pointed to, it rings hollow to me. If you could show me discussions where other editors acknowledge this as a problem, I'd be grateful to read them.

Apart from that, sourcing from my own work, I brought Her up to GA with this as the lead plot summary: "The film follows Theodore Twombly (Joaquin Phoenix), a man who develops a relationship with Samantha (Scarlett Johansson), an intelligent computer operating system personified through a female voice." It doesn't mention his relationship with his ex-wife Catherine, nor his friend Amy, nor even how their relationship ends up being romantic. The lead is not a place to recount the whole plot of a film, and having nearly half of this film's content cut down to two sentences isn't summary, it's over-explanation. Some films require more backstory in the lead to set the stage, like Avatar, but even that film summary is simple and short after the backstory is explained: "The expansion of the mining colony threatens the continued existence of a local tribe of Na'vi – a humanoid species indigenous to Pandora." That's the base of the whole movie; the Na'vi are threatened on Pandora. The backstory for this film is that Mildred's daughter was murdered, and that creates the story of her putting up billboards demanding justice, and the townsfolk's varying responses to that action. One of those responses is Willoughby's suicide. That is the core of the film, and that, to me, is all that's necessary. However, I would like to hear other editor's opinions on the matter, as I can acknowledge that I think we're just not going to agree on this, and I don't want to go in circles. I don't want it to come off like I don't respect your opinion either, as I can see how that might be the vibe I'm giving. Sock (tock talk) 18:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't in the last year and it wasn't about this film (e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 59). This is my point is that the problem is not localized to this film. I had the same thing happen at Murder on the Orient Express (2017 film)--I guess someone is worried about spoilers for a 70 year-old book. The lead is exactly the place to recount the entire film since the lead section is supposed to include a summary of the entire article. A one-sentence premise that just mentions what you see in the first five minutes of a film does not adequately summarize the plot. Yes, we clearly disagree but I've not gotten a disrespectful vibe from you--you're alrite by me. I hope the converse is true as well. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The issue is, in my opinion at least, a practical one, many of our readers check to see info about a film before seeing a film, providing spoilers in the lead, does not serve a purpose to them, other readers have already seen a film and know the spoiler, providing spoiler to them does ot serve a purpose to them either. Really putting spoilers in leads serves a to benefit only a few at the expense of many. The info, spoilers and all is in the "plot" section if anyone is really interested. I guess I just don't see a good reason to put the info there. --Deathawk (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Deathawk: Did you read WP:SPOILER? E.g. "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality (e.g., the lead section)." I have to be honest, I'm confused about what is confusing about this. "Spoilers" are arbitrary information that some users don't want to read--if so, you probably shouldn't read an encyclopedia article about something. And when do they expire? Is it "spoiling" Romeo and Juliet to say that they don't make it out alive? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes but reading further the guideline states that "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served" and I pose that the inclusion of including a spoiler in this case does not serve such a purpose. To use your example of Romeo and Juliet, that would be encyclopedic because it's such a well known part of the story, this however isn't and doesn't further the understanding of the work. For your second point there are many reasons a user might want to visit an article about seeing a movie before they see it, to see what kind of reception it got, to see who produced the soundtrack etc. So it can't be assumed that a majority of the people reading the article would have seen it and would be ok with the spoiler. --Deathawk (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

But what constitutes a "spoiler" is an arbitrary--virtually random--way of saying that some information shouldn't be viewed yet. Since the lead is supposed to give an overview of the article, including the plot, just stopping at what happens in the most basic premise is not enough. We wouldn't start out the article on ducks by saying that they are nidifugous birds but then keeping the fact that they fly a secret until you read the whole article. Our purpose is to make facts well known and explaining what happens in the story does exactly that: enhance understanding. By what standard should we decide that some information is top-secret from the lead? I don't want to be disrespectful but I'm sorry--this is just ridiculous. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

My objection isn't that it's a spoiler, but that it makes the plot description needlessly bulky in the lede. Leave it for the plot section. Czolgolz (talk) 08:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Two sentences? Ridiculous. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Koavf—RfC? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Agreed. This quite literally impacts every film/book/comic article and intersects two pretty fundamental policies. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, the original summary was one ONE sentence, so yes, two sentences is a significant increase. Czolgolz (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Which is not what you argued. That was that it was becoming "needlessly bulky," so regardless of the actual percentage increase, the end result is still perfectly acceptabe and well-within the limits of WP:LEADLENGTH. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Note that the lede for Star Wars: The Last Jedi says The plot follows Rey as she receives Jedi training from Luke Skywalker, in hopes of turning the tide for the Resistance in the fight against Kylo Ren and the First Order. The lede should always be fairly terse. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this statement, my dude. I only wish it had come before koavf spoiled this movie for so many while picking this as a hill to die on. 82.10.113.92 (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment While WP:SPOILER should be respected it is not a licence to ruin the film for people. Both Rotten Tomatoes and Allmovie manage to give a full outline of the basic plot without having to divulge the spoiler. The reader does not gain anything by being give this information upfront; the twist is not the subject of any sourced commentary in the article so there is no compelling reason to elevate it to the lead. Betty Logan (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree that this is a good approach in general. The Sixth Sense is a good example. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with those, such as Sock, who say the lead should cover the film's premise and no more. Quite apart from WP:SPOILER arguments, explaining further plot events is overkill for a lead. Popcornduff (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

♠Am I missing something? I've looked at the page as it now is, & at the history, & I'm not seeing any major difference beyond what genre film is placed in (& that, IMO, is debatable, given "Waldo Pepper" is listed in some sources as a black comedy...). So what's the beef?

♠As for the bigger issue, I'd avoid spoilers on principle, unless they're key to understanding the film. (A spoiler in the lead for "Mulholland Dr.", frex, would be welcome...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Black Comedy?

The lead describes this movie as a black comedy, which seems odd to me given the trailer. Both IMDB and Allmovie do not list "comedy" at all in the genre, while both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic list it as under the genre of "Comedy" and "Drama". I worry that, even taking to the account that it is humerous apparently, labeling it as only a black comedy fails to convey the point of what the movie is. We should at least state it's a "Drama-comedy" or something of that nature. °--Deathawk (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

This reminds me of the similar discussion about I, Tonya at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Lengthy adjective strings in the lead sentence. As with I, Tonya, "black comedy" isn't the primary sub-genre coming up in a search of the regular sources we use: Allmovie and the BBFC go with "crime drama", Rotten Tomatoes with "comedy drama", the New York Times goes with all three and Entertainment Weekly keeps it simple with "Drama". It seems apparent that "Drama" is the primary genre, but there is some disagreement over the sub-genre. Personally I would let Entertainment Weekly lead the way here and just go with "Drama". Betty Logan (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't care what genre we call it, quite frankly, I just wish we'd pick one and stick to it. At this point, black comedy is sourced and that source has been there for a while. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem is just because you can find one source that says it's one thing doesn't mean that all viewers or readers would agree on that. The lead sentence should speak for what the product is not what it could be interpreted as. It also should very clearly identify the larger picture. I fear labeling this film a "black comedy" does not do that. --Deathawk (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Most sources call it a drama. That's the simplest, obvious description. Popcornduff (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

There has been persistent attempts since this was last discussed (mostly by IP editors) to label this as black comedy in the lead. I requested page protection to prevent this and left a hidden note inviting editors who disagree with the current genre to discuss this on the talk page before changing it. --Deathawk (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Capitalization of "Outside" in the title

The word "Outside" is capitalized here, but in the actual credits in the film itself, the title reads "Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri" with the word "outside" not capitalized. I always thought that a film's officially recognized title was not whatever is used in promotions, etc, or what is commonly used by the press and public, but only exactly what appears in the film's titles. For example, the title of the 1995 David Fincher film is "Se7en" because that's exactly how it appears in the opening titles. It seems to me that the page address and every single instance of the title in the article should be changed to reflect the title as it appears in the film's credits. --Jamesluckard (talk) 08:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Titles of works use titlecase. Please refer to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(capitalization)#Titles_of_works. Se7en isn't comparable here because it uses alternative spelling rather than alternative capitalisation, so it is governed by WP:COMMONNAME. Betty Logan (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The word "outside" is not capitalized in any production materials or submissions to awards committees. Any website giving precedence to their style (itself likely deriving from a newspaper's style which would not be applicable to an author of works not under its aegis) is essentially an unnecessary and unwelcome correction of an author of works that potentially strips titles of meaning. Inglorious Bastards indeed! Eunoia666 (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not adopt the styling of work titles; WP:COMMONNAME only applies to spelling. Many film titles are presented completely in capital letters and are rendered in title case in databases, books, magazines etc. Wikipedia certainly isn't on it is own: IMDB, Box Office Mojo, Allmovie and Metacritic (the websites in the "external links" section) all use title case, writing "Outside" with a capital "O". Even the offical Fox website writes the title as "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri". If this explanation still fails to satisfy you then you should propose a rename for the article and gain a consensus for the change rather than rifling through the article changing the capitalisation. Betty Logan (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry just saw that this was a contentious issue after I rifled through the article changing the capitalization, but saw the film last night and noticed it as well. I agree with Eunoia666 and talk though. Not capitalizing a word that would normally be capitalized in a title is a deliberate move by Martin McDonagh, and should be respected. I think a quick fix would be to use what Mother! or Existenz does in their articles--include a parenthetical "stylized as mother!/eXistenZ" at the beginning. Npilchen (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the deviation is significant or notable enough to be called out. Popcornduff (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts, and I don't mean to sound snarky, but I don't think you're the one to decide whether it's significant enough. As Eunoia666 points out: "The word "outside" is not capitalized in any production materials or submissions to awards committees." I think that all of this, as well as the fact that it isn't capitalized in the title card of the movie, and that we're currently discussing it, makes it significant. The inclusion of "stylized as..." is a non-obtrusive way to acknowledge Martin McDonagh's stylistic choice (similar to Kendrick Lamar's Damn). Npilchen (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The mere lowercase letter on "outside" does not raise this to the level of the other films you mention which have special notes for the stylization of the title. You clearly have no consensus here for the parenthetical comment and it should be removed until such time that a consensus has been reached. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I concur to keep "Outside" capitalized per MOS:TITLECAPS, which says to always capitalize "Prepositions that contain five letters or more (During, Through, About, Until, Below, etc.)" and "Outside" qualifies as such. (Betty already referenced this, but I wanted to highlight it more explicitly.) It's simply a matter of house style, and other publications' house styles will differ. We can just stay with the capitalized approach here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Old Jacobite, I'm not sure what you mean by the "parenthetical comment" being removed from Npilchen's comment. Can you clarify? Popcornduff (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

As for whether "I'm the one to decide" - I didn't suggest that; we decide by consensus, and I've submitted my opinion. Popcornduff (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the principle of least astonishment is germane? Are readers more likely to think "Wikipedia has a typo in the title" or "Wikipedia wasn't savvy to the important meaning of the lower 'o'"? I suspect the former, which favors MOS:TITLECAPS -Reagle (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The uncapitalized preposition is correct English and was likely used to in order to astonish and provoke viewers' judgment and later reconsidering and edification, which is an artistic choice pertinent to the theme of the overall work. Without condemning Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(capitalization)#Titles_of_works this is a bit of a special case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eunoia666 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussed in the Financial Times

FTR, discussed by Janan Ganesh in the Financial Times: Why politics should not go to the cinema. JDAWiseman (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Fictional town ?

While the article mentions the location of the filming, there is no mention of whether ( or not !) there is a real Ebbing. I have just tried Google etc but I get nothing definitive either way. Given that the title is highly specific, and that the portrait of the town is most unflattering, I suggest that the text include an explanation, as eg "...the action occurs in the fictional town of Ebbing..". FWIW I can imagine that the some of the real Missourians can hardly be enthusiastic about this portrayal of their region, particularly if the story is fictional Feroshki (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Speaking as a Missourian, the town is fictional and I for one have never heard of any negative reaction around here, other than no dive bar in a small Missouri town would get away with charging $4 for a beer.. Czolgolz (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Positive Review.

I Think Critical Reception Would Benefit From More Positive Review Quotes. Negative Review Currently Have Dis-Proportionate Representation. IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

A.K.A.

Maybe add abbreviated and/or stylized as "3Billboards"? "Three Billboards"? Ssredg (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Cast

Is there a reason why people are left out of the cast list. Christopher Berry, Tony, in the movie was left out & @TheOldJacobite keeps undoing my work. The actors I have been trying to add are listed in the credits at the end of the movie. If anyone would like to verify that, here is a link to that movie.

http://m4ufree.club/watch/QvM9BJv2-three-billboards-outside-ebbing-missouri.html

MissTofATX (talk) 05:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX MissTofATX (talk) 05:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Stop adding minor roles to cast lists. We do not list the entire cast on WP, only the most important characters. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@TheOldJacobite “Tony” (Angela’s father/Mildred’s exhusband) was not a minor role. He burned down the billboards, his girlfriend was listed, so why wouldn’t you list him if she played less of a role than he did? MissTofATX (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX

Please see WP:FILMCAST for criteria of who should be listed in a cast section. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 20:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@TheOldJacobite - that still doesn’t explain why you insist on reverting major characters? If you’ve seen the movie, you would know about Christopher Berry/Tony.MissTofATX (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX

I disagree with your characterization. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@TheOldJacobite how so/ why? MissTofATX (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)@MissTofATX

Edits made by TheOldJacobite

Can we please have a discussion here about the recent edits by @TheOldJacobite "I take issue with your refusal to explain your edits with an edit summary, and his (or her) removal of material. The addition of sourced material, obviously, is not a problem, but in the absence of an explanation, his wholesale changes look suspect to me. All I want is some kind of explanation of the changes being made, in keeping with Wikipedia policy and precedent. Is that too much to ask?" ~ The old jacobite

Your quote above explains exactly what I'm asking you. Maybe before your mass reversions, you could bring it up to be discussed with the group/get a consensus?

In another quote, you mentioned the "I don't like it" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:I_just_don%27t_like_it and from that, you seem to be employing the "because I said so" tactic diffs.

“Because I say so Many discussions on Wikipedia devolve into statements of opinion that the editor expects to be accepted as fact. This is an example of ipse dixit ("He, himself, said it"), also known as the bare assertion fallacy, a term which is used to identify and describe a sort of arbitrary dogmatic statement which the speaker expects the listener to accept as valid.[3]”

I’ve asked several times what criteria he uses when deciding whether a character is minor or not, and he implies refusal by deleting discussions without answering.

MissTofATX (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no need for discussion or consensus to revert edits that are in violation of MOS. I reverted your expansion on cast lists, both on this article and several others, because WP's guidelines clearly state that we do not include every minor role, only the most important ones. I have given you a link to WP:FILMCAST, which is where this guideline is explained. What more do you want? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

When we have different opinions on certain characters, you should justify why you think it should not be included & allow others to make a case of why they should be included. Then others can decide whether or not it belongs or not. That’s what I want. I have never edited a page for a movie that I have not personally watched.

Your own quote about questioning “wholesale” changes without discussion is exactly what you’ve been doing. So, hopefully you can follow your own stance on these matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissTofATX (talk • contribs) 15:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

No, per WP:BRD, when you have made changes, and you are reverted, the onus is on you to justify your changes. The onus is not upon the reverting editor to justify the reversion. As usual, you have everything backwards. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It appears the “onus” would be on both~ As per the WP about Dispute resolution, below. I don’t have everything backwards, in as much as you selectively choose what to adhere to.

I can guarantee you that hence forth, I will make notes on the respective talk pages. Please look there before reverting anything I write from now on

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution

“There are many methods on Wikipedia for resolving disputes. Most methods are not formal processes and do not involve third-party intervention. Respond to all disputes or grievances, in the first instance, by approaching the editor or editors concerned and explaining which of their edits you object to and why you object. Use the article talk page or their user talk page to do so; be civil, polite, and always assume good faith.”

MissTofATX (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Sandy Martin

Am I allowed to add Sandy Martin as James Dixon's mother to the cast list? JIP | Talk 21:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Is that a major character? If not, no. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The Old Jacobite deleted my addition of Sandy Martin so he must think she was not a major character. I watched the movie and added her to the list. I had no idea that her role was even an issue on the talk page.Eschoryii (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC) She was Jason Dixon's mother and a big influence on Jason's character. Sandy Martin also has her own article. I think she should be added. What is so wrong except another editor and their own power play. I Hate edit wars so I am out of here.

TheOldJacobite revisions and edits WITHOUT explaining himself

Who do you think you are? Next time you disagree with someone, start by explaining yourself. It is not Ok to cut and edit other peoples work WITHOUT even taking the time to explain your actions. You are being extremely impolite and are disrespecting other editors on the website. You keep cutting, Ill keep undoing your edits. How does it sound for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfast (talk • contribs) 20:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Cast section consistency

The cast section includes a note that says "The cast is in closing credits order and the names are as credited" - however, this is not the case. While the majority of the cast is in closing credits order, Harrelson, Rockwell, Cornish, Hawkes, and Dinklage are not. They are in the poster order (for example, Rockwell is fourth in the credits order, but third on the poster, as with in the article). Furthermore, the names are not as credited for McDormand, Harrelson, Rockwell, Cornish, Hawkes, Hedges, Newton, and Peters - there is no Hayes surname, given name/nickname for Bill Willoughby, surname for Anne, given name for Dixon, and title for Abercrombie.

While I normally support having the cast in closing credits order, the obvious problem with this film is that the closing credits for the cast is in order of appearance, which appears to have resulted in Harrelson, Rockwell, Cornish, Hawkes, and Dinklage being placed in their poster order instead of their closing credits order due to their perceived prominence and not in line with what the cast section says it's supposed to be following. So for consistency purposes and to have the cast be more reflective of prominence, I suggest we use the title credits order, which would read as follows:

• Frances McDormand as Mildred Hayes
• Woody Harrelson as William 'Bill' Willoughby
• Sam Rockwell as Jason Dixon
• Abbie Cornish as Anne Willoughby
• Lucas Hedges as Robbie Hayes
• Željko Ivanek as Desk Sergeant
• Caleb Landry Jones as Red Welby
• Clarke Peters as Chief Abercrombie
• Samara Weaving as Penelope
• John Hawkes as Charlie Hayes
• Peter Dinklage as James
• Kerry Condon as Pamela
• Darrell Britt-Gibson as Jerome
• Kathryn Newton as Angela Hayes
• Brendan Sexton III as Crop-Haired Guy
• Amanda Warren as Denise

If Hawkes and Dinklage seem too low, I am not opposed to prioritizing the poster order, then using the title credits. Nevertheless, I believe using the title credits order will allow us to order the cast through prominence - which appears to be the intent, as the credits order is currently not applying to the aforementioned Harrelson, Rockwell, Cornish, Hawkes, and Dinklage - and with a source, as opposed to a completely original order.

As for the names, I do not have a preference if we use the credited names or not, but if we are following this rule, then this rule needs to apply to all names, including the above cited ones that are not as credited. If we are not applying this rule to all names, then it should not apply at all. Bluerules (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The cast section order has been changed numerous times, including several times in the past week. We need to reach a consensus here before an edit war starts. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)