Talk:Blade Runner 2049

'One of the best sequels ever made'

This statement, claiming that some critics described BR2049 as one of the best sequels ever made, has been removed. I think it is fair to include it, with especial stress on the 'some critics described' part.

Having twice tried to sit through the film and being a fan of the 1982 Ridley Scott original, I can only presume these critics were using some hither-to unknown definition of 'best'.

K lies down motionless and wounded

Walter Görlitz, you had agreed here that the wording "a wounded K peacefully lies down on the steps" at the plot section was acceptable. Can you explain why you have changed your mind? I know what the consensus was; I was part of it, so I know what we had agreed to. In the discussion we agreed to not mention in the plot that K dies, despite the multiple independent reliable sources asserting it; and the current version does not say that K dies, and it certainly doesn't say a thing about the music; yet you are still removing descriptive parts of it.

The sentence describes images that are clearly seen in the film, without interpreting them. The whole sequence revolves around K showing his wounds and being unable to stand up; it even devotes more than 10 seconds to the shot where the wounds are seen. With no mention of the wounds, mentioning at all the sequence in the plot makes no sense. Can you explain how is it relevant to the film that K lies on the steps, if not because he can no longer stand on his feet, because he's injured? Diego (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't agree to that, I wrote it was a better option. The consensus ended up at removing it. If you've just completed a difficult mission you could jut be waiting outside in the snow (on L.A., which already makes no sense) for Decker to come out. That's the point, it doesn't make sense and so implying content to add sense adds to the plot. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Woah - we agreed to remove any mention to the death or the soundtrack, and removed they are. We did not agree to mischaracterize the scene by making it look what it's not.

This version is a misleading description of what is seen. The scene is not one where K is peacefully taking a rest, waiting for the next mission; it's a sequence where he shows pain, an inability to stand upright, and where he contemplates the serious wound on his abdomen. Merely saying that he lies on the steps is a severe misrepresentation of the whole scene, not a neutral description. Diego (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

This issue was already discussed above and you seemed to approve of my suggestion for a resolution to this. As no constructive edits have been made to the article since then, I have inserted a brief outline of the ambiguity of the scene into the Critical Reception section, including Michael Green's statement, so there should be no more need to continue edit warring over this small point. Cnbrb (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

For reference, here is what was discussed and agreed previously on the subject of K's death or non-death. Cnbrb (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

100s of plot edits

Britishfinance I've reverted back to the version from a couple of days ago. I sincerely apologise for the improvements that probably got caught up in there. My objections:

• The plot section bloated up to 800 words.
• It specifically had too much detail relating back to the plots of the predecessor (voigt kampf for example).
• I do not believe that the new section (did K really die, it's still not certain whether Deckard was a replicant) was deserving of its own section.

I'm sure there was some good stuff in there too, but could you please take it slowly next time instead of performing so many small edits in a row. I'd be keen to hear others opinions. Scribolt (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Scribolt:. Fair point re the plot, but Blade Runner 2049 is a very complex plot and I am trying to get to a version that is coherent enough to be understood in one reading. This has been done with many other WP:PLOTS on WP (e.g. Brexit: The Uncivil War). I also wanted to use some footnotes to clarify some items (like the Voigt Kampf tool etc.) and particular the prequels, which is another innovative aspect of the film (and each have their own WP articles). However, I am also open to whether others think this version works.

What I want to do with the new section is to the capture parts of the film script that people were not sure about. There are a lot of articles post the release on these issues in major papers/websites. There is lots of post-film WP:GNG on the issue of whether Deckard was a replicant (again). I think it is useful for a reader to have these questions chronicled and recorded (as there are many articles in good WP:RS that discuss "unanswered questions" in such a format.

I want to ensure that this WP article captures more of the richness of this film, and the considerable amount of RS discussing the film since its release.

Britishfinance (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, and again sorry for the collateral damage. I'm going to perform a more targeted revert to the previous plot version as I still disagree that your expansion was an improvement. Plot sections are more focused on narrative, rather than capturing the richness of the fictional world. I'd appreciate it if you waited for additional discussion before reverting again, per BRD.

Regards the additional section, I still don't believe that these are indeed 'unresolved' plot points that have generated enough meaningful academic discussion in relation to this film (rather than in the original) but I will leave that be pending additional input. Scribolt (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

My unsolicited advice is to not worry about the plot summary so much. Like it or not, it will likely be rewritten entirely differently in the next year or so. There are so many different ways to write a summary. I strongly encourage greater focus on adding coverage from secondary sources (basically, everything else in an article body) because such content is much, much more likely to stay and not be revised. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Minor quibble here, but when K discovers the duplicate birth records, he realizes not that they're twins, but that one record is fake, and was copied from the other. As he states, "It's impossible. Two people can't have identical DNA." The fact that the girl is listed as dead presumably contributes to his belief that he's Deckard's son. (Yes, it's a bit of a plot hole: K and Joi both suffer logic fails.) As to the "did K die?' debate, the plot summary has him "mortally wounded", which is an assumption/opinion. I think that all that can be said with certainty is that he lies on the steps, at the end, "seriously (and perhaps mortally) wounded." Nicely done otherwise; I leave it to the regular editors to make any alterations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:7117:900:68F3:78F7:E658:13C4 (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

We have word of author that the script is meant to have K die in the final scene, so that would be well-sourced canon even if it is not explicitly mentioned in the film. There used to be a section explaining how some critics considered this ambiguous and open to interpretation, which got deleted in some of the section edits; I've restored it now. Diego (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

P.S. We discussed this extensively, but of course consensus can change. You may want to review the previous discussions to check the arguments made back then. Diego (talk) 08:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Blade Runner 2049/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 20:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Initial comment

• Hi I enjoyed the movie in the cinema and I'll take this on to review as part of the April–May 2020 backlog drive.

Review

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Images

• All fine in terms of rights
• Best practice would include alt texts
• Gosling / Ford caption - can wikilink San Diego Comic-Con

 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Stock exchange caption - can add some wikilinks

 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Deakins caption: "win" is not needed and perhaps it can be mentioned in the awards sections that he won the award. Also the positioning of the image in critical response feels slightly strange, could move to accolades

I would disagree with this, as the image is to reflect the critical acclaim Deakins got from critics for his work. Rusted AutoParts 23:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Does accolades not make more sense? That's where the award is mentioned Mujinga (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The bulk of the caption is more about the critical acclaim. The accolade mention was to just highlight it being his very first win. But overall, as Deakins saw the bulk of critical acclaim, it fits more in critical acclaim. Rusted AutoParts 00:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Spinner caption: Spinner display "Spinner on display"

 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio

• Fine, earwigs flags up some quotations, but they are quoted here as well

Lead

• The lead could do with expanding, per MOS:LEAD to three (or even four) full paragraphs. What's already there is pretty good, but there's things in the article that could be added to the summary eg casting, prequels, social commentary, future
• $260 million - may as well say " $260.5 million" since that is what is used elsewhere

 Done Rusted AutoParts 23:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Set thirty years after the first film, - don't think this is mentioned below

 Done Rusted AutoParts 23:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• K is only mentioned as a Nexus-9 in the lead

Added Nexus-9 into Plot as well. Rusted AutoParts 17:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• hoping to increase the profits of their studio not sure if that is needed in lead

 Done Rusted AutoParts 17:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Plot

• mobile emitter, an emanator - is emanator needed? it doesn't really explain anything

 Done Rusted AutoParts 23:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Cast

• Young's likeness was digitally superimposed onto Loren Peta, who was coached by Young on how to recreate her performance from the first film - can you rephrase thsi becuase i am getting a bit stuck on "her", i know it refers to Young but as it is it feels like it is referring to Peta

Are you sure it requires changing? I've read the sentence over and I'm just not seeing the issue personally. Rusted AutoParts 02:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

yes i agree, on re-reading it seems fine as it is Mujinga (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Development

• were in final negotiations to purchase the intellectual property from veteran producer Bud Yorkin - bit dramatic, maybe better something like "purchased the intellectual property rights from producer Bud Yorkin"

 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• bestowed - gave?

 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• he never intended to endeavor the task, - very garbled, needs rephrasing

 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Ridley Scott's involvement in the new feature to the press, then under contract as the film's director - needs rephrasing

 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• provided brief insight of their vision - needs rephrasing, at the very least change "brief" to "little"

 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• instilling - needs to be a different word, like "creating" or "inspiring"

 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• He was captivated by the screenplay, however, and after consulting Fancher, soon found reassurance in the screenwriter's conviction in their vision. - needs rephrasing

Does this work? "Nevertheless, he liked the screenplay and was assured by Fancher's investment in the project" Rusted AutoParts 17:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

yeah that's great Mujinga (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• therefore saw modernizing Blade Runner's retrofuturistic onscreen world, rather than devising a contemporaneous universe anew, imperative for an authentic story - also needs a rewrite

 Done by someone Rusted AutoParts 17:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Casting

• Gossip of better "gossip about"
• relayed the actor needs rephrasing
• backstory. could be better "backstory:" or start the next sentence with "Ford said:"
• massive not needed
• As well not needed
• by filmmakers "by the filmmakers"

 Done all Rusted AutoParts 02:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Filming

• Filmmakers - "The filmmakers"
• as late as - not needed
• Hungarian filmmakers - I don't think "filmmakers" is needed here, didn't see it in source
• Ford conferred - "conferred" isn't right here
• had been killed - better "was killed"
• Producers were ultimately able to finish filming Gosling's scenes in time for the Thanksgiving holiday. - this sentence can be merged with the previous one

 Done all. Rusted AutoParts 00:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Cinematography

• certain brutalist landmarks in London (such as the Barbican Estate and Trellick Tower) were among the referential material - I'm starting to see that this could have done with a copy edit. "brutalist" and "were among the referential material" are not needed

 Done Rusted AutoParts 00:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• to scale - "to the scale"

 Done Rusted AutoParts 00:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• spinners - can you add one sentence to explain what they are?

 Done Rusted AutoParts 00:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• the paragraph beginning When Gassner was first needs some work. Gassner is introduced two paragraphs earlier but then the comment about street sweepers seems out of context. Then the end of the paragraph spinners are mentioned again. Also is this paragraph best off under cinematography?

The sentence on street sweepers I feel has context, this was the first request Villenueve made of his production designer. As for the paragraph being under Cinematography, there isn't a specific area this could fit under. Should I rename the section to "Cinematography and production design"? Rusted AutoParts 17:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

i think the problem here is that spinners are mentioned in the last sentence of the previous paragraph and so the new paragraph loses me slightly. maybe changing "passing street sweepers. Redesigning" to "passing street sweepers and redesigning" would help, but it could just be me getting lost here. as for the section, yes it's a bit tricky to know what to say ... Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film doesn't mention cinematography once when I keyword search which seems odd, preferring to have development / pre-production / production or filming / post production, but it also actually seems quite logical to go the way this article has gone with Development / Casting / Filming / Cinematography / Costumes / Post-production / Soundtrack. So at this point I'm fine with how things are, but suggest this part might need more work in future Mujinga (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Costumes

• inauthentic fur - "fake fur"?

 Done Rusted AutoParts 00:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• wikilink shearling

 Done Rusted AutoParts 00:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• didn’t - "did not"

 Done Rusted AutoParts 00:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• since this is only one paragraph i'm not seeing the need for its own section

I feel it's warranting. It can't be merged with other aspects of the production section (Filming, Cinematography, etc.) Rusted AutoParts 00:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

thanks for the answer, on re-reading it seems fine, particularly as its a subsection of production Mujinga (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Post-production

• won't - "will not"

 Done Rusted AutoParts 00:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• "DMR" - "DMR (Digital Media Remastering)" could also be wikilinked IMAX#DMR_(Digital_Media_Remastering)

 Done Rusted AutoParts 00:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• again this is just one paragraph so it doesn't need its own section

I have the same issue as Costume design. It's detail that can't really be included in another section other than it's own. Rusted AutoParts 00:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

sure, same answer as above Mujinga (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Soundtrack

• Tears in rain should be "Tears in rain"
• The last sentence can join to previous paragraph. I'm ok with this being its own section since it has a separate article

 Done all Rusted AutoParts 00:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Premieres

• This can be made into a single paragraph
• *October 3, 2017 - "October 3, 2017," with second comma
• is there a reason for it to be 1.90:1? Source says "1.9:1"
• Sony Pictures Releasing, who - "Sony Pictures Releasing, which"

 Done all Rusted AutoParts 01:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Prequels

• May 5, 2017 - "May 5, 2017," with second comma

 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Marketing

• This isn't needed.

 Done Rusted AutoParts 19:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Home media

• It should be Blade Runner 2049

Would "The film was" work too? Rusted AutoParts 01:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

sure! Mujinga (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• This is so short it doesn't need to be its own section

Home media typically requires it's own section. Rusted AutoParts 01:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It is a suggested section under Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film, I would argue it's so small it could be added elswhere, but I'm fine with your rationale. Mujinga (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Censorship in Turkey

• This is interesting but doesn't need its own section, maybe better under premieres.
• The scenes that featured nudity and sex were digitally zoomed. - source isn't really saying this, it seems to be saying nude scenes were cut

 Done all Rusted AutoParts 17:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Box office

• In this section "%" is used but in other places eg filming, "percent" is used, so that needs to be standardised across the article

 Done Rusted AutoParts 17:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Critical response

• This starts off well but goes on a bit long and some of the quotes aren't really necessary, for example the Graeme Virtue quote doesn't add much and we already have the Bradshaw quote from the same newspaper. It's good to have some dissenting voices at the end, so maybe consider purging the middle section a bit.
• 1927 Metropolis reads weirdly, maybe better "Metropolis (1927)", if it stays
• don't know if this quote is really needed either, but at the moment only on of "industrialist (Jared Leto portraying Wallace)" and "industrialist played by Jared Leto" is needed
• would be good to have some discussion of the 3D here, since i remember this being a hot topic when the film came out

Section presently under extensive overhaul by DAP. Rusted AutoParts 23:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

wow much better! i think this article is now approaching FA quality, where I would suggest adding some reviews about the 3D screenings, but that's not necessary for GA level Mujinga (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Interpretation of the final scene

• This can be moved into critical response.

 Done Cnbrb (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• The link to Telegraphing (entertainment) is not helpful

 Done Cnbrb (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Social commentary

• Great to see this section! I think it could be a subsection under critical response

 Done - moved to critical response Cnbrb (talk) 09:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• controversial aspects of the sex scene - a sentence explaining who is in the sex scene would be helpful

 Done Cnbrb (talk) 09:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• the last paragraph isn't really social commentary

 Done - moved elsewhere in critical response Cnbrb (talk) 09:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Accolades

• maybe add in Deakins as winner of the cinematography oscar
• this paragraph needs some citations

 Done all Rusted AutoParts 17:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Future

• not keen on future as heading

This one is a common formatting. It's mostly due to, despite the franchise being looked at to continue, a film sequel isn't guaranteed. By going "Future", we can tool it around any future developments, be it sequel or a show or comic, etc. Rusted AutoParts 02:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, i tend to refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film and I don't see it there, maybe it should be added. Mujinga (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

See also

• ok

Notes

• it's a good note, could be moved to "Interpretation of the final scene"

If I'm remembering correctly, it's placement in Plot was a result of putting an end to an edit war/multiple editors making an incorrect assertion about the ending. Rusted AutoParts 17:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

References

• referencing overall is excellent, just a few minor issues:
• https://deadline.com/2017/10/ryan-gosling-blade-runner-2049-harrison-ford-opening-weekend-box-office-1202183063/ (currently ref 114) lacking "author" and "work" parameters
• https://montrealgazette.com/entertainment/movies/masterpiece-or-flop-denis-villeneuve-plays-it-cool-in-face-of-blade-runner-2049s-tepid-box-office/ (currently ref 115) lacking "author" and "work" parameters
• https://deadline.com/2017/10/blade-runner-2049-ryan-gosling-box-office-bomb-1202184297/ (currently ref 116) lacking "author" and "work" parameters

 Done all Rusted AutoParts 17:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

External links

• ok

Overall comments

@DAP389: has had a major hand in the fine tuning of the article. Pinging to let them input. Rusted AutoParts 02:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. I’ll try to address these concerns as soon as I can. DAP 💅 21:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hiya @Rusted AutoParts:, @Cnbrb: and @DAP389:, just checking in as reviewer since it's been a week. I'm fine with the hold going on a bit longer since I can see the changes are being made, just ping me when the article is finished to your satisfaction. By the way, it's cool to see a few different people all collaborating together! Mujinga (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mujinga: hi, there's a few note i've left you in various sections. Rusted AutoParts 15:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Just made a couple of updates on the parts I was familiar with. It's quieter now that the culture warriors have stopped disruptive content deletions, which makes it easier to make constructive edits. Thanks for the feedback on the article.Cnbrb (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

That's still happening unfortunately. Just reverted another deletion of the social commentary section yesterday. Rusted AutoParts 16:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear. It does attract tiresome manbabies who can't cope with being exposed to views that differ from their own. How wearying! Thanks for reverting. Cnbrb (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

hi again @Rusted AutoParts:, @Cnbrb: and @DAP389:, on a quick look it seems the GA edits have tailed off and so i'm happy to do another run through on tuesday or wednesday. there have been some referencing changes (as discussed on the talkpage), as long as that's all consistent then it's fine. regarding the vandalism, perhaps it's worth getting the page semi-protected at some point. cheers, Mujinga (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I was just allowing some time for the other contributing editors to get their changes in (avoid toe stepping and such). I'll start up editing the page again tomorrow. Rusted AutoParts 18:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Alright. @Mujinga: I believe all the points have been addressed, and any points that need further discussion have comments left under them. I think @DAP389: has finished on the Critical reception section, so it should be good to be looked at. Rusted AutoParts 18:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

great, i'll have a look tomoro! Mujinga (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

going over it now Mujinga (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Rusted AutoParts: and also @Cnbrb: and @DAP389:, I am finishing the review and approving to Good Article status. I was expecting when returning to this review to find further work needing doing but the article has been much improved. I have left some comments above just now but nothing stands in the way of this being a GA. It's been a pleasure to see different people all working on the article! Further, it seems to me from its size and quality to be a viable Featured Article candidate. Mujinga (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Happy to have made a small contribution. Cnbrb (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Change to list-defined references

After Walter Görlitz's made me notice and according to WP:ILCLUTTER, I'm here in order to gain consensus to change the references from inline to list-defined. @DAP389 and Rusted AutoParts: you might be interested in participating. El Millo (talk) 03:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I prefer in-line. Easier to organize and read. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Check the way I did it. I use hidden text to separate the section in the References section. Isn't it best organized that way? El Millo (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I checked and you're using only <ref name=""> in the body and full references further in the {{Reflist}}. There are 160 reference and 39 of them are used more than once. If there's only one use of the reference, there's no need for a name, and it's easier to have the first instance named and all the rest reference that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

That what list-defined references are. It's in order to avoid clutter in the edit text. El Millo (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I know how they work; I know that they add unnecessary size to the article; I know that it confuses editors; but regardless, the change needs consensus. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Walter Görlitz, are you generally against list-defined references or specifically in this case? El Millo (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

1) Why are you making this about me and putting the discussion on your footing? It would be like me asking you if you're against WP:CITEVAR in general or just in this case? In short, I'm not answering your question as it's irrelevant to the problem you created.

2) Do not ever change comments left by others as you did in your last edit here. If I make a typo, point it out and I will change it, as I just did above. If it causes your editor problems, I might consider fixing it, but you might also want to consider changing your editor. Wrapping something in a code tags does not require a nowiki code as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz:

1. You're the only one that has participated so far, so I want to understand your stance better. Regarding WP:CITEVAR, I wasn't aware that consensus was required for a change like this.

2. I change them when it's something as insignificant as that, for example a <br> for a <br />. It's mostly just things that make the edit text be highlighted in the wrong color, as I have the Syntax highlighter activated. As it's not even a typo, I don't feel it's worth bothering the editor who did it, and it doesn't even change the way it looks in the published page. But if you want me to bother you then I will: please fix it.

I don't know why you're getting angry. I just want to know if you're against list-defined references in general, or if there's a specific reason why you're against making the change in this article. Understanding your stance is a step towards either I convincing you or you convincing me, since no other user has participated yet. El Millo (talk) 05:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I saw this, but don't really have a lot to say.

Yes, consensus is needed.

You should abandon your editor since it causes unnecessary coding to be inserted to make it work for its own use.

Just because I disagree with you does not mean I'm angry with you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I sensed anger in your refusal to answer my question about you, and assuming I had an intention other than understanding your point of view. A question which you still haven't answered. El Millo (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

After re-reading it, I can see that. It was more defensiveness than anger. Sorry for the confusion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Any other opinions here? El Millo (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Planning to eliminate citations to unreliable sources

I am specifically challenging this edit by User:MacCready on 22 March 2019 and this edit by User:TropicAces on 11 January 2018. It's clear the editors haven't properly reviewed Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and the result is very sloppy. As discussed in the Perennial sources table, Forbes Contributors are treated as self-published sources and are reliable sources only insofar as they are talking about themselves. Any objections? --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I hold no objection to removing the Forbes source, but IndieWire, /Film and Hollywood Reporter are all sufficient, established publications to cite the film being a bomb (it objectively lost money). TropicAces (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The sources don't seem especially problematic to me. In any case, the edits appear to have been made in WP:GOOD FAITH and don't merit a swipe at the abilities of the editors concerned. Maybe discuss the merits of each source and clarify why you think the Daily Telegraph or Hollywood Reporter fail WP:RS. Cnbrb (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I thought the citation to Perennial sources should have been clear enough in and of itself but apparently it wasn't. I am planning to eliminate only the citations to Forbes Contributors and statements based on those citations. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)