Jump to content

Talk:Toy Story 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SNS (talk | contribs) at 07:19, 31 December 2018 (→‎Missing page history). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

.

This film was to announce start racing for him, you should not integrate it --Muhib mansour (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are unclear in your message. But let me tell you clearly: We do not create articles on films until they have begun production, per WP:NFF. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting

@Gellerman: Hi! Just a quick explanation as to why people have been redirecting the page and why TS4 doesn't have its own article yet.

The main reason for this is ultimately that production hasn't started on the movie yet, so all we have at this point are announcements that there are plans to make the movie. That by itself isn't enough for an article per WP:NFF, especially as the news so far is already covered in the main franchise article. Once production has officially started, the page can be restored from there. The reason for this is that sometimes films can sit in pre-production limbo for years and occasionally they never move beyond that, as they're either canceled or fall into a permanent development hell. Now when it comes to other movies having articles, the reason for that is that it's either that the film has started production or they fail NFF and just haven't been deleted yet. (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

I remember that Suicide Squad remained in the draftspace for at least a year or two before it could be approved to the mainspace. The same goes for The Last Witch Hunter, since I remember that being in development hell for an insanely long period of time to the point where I never expected it to get made. In other words, movies can stay as redirects or in the draftspace for a very long time.

I hope that this helps explain things! I expect that TS4 will likely be made, but it's never a guarantee and there have always been plans for films that were supposed to have been made and never made it past the announcement process, despite being announced by major companies. Heck, Disney has its own page of unmade projects that they announced. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to make sure this was explained. Tokyogirl got it. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that content of this article is being created by directly copying content from the source article without any of the required attributions required by Wikipedia content licensing - see WP:CWW. The content of this article at the time I restored the redirect was basically a direct copy with no changes from Toy Story (franchise) § Toy Story 4 (2018). There is a process described at WP:SPLIT that needs to be followed at least the part at § How to properly split an article Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (it's important to save a page about a film fans of the original might as well love as much as the other three) --82.36.108.145 (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 April 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to draft space since production hasn't yet begun when the script isn't even complete yet. Article can be moved back to mainspace once production has begun per WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC) ~~~~[reply]

Toy Story 4 → Draft:Toy Story 4 – The film is still in pre-production, as evidenced by the fact that Don Rickles died before he could record his lines, not too long ago, and more evidence comes here. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, not a valid reason for a move. Although Rickles death is sad, it is not necessarily a reason to cancel a film. There are plenty of sources, and unless it is cancelled, I don't see a single WP:P&G not allowing it to exist. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 08:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:NFF states, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles". Regarding animated films, it says, "reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced". Anyone on my side? --Kailash29792 (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kailash29792, if you are in favor of the move, then you should !vote "Support", rather than merely comment. Softlavender (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the one who started this discussion, I did not feel the need to put "support". It would have been like High fiveing myself, or liking my own FB status. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then your opinion will not count when the final consensus is tallied and assessed. (If you'd prefer to remain completely neutral, then that's what you have achieved by not !voting. If however you have a strong opinion, you should !vote.) Softlavender (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The projected release date is more than two years away. It's not even in production, so per WP:NFF this article should not exist. Just put any important info on the main article and move this article to Draft space. (Could also redirect this title to the main article's section on sequels, if desired.) Softlavender (talk) 12:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Edited to add: The script has not even been completed yet. Softlavender (talk) 08:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NFF: In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced. Clearly, given the info stated per Rickles death, the film is still being developed and has not entered the production phase. Let the article be developed in the draft space until such a time (as there is a good amount of useful info here already). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Softlavender and Favre1fan93. Too premature to have a stand-alone article when production is not underway. Many projects in development tend to stay that way for a while. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Per WP:IAR, I don't care what silly rules have been conjured up at WP:NFF. The underlying principle is that the WP:NOTABILITY of any given topic is determined by usage in reliable sources. We clearly have plenty of that for this topic [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. --В²C ☎ 20:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a false claim. WP:N is a guideline and specifically states, "A topic is presumed (emphasis mine) to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline." Regarding the presumption. WP:GNG says, "'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Wikipedia is not news, and based on film industry trends, being in development rarely equates guaranteed production. We cannot take routine news headlines about specific activity to develop a film and retroactively treat that itself as a tangible topic; it is the film that is being written about. If there is no film, the headline-based information is particularly indiscriminate. If a film does start production, it is very likely to be completed and be written about, especially per WP:PLOT, treating "works of fiction and art in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works". Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a false claim. Regardless of an equivocations added to the language in WP:N, the underlying principle is that the WP:NOTABILITY of any given topic is determined by usage in reliable sources. Also, there is no requirement for WP article topics to be tangible. A conception for a film, if covered sufficiently in reliable sources, is enough. It's the coverage in reliable sources that is crucial - for that is what makes the topic likely to be sought here in the first place. The "not news" point is a red herring. That just means we are not obligated to cover topics immediately like news sources do. But if there is sufficient information in the news a week ago, a month ago, a year ago or a decade ago, it's a viable/notable topic for WP. I see no reason to make an exception for topics so covered that happen to be films that were never produced (or never started filming, or whatever). --В²C ☎ 23:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is a false claim. The problem is that you want Wikipedia to present Toy Story 4 as an upcoming film, having a film infobox, a "Synopsis" section, a "Cast" section, film-related categories, etc., yet it is only in development. Feel free to argue for a "historical" article that writes about the development of the film as plain text, but we should not falsely claim that this is an article about a film. The news coverage is not reported with an encyclopedia in mind; it is routine news reporting within the film industry, and that reporting is more valuable to the topic—the film itself—if it is ever actually made. Otherwise, you're just compiling news coverage indiscriminately. News of this development is notable because of the franchise itself and can be summarized in the broader article. We should not mislead readers in presenting a film article when there is no film nor a strong guarantee that there will be one. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong Forum. This is a pseudo-deletion discussion. Close and list at WP:AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point. And the absurdity of the idea that this article deserves deletion (or removal from mainspace) would be made immediately obvious in an AfD discussion. --В²C ☎ 01:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no serious case for deletion, per WP:BEFORE, and the obvious option of redirect to Toy_Story_(franchise)#Toy_Story_4_.282019.29. WP:NFF is an excellent guideline that has worked for many years. I'm not sure if it is great for animated movies. The principle underlying is that the topic is real, not speculative, when and only when the bulk of the money is committed to be spent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The script has not even been completed yet. I'd say that was a pretty good case for deletion/redirection. I realize now that you appear to be advocating that the article be redirected (as opposed to taking this to AfD), so I have stricken the preceding. Softlavender (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC); edited 08:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah. Like you said. Redirect to mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • The question of whether to deal with a given topic in its own article or as a subsection of another article usually depends on whether there is enough material for an article. There clearly is in this case. And such a change means the history won't follow the material into the "parent" article. Doesn't make sense to me. --В²C ☎ 19:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close This is not actually a requested move. This either AFD or a request for merge. This discussion should be immediately closed and resubmitted through the proper channel. JDDJS (talk) 03:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The claim that this should be under WP:AFD or a merge discussion is false. At this point, it is completely possible that the film will start production and thus warrant a Wikipedia article for the ages. By returning the page history to the draft space, the page can continue to be curated. There is no interest in discarding the content in its entirety nor hiding its history entirely behind a redirect to the relevant section on the franchise article. At this point in time, this development history is too indiscriminate to warrant a stand-alone article if a film is not for sure. A summary section can be written based on the draft since the news stems directly from the fame of the franchise, and the draft can be returned to the mainspace if production does start. If it never does, and that is always a real possibility in the film industry, then the summary section can be maintained for the long term. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether the film is ever produced is irrelevant at this point - that point being that the topic is sufficiently likely to be sought by users for us to have an article about the topic in main article space. If nothing else, this is where users can learn of the status of the project, it's demise, or whatever. --В²C ☎ 15:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose and speedy close – Most films that are in pre-production that have articles on Wikipedia do not have "Draft:" in front of the title in general. 76.116.198.27 (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that you do not understand what is being requested here. The request is to remove this article from Wikipedia article space, and place it in WP:DRAFTS space where it will not be visible as an article. Softlavender (talk) 13:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate the clarification. However, I still oppose because this article talks about a movie that is about to come out, so I don't downgrading it to a draft would be appropriate. 76.116.198.27 (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The movie does not even exist, and the script has not even been completed. It is not "about to come out". If it ever ends up existing (which per WP:CRYSTAL there is no way of telling), it won't come out until 2019 or thereafter. Softlavender (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All of which is information which is appropriate to cover in an article in main space. --В²C ☎ 00:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would violate WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. Any pertinent information can be briefly summarized in the article on the main film. Softlavender (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL governs material equally whether it's in a subsection or in a separate article, so that's immaterial. I'm already down for ignoring the silly rules at NFF, per WP:IAR. You seem to think a film article must be about an actual film. A potential film is however a valid topic, if appropriately covered in reliable sources. --В²C ☎ 16:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • SEE ALSO this discussion about moving this article from DRAFT space in June of last year[6]. --В²C ☎ 19:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — or should I say Strong support, since judging from people saying "Strong oppose" that must make my opinion matter more, right? In any event: If we start doing articles for every movie that gets press just for plans being announced, we're just going to have WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:CRYSTAL clutter. This content would be much more useful to readers if it were incorporated as an "Announced sequel" section of Toy Story 3. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing new to this. WP:NFF applies. The sources proffered are poor. There is no content in them beyond what belongs at the parent article. This page should be redirected. Drafting poor content is a mistake. Using RM to draftify is a mistake. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Missing page history

Some edits (I believe going back to 2016) got removed in the recent move/delete process (seen here and here). Shouldn't those edits have been preserved for attribution? Or do they get restored when the page is moved into the mainspace? The talk page also used to have more stuff than what is currently here. Should that be restored?  AJFU  (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course that should be restored. In fact, the draft should never have been moved into the mainspace in the first place; then we'd still have all these revisions preserved. ----Kailash29792 (talk) 06:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have restored the talk page contents. As for restoring the missing revisions, is there a particular place to make such a request? Or do I simply contact the administrator who deleted the edits? Thanks.  AJFU  (talk) 07:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to main space

With the release date now confirmed for June 2019, it's time to put this in the main space. — Film Fan 23:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except it's not. As per WP:NFF, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date." Regarding animated films, it says, "reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced." Where's proof that those have happened for this film? --Kailash29792 (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does it really matter? That guideline is there because sometimes planned films don't happen. There is exactly a 0% chance of this film not happening. — Film Fan 19:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course it matters. You are just being over-optimistic. We do not create articles for films that only have release dates. We only create articles for those films which have at least gone through production, whether they have a release date or not. Because sometimes over-ambitious people announce projects (without even a cast, crew or script), but such projects don't even get coverage for being shelved. In this case, Toy Story 4 was announced in 2014 for a 2017 release, but as of January 2018, they don't even have a complete script. As mentioned by Tenebrae over here, "If we start doing articles for every movie that gets press just for plans being announced, we're just going to have WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:CRYSTAL clutter." ----Kailash29792 (talk) 04:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not being over-optimistic. Even if that release date were to change again - which it won't - the film is happening. It should have a Wikipedia article. — Film Fan 10:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Hey there. Here's a brief summary of my recent edits:

  • Edited the introduction, etc to be more consistent with the other Toy Story films (for example, noted significant cast changes here). See Toy Story 3 for reference.
  • Shortened this and latter sections to make more concise. For example, the portion about Lasseter mentioning no plans for the film contained a redundancy. Also found some examples of inconsistent tense, corrected those.
  • "D23 Expo 2015", "2017" need to be written the same way each time, corrected similar inconsistencies.
  • There is no Wikipedia article for Galyn Susman yet. Until then there needs to be some knowledge of her history with Pixar.

If you have any questions regarding my recent edits to this page, please let me know here. I'll have a better opportunity to look at the page again later if you have any comments/concerns etc. — MOC1105 8:08 pm, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

G-rated for the fourth movie

Is there going to be rated G for Toy Story 4? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.77.96.200 (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the first trailer, it says "this film is not yet rated." --Numberguy6 (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Potato Head

I have heard that Alan Tudyk is set to voice Mr. Potato Head. However, I cannot confirm it. Am I correct? --Numberguy6 (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a few unreliable sources that state this, but no corroboration with RSes. So it should be omitted until verified. --Masem (t) 02:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On Bo Peep

I know that the draft reported in 2015 mentioned the script would involve Woody etc. looking for Bo Peep, but since there's been a major rewrite as of 2017, we cannot assume this is the same script any more. We have details from the two teasers and their press releases, but we should only off those until more details are given. --Masem (t) 02:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 15 November 2018

In the Premise section, more specifically "...wanting to be spork...", there should be an "a" between "be" and "spork" so it says "...wanting to be a spork...". MrHumanPersonGuy (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be "wanting to be a spork", but the article is currently locked for only admins to edit. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Fixed. Fish+Karate 13:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Toy_Story_4&oldid=876116212"