Talk:Black Panther (film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Critical Reception--Blocking of Reviews

Rotten Tomatoes has been cited here as a consensus of positive reviews...However the site and many others blocked ALL negative reviews of the film for months and only lifted the ban recently. Without mentioning the banning and blocking of negative reviews by said sites and papers, the mention of the high critical praise is disingenuous and misleading. Black Panther has universally high praise, but low praise was not allowed by many sites and sources, making a situation where it could only have universally high praise.

For reasons of transparency and fairness, I do believe that the blocking and banning of negative reviews of the film should be mentioned in under the critical reception section. For a long time the film had a 100% fresh rating in Rotten Tomatoes...and when all the poor reviews are blocked that is the ONLY result that could happen. Furthermore, in order to get their reviews read through said sites, critics were forced to praise the film or have their reviews blocked.

To state the high praise of the film, without pointing out that ONLY high praise was allowed, is fairly misleading and endorses censorship....

....furthermore, the deletion of my posts requesting this is ALSO censorship. 2601:240:10C:E0D5:F4F6:DC8A:7F4D:6039 (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source verifying that RT intentionally held off the publishing of negative reviews?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your posts weren't deleted, they were archived at Talk:Black_Panther_(film)/Archive_1#Should_Article_Have_Negative_Review_Comments_From_Rotten_Tomatoes.. The community has heard your views and rejects them. It does not appear at all that Rotten Tomatoes censored professional critics who know what they're talking about, but rather that they simply chose to ignore alt-right neckbeard trolls who were upset that anyone besides a white guy gets a turn at being the hero (without bothering to see the movie, which would be kinda hard through their pointed hoods anyway). Your failure to incorporate that information that into your narrative is your problem, not ours. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

No, that is factually incorrect, they are NOW allowing negative reviews, which is why BP has fallen from 100% prior to that fall they disallowed said reviews. You are looking at it from a political right v left view, which would only really apply to American reviews. If that were the case they would not have blocked the negative reviews from outside the US for as long as they did. AND, they wouldn't have objected to the first negative review, from Ireland, criticizing the film for a lack of action, as being politically motivated. The fact is, you are turning it into a political left-right issue when it's an honesty and censorship issue. 2601:240:10C:E0D5:F4F6:DC8A:7F4D:6039 (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

You keep making all these claims, and yet you present no sources. Also, alt-right isn't simply right-wing, they're Nazis who pretend they're not Nazis whenever it's convenient, so I'm not making this left vs right. It is a fact that alt-right trolls were and are trying to lower Black Panther's score on Rotten Tomatoes (as they did with Last Jedi). For you to continue to deny that would either require that:

A) You choose, out of willful ignorance, to support a campaign by alt-right trolls.

B) You ARE an alt-right troll.

One of the many reasons those alt-right shits are so disgusting is that they'll pretend to be in group A whenever they might face any trouble for being in group B, because the tiny shriveled specks they call testicles and the feeble string of nerves they call a spine are not enough to get them to honestly stand up for the evil stupidity they fight for.

Now, are you supporting alt-right trolls, or are you an alt-right troll? Which is it? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

1 billion dollars

Black panther has made 1 billion dollars world wide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3AF5:3C30:F5F1:DA3F:227D:2EF4 (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

That might be worth including, if there's a source for it. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

[1][2][3] --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Cool. No objections from me. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

That is worth including, but IMO the article is painfully overdetailed in the "box office" section (this is in no way unique among similar articles), and I hope as time goes by, it will be more summary style, more like "This film made a shitload of money rather quickly." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

@Popcornduff: Before we get ourselves into more trouble, can we discuss your edits? You are making weird and unnecessary changes to the lead, and your interpretation of WP:FICTENSE is incorrect. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'm confused. When you said in your edit summary "don't revert entire change for small issues", that sounded like you were telling me to restore those "small issues" independently of the other stuff you wanted to revert. Which is what I just did.

Anyway, I rewrote the lead to trim unnecessary words and details. For example, "directed from a screenplay by" becomes "written by" - same information, fewer words. Likewise, we don't need to say the film was "officially announced"; it was simply announced.

As for WP:FICTENSE, it would be helpful if you explained what I'm misunderstanding, instead of just telling me I'm wrong. Popcornduff (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't realise that your issues with my edit were the whole thing, which is why I said what I did. I generally find "directed from a screenplay by" to be better because it doesn't make it out as if directing and writing are completely separate things, especially when the article clearly doesn't support that. I also find the new version of the second paragraph to be strange, removing important bits for comprehension, moving elements around unnecessarily, etc. We need to focus on what is best for readers—"mentioned" may be technically correct, but it reads as something different to "first mentioned", and "officially announced" is needed since we already talk about other versions of the film being announced earlier.

As for FICTENSE, it tells us to discuss a film's plot in the present tense since it is always taking place whenever someone watches it. But within this plot, there are a couple elements that happen in the past relative to the main story. So you will see in my version of the plot summary we discuss everything in the present time with present tense, but things that happen before then are discussed with past tense. Otherwise you are trying to say that things that happened before other are actually happening in the present, simultaneously. That doesn't make sense. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

All films are "directed from" screenplays (when screenplays exist, at least), so if there's something special about the writing and directing of Black Panther discussed in the article, the phrase doesn't illuminate it.

Snipes saying he wanted to make the film in the 90s is not "announcing" it. Perhaps you disagree there, but the point is rendered moot by rewriting the sentence in the active voice anyway: "Marvel Studios announced the film in 2015." Adding "official" here adds no information; if Marvel announced it, then readers can assume it was official.

Regarding the plot stuff: I haven't seen this movie. But bear in mind that articles should be accessible to readers unfamiliar with the subject matter. To me, as a reader who hasn't seen the film, the first paragraph suggests it opens with a sequence depicting the origins of the Wakanda nation and the Black Panther character. If that's the case, it should be written in the present tense as per WP:FICTENSE. If these events are instead described later in the film through secondary exposition such as dialogue, relative to events in the present, the past tense might make sense - but the current structure doesn't imply this, so even if the past tense is "correct", it creates strange reading, and something needs to be fixed. Popcornduff (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I never said this film is unique. I would recommend the "directed from" wording for all film articles. I am referring to the otehr instance in the lead where it already says that the film was announced. And the opening sequence is indeed a recap of the origins of Wakanda, which is clearly the telling of past events before the actual film begins. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Then from the sounds of it the present tense is correct and WP:FICTENSE applies. Just because it's a prologue doesn't mean it should use the past tense.

The two mentions of the film being announced were removed in my edit, because it's confusing without further explanation. Additionally, as both announcements came from Marvel, they're presumably both "official"... so using the word only for the second mention is not only redundant but confusing. Popcornduff (talk) 12:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll throw in my two cents as far as post- and mid-credit scenes is concerned. @Popcornduff: please check previous 17 MCU films. This is a 'thing' and, even if only for continuity's sake, should continue to be mentioned as such.SassyCollins (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I question the logic of continuing to do something simply because we've done it 17 times before rather than it being a good thing in itself. Whether events take place before, during or after credits sequences is completely irrelevant to plot, the thing we're supposed to be summarising. Anyway, that's not the bit we're arguing over here, and it's not currently part of the article. Popcornduff (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Chiming in here. I'm the one who performed the full rewrite, fixing things such as Erik's role in the plot, mentioning the burning of the herbs, Klaue and Erik's relationship prior to Erik killing him, etc. If there are specific issues that some of you feel need fixing, please let me know and I can patch them in. However, fully reverting a rewrite that I spent a good deal of time on is incredibly disrespectful, especially when the old version has many long-standing issues. Buh6173 (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Buh6173, you have done the same thing to other users that you are complaining about. Unfortunately, not everyone is going to get the summary that they want. Popcornduff, FICTENSE says the summary should be relative to the characters rather than the audience. From the perspective of T'Challa and the majority of the film, the prologue and flashbacks to the 90s are past events. That is why they should be told in past tense. If we make out like they are happening within the same perpetual present as the rest of the film then the readers are just going to get confused. Even plot summaries need to logically explain the passage of time. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I've read through FICTENSE, and it says nothing of the sort. All it mentions is that all actions should be treated as the present when describing the article. Within the context of the movie, the "present" is 1992 when we see everything up to Zuri revealed himself, and then later on the "present" is Zuri's explanation of past events. If we just dropped an explanation of past events later on, that wouldn't make any sense, but through the context of Zuri's explanation, it makes sense. Furthermore, you appear to be the only one in favor of full reversions. If you want to clump all of the 1992 bits into one paragraph, you can discuss that, but don't undo all of the other changes made at the same time. Discuss issues you have on a case-by-case basis rather than slamming that "Undo" button. Buh6173 (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Works of fiction are generally considered to "come alive" for their audience. They therefore exist in a kind of perpetual present, regardless of when the fictional action is supposed to take place relative to the reader's "now". Regardless of when things happen to the reader, the prologue and 90s stuff a very clearly flashbacks as presented in the film.

I would also suggest you have a read of WP:STATUSQUO, it is considered good manners to maintain the pre-disagreement version of the argument while a discussion is taking place rather than everyone insisting on keeping their version and continuing the edit war instead of talking. I strongly recommend that you self-revert your latest change to the plot summary and leave it be until consensus can be reached.

If the final consensus is not to interpret FICTENSE as I have been doing it, I would still be very much against using the version of the summary proposed by Buh6173. A simple reworking of the version that myself and Popcornduff have been working from is all that is needed. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

From what I could tell, @Popcornduff: has generally been making tweaks to my rewrite rather than reverting to the older version. Also, while the 90's stuff is presented in flashback, it is presented in two flashbacks with very different information imparted in each, hence why splitting it into two halves is crucial. It would only make sense to lump it all together in the article if it all happened at once within the film. As FICTENSE says, since the film exists in a perpetual present, events must always be described in the order they're described in the movie, and in the movie, the flashback is cut in two. Also, from where I'm standing, WP:STATUSQUO would apply in my favor, as my edits did not come from a disagreement, but rather cleaning up the article for improved editability, and recklessly hitting "undo" would be better described as the point of disagreement. Ergo, the pre-disagreemnet state would be after I made my edit, prior to everything being undone.Buh6173 (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagreed with the bold change you made to the edit summary. That is when the dispute began, which is why the status quo is before that happened. And no, we don't present scenes only in the order they are in film. That's not how plot summaries are written. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I prefer the version by Popcorn and Adam. Also per WP:FILMPLOT: “Lastly, events in the film do not have to be written in the order in which they appear on screen”.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

"And no, we don't present scenes only in the order they are in film. That's not how plot summaries are written." That's kind of exactly how plot summaries are written. Events happen in '92, then events happen in the present day, then Zuri explains more events from '92. Simple as that. Also @TriiipleThreat:, just so you know, from what I can tell @Popcornduff: was working off of my revision, so there is no version by "Popcorn and Adam", there's the version by me and Popcorn and then there's the old version Adam keeps reverting to. Now then, at the risk of yet another full-undo occurring, are there any other issues you have with the current version outside of how the flashback is structured within the summary? Buh6173 (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I haven't been following this discussion very long so I am not exactly sure who the authors are but between this and the current version, I prefer the previous version. That's not to say that either is perfect. Also we appreciate your time and effort but this a collaborative process on a recently released film so I am sure by time the dust settles the plot will look totally different.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

It appears to me that consensus is starting to form in the direction of restoring to the version of the plot seen here, but potentially altering the tense in the first two paragraphs. Further changes would obviously happen from there, but with this as a base. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

It looks like TriiipleThreat has gone ahead and made some tweaks to the existing version, and the current version on the page looks perfectly fine. If there are any other changes you'd like to recommend, please make them, but don't wantonly reverse all edits. Buh6173 (talk) 08:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Still think we need to rewrite the first part in the present tense as per WP:FICTENSE. Does anyone other than Adamstom oppose this? Popcornduff (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Just because I made some changes doesn’t mean that the current version is perfectly fine. I still think we go back to the previous version as a base and go from there.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, can you express what issues you had with that version? Because so far all I'm hearing is "I like that version more", and unless you can give concrete changes you'd like, that doesn't really help. Also I wouldn't be against rewriting the first part in present tense; that was past tense in both versions and I'm not against fixing that if you feel strongly about that. Buh6173 (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

My main concern is that there was a lot of overwriting; wordiness, unnecessary details, etc. The previous version just had less of that. I have since to tried to meld the best of both versions, though I am sure I can still find some areas where it could be cut back further.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, if there are any specifics, please feel free to point them out. But the older version failed to mention that Klaue was working with Erik prior to Erik's betrayal (which is important), how T'Challa deduced Erik's connection to him (also important), and so on. Buh6173 (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything largely wrong with the plot as it is when I'm writing this comment. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It's just the little things, as both versions are largely similar. I agree with Triiiple that there is just some general overwriting that wasn't present before, which makes the summary feel sub-par compared to our usual standard. I think restoring the plot to what it was before, changing the tense in the first two paragraphs, and then a few minor tweaks for where points may have been missed would be a good compromise and easy enough to do. That way we could move on from this discussion and focus on actually editing the page. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Enough edits have been made to the existing version that undoing all of them would undo a lot of work. Best to just leave it as is and clean it in individual spots if you feel it's warranted. As for overwriting, once again, feel free to point out any specific instances where this can be fixed, as being vague helps no one. Buh6173 (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I think we have gone for more than long enough without any movement in this thread, so I am going to be bold and follow the clear leaning of this discussion, despite Buh6173's determined fighting, and restore the plot with the tense changes suggested by Popcornduff. I'll also try to catch any good changes made recently to the current plot summary, so hopefully we will get the best of both. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Actually I think we are in a really good place now. Could you perhaps draft your change first so we can compare.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I've made the change now for all to see. Feel free to revert my change if you still want to discuss. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

That was what I was afraid of. This version was 698 words, a number of editors have since worked it down to 611. I don’t mind rearranging the structure as long as we can keep the count down.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The limit is 700. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

That doesn’t mean it needs to be 700 words. The spirit of the guideline is not to make it anymore verbose than it needs to be.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Still, being longer doesn't seem like a major issue given it is better written. And as we have always said, this isn't going to be the final version of the plot, just a better base to build from than the one championed by Buh6173. Also, if we were to decided to keep the current version rather than the one that I changed it to, I would be giving it a thorough c/e to bring it up to our expected quality level which would likely make it similar to this other version anyway. Why not just go with the one that we can all see is better, and work on getting the size down a bit from there? - adamstom97 (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

How about you userify it first so we don’t disrupt the article. I’d be willing to help out. Then we’d have something better to compare by before making a decision.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't really want to keep making a big deal out of this. If others are happy with the plot I wrote here then I would support reverting to that. If not, then I suggest we end this discussion and just work on the plot normally. I haven't been touching it due to this discussion, but if it ends then I will go ahead and give the live version a c/e as I would usually do. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Awards and Nominations page?

Black Panther nabbed 14 nominations at the Saturn Awards[4]. Shall we go ahead and create one, or wait until later? MsScorpioMoon (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Later, 14 noms from one group, hardly justifies its own page.-TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Should the reference to Hanuman and its censorship in the Indian release be mentioned?

https://www.dailyo.in/lite/arts/cbfc-black-panther-hanuman-hinduism-superheroes/story/1/22487.html
http://comicbook.com/marvel/amp/2018/02/21/black-panther-censored-in-india/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/03/12/what-india-can-learn-from-black-panther/
http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/hollywood/black-panther-hanuman-muted-not-cbfc-5075192/lite/
https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-religion-of-black-panthers-jabari-tribe-raises-ques-1823354320/amp
https://duta.in/news/2018/Feb/19/hindu-god-hanuman-mentioned-in-black-panther-1.html

Finally got around to seeing the film last night and the odd conflation of Africans with Hindus struck me about as much as all that was good about the movie. I wish I could say I was surprised that our article didn't already discuss it, but honestly I'm not. Has it been discussed?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I have seen it mentioned elsewhere on the internet, but I'm pretty sure it hasn't been brought up here. From what I can tell, all that really needs to be noted, if anything, is probably a line in the release section noting the censorship and reason. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

See, I think that kinda misses the point. Making it about "those wacky Indians" and their prioritizing sensibilities about a word over "free speech" dismisses the problem that the film itself (appears to?) ignorantly conflate the cultures of India, Sri Lanka and Bali with that of its own fictional west/central/east African country. In an article on censorship in India, that might make sense, but this article is supposed to be about the film, its content, and how said content is received. Unlike, say, a random episode of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. where the most noteworthy real-world aspect about the topic is that it conflated Oslo and Dublin or implied that its producers thought Japan had a nuclear arsenal, this isn't quite the single most noteworthy thing about the whole topic, but it is at least as noteworthy as the "thumbs up or down" opinion of any of the random Anglophone critics quoted in the reception section. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Uh, I didn't say anything about "those wacky Indians". I just said that, from an objective perspective, this doesn't seem to be a big deal. If we had sources saying this caused wide-spread outrage, or if the filmmakers responded to these in some way, then that may justify having more on the subject. But as it stands, there is an admittedly odd line in the film which has been censored in one country. This probably just on the right side of trivia to be included. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

You referred to the problem as "censorship" by the Indian government; this rings very heavily of how some western media dismiss the concerns of other cultures whose symbols they have appropriated -- those wacky Indians. I didn't say you had specifically talked about the issue in that light, just that the way you seem to want to write it into the article would read that way to me, and probably most other people familiar with the problem. And again, the opinions of any random cultural critic in India are just as noteworthy as the opinions of any random film critic who gave it a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down", so all we need is a single RS talking about how weird it is that Wakanda apparently has an ancient tribe of Hindus despite being ... somewhere in Africa (this film contradicts previous references like the director's commentary on Iron Man 2 and possibly Age of Ultron). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, according to this Quint article (which was basically mirrored in The Hindustan Times) Marvel specifically put it into the film to please Indian fans, but it was removed (with "beep" rather than a cut in the film like I had assumed) to avoid hurting religious sensibilities because it's implied that Hanuman is a gorilla rather than a monkey. I apologize if it turns out I was wrong and no reliable source has called the film out for cultural appropriation (the closest I've found is HT quoting an overseas Indian fan wondering why the Jabari would worship a Hindu deity). That said, pointing at it as a weird curiosity that a number of critics mentioned, that some overseas Indian viewers saw as empowering, and that led to the line being censored in India (but apparently not Sri Lanka..?) to avoid offending religious sensibilities due to the apparent confusion of monkey and gorilla would be just as good as far as I am concerned. Simply claiming that a reference to a Hindu god was censored in India because of religious sensibilities would be off-the-mark and would actually be more "anti-Marvel" (if one wants to frame it in terms of the film being "good" or "bad") than pointing out how the reference was apparently included specifically as a positive shout-out to Indian fans. Ideally in the long-run some reliable sources would show up that point to the possible connection between the CBFC apparently overreacting to this and the obviously-inflammatory "Vishnu is an alien" thing AOS pulled back in 2013, but that's a long-term concern. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

This is the first I’m hearing of it as well. On another note, there’s been reports of racially insensitive feedback from the Chinese release and white nationalists co-opting the film in support of their views. Although I’m not sure if they are suitable for the article per WP:UNDUE.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I did notice the somewhat uncomfortable message of "Black people using what they have to take over and dominate white people is a bad thing"; I doubt that was intentional given the overall theme and plot, but I can definitely imagine anyone from white supremacists to Afrocentrists reading it that way. I definitely think the Chinese stuff would UNDUE pending better sources, as if you click the links (you don't need to read Chinese; I barely do) it's all WP:USERGENERATED: if we go by what internet trolls say, every country in the world is filled with nothing but racist idiots. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this is not the place to spread the words of racist trolls, though we should still be careful to present an unbiased coverage of responses to the film in the reception section, including not filtering everything through a leftist/liberal perspective. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the more important concern is not filtering things through a "leftist/liberal" perspective (which would only make sense in an American context, and while this is an American film Wikipedia is supposed to present a global perspective) than presenting it through a "those wacky racist Chinese" perspective. I don't see any reliable sources saying the Chinese response to this film was particularly negative or that this response was motivated by systemic racism, any more than that Japan has used panty vending machines on every street corner (something one also reads in a lot of "reliable sources"). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

"M'Baku and the Jabari arrive to reinforce T'Challa."

This element does not really make sense here without specifying that it was a surprise reveal after they had previously refused to help, as a reader of our plot summary who hadn't seen the film would wonder why the Jabari didn't come with them in the first place. Simply removing the sentence as a cool moment that is not really necessary to an overall summary of what happens in the film would work, or we could expand on the previous mention of the Jabari by saying they initially refuse the call for aid, but the current version is nonsense. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Misattributed quotation

"redemptive counter-mythology" is Cobb's wording, not Gathara's, and Gathara quotes Cobb in order to disagree with him. In other words, when he places those words in quotation marks, he's using them ironically, which is something we are not supposed to do. Attributing them to Cobb inline as is would be awkward, as we quote Cobb directly further down; maybe move Cobb up or Gathara down, and say (as an example) that Gathara disagrees with Cobb's notion of the film as providing a "redemptive counter-mythology"...? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

That's entirely possible there are errors in that section with attributing. So go ahead and adjust if you found one like that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Pre-sale ticket records

This section needs attention with Avengers: Infinity War numbers now released. Some of the statistics are off or just quotations which are no longer accurate. -Wolfenstein3D (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Just because it got surpassed, doesn't mean the information did not happen to this film. The article is written in a way where it doesn't matter what happens in the future - it still obtained these records. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

You're right, after looking over it I see that it won't need to be altered until the release of Infinity War and subsequent records it may set. The Impartial Truth (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Specifically, In its fourth weekend, the film surpassed $1 billion, becoming the fifth MCU film, sixteenth Walt Disney Studios film, and 33rd film overall to do so. The Impartial Truth (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

That also is still true even if Infinity War reaches that mark. No other film will be the 5th MCU, 16th Disney Studios, or 33rd overall to reach that point. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Highest grossing movie in certain regions

The mention of these certain regions has been called random by some, but this is not WP:SYNTH and they are all mentioned together in this source.[5] --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

When I said random, I meant since when did we divide up continents to come up with new records? I just thought we generally based our box office info on actual countries. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The African continent is pretty loose in terms of box office reporting, ie it isn't generally by country but by the regions on the continent. So this is correct, and not random and should be noted. However, it should be included in the "Other territories" subsection which I will do. Also see that the terminology has been used previously in that section by Deadline. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Surpassed Iron Man 3

Black Panther is now the third largest Marvel movie, after Avengers and Age of Ultron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.84.106.186 (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

and the Biggest Superhero movie of All Time in North America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.84.106.186 (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

HIGHEST GROSSING SUPERHERO MOVIE IN US HISTORY

Why is the page not being updated with this fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.84.106.186 (talk) 07:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Box office projections for unreleased films

Because I mentioned this article and its inclusion of box office projections before the film's release date (well, a prior version of the article when the film was yet-to-be-released) while opening a discussion at WP:FILM, I am notifying this page of such discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Box Office Predictions. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect Info

I'm a huge fan of this movie and am always checking to see when it's coming out on DVD and I seen it said in the Home Media section that it will be released on DVD and Blu-Ray on March 15, which I believe is a mistake. I think it should be May 15th considering the digital download of the movie will be released on May 8, 2018.GeekyGirl85 (talk) 05:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:Reliable Source? Maybe you are thinking about another country? Glad you enjoyed the movie. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: I believe this was a simple mistake that has been corrected in the article already. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Interesting source

This source looks interesting [6], do you lot have any thoughts on if we could use it? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2018

I suggest that you include the fact that Black Panther was rated the greatest superhero film of all time by Rotten Tomatoes. MichaelTetris (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

 Already done This is already in the article under the "critical response" section. LittlePuppers (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Question About CGI Effects

The intro for the article states that the film was mostly well received, although it did receive some complaints about its CGI special effects. I do not know if this is true or not, but when I read the section in the article about the film, it said nothing about this. If it is brought up in the intro, it should be expounded upon in the section on criticism. 128.187.116.27 (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I've removed it from the lead. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It shouldn't have been removed. I know I read criticisms about the CGI as well. If we just remove stuff for which references should be provided then Wikipedia would be 3X - 5X smaller and much less useful. Instead of just removing a valid statement, why not actually do the work to confirm (or not) that the statement is appropriate? Because it requires you to do work and it's much easier to destroy/remove than add/create?98.21.221.175 (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

No, Favre is right. The statement violated WP:V and should have been removed. The WP:BURDEN for providing citations is not on him, but on the one who wishes to add it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Should the demographics be further contextualized?

I'm a bit concerned that the figures given at the end of the second paragraph of the "Black representation and analysis" section might be misleading if not compared with the overall U.S. population or the normal filmgoing audience, since in a vacuum it could read like "yeah, but there were still more white people". Thoughts? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it is that problematic, since it does try to acknowledge the difference between the usual black audience and this one. Perhaps it just needs a slight reword to put more emphasis on that fact rather than appearing to emphasise that more white people than black people watched it (which I guess isn't what the point was...). - adamstom97 (talk) 10:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

PR pablum much?

The statement in the lead:"In Black Panther, T'Challa returns home as king of Wakanda but finds his sovereignty challenged by a new adversary, in a conflict with global consequences." is accurate but reads like it was copied verbatim from the PR department. How about something like After the murder of his father (depicted in Avengers -whatever), T'Challa returns home as heir-apparent but his right to the crown is challenged by his cousin, N'Jadaka. His cousin is crowned king and institutes an aggressive globally destabilizing foreign affairs policy. Down, but not out, T'Challa recovers and strives to save his home country and the world. Or something like that.98.21.221.175 (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Because its just a basic premise. It really shouldn't be longer than a sentence. Readers can find a more detailed summary in the plot section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I dunno -- I would say it's not even technically accurate: he returns home, and is then enthroned following an elaborate succession ritual, in which he is challenged -- this is a fairly significant portion of the film's runtime, so wording even our basic premise to completely gloss over it when we don't even need to is problematic. How about replacing "returns home" with "is enthroned" or "returns home as" with "is crowned"? This would not fully address the IP's concerns (which I am sure are mainly about "global consequences" -- I sympathize, but can't think of a good solution), but would at least not create emphasize the continuity connection to Civil War, which honestly does look more like marketing than anything that we need to say in a synopsis of this film. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Would the following, simple wording solve both problems? In Black Panther, T'Challa returns to Wakanda where he is crowned king, but finds his sovereignty challenged by a new adversary. I don't think the global consequences part really needs to be mentioned for the basic premise. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

See, the problem with that is that it looks like it's referring to M'Baku. I'm wondering if ... challenged by his previously unknown cousin wouldn't be better. I also don't think we should open a brief plot synopsis with him returning to Wakanda, as that implies it was following a long absence: if cutting it would make the sentence too terse, maybe we could add in ...following (or after) the death of his father. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's another idea:

In Black Panther, T'Challa is crowned king of Wakanda following his father's death, but his sovereignty is soon challenged by a new adversary with plans to abandon the country's isolationist policies and begin a revolution that will invert the world's existing racial order.

Well, it's a start anyway. It's a tad longer than I'd prefer probably. Further improvements/suggestions are certainly welcome. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind that if we cut it after "policies". - adamstom97 (talk) 05:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

That works; I'm not a fan of the somewhat euphemistic-sounding "existing racial order" but I can't really think of a better substitute under the circumstances. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Is too long. Perhaps you just say a In Black Panther, T'Challa is crowned king of Wakanda following his father's death, but his sovereignty is soon challenged by a new adversary who plans to abandon the country's isolationist policies and begin a global revolution. TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

If we are really worried about the length (I am, btw) then why not just In Black Panther, T'Challa is crowned king of Wakanda following his father's death, but his sovereignty is soon challenged by a new adversary who plans to begin a global revolution. I think that gets the main points across. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm actually fine with any of those follow-up suggestions. TriiipleThreat's seems like it would work fine. It's not as long-winded as mine was! --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Are we OK with TriiipleThreat's suggestion, or does anyone have a preference for adamstom97's? I'm seriously fine with either at this point. Pinging some of the other regular contributors here to get some closure, thanks: Hijiri88, TropicAces, Favre1fan93, Popcornduff

I’m fine with either.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Fine with either. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Went ahead and added it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I still think it is a bit long, but it is a definite improvement. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Box office peak positions

In going through the article in prep for GA nom, I was curious about this. Generally, in any box office rankings, we state the peak position reached during the full theatrical run, because that will never change. However, this is the first MCU film to still be in theaters while another comes out and is directly affecting many of these rankings. So I'm curious if we should adjust what we are presenting here to ultimately be the final position once BP leaves theaters (which also won't change), or maybe include both, "absolute" peak attained, as well as what the position was once it left theaters with a note that it was because of IW. Thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is with just using peak like normal. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, peak seems right. Props to Favre1fan93 for the clean-up. Thanks personally for your patience and guidance, as I am learning every day. It's appreciated. SassyCollins (talk) 09:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Budget

Apparently Feige stated, "The budget for Black Panther was bigger than Doctor Strange, Ant-Man, Captain America: Civil War..." The budget for Black Panther is currently listed at "$200-210 million" while Civil War is "$250 million," so there would appear to be a disconnect somewhere. Either he is mistaken (he does later point out he is "bad with numbers") or the publicly-reported budgets are way off. Is there something that can be done with the listed budget or will it remain unchanged until a different figure is public? Gerontophobe (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, we know it has a bigger budget than Doctor Strange, Ant-Man, and the other Captain America movies, so the sentiment is true even if he slipped up with the exact numbers. Additionally, he may be referring to overall, including promotional budget which we don't necessarily have included in our numbers and may cause the ranking to differ if that was being considered. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Minor issues after major GAN clean-up

Adamstom.97 The following sentence in the fourth paragraph of Visual effects-section seems incomplete: Much of the work for the final fight including crowd simulation, with Method working alongside the stunt coordinators in motion capture sessions to give each Dora Milaje or Jabari fighter their unique fighting style.

My bad, "including" should be "included" there. Does that clear up the confusion? - adamstom97 (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Adamstom.97 Cheers! Awesome work on the article to get GA. SassyCollins (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Starring

Considering the article is in process to being Good Article, I have a question; I added Sterling K. Brown, Florence Kasumba and John Kani, but they were removed. I confirmed that they are credited among the rest of the main cast before adding them. Or my understanding of a billing block is very different from everyone else? The films billing block was the one that credited major crew members and cast, not the one with a detailed list of actors and other crew members. Thank you all. — Nyanchoka : talk 2 me 07:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The billing block, as referred to here, is the section of text at the bottom of the film's poster that details the main cast and crew for the film. Those actors are not included in that listing. There are obviously lots of different cast listings for films out there, so the consensus is to generally stick with this one across film articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Now I'm enlightened. I used the top-billed actors from the screen credits. I have read the Template:Infobox film, now I get it. @Rusted AutoParts: thank you for removing the information, it was purely unintentional.— Nyanchoka : talk 2 me 13:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

One of the best reviewed movies

Can we add that Rotten tomatoes lists it has the best reviewed film. Also best reviewed superhero film in both Rotten tomatoes and metacritic. Ashokkumar47 (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2018

black panther is no longer the highest rated superhero film on rotten tomatoes, as it is beaten by spiderman into the spiderverse. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spider_man_into_the_spider_verse/ Icecubeyachty45 (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I have adjusted the wording so we are no longer saying that it is the highest rated. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

I took a look at the "Cultural importance" section (apparently the "post-release" section that has the least amount of direct quotation) of the GA-reviewed version of this article, which does not appear to have changed much, and found the following closely paraphrased text:

• the film's way of endorsing the crushing of armed revolt against oppression
  • Source: a politically “woke” film that straight-up endorses the crushing of armed revolt
• the film avoided black pain, suffering, and poverty, usual topics in films about the black experience.
  • Source: We’re not dealing with black pain, and black suffering, and black poverty” — the usual topics of acclaimed movies about the black experience.
• Child development expert Deborah Gilboa felt the film would make a huge impact on children's spirits by offering positive role models.
  • Source: Child development expert Dr. Deborah Gilboa told TODAY Parents that seeing "Black Panther" could indeed make a huge impact on children's spirits. "Kids need role models
• This was the most diverse audience for a superhero film ever, for which African-Americans generally make up 15% of audiences.
  • Source: Black Panther drew the most diverse North American audience ever for a superhero film. [...] Generally, black consumers make up around 15 percent of the audience for such fare. (Note that the critical phrase "North American" has been removed, changing the meaning in a fashion that violates V, but putting it back would make its wording even closer to that of the source.)
• Joseph said the film was a rare opportunity for underserved children of color to see a major black comic character brought to film.
  • Source: Joseph calls the release of "Black Panther" a "rare opportunity for young students (primarily of color) to see a black major cinematic and comic book character come to life."
• encouraged others to create similar campaigns for their communities
  • Source: calling on others to start similar campaigns in their own communities
• GoFundMe created a centralized page for anyone wishing to create a campaign for the challenge.
  • Source: GoFundMe has also created a centralized page so that anyone, anywhere can create a campaign for kids in their region to watch Black Panther.
• Women in Entertainment Mentorship Program, which is executed in partnership with Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Los Angeles
  • Source: The program, now in its ninth year, is executed in partnership with Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Los Angeles. (This is obviously not from the reviewed version -- I accidentally closed the tab with the July permalink and collected the quotes before noticing the anachronism resulting from my mistake.)

Some of these could probably be fixed easily, or are very minor and could probably be overlooked if it wasn't for the overall presence of so much closely paraphrased text (the last quoted example, for instance, is short enough that it probably couldn't be paraphrased all that much better than we currently do, and even if it could no one would notice if it weren't for things like us taking a source that says Child development expert Dr. Deborah Gilboa told TODAY Parents that seeing "Black Panther" could indeed make a huge impact on children's spirits. "Kids need role models and using it to write Child development expert Deborah Gilboa felt the film would make a huge impact on children's spirits by offering positive role models.I'm tagging the section as including an excessive amount of close paraphrasing, and the tag should not be removed until all the close paraphrasing has been removed. I will also be looking at the other sections, and if I find they have similar problems to this one, I will be opening a GAR (since, frankly, even just the above should be enough for the page to be delisted automatically). Hopefully this article -- which is, honestly, on my favourite film in my favourite film series -- can be saved, but it will require cooperation and consensus-building, not to mention serious critical source-checking, which was apparently lacking in the original GA review, which doesn't appear to have noticed this at all.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Earwig’s COPYVIO detector only returns two sources with an elevated risk of COPYVIO and one of those is an Wikipedia mirror, the rest are within the acceptable range. That said, the examples you listed can easily be corrected l.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

You can't rely on automated tools for this stuff. Any educated human can read the above quotes and see the close paraphrasing. "within the acceptable range" is an interesting turn of phrase, given that just yesterday an entire paragraph was lifted near wholesale (from a primary source published by one of the production companies) by Favre1fan93 (talk · contribs) (who it turns out was copy-pasting text onto the site as far back as 2012[7][8]) and needed to be revdelled almost immediately. And there's the stuff that I found at The Defenders (miniseries). When 80% (?) of the article body is primary-sourced plot summary or a quote-farm, and the rest contains a significant amount of close paraphrasing, that is a very, very serious problem. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 18:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

That is the automated tool suggested for use during GA reviews. If you removed a paragraph yesterday, then the tool wouldn’t have picked up on it today. Also I have no idea what is going on in The Defenders article.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: That is the automated tool suggested for use during GA reviews. I went through a whole lot of abuse from Adamstom.97 and JohnWickTwo, the latter of whom I'm convinced was either a JoshuSasori sock or a troll deliberately trying to undermine the GA process, for saying the article definitely had problems and should not pass GAN until those are addressed. Now I find out that the article had obvious plagiarism problems that should have caused an autofail, and you are wikilawyering over the fact that the broken-ass tool doesn't recognize it? Were you guys (I don't know who originally added each of the above) trying to trick the tool by moving the words around so we use all the same words as the source but in a different order? The tool also seems to ignore segments that are only a single sentence long (?), making it useless for articles that cite a different source every other sentence. Segments of text like the above "Child development expert..." are clearly unacceptable, regardless of whether an automated tool recommended at GAN recognizes it. Wikiblame (apparently a more reliable, semi-automated tool) attributes it to F1f93 with this edit; if he's responsible for all of this (and this Defenders nonsense -- thank you for asking, and sorry for not explaining up front; I saw you had edited the page 37 times and assumed you were following the GAN) then I think this might need to go to WP:CCN; I hope I can count on your assistance in tracking down all the plagiarized text -- F1f93 has made almost 46,000 mainspace edits, and while reverts and edits marked as minor are probably the vast majority of those (I'm estimating about a quarter are marked as minor, and a quick search of very recent non-minor ones indicates about 40-50% include "revert" or the like in the edit summaries, but I can't find an efficient way of checking more comprehensively) this is still a very BIG problem for the project, particularly for the articles he edits a lot -- his top ten most-edited articles are all MCU-related. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't even look at my edit now since it was removed, but I'm pretty sure it was not as dire as you're making it out to be, because everything was basically in my own words or quoted when I pulled exact phrases. But sometimes there's only so many ways you can word something. An example, if a source said something like (for the VFX) "Our team contributed to Black Panther, working with the production team on the visuals of the opening prologue and main-on-end titles" are you going to make an issue out of it if the article stated "[Company name] worked on the opening prologue and main-on-end titles for the film" because six of those words are "directly pulled" from the reference article? I'm feel like you're trying to make an issue where there isn't one, especially in singling me out for no apparent reason. Taking specifically one of your example you're claiming is an issue: Child development expert Deborah Gilboa felt the film would make a huge impact on children's spirits by offering positive role models.. To start, you're saying "Child development expert" is "clearly unacceptable". Well, Giboa needs to be identified so doing "Child development expert Deborah Gilboa" or "Deborah Gilboa, a child development expert", is virtually the same thing (and something I'm guessing you'd take issue with too). The only directly pulled piece of info from that source is make a huge impact on children's spirits, essentially 5 words. I'm not denying there may be a few sentences that could use adjustments, things fall through the cracks sometimes, but at least this "Child development...." one doesn't seem to be an issue. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I can't even look at my edit now since it was removed, but I'm pretty sure it was not as dire as you're making it out to be, because everything was basically in my own words or quoted when I pulled exact phrases. The exact quote is on TonyBallioni's talk page, as you well know. It was every bit as bad as I say, and worse still than any of the stuff cited above. An example, if a source said something like (for the VFX) "Our team contributed to Black Panther, working with the production team on the visuals of the opening prologue and main-on-end titles" are you going to make an issue out of it if the article stated "[Company name] worked on the opening prologue and main-on-end titles for the film" because six of those words are "directly pulled" from the reference article? A single noun phrase is generally not a problem, but what you did was different. Most of the text was lifted word for word, and any changes were along the lines of changing Our team contributed to Black Panther, working with the production team on the visuals of the opening prologue and main-on-end titles to The visuals of the opening prologue and main-on-end titles were worked on by [company name] in cooperation with the production team It has come to my attention that, apparently, the copyvio detection tool doesn't notice changes like this, which would not be a serious issue if we could assume that you were going to learn from your past mistakes and never plagiarize text again, but you don't seem to be listening. I'm feel like you're trying to make an issue where there isn't one, especially in singling me out for no apparent reason. You've made this complaint about me in several places now, so I've taken it to your talk page. Basically, no; if I wanted to target an editor with trumped up copyvio accusations, you would not be the one I targeted. Giboa needs to be identified so doing "Child development expert Deborah Gilboa" or "Deborah Gilboa, a child development expert", is virtually the same thing (and something I'm guessing you'd take issue with too) No, if the rest of the sentence was appropriately paraphrased, I would not have a problem with you not changing the description of who Gilboa is. I actually went through the whole section, found other parts that were like that, but decided not to cite them here since they would be acceptable if it weren't for things like these ones. The only directly pulled piece of info from that source is "make a huge impact on children's spirits", essentially 5 words. No, that is unacceptable. There are plenty of ways you could paraphrase that sentence, and if you are not going to do so then it needs to be marked as a quotation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

CGI criticism

Since it's receiving nominations for visual effects category, can we remove "though the computer-generated effects received some criticism". Ashokkumar47 (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2019

Marija Abney, Janeshia Adams-Ginyard, Maria Hippolyte, Marie Mouroum, Jénel Stevens, Zola Williams, Christine Hollingsworth, and Shaunette Renée Wilson also play Doras. 49.204.209.83 (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done I've linked Janeshia Adams-Ginyard. In future, please format your request in the style of "Please change X to Y". NiciVampireHeart 17:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Jamie Broadnax

In § Critical response it says "Jamie Broadnax of Black Girl Nerds". I suggest a link to Jamie Broadnax, and maybe also Black Girl Nerds. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done: I've linked Jamie Broadnax. I did not link Black Girl Nerds, since it redirects to Broadnax's article anyway. NiciVampireHeart 19:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, makes sense. Thanks. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2019

Change "John Marzano served as cinematographer for aerial footage of South Africa, Zambia, Uganda, and South Korea". To "Marzano Films www.marzanofilms.com was the aerial film director for all aerial footage taken over South Korea, South Africa, Uganda and The Victoria Falls and Zambezi River in Zambia for the entrance to Wakanda, using Eclipse XL HD & Mini Eclipse cinematography equipment mounted to helicopters". Websitemagpie (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I will note that this request seems overly detailed for this article in my opinion, but provide your source and it can be reviewed. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Still  Not done: The source you've provided doesn't support the information you're requesting to be added. It does name the Eclipse and Mini Eclipse as the systems that were used, but as I said before I think that's too much detail for this article. Beyond that, the source doesn't say that Marzano was responsible for all aerial footage in those locations. It doesn't mention any specific locations such as Victoria Falls or the Zambezi River, nor that the equipment was mounted to specialist helicopters. The article does already mention his aerial footage in all four of these countries. Again, if you can provide reliable sources that directly support your request, please feel free to do so. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Amended to shorten the text and included new reference material to support changes. It is very important that "John Marzano" is changed to be his company name "Marzano Films" and credit the company with the work carried out on the making of this film and the locations they filmed in, please see above. Websitemagpie (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing still an issue

Our article: Black Panther premiered in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on April 18, 2018, marking the first public film screening since movie theaters were banned in the kingdom in the early 1980s after ultraconservative religious standards were introduced in 1979. [...] The film premiered in a newly constructed 620 leather seat cinema, owned by AMC Theatres, in Riyadh's King Abdullah Financial District that (sic) was originally intended to be a symphony hall. (Note that "newly constructed" is OR not supported by the source -- the two cited sources conflict on whether the theatre is a converted symphony hall or was "intended" to be used for that purpose, but neither actually says the building itself was new -- and "that was", while probably not technically ungrammatical, is very poor, awkward writing that was apparently done in a weak attempt to create the illusion of appropriate paraphrasing. Technically, Black Panther premiered in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on April 18, 2018 is also unsourced, since we are not allowed cite a source written in the future tense for a claim that something happened in the past.)

Cited source: The “Black Panther” bow will mark the first screening of a film release in the kindgom since movie theaters were banned in the early 1980s, after Saudi Arabia adopted ultraconservative religious standards in 1979. “Black Panther” will inaugurate the new Saudi era in a luxurious cinema in a building originally intended to be a symphony concert hall. The facility, in Riyadh’s King Abdullah Financial District, has more than 600 leather seats,

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: - Have my edits addressed your concerns mentioned above? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Sorry to be late. For whatever reason I don’t seem to have noticed your ping. If I recall, I was quite busy last month -- maybe I saw it, thought I didn’t have time to click the link, and so put it off till later. Anyway, what the article needs is a thorough check for all potential plagiarism and OR, and until someone does that I don’t think the article can safely be considered “clean”. The same goes for the other “MCU” articles F1F93 has extensively edited. (Actually, plagiarism might be limited to F1F93 -- if we assume that the "That's not plagiarism" comments do not themselves indicate a poor understanding of our copyright policy in a manner that would merit the assumption that they themselves have copy-pasted text -- but the OR problem is something I've noticed with Adamstom.97 as well, or even more so.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

No need to apologize - everybody gets delayed some time.

I understand that you think the whole article needs a once over, but are you satisfied about the specific example above? I want to make sure my revisions are meeting your standards before I put in any additional effort. Argento Surfer (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, those edits basically work. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Delisting

What was the basis for delisting when Argento Surfer promised to address the concerns raised just one day earlier? According to WP:Good article reassessment, reassessment discussions should typically not be closed when there is a comment 2-3 days older, unless five editors have commented in favor of delisting, or the consensus is clear. Neither is true in this case. Only two editors have participated in the discussion. Maybe the discussion was missed as it wasn't in the same section as the GAR? DeluxeVegan (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Pinging concerned editors @Hijiri88, SNUGGUMS, Adamstom.97, Trailblazer101. DeluxeVegan (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed such a promise probably because it was placed outside of the GAR, but as I said there, over 3 months had passed and there were no objections to the article being delisted in that period. There conversely had been a delist vote. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it wouldn't do much harm as the article can be GA again after the concerns are addressed. DeluxeVegan (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The 2-3 days old comment was a tendentious one made by one of the editors responsible for the copyright infringement (this IDHT -- "that's not copyvio, but even if it was you should just blank it and then the article will be fine" -- was what prompted me to take the article to GAR). Insisting the article cannot be delisted as long as one editor doesn't want it to be delisted unless an overwhelming majority (5-1) have supported delisting seems a bit unreasonable. Several GANs in this topic area have been failed because of issues I and others brought up, and then without attempting to address those issues the articles were renominated and auto-passed: the bar is already far too low for GANs so setting it so high for GARs would be unhelpful. And in this particular case the original GAN reviewer was an obvious troll (and probably a sockpuppet), who wanted so badly to pass the GAN that he started a harassment campaign against me when I opposed it, so delisting should have been a simple, open-and-shut procedural matter rather than something that took the better part of four months to process -- the bar was already set too high, and you (DeluxeVegan) had almost four months to express your opinion on the GAR page but decided only to show up immediately after the GAR was closed? I mean, I didn't wait until the GAN had passed in order to show up and start complaining -- I opposed promotion first, was harassed and name-called and threatened, and then the page was promoted, but it wouldn't have been totally out-of-line for me to watch the GAN unfold and then suddenly decide to publicly complain once it closed with the result that it was obviously going to have but that I didn't like.

And again, I don't see AS making such a promise. I see him saying he doesn't want to go around doing thorough source-checks on this and all the other MCU film articles (he appears to have come here from Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Marvel Cinematic Universe films/addition4) until I clarify whether that one minor check was adequate in my opinion, and I honestly don't think my opinion amounts to much; what we really need is a large number of editors who understand textual copyright, recognize the problem with these articles, and pledge to fix them, and I simply have not seen evidence of that at any time in the last seven months or so.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

And if the above the article can be GA again after the concerns are addressed is meant to imply that the article will automatically be re-promoted, unfortunately that is not how it works. It will need to go through GAN again, and preferably not only the unambiguous copyvio but also the quotefarm problem (which was part of the GAR rationale) and the POV and instability issues (which were raised and ignored in the original, insufficient GAN) and the cast section problems (which are shared by other articles in the "series", were raised here, ignored here, and of course ignored in this article's GAN) will need to be addressed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

A few points of clarification: First, I was alerted to the issue because it appeared in the current activity box at WT:Comics. Second, while I'd like to get these issues cleared up, I cannot commit to doing so in any reasonable amount of time. I'm still working on a GA review I started in mid May. Third, clearing up copy-vio isn't something I can do easily because my computer has a content filter that blocks sites it classifies as "entertainment". I was only able to address the item above because User:Hijiri88 was kind enough to provide quotes. Finally, I asked for his opinion on my edits because he was the one who expressed concern. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Relisting

Could we ask TriiipleThreat to help bring back the article to Good Status? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheHistoryBuff101 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

You may want to ask @Hijiri88:.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@TheHistoryBuff101: You need to address the issues raised in the GAR. It's not complicated. (As an aside, you may want to do a thorough source-check and sweep for copyvio on the Captain Marvel (film) article, which I see you GA nominated a few days ago.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2019

Please change 'hastag' to 'hashtag' - I assume this is a misspelling and not a new term. Thank you. Nomwiki1 (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Done Argento Surfer (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit

For film entries, the Costume Designer should be listed before Music Composers according to film credit hierarchy. Black Panther Costume Designer, Ruth E. Carter won an Academy Award for this film and should be noted not just in text but up front. If there is a template for Wiki film listings the Costume Designer should be noted. DB Costumes (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I added a link to the Blank Panther Disambiguation page but it was quickly reverted by TriiipleThreat as "not needed". I disagree, the reason I added it was because I searched for "Black Panther" on a popular search engine and the first thing that came up was this page, when what I really wanted was the page on the animal. I believe that is exactly what a disambiguation link is for, and that it is an appropriate and minor improvement. Without it, I had to do a second search to find the proper page. Gwiffon (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

If you are looking for the animal and clicked on "Black Panther (film)" then that isn't the article's problem. I agree with TriiipleThreat that it is not needed. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

You could use that argument ("search better!") against all disambiguation pages and their links. Instead of assigning blame, think about improving the page. A lot of people went to the trouble of creating and maintaining Black_panther_(disambiguation), which currently points to 24 different related articles, including this one. I think it's a reasonable expectation that this page would link back to it. What is the harm in adding the link? Gwiffon (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

This page currently links to the 1977 film, but not the 1921 film, or the TV series. That seems pretty arbitrary and inconsistent. If you're concerned about too many links, I suggest removing the link to the 1977 film and replacing it with the disambiguation link instead. Gwiffon (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

If you use a popular search engine to find a Wikipedia article instead of Wikipedia's search box, I think "search better" is good advice. That aside, I see no reason to keep a hat note pointed at one other Black Panther article instead of link to the broader DAB page. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)