Talk:Halloween Ends

"Critics, who praised Campbell's performance"

Since this bit has been removed from and re-added to the lead, I'm opening a discussion here. Sampling the "top critic" reviews at RT, I see no evidence to suggest that Rohan Campbell's performance was generally "praised" (which is quite loaded language) by critics. There was some positive reception (The Detroit News, Evening Standard, Little White Lies, New York Post) but almost just as much criticism (RogerEbert.com, The A.V. Club, TheWrap). I suggest removing this from the lead again. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The article body does not support the language at all. The only usable language on a high level is the RT consensus with the following: "frequently befuddling installment that's stabbed, slashed, and beaten by a series of frustrating missed opportunities". We can paraphrase that, but we should not personally extract trends from individual reviews. We can search among reliable sources recapping reviews to see what trends they identify. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Erik, welp, it's been added yet again. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 10:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

It can be removed as WP:OR. I've added an inline citation to directly reference the Rotten Tomatoes critics' consensus. Anything outside that wording or paraphrasing should be reverted as unsourced content and warnings issued. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Erik, I'm hesitant to revert again because the only 3RR exceptions are clear cases of vandalism and violations of BLP policy as I understand it, none of which apply here. However, I did open a sockpuppet investigation for the user(s) who keep adding back the disputed material. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 13:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Throast, you think 66.249.122.34 might be another sock of User:VideoGamer123456? Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 14:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Dialmayo, almost certainly. IPs are not publicly linked to sockpuppeteers, however, so I don't exactly know how to go about that. I guess wait for them to breach 3RR and report them that way. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

First sentence

Regarding the first sentence in the lead section, I've made the case in edit summaries for prioritizing the franchise and related films instead of the directors and writers. This is outlined more fully here: User:Erik/Best practices § First sentences about films. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Budget

This seems to be another point of contention. This Variety article states the production budget was $20 million. This is corrected by another Variety article, published a day later, stating the budget was $33 million. Forbes and Collider support $33 million, and Deadline says $30 million. Overall, there seems to be broader support in reliable sources for the larger number, so I think $33 million should be reinstated. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Page intro-related

I just want to be clear on one part. When it came to the intro of this page, I was mentioning that Corey Cunningham had become a copycat killer when he was impersonating Michael Myers starting with his stepfather accidentally getting killed by his tormentors. This ought to count as a copycat crime. There have been copycat crimes in different TV and film projects before this film's release. I just wanted to let you people know that. --Rtkat3 (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The issue imo is that this is never explicitly mentioned in the film. Corey might just as well be Michael Myers's successor (as opposed to a copycat). Regardless, neither "successor" nor "copycat" are fit for a synopsis in the lead because neither are explicitly mentioned, either in the plot or in the development section. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)