Talk:Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2

Plot summary

@Binksternet: Per WP:BRD, I'm bringing the discussion here. When you have been reverted, it's customary to discuss the changes you are trying to make instead of forcing them through multiple reverts. If you look through the article's recent history, you'll see that the plot summary has been trimmed down from 900+ words to the 740 range it's in now. That is a significant improvement and nearly in compliance with WP:FILMPLOT. More work can be done, of course, and your edit is extremely counterproductive. How hard is it really for you to work on trimming it further as opposed to wiping the entire section out? I'll do the legwork this time around, but for future reference, I suggest you either do the work yourself or move onto another article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to do the legwork. I have done that kind of work on a few film articles[1] but I never saw this one, so I would not have been able to write a brief summary myself. Binksternet (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen it either. I simply took the material that was in the section and trimmed the fat, rephrasing as needed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Then maybe I should ping Koala15 who was the first person to write a too-large plot section,[2] or maybe I should ping JShanley98 who, five hours later, expanded it even more.[3] These people probably saw the film, and could be expected to be able to compose a shorter version of the plot, one that is less than 700 words. Binksternet (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The plot summary is already less than 700 words at this point. Even without having seen the movie, it was not difficult to remove unnecessary details. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I restored one sentence that shouldn't have been left out. I don't want to make it too long any more than the rest of you, but I still think there are some details that should've been kept in. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

If we feel it's an important detail, that's fine. I shortened it quite a bit, however, since it was mentioned a few sentences earlier that Paul and Eduardo settled their differences. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

"Just The Facts"

Two rarely active accounts, Greenleaf547 and now XPingtronX, have arrived to promote a podcast.

The first account was used to boldly add the material. I reverted it as primary sourced material. Rather than discussing the issue, per WP:BRD, they have restored it. The second account was also used to restore the contested material without explanation.

Yes, someone has a podcast. I hope they have fun with it. I'm sure it exists because the texts links to it four times in one sentence. Wikipedia is not the place to promote you podcast.

I'm sure it is "the first ever annual eternal podcast".

It's the "first ever" as it is the most firstest ever in the whole entire history of the universe ever.

"Annual" is important to separate it from the run-of-the-mill weekly and monthly eternal podcasts.

It is, of course, an "eternal" podcast as the discussion of the movie never seems to end. (Dude, dontcha just totally love the part when that guy knocks over the other guy and he's like, "Aaah! You knocked me over!" That was really funny.)

It will continue forever. I mean, they've done it "every" year since 2015 -- in each and every one of the three without any misses at all, ever. Surely future scholars will form divergent schools based on theories of the evolution of their "thoughts feelings and opinions" (that that, Oxford comma!) on this cinematic tour de force or, dare I say, "tour de farce"?

They've even "insured" that it will continue. Lesser podcasts would have merely taken steps to ensure it continued, but this one apparently went one step further.

Those mere mortals foolish enough to doubt their resolve through sophomoric trickery involving the relative flow of time and/or time dilation through gravitational effects should note that this epic production "will continue until the end of linear time." No freshmen, they.

To restore this material, please provide independent reliable sources for the byzantine word salad. Thanks. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

- Secondary Source

No promotion is taking place, just the cold hard facts.

XPingtronX (talk) 05:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

References

A transcript of a podcast is not a secondary source to say something about the podcast. It says what the podcast says.

"...insuring the podcast will continue until the end of linear time" is not a fact of any temperature or Brinell score. It is pretentious puffery. My niece said she wanted to visit us every Saturday night to make cupcakes "forever". It was cute. She was 8. If she's still saying that when she's 16, I'll be pressuring my brother to get her professional help.

Someone has a podcast with a gag they've repeated twice. They want to promote it. That's not what Wikipedia is for. - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, another blog mentioned the blog. Blogs are not reliable sources. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Have any reliable sources reported on this? Like The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, or CNN? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Other Media Section

Hello! I believe it would be worthwhile to add an "Other Media" section to this article for the podcast "Til Death Do Us Blart" the podcast is released once a year around Thanksgiving by the McElroy Brothers from the My Brother My Brother and Me podcast who are joined by New Zealanders Tim Batt and Guy Montgomery from The Worst Idea of All Time podcast. The premise of the podcast is the hosts will watch the film Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 once a year every year and discuss their feelings on it year to year. Below I have linked several articles from websites discussing the podcast. Please let me know what I can do to get this added. Thanks! Because this podcast is actively supporting this film I believe this is a worthwhile addition to the article XPingtronX (talk) 03:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Possible pro-hotel editors

I noticed some odd wording in the text of the article. I'm wondering if some of the pro-Wynn wording was put there by associates/employees of Wynn's businesses. I took out what I saw as the most glaring examples but there may be more work to do. Someone with some spare time could investigate where those edits came from.

To be fair, the film is intended softly as an advertisement for the Wynn resort. Some of our sources are also effectively marketing for the movie and resort. So it's not impossible that a neutral editor would incorporate a secondary source that is glowing about the Wynn hotel. A lot of hay is made in the article about PB2 being the "first film shot at the Wynn hotel". I did my best to put that into context, but I could see a case either way for it being pointless marketing or it being a notable aspect of the film. Anonymous-232 (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)