From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Barsoomian, it would be very gracious of you to self-undo let it go on the Shirey ref. It appears Gothicfilm has accepted the article as is without it and it is not necessary to lean on it for any particular. Your undoing Gothicfilm might be considered by some as stretching a point, but your self-undoing letting it stand would be considered very magnanimous. Thanks for hearing me out. JJB 04:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Gothic is deleting this ref, misrepresenting it and talking shit about me in his edit comments. "Barsoomian (talk) First you go against consensus, now you're going against WP:RSN "still a no from me." This source is talking about comics, not the films.)" If he'd read beyond the headline, he'd see that it is about how the comics fit into the film "history", and as these comics are suthorised by Fox, that is authoritative, it's not just a fan on some random forum. It's relevant to the discussion, if not a direct statement that that can be cited for inclusion, so I did remove it from the list cites. Despite again Gothic's false accusation:"WP:RSN#Prequel's call "Shirey still a no from me" and Barsoomian's claim on Talk to have "omitted" the bad sources, this was still here half a week later."
He seems to be trying to provoke me into incivility, having failed to challenge the listings on their merits, maybe he wants to get me banned. I note that he still maintains ownership of any article related to the Apes films, deleting any reference, however cited, that mentions the word "prequel". Anyway, out of respect for you I'll let his abusive edit and shit-throwing comments stand. Expecting him to reciprocate in any way except by deleting every mention of any Apes film the moment he thinks he can is a bit Pollyannish.Barsoomian (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Why thanks for the compliment. Yeah I tried an edit at Planet of the Apes (franchise) to see if anything would happen, and Gothicfilm reverted and then came back here and deleted Shirey. Yeah I recognized (and the edit summary barely permits recognizing) that you had deleted Shirey from the table and kept it in the text, and that was not worth a fuss then, and it is not worth a fuss now with it not being in the text either. It's my view that the Shirey mention of "new prequel" means that the films were prequels in context, and Despayre stated that it could mean simply something new that's also the first prequel, and I think you're also reading "prequel" separately from the facts of the history; and those competing exegeses will not be settled without OR, so I'm not sweating it. Keeping WP:COOL and not going uncivil is important. The original content question being resolved (albeit if on a hairline fracture) is important. Gothicfilm is not going to delete again unless there is a new source argument, and if there is then WP:BRD discussion is appropriate to see if the new consensus changes or is the same. But our extending the prequel content question into other fora, as shown by Gothicfilm reverting me, is probably unimportant. Sorry if I was stoking the pot: but a couple of sidelong edit summaries are not worth losing sleep over. Best keep distance and, if there is another content disagreement, get other editors involved quickly. JJB 05:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This after the blatantly false charges Barsoomian made against me. I pointed them out long ago on this page, even providing a diff showing how they were false, and neither of you ever responded, despite having lots to say about everything else. Now Barsoomian wants to talk about civility? And what part of "Shirey still a no from me" does he not understand? That from Despayre at WP:RSN#Prequel. He didn't say "Go ahead and use it in the prose." - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

See response at your talk. I try not to respond to comments about the contributor rather than the contribution. But feel free not to cool down. JJB 06:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
How convenient. You don't say anything when the one you're advocating for is laying out false charges. And you're the first one I'm saying this to: Feel free to stay off my Talk page. Keep it here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
What "false charges" are you on about now? What do they have to do with you sniping at me in edit comments? The request I put on your Talk page were not about Prequel, they were about your inappropriate edit comments about another editor. Barsoomian (talk) 06:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Actually I just spent pretty much the entire time between that last post and this looking for that false charge and that diff you provided. I seem to remember them vaguely, and I found several of your references to it having happened, but I haven't put my finger on the event itself. If you do have a link handy that'd be great. If you still want to contest the current article status or the RS judgment or something, that'd be great too. I don't believe I've been uncivil to either of you. But generally article talk pages are not for comment on contributors, so if you don't have something directly related to Shirey or this page, I may not respond here. JJB 06:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Having also looked, I guess he's talking about how he rewrote the definition in the lead to suit his personal belief, while still citing it as sourced to a dictionary. I called him on that. Barsoomian (talk) 06:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Earlier, well above this, you made a false charge against me, claiming I'd misrepresented the dictionary, and claiming I'd been "caught" at it. This did not misrepresent the dictionary entry. In fact that dictionary said a literary, dramatic, or filmic work that prefigures a later work, as by portraying the same characters at a younger age. So if anything I was lessening it toward your POV. I had to respond to that with a diff proving otherwise. I also had said something about a definition you didn't like on the WT:FILM page, but not in any article. You never responded to either of those parts of the thread, much less admitted you were wrong, and now you've repeated it. Either you're delibertly making false charges, or you're very sloppy with your charges. Either is a violation of WP:Civility. - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
So, it was the the dictionary. The facts speak for themselves, you misquoted it. Glad that's sorted out. Barsoomian (talk) 07:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
More of your garbage. There was no misquote. Anyone looking at what I did will conclude you are misrepresenting it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 08:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this intentional misrepresentation by anyone. Here is the original insertion with "It usually portrays"; Barsoomian replied that that was an inaccurate gloss of "as by portraying", which is a correct reply; Gothicfilm then properly changed it (properly lessening it) to "The definition may include that a prequel portrays"; Barsoomian did not say "caught", but did go on by saying the inaccurate version "would justify his [G's] own prejudice". Presumably Barsoomian had not at that point realized that Gothicfilm might have made an unconscious inaccurate adjustment to the dicdef rather than a deliberate self-justifying distortion. This is a very very trivial matter; but it's certainly appropriate for B to apologize for attributing G's error to deliberation, or for G to apologize for attributing B's lapse to deliberation. It's also appropriate to drop it. I suppose you could fight a duel too, hadn't thought of that. JJB 08:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC) Oh, and rather than drag this point to another page while you are watching, please see WP:BLANKING about user talk. JJB 08:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You're the one taking these discussions to other pages. I haven't done anything inconsistent with WP:BLANKING. Barsoomian ought to read it. A user can delete sections off their page. I don't get enough entries there to set up archiving, which isn't required anyway. And Barsoomian did say I had been "caught" on this Talk page.
And if I had wanted the above to back my POV, I would have used the actual quote: a literary, dramatic, or filmic work that prefigures a later work, as by portraying the same characters at a younger age. But instead, because I don't believe that would be an accurate definition in all cases, I did the responsible thing and qualified it with usually - but not as a quote. What Barsoomian did was irresponsible, and you should have called him on it then. - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
It's fact that Gothic did change the quote to reflect his prejudice. I cannot divine if this was a conscious decision or if he was in a fugue state, but he did it nonetheless. I "dropped it" weeks ago. That issue (of the definition) is resolved. I don't owe him an apology. It doesn't justify his inappropriate personal remarks in edit comments, which, unlike Talk pages, remain prominently visible forever. Barsoomian (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Gothicfilm, you haven't done anything inconsistent with WP:BLANKING, which is why I encouraged you to read it. No, discussions about personalities should generally be moved to user talk. No, he did not say you had been "caught" in the current version of the talk page; I searched the word "caught". The quote I provided from Barsoomian was the edgiest statement I saw in lieu of "caught". Yes, it's responsible not to represent the word "usually" as a quote. No, it's not the same as the definition given: "as by portraying" means here's one example, and "it usually portrays" means here's the most frequent example. No, I had no place to call him on it, as it happened some time (and appeared resolved and unimportant) before I arrived at this page. Was Barsoomian irresponsible? Did Gothicfilm reflect prejudice? I generally don't agree with statements attributing negative motives. Yes, Barsoomian, in all seriousness you could always claim libel and ask for WP:OVERSIGHT. But sooner or later we all get smeared in edit summaries and we learn to live with it. JJB 09:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Barsoomian used words to that effect - "caught" or something like it. I can't find it in the morass above. He made many other uncivil comments as well. - Gothicfilm (talk) 10:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I'll turn the other cheek on this last pinprick. But next time it will be reported. As for blanking, of course Gothic can delete stuff from his Talk page. But the issue of his edit comments is inappropriate for THIS talk page. Barsoomian (talk)
First I'm threatened by you on my Talk page with reporting for deleting a section, now "of course" it's perfectly okay. More of your nonsense. Take it anywhere you want. You have been immature and uncivil ever since this started. And now you're making unjustified threats of reporting me here. I don't think anyone at WP will be impressed with your behavior. What I said in the edit summaries was accurate. Despayre at WP:RSN#Prequel said "Shirey still a no from me". He didn't say "Go ahead and use it in the prose." You said two sections above I have omitted the ones they had reservations about. You hadn't. They were on the page until I took them off. - Gothicfilm (talk) 10:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Threatened? Feel free to report me to someone who will give you a reality check.
Your comment was "Despite Despayre at WP:RSN#Prequel's call "Shirey still a no from me" and Barsoomian's claim on Talk to have "omitted" the bad sources, this was still here half a week later.)" This 1) implies that it is a "bad source"; that is your opinion only, though as usual you ascribe it to someone else. The opinion at RSN never said that. 2) You imply that I was lying about removing said "bad source". The Shirey ref was removed as a listing citation. That was the context of the opinion we asked for at RSN. I followed through exactly as I said. Now you're repeating this libellous, uncivil and deeply stupid assertion that I lied. Barsoomian (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
You said at the bottom of two sections above: Please note that the sources for the Apes films "prequelness" were presented at WP:RSN#Prequel for auditing and most were deemed WP:RS. I have omitted the ones they had reservations about. Anyone reading that would take it to mean you removed them from the page. You removed none. So I removed three, one after you moved it - not omitted it. I gave you half a week to do what you said you had already done , and you didn't do it. And incredibly, when I finally did take it off, you reverted me, putting it back. What I said in the edit summaries was accurate. Good night. - Gothicfilm (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I did EXACTLY what I said I would at that time with this edit and comment: "2:06, 5 May 2012 Films: trimmed refs following review at WP:RSN. Remaining are considered WP:RS" when I deleted the two refs from the list entries. The audit at RSN was about the cites' suitability to verify the respective films' listing in the table. There was no hint that the sources were "bad" or unreliable in a general sense -- I'm pretty sure that would have been mentioned at the beginning if it were so. Since I hadn't taken part in editing the prose section here, I left that as it was, just repaired the orphan refs. JJB and Betty hammered that out, I wasn't going to mess with it. So to summarise: You are, again, falsely accusing me of lying. The diff above proves it. Barsoomian (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Proves what? I can't see where you took anything out, and I'm not going to spend a day comparing that much text where the whole swath is highlighted. And I wasn't talking about that. You now say There was no hint that the sources were "bad" or unreliable in a general sense. As usual, you ignored the salient point. As I quoted already twice above Despayre at WP:RSN#Prequel said "Shirey still a no from me". He didn't say "Go ahead and use it in the prose." To me when someone says "No" that's a no. I don't need a further hint. You said two sections above I have omitted the ones they had reservations about. You said "omitted." Not "moved." If you had omitted them, I could not have taken them out. I removed three Despayre deemed to not be RS, one after you moved it - the Shirey one, which is talking about comics, not the films. Applying that to the films strikes me as WP:SYN, which you're usually against. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
You're now lying about what the record shows I did, which is exactly what I said I had done in the my note here and edit comment. Compare the previews (look for the little blue superscripts and you'll see them magically disappear) and, even to you, this will be apparent. The references in the prose were not part of the audit. No one had disputed them there. Barsoomian (talk) 09:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
What? Most everyone who commented on this page and at WT:FILM was disputing calling those films prequels. So what if we didn't specifically identify your refs? Everything I laid out is true and you call me a liar? WP:UNCIVIL and irresponsible. Nonsense and garbage. Those quotes from you just above aren't what you said? You never respond to points you have no answer for - e.g. you said you were omitting those refs and you didn't - then you go off on irrelevant tangents and strawmen. Debating with you is a waste of time and effort.- Gothicfilm (talk) 11:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
You're lying about me, and since the evidence of that is above, as it was in the very edits you referenced, it can only be with intent and malice. You can't refute the facts so you just add more inane personal attacks. "Never responded"? You mean "Never agreed with your version". I've responded on your talk page; you deleted it. I responded here, you ignored it. The question asked at WP:RSN#Prequel was about using those references in the list, and I followed though exactly as I said, omitting the references deemed not to support list membership, within minutes of seeing the results at WP:RSN. It's a stupid malicious falsehood to say otherwise. Barsoomian (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Here's an instructive quote from Despayre:}'No source is reliable for everything, be more specific. You want to ask something like, Is "source A" a good source for the sentence "Fact B."?' The question we asked was are these good sources to support listing these films? Their use elsewhere was never considered at WP:RSN. There was no challenge to the sources then in the prose. There was no need and certainly no obligation for me to seek out other places these sources had been used for other purposes and erase them. This should all be completely obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense. Barsoomian (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Those last two grafs were a bit harsh, and Gothicfilm has complained at ANI. I again commend to you both the view that you've simply misunderstood each other. Gothicfilm, the RSN was always about table inclusion, not about the text, just as it says; and omitting in one place doesn't have to mean omitting in every place. Barsoomian, this is not necessarily a s.m.f. if it's just a mistaken view of what you intended your statement to mean. We all learn a little something about clearer expression and sources of misunderstanding in our speech. Now I will need to speak a little more clearly to protect both of you: if you find yourself unable to cool down, there really are bad ugly warty Rouge Admins who pick a name or two from ANI at random for the Purposes of Tool Misuse. It's very easy to think you're speaking the truth and be told by a new consensus that you're the (only) one laying out the (false) accusations. It's happened to me. Keep an eye out. JJB 03:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

He is obviously mistaken. If he saw that and if not admitted it, at least stopped repeating it, I could let it drop. But he keeps repeating the same assertion, that I didn't "omit" the references as I said I had. And then digressing to complain about other things. I can turn the other cheek once. I'm not going to lie down and let him kick me. But I'll strike the characterisations above. Barsoomian (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
That's very magnanimous. And one reading of the response I just made at ANI ("the incivility is over") might be: he's been offline for 4 hours, so maybe he's done repeating his side too. Interesting view that one only turns the other cheek once (per situation): it has significant (but not universal) merit. JJB 04:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Despayre has clarified his advice on the Shirey cite: here:

To be clear, my opinion at RSN was *solely* provided on the basis of Shirey being used in reference to the specific "prequel" question that was asked. I offered no opinion on Shirey's RS-ness overall, or in any other aspect. If there are other issues that Shirey may be contentious as a source for, I would be happy to give my opinion on those as well, if you submit those questions to the RSN board. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 16:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Which is exactly as I thought and said above. And confirms Gothicfilm's describing Shirey as a "bad source" as purely his own opinion; which I feel very comfortable in not agreeing with, let alone acting on. Gothicfilm's edit comment "06:45, 9 May 2012‎ (Despite Despayre at WP:RSN#Prequel's call "Shirey still a no from me" and Barsoomian's claim on Talk to have "omitted" the bad sources, this was still here half a week later.)" is now demonstrated to be untrue in every respect. And so I hope this dead horse can be now left in peace. Barsoomian (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Except in the respect that Despayre at WP:RSN#Prequel did say "Shirey still a no from me" regarding using that source to back up calling those films prequels. You have a strange idea of how to leave a horse in peace. I haven't been here in nearly three days, but you keep flogging away. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Despapayre explained what his words meant. So clearly you have WP:ICANTHEARYOU. After you tried to have me sanctioned at ANI for objecting to your repeated lies, excuse me for not slinking away into the shadows. You claimed I had misrepresented my edits. This is now a proven falsehood. You're just making a fool of yourself to persist in this slander. Barsoomian (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to see if B's metonymy could be left alone. Like many people, B is using "untrue" to mean "deceptive, misleading", even if as you say the comment is technically true. But even if your view of B is completely true, there's nothing whatsoever I can see to gain by verbalizing it again. Also, this talk page is about improvement of the article, so (obligatory question) anything we can improve about the article? JJB 22:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
The conclusion that I had misrepresented my edit, that I had not not omitted the references as I stated, is the bone of contention. That is not "technically true". It's a lie. I didn't want to argue this crap here, but Gothic refused to do so on his Talk page. Barsoomian (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Not trying to argue, just trying to get the oobleck off me. I don't see a recent sentence of G's that we can point to and say is flatly false; we can only call it a lie by its subtext and tone, not by its text. It was true that Despayre said thus, B said thus, and Shirey was still there; what was false was the synthesis that B meant something additional and that B misrepresented. G never said those latter things outright. Thus it really doesn't help to accuse G of falsehood. But even if your view of G is completely true, there's nothing whatsoever I can see to gain by verbalizing it again. Also, this talk page is about improvement of the article, so (obligatory question) anything we can improve about the article? JJB 06:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry again, but Gothic said "now you're going against WP:RSN ": that was a lie. That wasn't my "synthesis", it was exactly what he said. He lied attributing "the sources were bad" to RSN. He lied in saying that I had not removed the sources that I had. He's just repeated these lies in various ways ever since, even after Despayre explained that the use elsewhere was beyond the question or the opinion he gave. I realise that it's boring for everyone else, but I won't allow this libel to stand. He escalated it more by taking to to ANI. But please, feel no obligation to mediate or even read any of this. Barsoomian (talk)
Thanks, that's better evidence, I have a very high bar for accusations of lying. Yes, you show that "going against WP:RSN" is a demonstrably incorrect synthesis, and in an edit summary; he confirms that synthesis by saying, "He didn't say 'Go ahead and use it in the prose'" (verbatim thrice) and "What I said in the edit summaries was accurate" (verbatim twice). The second clause, "the sources were bad", is actually a rearrangement of G's words "bad sources", and this is not technically incorrect because Shirey was regarded "bad" for table inclusion, though G wants "bad" to mean more than that.
When an editor is confirmed in such a misunderstanding and appears to be lying, often one can still perform the very hard but charitable task of assuming they're mistaken. G's last statement backhandedly acknowledges part of the final semantic distinction (instead of reading it as "bad" for all purposes, G is now reading it as "bad" for "calling those films prequels"). So since you two and I are all detail types, this is still a technical risk of recurrence if neither of you wishes to drop the disagreement over the accusation. I appreciate that, based on the strength of your concerns, you have politely declined my suggestion that it could be dropped.
I will make good on my earlier suggestion. I think you have now proven that at least one edit summary contains at least unintentional libel, which has not yet been resolved through discussion, and that it is appropriate for revision deletion (which I conflated with oversight). Although WP:REVDEL does dissuade "ordinary" accusations, I don't see a problem with your asking for a review based on the higher standards of unintentional libel and risk of recurrence (I also think BLP applies to editors as well as topics). If you contact an admin politely and link the diff of this present comment, I hereby second you and the admin will give you at least a fair hearing. The admin will need to read quite a lot to recognize that G has committed this (at least mistaken) edit-summary accusation and has not recanted it. If I were in that case and felt that strongly, I too would argue that deletion of this right-side revision and edit summary would be an improvement to the project, and so I tentatively support that argument in your case. But I am hopeful that the appeal to admin will also be able to help you consider alternatives if the revision is not deleted. Return to ANI is contraindicated.
However, I must also say that it's very easy to be told (by anyone) that your good-faith request for resolution of the alleged libel is disruptive, or my encouragement of resolution is. I am hopeful that my current statement makes it clear that the evidence of unwithdrawn error is significant enough to make the request in good faith. The requested remedy has no disruptive purpose whatsoever (unless we gloat afterward, which we won't).
I'm probably more an involved editor than an informal mediator now because the presenting question is settled. So I am not unwatching these pages yet and will be looking for closure, but as always I only step in when I deem it reasonable. JJB 18:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't wish to try for formal remedies at this time. Admins are likely to think it all a storm in a teacup, as they also ignored Gothic's complaint at ANI. It's pretty clear that Gothic will never back down and withdraw his remarks no matter how much proof is piled up, consistent with how he has acted in every other dispute here. Sources, citations, don't matter if they contradict what he wants to believe. (Now that he's finally deigned to participate at RSN he's still only citing his own feelings rather than any sources.) I'll let it rest as long as he doesn't repeat it. But if he repeats these allegations here or anywhere else, directly or indirectly, I will respond and reconsider formal remedies. Barsoomian (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Making the list a separate article[edit]

Seeing this article just now for the first time I was quite surprised 90% of it consists of a massive lists of prequels, which is a placing undue weight on examples of prequels rather than the general concept. Now I understand there are people who consider these sorts of lists important and suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, so I will not start a pointless argument about removing the list. What I would like to propose instead is splitting it into a separate article called List of prequels. What are your thoughts on this? Lacking any response I plan to create the list article one week from now. Yoenit (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Please don't. Most of what discussion of the concept that is here now has evolved due to discussion (and argument, as you can see above) about the content of the list. You'll notice several references shared between the lists and the prose. Splitting the list to a separate article will lead to it being subject to much more random editing by people who see no guidance and definitions, as they do now. There is actually a good overview at Sequel, with a section Sequel#Prequel that looks like it could use some work if you want an article more concerned with the concept. Barsoomian (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
while it is nice that Sequel has a good overview, a reader who is looking for "prequel" ends up on this page, not on Sequel. Are you suggesting moving this article to list of prequels and redirecting "prequel" to Sequel#Prequel? Yoenit (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
No. That would lose all the analysis that's here. While pasting that into Sequel#Prequel would give that article a big overweight on "prequel", when there are far more sequels made. (A List of Sequels could never be completed.) I don't see how a reader who ends up at Prequel is disappointed by what is there now, myself. Definition, discussion, examples. They don't have to page down though all the examples. Barsoomian (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Here is one style guideline pretty much against the idea. The only contraindications seem to be (1) if the list becomes unwieldy, which it could double the current size and still not be; or (2) if there is consensus to move as-is to List of prequels (without cutting any text), which could be weighed by the requested-move process. Further, the text is essential to categorize prequels in a sourced way agreeable to all active editors and should not be lightly rearranged. JJB 17:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Renaming this article or making a separate article called List of prequels would be of no benefit to readers at all. Look at that. We've achieved WP:Consensus. So that should be it. But, of course, Yoenit can come back in a few days and try again, because according to the Dispute Resolution guy JJB unless the participants come back to comment again a week or so later, consensus can be declared "stale" and overcome by the guy who was against it (See well above). Odds are, however, in this case the same three will go to the trouble to shoot this proposal down again in a week or whenever. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The Godfather Part II press pack[edit]

Yeah, actually. You might recall more than three weeks ago Betty Logan said well above:
I honestly don't know if Godfather 2 was referred to as a prequel at the time of the release. The reference for that claim didn't bear it out, but since it was specific about where the claim was i.e. the press pack, I left it in for the time-being, with a citation tag. I suggest leaving it there for a few weeks and if no-one produces a source then pull it.
Now's the time. I don't believe The Godfather Part II press pack had any such reference in it. In any case it's not backed up. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
You may not have noticed that I was trying to point you to a discussion you missed. It hasn't been 3 weeks because it was addressed shortly after it came up. Discussion is the end of #History of usage. From the link there, User: inserted Virgin Film for (what are now) the two sentences in question in 2006. Since this source is likely to have the material that the IP cited to it, we AGF that the IP was correct. I inserted the details but linked the citation to the second sentence only, not both. Feel free to check the book out if you need more verification.
Accordingly, it's backed up. It's also not contentious nor extraordinary. I would appreciate it if you could self-revert now, as deleting this sourced sentence is not an improvement. If you have an additional RS that impeaches the first RS, please advise. Thank you for your consideration. JJB 01:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't buy that as RS. An IP from 2006? No, you need more than that to claim Its first known use in film was in the original press pack for The Godfather Part II (1974) in an encyclopedia. To me that is "contentious and extraordinary", if you're going to use that as a standard. It is highly dubious - I don't know of any journalist who picked it up and used the term at that time, as would be expected if they saw it in the film's press kit. I don't believe anybody's going to further back up that claim, either. Once again you want me to prove a negative. It's been more than three weeks since Betty Logan and I agreed it should be pulled. No new source was found since then. Take it to Despayre at WP:RSN if you want. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if I misplaced the section head. The IP is not the source, a biographer of Lucas named Jim Smith is. You might not have read the footnote that says that; you'll need history to see it. AGF sources like this are used all the time in WP for this sort of noncontentious (unrelated to any significant controversy), ordinary (unremarkable and fitting for its source) claim. Your view that it is dubious is OR, and your basis (being your own knowledge of journalism) demonstrates that. To expect journalists to repeat the word "prequel" is an argument from silence. Any library containing Smith (see WorldCat) will back up the claim. However, it's also easy to defeat without proving a negative; you simply find a hypothetical RS that says something like "Smith wrote an unauthorized biography of Lucas". Again, you are not hearing the fact that, shortly after Betty recommended pulling it if no source turned up, I turned the Smith source up, so your view of 3 weeks of inaction is mistaken. However, your recommendation of RSN is excellent and I trust Despayre will confirm what I am saying about AGF sources: "verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources". JJB 02:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, you got your RSN review and Fifelfoo says not RS for the claim and did not comment on the AGF question in several go-rounds. As an etymologist I disagree, and I feel an exact source quote would change the situation, but I am not reinserting at this time. A second opinion is also possible.
For posterity, the claim came from Smith, Jim; Hardy, Rebecca (2003). "Virgin Film: George Lucas". ISBN 9780753507551.  Unknown parameter |month= ignored (|date= suggested) (help) The source was used for this text: "Its first known use in film was in the original press pack for The Godfather Part II (1974), where it is used to describe the sections of the film that take place before the events of The Godfather. Francis Ford Coppola credits George Lucas with devising the term, which Lucas and Steven Spielberg later used to describe the opening sequence of their joint project Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) during publicity for its release." JJB 08:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I found the RSN comments a bit odd. We don't need a scholarly etymological source, just a reliable source that the word was actually used, preferably quoting it verbatim. But on the other hand, much as it pains me to agree with Gothic, taking a citation on faith from an IP editor is a bit weak, with the only verifiable fact being the title and cover of the book. Also, even if it were true, since absolutely no one else seems to have noticed or quoted that, it's a bit of an outlier and didn't enter the reviewers' lexicon then. (Which, by the way, makes demanding contemporary descriptions of the Apes film as "prequels" an impossibility.) Barsoomian (talk) 09:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo said it was Not reliable for such an extraordinary claim regarding the quote above. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade should also come out. Its short opening sequence is a prologue, not a prequel. The vast majority of the film takes place after Raiders of the Lost Ark. Everyone agrees it's a sequel. Only this inaccessible Lucas bio apparently associated the word prequel with it, as has now been archived on this page just above. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is the prequel. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Big Picture Big Sound[edit]

This citation from Big Picture Big Sound was repeatedly deleted by Charlr6.

DuHamel, Brandon (2008-11-20). "Planet of the Apes: 40-Year Evolution Blu-ray Collection Review". Big Picture Big Sound. So, in effect, Escape from The Planet of The Apes, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes and Battle for the Planet of The Apes are prequels to the original saga. 

I took it to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Prequel_--_Big_Picture_Big_Sound RSN and Fifelfoo's verdict was :

DuHamel is a paid staff writer on an edited outlet, his ambit is reviews of movies in a particular physical format. It doesn't seem to be a greatly controversial analysis, and the article appears to represent it reasonably.

So, please no more summary deletions. Barsoomian (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is it you want to keep this reference in so much? There are other references to support it which are more acceptable articles than a review written in an informal way. He says "So in effect", he might as well say "so it kind of is a prequel". And that one person replied back and thats it? You went and ran to get some help. There are other sources to back up the claim which are more reliable, why is that one so important to keep in? Might as well source a Jeremy Jahns or Catherine Reitman review from YouTube if they did a review on the film. They get paid to watch movies and then make video reviews out of them, but I know that if a YouTube video was referenced it would get taken off, even though Jeremy Jahns and Catherine Reitman are 'paid' just like DuHamel is paid to write reviews. Charlr6 (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You deleted it twice without discussion. Obviously you won't listen to my opinion. So I got an authoritative opinion from people who actually know what a reliable source is. That should settle it. If you still disagree, the topic is still open at RSN. Barsoomian (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Obviously I won't listen to your opinion? You never listened to mine! Don't act all innocent here. And it was from one person not 'people'Charlr6 (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
The RSN is where acknowledged experts on WP:RS are to be found. Try your Youtube comparison there and see what they say. Barsoomian (talk) 09:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
The experts on Wikipedia. Great. You ran all the way to them in fear of me taking it out again. So much for dissuasion from you too. Saying I didn't listen to your opinion, you never listened to mine. You just went straight to the 'authorities' of Wikipedia. You still didn't explain why it was so important for it to be kept in.
But I'll be the mature one here and leave politely without running to find help as I can't fight my own battles. End of. Charlr6 (talk) 09:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
You deleted the references twice, with no attempt to discuss before or after. So I got an expert opinion. You'd prefer it if we just argued for the next two weeks? You really think it's about "fear"? Try "exasperation". I'm sorry, you'll have to "fight your battles" somewhere else. Barsoomian (talk) 10:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I deleted them and you didn't listen to my opinion. So don't say I didn't listen to yours when you didn't listen to mine anyway. You reverted what I did, I read what you wrote and then replied back giving more of an opinion. You didn't listen to mine and went straight to the 'higher authorities' of Wikipedia. You didn't make any attempt either to start a discussion either. Don't try to just make me seem like the bad guy here. You were too 'exasperated' to even bother yourself to start a discussion. "This person disagrees with what I said so I'm going to go to the Wikipedia Police". Charlr6 (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
You deleted. You never "discussed". Edit comments aren't "discussion". You never thought of just questioning the source on the Talk page without edit warring? And RSN isn't "the police". I didn't complain about your behaviour there, or even mention your name. I just asked them to settle the issue of the source, not which of us is more macho. I'm sorry you missed out on having a good battle. For God's sake: look at the tens of thousands of words above in arguments, round and round. Finally settled ONLY because we took the question to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. It's not cowardly not to want to waste weeks arguing about this. Barsoomian (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
And you deleted my edit, just like I deleted the other one. And if edit comments aren't a "discussion" then you never gave an opinion. Not everybody goes onto a talk page to discuss a deletion of something when they think it will be fine. They just leave an edit comment. And when did I ever say I wanted a battle? I never started a battle. And you still never answered why the reference should still be listed even though it has other sources to back it up, it wouldn't be naked statement randomly placed on Wikipedia. And if you don't want to waste weeks arguing I find it funny how most of your time it looks like on your contributions you actually spend your time on the 'Prequel' page. Seems like another editor who treats a page as its 'baby', but then will just say they are 'trying to keep it up to standards' and look after it. Charlr6 (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
You erased the work I did to make the reference. Twice. It wasn't a trivial amount of work. And you wasted more of my time to put it back each time -- I couldn't just revert after other edits had been done. I'm not going to justify this to you now. I might have if you'd opened a discussion rather than edit warring. Not now. Barsoomian (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
You know you can just go onto an old edit and go onto the old edit page to get what you need instead of re-creating it. Keep it on paste. But still you didn't explain why it has to be there. I understand you say the review can be referenced as its by a man who gets paid to do what he does and all that, but still not why you want it to stay there, even though there were two other sources I believe to back up the films being a "prequel". And you still didn't say on the edit comment "look at talk page", which I then would have to see you have created a discussion with why it has been left there. I didn't go over 3RR, and I believed that as there were other sources to back up the claim, no one would miss this deletion of a reference. So I didn't start a discussion. If I was supposed to start a discussion explaining the deletion then every person on Wikipedia should start a discussion explaining why they are either adding or deleting something from the article. Charlr6 (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── After one delete/revert you knew there was a problem. That's when WP:BRD tells you to discuss. You just edit warred. I was the one who opened the discussion after you started that. Maybe the 30,000 words of argument above give you a hint as to why I want to include a new source. In a rational argument, one source would be sufficient. But this isn't a rational argument, so multiple sources are necessary to counter those who would just delete regardless if they think a source is "mistaken". Clear? My last word on this anyway. Barsoomian (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't do a 3RR. I've never heard of BRD, too many Wikipedia rules to remember. But I would have started a discussion but you already beat me to it. Charlr6 (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Unreleased works[edit]

There were several unreleased works in the lists. I have removed most of those and added a note to discourage their inclusion. Since it's often debatable whether a work actually is a prequel, waiting till it has been released and assessed seems sensible. And many announced works are delayed, cancelled or changed beyond recognition by the time they actually are released, so descriptions made beforehand are often negated. I have left The Hobbit though, as it's due for release in a few months and the plot is well attested. But nothing scheduled for next year or later.Barsoomian (talk) 06:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see this. Didn't think it would be a big deal as the new Monsters Inc film is quite anticipated and everyone would know its a prequel already, even by the teaser trailer. You say that its debatable if a work is a prequel, but there have been tons of sources saying that the film is a prequel. Even the Wikipedia page says it, and it isn't going to get cancelled as Pixar know it will do good. As out of all of the films I know of that are prequels coming out in the future (as in 2013+), Monsters Inc is the highly anticipated it seems, not just by me though. But do you think we could include it then? Oh and I'm not saying you mean to, but it seems that as you posted this, and as there hasn't been a reply since my one, well it seems almost like you are trying to OWN the article. Which Wikipedia is against. But I personally think that before deleting any future prequel works, small little ones don't count, but big ones such as The Hobbit and Monsters University do count, because there is enough proof to show that they are prequels, that there should at least be some sort of small consensus on it before you engage this sort of act of not letting there be any prequels that haven't been released yet. But remember that you don't OWN the article, and no offence but you can't stop someone (I'm referring to the other person, not the revert I did) from adding Monsters University in, because everyone knows it is a prequel now. Charlr6 (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Don't start of by accusing me of WP:OWN, twice. That is extremely offensive and hostile. Good way to make this really unpleasant and personal right from the start. And I see the last time you were active here you were repeatedly deleting my references, so you're being pretty hypocritical.
Look at the history of the article and all the speculative films added to this page in the past. I cleaned them up and opened this discussion here, and no one had bothered to comment in the two months since then. Not because I was stopping anyone, but because no one cared.
Any statements about unreleased works require a high standard of proof. If you insist on adding an unreleased film, include a citation to a reliable source that unequivocally proves it is a prequel. That's what I had to do when films I added were challenged. And put the film in the correct place in the table, it's not hard. They're ordered by date of original. Barsoomian (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I never accused you of OWN more than once, I just mentioned it twice. And it is not extremely offensive and hostile unless you take it that way, but people don't own any articles. I quote you from a previous time, "...You never 'discussed'...". You never discussed with anyone about unreleased works, you just made the comment on here and then started it without any consensus from anyone, which in some way is also similar to owning an article.
And I care, and you know yourself that the new Monsters Inc film is a prequel. Just because barely anyone else edits on the page doesn't grant anyone the permission to act like the boss, and then almost enforce a certain rule and follow it before anyone has agreed or disagreed with it.
The question is, if I was to find a reliable source, which there would be many for it, would you allow its addition? It is a worthy film to mention. And also there isn't a "citation to a reliable source that unequivocally proves" every single one of the movies on this list are a prequel. Most of them don't even have any references so there is nothing to source them, nothing at all. So why would sourcing The Hobbit make a difference? Contradictory if most can go without but one has to. Charlr6 (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Stop with the accusation of ownership/"being the boss". etc. I'm sick of this crap. Take it to WP:ANI if you really believe that.
Not every film is cited. But those that are challenged must be, otherwise it just degenerates into an edit war. Feel free to delete "The Hobbit" if you want to challenge it. I didn't insert it and won't defend it, I'd prefer to wait till films are released when we actually know what we're talking about. Do you really not see that statements about unreleased films are inherently more speculative than those about ones that actually exist? Barsoomian (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
You never challenged Monsters University though, you just reverted it and say it shouldn't be mentioned because it hasn't been released. That isn't challenging it. That is more of a reference to a kind of 'rule' you endorsed yourself without an consensus.
And why such the sudden offence to being accused of ownership? Hate to see what you are like in real life if someone says something you don't like and then you make it out to be that its something that has been happening and said against you for hours and hours. Kind of like my teenage 15-year-old hormonal sister who gets offended at the tinest thing and makes it out like that has been said or happened tons of times already.
But do you really not see that listing prequel movies that are already in full production and are already well known before they are released should be mentioned? Because like said, already in full production like The Hobbit and Monsters University and are well known before they have even been released. So they should be mentioned. Small little ones like a prequel to a small relatively unknown movie doesn't matter as much, because no one will care for that as much as they would for The Hobbit and Montsers University. Charlr6 (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleting a film is an implicit challenge. The response would be to prove and cite your point with a few lines in a reference footnote. If you can't be bothered to do that, and prefer just to keep attacking me, we have nothing more to discuss. Barsoomian (talk) 01:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh I am so sorry, didn't realise that deleting a simple thing at all on Wikipedia meant it to be such a challenge. How was I supposed to know as I've never seen anyone delete a single simple necessary thing and it was a 'challenge'. So how was I supposed to know I am supposed to prove and cite a point? Maybe you should find some Wikipedia rule about not including unreleased films on a page, instead of making your own rule up and then following and enforcing it before anyone else can have a say. Wikipedia and all its contradicting and made-up rules. Place filled with unprofessional people pretending to be professional. At the end of the day its mostly just a bunch of trolls and nerds on the internet editing articles. And thats not directed at any in particular before you decide to take offence to that as well.
And you are the one who chose to be offended by my comments straight away. Not my fault if you are acting like my hormonal 15-year old sister. Infact you've acted EXACTLY like what she does. Take great offence at the simplest and calm statement towards her.
And you said on the edit comment 'As previously discussed on Talk page, unreleased films are not included in this list'. Nothing had been discussed on the talk page about unreleased films not to be put onto the list. I never agreed to that, neither did any editors because no one commented. No consensus was reached. It was just you making your own rule up for the page and enforcing it yourself without any say from anyone else. You can't just create a rule up and endorse it yourself without any agreement with anyone else. And then take away any edits about a unreleased prequel. Now that is definitely almost like a WP:OWN.
Can't just create a rule for a page and enforce it without any say from anybody else.
I could create my own rule up now, like that there has to be a source for every single prequel on this page, if not it gets deleted. I won't let you or anyone else have a say in it though as its my own rule I'm creating and going to enforce and then pretend its been discussed on the talk page, even though its just been discussed by myself. Very similar to what you did. Charlr6 (talk) 03:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
You resent so much being asked to provide a simple reference that you insult me over and over and threaten to destroy the page over it. Very mature. Barsoomian (talk) 04:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I resent so much being asked to provide a reference? You never asked for a reference straight away. Maybe if you didn't act the way I'm seeing you, then I wouldn't have 'insulted' you. I'm not the one who took great offence straight away like a hormonal teenage girl, which is a fact, most teenage girls are like that. And I'm not threatening to destroy the page, I'm pointing out that you created your own rule then endorsed it without any consensus and still haven't commented about it. And what I said about me creating my own rule is exactly like what you've done. And if you get offended by being accused of OWN, then don't endorse a rule on a page by yourself and then say its already been 'discussed' on the talk page, even though its just you. That is clearly like trying to own a page. Creating a rule yourself and endorsing it without any consensus. Very mature. Charlr6 (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I certainly did ask you for a reference straight away, in my very first response to you under this heading (00:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)). And your continued violations of WP:CIVIL, with your accusations, name calling and obsessive references to your your sister is disturbing. Barsoomian (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
No, you did not ask me straight away, after I put it back in you reverted my comment and said "As previously discussed on Talk page, unreleased films are not included in this list.", that isn't a asking to provide a reference. And even on here you didn't ask for references, you just said that things should have references. And you say that its not hard to find a reference then add it in the right place in the article. If its not hard to find then you would have yourself found a reference straight away. Wikipedia seems to be for civility but funnily enough not for helping each other. And I have gone out of my way to help other people find references, even though BURDEN says its down the original person. And obsessive references? Yes, of course. But you are seriously acting like her.
Oh, and once again, you didn't give any response to you creating your own rule up and endorsing it on the page without any consensus from anyone and then say its been 'discussed' even though its just you. Charlr6 (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I asked you to provide a references in my very first response above.
"you didn't ask for references, you just said that things should have references". I said neither. I said "If you insist on adding an unreleased film, include a citation". If you can't understand that simple sentence, you should not be editing here.
"And you say that its not hard to find a reference". Wrong again. I said "And put the film in the correct place in the table, it's not hard." Which you ignored, since you put it out of order.
"BURDEN says its down the original person." Correct. You wanted to include this film. It is thus up to you to justify it when asked.
"Wikipedia seems to be for civility" Not from you. Barsoomian (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Saying "include a citation' is not a question asking for one, it more of a statement than question like "if you want your own dinner, cook it yourself". If you can't understand what a question is and how to ask "can you find a source please?" then you should not be editing here. I never put anything out of order, I reverted your edit back to the original one made by the other person. And I don't even get how there is a right order in the table anyway, because its one of those tables you can sort it into alphabetical.
And you still haven't responded, almost avoided the entire thing about you creating your own rule and endorsing it and make it out like its already been discussed even though its just you. Pretty sure you must be avoiding it now, if you weren't you would have mentioned it again saying something like "I thought it wouldn't matter because its a page not many people go on", but I still don't ever recall a Wikipedia rule where it says you can add any rule you like and endorse because not many people edit on there. Charlr6 (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The table is CHRONOLOGICAL, as I explained above. And you ignored. But you'd rather just follow what a random one-edit IP editor did regardless if it screws up the table.
Now your problem understanding the word "discuss":

discuss 1.To speak with another or others about; talk over. 2. To examine or consider (a subject) in speech or writing.

Obviously I was using the word in sense (2). There was a problem with additions of non existent films to the list. I removed them and discussed my reasoning here on the discussion page. In any case, this is no more than an application of the general principle of WP:V. The plot of an unreleased film is pretty hard to verify. And none of the unreleased films added had any references, most didn't even have a real article link. It's up to the person proposing an inclusion to justify it. Barsoomian (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I ignored? Erm, you ignored me saying that I put back the edit the other person made. I didn't see it was in the wrong place, so don't blame me for someone else's mistake.
You know exactly that the word 'discuss' means more talking to people than just examining things. And you don't understand wikipedias consenseous. "To speak with another or others about", talking to people. "To examine or consider (a subject) in speech or writing", what you did wasn't examine, you just created a rule, and you didn't consider, you just put the rule in straight away.
Most films here don't have references on them. And 'the plot of an unreleased film'? What are you on about 'plot'? This is a page listing movies prequels, not listing movie prequels and its plot for each film.
And once again, you ignored what I said about you can't create your own rule on a page then enforce it without any consensus. We can't follow dictionary rules as Wikipedia has its own. If there is going to be a rule for a page, several people will have to either support or be against it. You are in the wrong for creating a rule, then enforcing it before anyone else can have a say in it. And if someone adds in an unreleased film you delete it and say its been discussed. The meaning for 'discuss' it mostly about talking to people, you know that, unless in the part of the world you come from you don't ever talk to people and DISCUSS your daily life. Charlr6 (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Here we have the problem in a nutshell: I cite definitions from reliable sources (e.g. a dictionary). You just make stuff up and insist you're right. I've answered all your questions several times over and you still can't grasp simple facts, or understand simple English words. Barsoomian (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
In a nutshell? I do know what discussion means, and its most used definition is talking amongst people, you know that and are trying to make me look stupid even if you now say yo aren't. And yes, making stuff up about 'discussion', because of course discussion doesn't mean talking and discussing ideas or daily life does it? No, no.
And you still made no comment about you creating a rule, then enforcing it without a consensus. This is wikipedia, where there needs to be a consensus for sort of things like that. But as it seems you won't, after all you do keep replying to my comments, I'll be the better person here and leave it be. Charlr6 (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I "made no comment"? See my post above. (17:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)). It seems you are blind to anything you don't want to know. This is just an application of WP:V as mentioned a few times: "All the material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that requires a source but does not have one may be removed". Barsoomian (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
No, you really didn't. Verifiability still doesn't answer why you think its acceptable to create and enforce a rule without any consensus. It seems you are too arrogant to answer the question properly and why you think its acceptable to create your own rule, enforce it and then continue it without any consensus from anyone else. Before it said "Please do not add unreleased works to these lists" and then you changed it to "Please do not add unreleased works to these lists without a reliable source that it is actually a prequel". So the verifiability only comes in, in the past day when you changed that. "Please do not add unreleased works to these lists" is just saying literally "do not add unreleased works of any media onto this list". So there was never anything before you changed it about putting references up. So don't go talking like it has always been the case, because as we both know most of the 'prequels' on the list don't have a source. Surprised you haven't taken down everyone that doesn't have a source. Good day sir, and have fun OWNING the page and controlling it with your own 'rule'. If there as no 'rule', then it wouldn't seem more like you were owning the page. Charlr6 (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I modified the request I put on the page after the discussion here with you -- that's an indication that I listen to other people and consider the facts, that I don't think I "own" the page, but you think it's a proof of a coverup. That's all it is, a request (note the word "please"), not a rule, which obviously I have no power to enforce anyway. You got your cartoon on the list, all you had to do was verify it, which is according to WP:V, not my "rule". Previously no one adding unreleased films ever entered discussion, they heard a rumour of some film that might be made and put into in the wrong place and usually screwed up the table, so it was just reverted. You got exactly what you wanted, and yet you still complain. It seems you just don't like to have to prove things or listen to anyone's opinion except your own. We should all just allow Charl6 to decide every issue and not worry about citing references. You even ignore a dictionary because you think your own definition of a word is the true meaning.
"most of the 'prequels' on the list don't have a source". I already explained several times, as the title of this section of the discussion page, the problem is unreleased works. That's in the first paragraph of the discussion here. And also as I quoted from WP:V: "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation". That is exactly what happened with Monsters University. I challenged it, when the reference was supplied it was not a problem. It's not me making up my own "rules". I had works I thought should be here that were challenged and removed by other editors, so I found citations to WP:RS so they could be included. The only problem here now is your carelessness in editing, failing to read policies, failing to read what people actually say and going off half cocked, insulting other editors and generally disregarding normal rules of conduct. Barsoomian (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The lion king 3 is a prequel — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Ha! Nice try. Lion King 3 is an interquel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)