User talk:Darkwarriorblake

My Talk Archives

Yes, you made a mistake.

Yes, you made a mistake. My sources are up to date. Another moderator approved it. He told me to write about it in the article, initially I only listed uncredited names. The changes remained for a month. I don't mind if you delete the text of the article, but you should return the uncredited names in the infobox. Many articles use this type of credits even without sources. I proved to you that it is true. Camera slate is indicate director of photography, not camera operator or some another camera crew member. You can see Glennon's credit in all takes of Murphy's death sequence https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBLVVPpoLmQ 31.42.237.163 (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So the other person was an editor, not a moderator. You supplied a source, they obviously, despite being well-meaning, have not looked into it further than that. The changes remained for a month because I wasn't here for a month, otherwise I would have removed them immediately. The cinematographer credit is for the head of that role, which is Jost Vacano. If Sol Negrini and James Glennon held official roles on the film, then it would be possible to find verifiable sources that say such. That sites like the BFI and AFI include minor roles but neither of these names is a huge red flag, as is my inability to find any sources attaching their names to the film either. The closest I can find is this and this which says he contributed additional cinematography, which is not the cinematographer or director of photography, therefore the credits would not belong in the infobox. Similarly, without additional information, it would be WP: UNDUE to just mention their names for the sake of it, when many other crew members are not given that treatment. Additionally, Featured Articles don't include information that is not sourced, so other, lower quality articles doing so does not mean it's acceptable on a Featured Article like RoboCop. If someone's name is on a slate for an effects scene like that, it basically means they're doing additional photography that the cinematographer is too busy or otherwise occupied to do. This does not mean we'd put under the cinematographer credit someone from an effects house filming a miniature, for instance, like Phil Tippett. While I can understand this means something to you and you are maybe linked to these people, they were not THE cinematographer on RoboCop, that was Jost Vacano. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. To be honest I wanted to credit only Glennon. But I decided it would be unfair to Negrin since I know about his contribution to the action sequences and car chase in the steel mill. You don't have to credit Negrin, but I have proven to you that Glennon is solely responsible for the Murphy death sequence, and therefore for the rest of the steel mill interiors (the gangsters watching the Bixby Snyder show and everything), as I said before, it's not a second unit or anything like that. You have confirmation. Bring Glennon back as an uncredited cinematographer. As for the lack of sources, yes, they hid it all these years, since it is not profitable for the press to reveal that Vacano is only responsible for 70% of the film. They probably replaced him for the simple reason that he was an expensive cinematographer, especially since he lived in Germany, I am not trying to say that he was not competent enough for those sequences. I loved Glennon's work in Jedi and Navigator, so I decided to set the record straight. 31.42.237.163 (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional context, I appreciate that this matters to you. I've tried to verify the specific claims you’ve made (that Jost Vacano only shot "70%" of RoboCop and that James Glennon should be credited as an uncredited cinematographer for the Murphy death sequence and related interiors), but so far I can't find reliable sources to support them, and screen grabs of his name on a clipboard wouldn't be sufficient evidence for this. If you can produce reliable evidence for those assertions I'm happy to reconsider and update the article, but here’s what we need and why:

On-screen credits (primary source). If Glennon's name appears in the film's own credits that's a primary-source fact we can cite. I have just had a look but did not see either name. If we are citing a video we need a timestamp as well.
Independent secondary sources. For claims such as "Vacano only shot 70% of the movie" or "Glennon was solely responsible for the Murphy death sequence", we need independent, published sources that state that explicitly, e.g. Variety, Hollywood Reporter, reputable film histories or biographies, the AFI, BFI, ASC magazine, authorized production notes, or interviews with the filmmakers/cinematographers. These are the kinds of sources that establish who actually did what on a set and allow us to give the claim appropriate weight.

We can't keep unsourced or poorly sourced claims in the lead/infobox or give them undue prominence. For Featured Articles the sourcing bar is especially high. If the evidence shows Glennon did "additional photography" on a discrete sequence, the correct approach would be to describe that in the article body with a citation, not to list him as the main cinematographer in the infobox (infoboxes should reflect the principal on-screen credit).

If you supply one of the above, I'll gladly add a properly formatted citation and, where appropriate, restore or add wording in the article body describing Glennon's role. If the on-screen credit says only "additional photography", I'll add that phrasing (with the source) rather than listing him in the infobox as the cinematographer.

To be clear, this is not personal, it's just Wikipedia’s standard practice to avoid asserting unsourced production-credit claims, especially on Featured Articles. As I've said, I have done some independent research on the AFI, BFI, and just plain Google searches for the film alongside Glennon's and Sol's names, and all I've been able to find is that Sol provided additional cinematography, whereas I cannot find much, if anything, for Glennon.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your understanding. I won't bother you anymore. But I just want to clarify about the 70%. They took a long break between finishing filming in Pennsylvania in mid-November 1986 and resuming filming in January 1987 in Los Angeles. This is written about in the article with a link to an authoritative source. Not only this sequence was filmed then, but a lot of additional principal shots with RoboCop: driving shots at night (not all, only the patrol before the supermarket robbery), close-ups of RoboCop at the steel mill when they shoot at him and when he turns around during the toxic waste release from the van, close-ups of Murphy's eye in the helmet, RoboCop looking at the computer (when we see the computer itself and RoboCop from behind, the rest was filmed in Dallas), a news story in which RoboCop comes to school, a news story about the killed cops. And a huge number of non-principal shots, including all the shots with the robotic holster. It's interesting that in Robodoc they showed documents that indicated that on those same days they were supposed to shoot scenes with Frank Frederickson encountering Clarence Boddicker's gang and the scene in which Robocop visits Murphy's grave. So all of this is Glennon's work. I talked to Bart Mixon on Facebook a few years ago, he told me all these details. 31.42.237.163 (talk) 06:23, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing those details and the insights from Bart Mixon; that's interesting context about the filming schedule and Glennon's involvement. If you can ever find some verifiable sources for these it would be great information to add to the article, an interview with Mixon for instance. I assume this isn't discussed in RoboDoc? There is a Making Of book of the film but it's over £140 with no guarantee the information is in there so not something I can personally check. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Always with the negative waves, Moriarty.

That IP is some other editor. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:The Tigger Movie § Plot changes

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Tigger Movie § Plot changes. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol September 2025 Backlog drive

September 2025 Backlog Drive \| New pages patrol
On 1 September 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DreamWorks/Paramount rights

Have there been attempts to add notes on Saving Private Ryan about Paramount owning rights to this film and the other DreamWorks Pictures/Paramount Pictures (Deep Impact, Paycheck, The Stepford Wives, A Serious of Unfortunate Events, Collateral, War of the Worlds) as a result of its brief ownership of DreamWorks Pictures from 2006–2008?

I’ve seen people do that to the Miramax films Paramount made with them. How do you personally feel about people adding onto articles about the current ownership of a film? Hdog1996 (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The companies should be what they were at the time. If ownership changed it will be discussed in their articles (if they have one). No notes reflecting current ownership should be added, unless relevant, i.e. Terminator 2: Judgment Day discusses this because Carolco failed only a few years after and Terminator was sold to Canal +, but it's probably owned by Skydance now and that is not mentioned in the article because it's not relevant. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Skydance owns Paramount and by extension the pre-2011 live action DreamWorks films. Paramount also owns 49% of Miramax, ironic considering Shakespeare in Love beat Saving Private Ryan for Best Picture. films. Hdog1996 (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostbusters, iconic films from 1984

What does it matter if This Is Spinal Tap is not listed in the source? The link is not even being used to source that statement. The sentence merely begins with "1984 saw the release of several films that would later be considered iconic of the era". That sentence in that section of the Wiki article for Ghostbusters merely lists iconic films from the year 1984. It's not quoting an actual statement from the source itself. It's just a GENERAL statement about iconic films released in that year. "This Is Spinal Tap" is indeed an iconic film from 1984 and from the era. A source is not needed to confirm that it's an iconic film from that year. Ldavid1985 20:57, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you're having an off day but you've been here long enough to know how sourcing works. The statement has a reference at the end of it, that's the source. Spinal Tap isn't mentioned in there, it's a niche cult film that has no cultural cache outside of America, and I'm not sure why the statement on the Ghostbusters article is the place you feel really needs to mention a film not mentioned in the source. Mention it on the Spinal Tap article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't know if you're having an off-day as well, since you've certainly been here long enough to know how to read a source to assess whether it's actually accurate or not. The statement begins with "Imagine a SUMMER when you could have seen Gremlins, Ghostbusters, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Beverly Hills Cop..." That statement right there shows that this is not accurate nor is it a "source" for the Wiki article, as Beverly Hills Cop wasn't even released in the summer of '84. It was a Christmas release in DECEMBER of 1984. So, the link is just opinion piece with incorrect information, not a real source. So, are you really gonna adhere to a "source" that doesn't even put out accurate information? Also, This Is Spinal Tap is not a "niche cult film". This is not Carnival of Souls or Brian De Palma's Sisters. Spinal Tap literally launched a new film genre (the mockumentary), as noted in the Wiki article. And it is very notable for the origin of the phrase "up to eleven", which has become an ICONIC line in pop culture (both in and out of America). They even had a whole subplot in an iconic episode of The Simpsons about Spinal Tap. Cult films can begin as cult but then after enough time become actual staples of pop culture. You really think Fight Club and The Shawshank Redemption that both began as cult films haven't become mainstream pop culture staples at this point? Not to mention, they just released the legacy sequel to Spinal Tap today. Niche films don't get legacy sequels. They make sequels for films that have at least made some foothold in popular culture. Was Blade Runner 2049 niche with its blockbuster sized budget of $185 million? And no, Spinal Tap is not a niche cult film that has "no cultural cache outside of America" (Do you have a source for that statement by the way?). I watched several reaction videos to the film and several of them who live outside of America knew the "these go to eleven" quote before actually watching the film, including a reactor from Bangladesh. So, your assessment that Spinal Tap has "no cultural cache outside of America" is completely unfounded. Not to mention, you've certainly been making an awful lot of edits recently for a Wiki editor who is supposedly "semi-retired" and "no longer very active" on the site. Ldavid1985 20:56, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source is reliable, the person opens by listing off films and follows it up with them being iconic and exclusive to 1984. This is basic reading comprehension. I'm not interested in when Beverly Hills Cop made most of it's money, and I don't care at all about Spinal Tap, but what I do know is that each film mentioned there—reminding you that this is the article on Ghostbusters, not Spinal Tap—is mentioned in the source and Spinal Tap is not, and I'm not sure why that's offensive to you that Spinal Tap is not mentioned on the page about Ghostbusters. The line also says "including" not "comprehensive list." The content is sourced and what you are doing is disruptive and I will be referring it if you carry on. Take a breath, walk away, and have a think about what you are trying to accomplish here.

"Not to mention, you've certainly been making an awful lot of edits recently for a Wiki editor who is supposedly "semi-retired" and "no longer very active" on the site." I don't know what your point is? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source is reliable... but the information contained within it is NOT. And this is NOT about basic reading comprehension. It's about assessing whether the information within a source is accurate or not. You're doing nothing but twisting the issue. It's not about "agreeing" with the article. Statements in the article are literally and demonstrably FALSE. It's not a disagreement in opinion.

"I'm not interested in when Beverly Hills Cop made most of it's money."

It literally made NONE of its money in the summer of 1984. It wasn't even released in the summer of '84. It was released in WINTER. You literally quoted a FACTUALLY INCORRECT statement from the article to justify undoing my edit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but quoting inaccurate information is NOT the mantra of Wikipedia. And my edits on this matter is NOT disruptive. I literally have facts backing them, whereas you're using misinformation from an op-ed piece that can be verified as misinformation right here on Wikipedia. The undoing of my edits is literally being done strictly out of ego at this point.

And again, where is your source that Spinal Tap is a niche cult film that has "no cultural cache outside of America"? I'm still waiting on that. Ldavid1985 22:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And again, where is your source that Spinal Tap is a niche cult film that has "no cultural cache outside of America". I'm still waiting on that. Ldavid1985 22:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A source isn't factually incorrect because it lists off iconic films of 1984 and groups them under Summer. If you take issue with that, take it to a higher power than me and have them laugh in your face that you're trying to dismiss a reliable source over that. You're trying to write off a source because it doesn't mention Spinal Tap.

I didn't quote anything factually incorrect to undo your edit, I undid your edit and said it was unsourced, which was the case. You responded by saying that it didn't matter that it wasn't sourced, you can add it just because. Then I undid it and quoted the article listing out the actual films included in the article, and you undid that again because it didn't include Spinal Tap.

The content is from a reliable source and it's in the "/culture/film/" section. I'm sorry it doesn't mention Spinal Tap, but attempts to smear it as an "op ed" because it doesn't mention Spinal Tap is making you come across as unreasonable.

The core disagreement here is that there are a list of films in the article that are sourced, while making a specific comment about the broad awesomeness of films released in 1984, and you were randomly adding Spinal Tap to the article. That isn't acceptable. And to be clear before you go and do it, finding a separate reference that says Spinal Tap is iconic, and putting it in the Ghostbusters article wouldn't be acceptable either.

Anything else you have to say, say it on the talk page or at WikiProject Film and see if you can amass support for the unsourced inclusion of Spinal Tap in an unrelated article. I'm not discussing the cache of Spinal Tap because it's started you off on a tangent which I don't want to get into and remains irrelevant to the point I'm making or the actions I've taken in regards to the misuse of sourced content in an article.

You've managed to waste an hour of our time over the unsourced inclusion of Spinal Tap, man. It's Friday night. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"A source isn't factually incorrect because it lists off iconic films of 1984 and groups them under Summer."

You literally just said that just because a source has factually incorrect statements written in it, that it's not factually incorrect.

"The source is reliable."

Ya know what's also a reliable source? The Chicago Tribune. But it doesn't mean you can use their article "Dewey Defeats Truman" as a source on who actually won the 1948 presidential election. And why? Because the information in that article from that reliable source contains INACCURATE information. This is NOT a debate about whether a specific source as a whole is reliable. It's about whether or not the information contained in a SPECIFIC article is accurate (and you know that this is what this discussion is ACTUALLY about but you're just throwing out red herrings anyway). The fact that you continue brush this aside and act like this is not what this particular matter is about demonstrates that you clearly don't care about accuracy. This is entirely about ego.

"I didn't quote anything factually incorrect to undo your edit."

You literally wrote as a note in one of your edits undoing mine, and I QUOTE: "You've been here at least since 2012, how do you not know how sourcing works? "Imagine a summer when you could have seen Gremlins, Ghostbusters, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Beverly Hills Cop..." YES, you literally quoted a factually incorrect statement within the source to undo my edit. So, not only are you using factually incorrect information to undo edits, you're now throwing inaccurate information out there YOURSELF, just to win an argument. And you're a Wiki editor. This is what I would call "disruptive" here on Wikipedia.

"I'm sorry it doesn't mention Spinal Tap, but attempts to smear it as an "op ed" because it doesn't mention Spinal Tap is making you come across as unreasonable."

Nice straw man there. I literally did not do that. I "smeared" it as an op-ed piece because the information that it contained about Beverly Hills Cop was factually incorrect. My "smear" had NOTHING to do with Spinal Tap. So, now, you're just straight up lying in a petty attempt to win an argument. And why are you putting the word op-ed in quotes? Do you even know what an op-ed is? It's an article written to "represent a writer's strong and focused opinion on an issue of relevance to a targeted audience". That article is literally just a guy gushing about how awesome 1984 was and how recent years in film totally suck, and how 1984 may be the greatest year ever for popcorn cinema (it's literally the title of the article). Yea... that's literally the definition of an op-ed.

"Not to mention, you've certainly been making an awful lot of edits recently for a Wiki editor who is supposedly "semi-retired" and "no longer very active" on the site." "I don't know what your point is?"

Why am I not surprised that you don't understand the point? The point is that someone who's been making dozens of edits every single day for the past month and beyond like you've been doing is certainly not someone who is "semi-retired" and "no longer very active" on Wikipedia. So, even your Wiki profile is a source of misinformation, with lies straight at the top of the page. So, that should have been a clue as to the kind of editor you actually are.

"You've managed to waste an hour of our time over the unsourced inclusion of Spinal Tap, man. It's Friday night."

And yet, here you are making 29 Wikipedia edits in the last three hours... on a Friday night. What are you doing with your life, sir? You might wanna bone up on your argumentation skills before you try throwing out digs at other editors, cuz this has been a demonstration of some of the worst debating skills I've ever seen online. Ldavid1985 00:28, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ldavid, I'm not interested. I've explained my stance and I'm backed up by a reference. I've also asked you seek a broader consensus elsewhere. As for the Friday night comment, I meant that you were wasting both our time arguing over nothing when I could be doing something more productive, which was working on another Featured Article. There's nothing wrong with editing on a Friday night, but there is with spending time arguing over the unsourced inclusion of Spinal Tap on Ghostbusters. I thought it was a simple issue, it's unsourced, it doesn't belong, I didn't expect you to go on these lengthy tangents. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:50, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1999 Box Office Analysis/Context

I understand you’re working on The Matrix, I movie I’m not particularly a big fan of but understand its impact.

I was going to add this to the page if but since you’re working on it, you can maybe use it for either the Context sections (which are very insightfu) or the box office section when you write your analysis of the film’s performance.

1999 was considered to be one of the greatest years in film history. Near the dawn of the 21st Century, significant changes in Hollywood were the result of growing production and marketing, shifting audience tastes, and an increased emphasis on franchises and films with major star recognition.

The Matrix, along with other prominent blockbusters such as The Mummy, Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace, The Sixth Sense, and Toy Story 2, help contributed to a record domestic performance in 1999. Also released that year were dramatic films that would go on to become popular classics such as American Beauty, Election, Fight Club, The Green Mile, and Magnolia. Hdog1996 (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if you have a source for it then sure that content sounds great. Sorry for the late reply. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1999 Context/Box Office Sources.

Here are the sources for the context/box office analysis I provided for The Matrix.

https://variety.com/2000/film/news/little-win-caps-big-year-1117760387/

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-jul-09-ca-54158-story.html#:~:text=By%20RICHARD%20NATALE,has%20Will%20Smith%20in%20it.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-aug-31-ca-5228-story.html#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThe%2520great%2520thing%2520about%2520this,$2.7%2520billion%2520since%2520Memorial%2520Day.

https://www.indiewire.com/gallery/best-1999-movies-best-year-film/film-and-television-314/

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/17/briefing/the-movies-of-1999.html

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/jan/10/magnolia-to-the-matrix-was-1999-the-greatest-year-in-modern-cinema Hdog1996 (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Who Framed Roger Rabbit? § Organizing the cast section

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Who Framed Roger Rabbit? § Organizing the cast section. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Peanuts § GA/FA?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Peanuts § GA/FA?. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Green Goblin Comic Art by Luke Ross.webp

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Green Goblin Comic Art by Luke Ross.webp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YGM

Hello, Darkwarriorblake. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October music

300 years ago: Gott der Herr ist Sonn und Schild, BWV 79, on the occasion for which it was written, Reformation Day - it's not only Halloween today. Thank you for your help with Unser Mund sei voll Lachens, BWV 110, - you are invited to the peer review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda, sorry for not replying sooner. There's nothing I can really add to the article, I thought it was OK as it was, but I'm happy to reiterate my support when you nominate it again. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can say in the peer review what you think about the four open questions, especially if we should let Google decide what constitutes a scholarly references. I looked at three of those. - Congrats to your latest FA! Looks like we had the same TFA day in mind, but of course no conflict if the cantata doesn't make it in time for its 300th anniversary. Even if not TFA I want it to be in best possible shape. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Batman Returns

Congratulations, Darkwarriorblake! The article you nominated, Batman Returns, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today I remember a singer who impressed me on stage. - Repeating: you are invited to the peer review after FAC, - in a poll, you could simply mark yes or no. It's an experiment. The piece has its 300th anniversary on Christmas Day, and should be as good as possible by then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have three biographies on the main page today, miss a fourth one, nominated a fifth, that means little time for other matters. My places now include La Scala, - see music, Verdi three times, and twice in my story! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts

Working on expanding the OG Chainsaw film, I even sort of struggling with a couple sections (not starting the branching articles till the main is done). I have recently added a marketing sub-section into the release portion of the article, however, I have not found that many sources that go into depth on it and how influential it was. So too am I finding it hard what and what not to include for the legacy section. Any thoughts? Paleface Jack (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what is in your legacy section I would say is appropriate. One piece of feedback I would give is that my previous FA feedback encouraged me to stop doing "Numerous publications have listed it as one of the best horror films of all time, including Thrillist (2016),[327] Consequence of Sound (2019),[328] Slant Magazine (2019),[329] Complex (2020),[330] Esquire (2023),[331] and Variety (2024).[332]" Or, if you do, focus on unimpeachable sources like the Variety one and maybe look at it's comments on the film. The most modern version of how I am approaching this, based on feedback, is Batman Returns. The first is how it was when I originally wrote it up as a Featured Article before moving on to other projects, and the second is the current version after I came back and reworked the whole thing:

Old version

Retrospectives in the 2010s and 2020s noted that Batman Returns had developed an enduring legacy since its release, with Comic Book Resources describing it as the most iconic comic-book film ever made. Although initially criticized for its mix of the superhero and film noir genres, the film established trends toward dark tones and complex characters which have since become an expectation of many blockbusters.[8][9][154] Some writers said that its "disturbing imagery", exploration of morality, and satire of corporate politics seemed even more relevant in the present day, as did the themes of prejudice and feminism explored in Catwoman.[155][154] Burton said that he believed Batman Returns was exploring new territory at the time, but it might be considered "tame" by modern standards.[8] According to the Ringer, Burton's "weird and unsettling" sequel enabled future auteurs such as Christopher Nolan, Peter Jackson, and Sam Raimi to move into mainstream films.[9] Collider described the film as the first "anti-blockbuster", defying expectations and delivering a superhero film with little action set during Christmas (despite its July release).[156] The film's performances, score, and visual aesthetic are considered iconic, influencing Batman-related media and incarnations of the characters for decades (such as the Batman Arkham video games).[154][155] The Batman (2022) director Matt Reeves and Batman actor Robert Pattinson called Batman Returns their favorite Batman film, with Reeves ranking it alongside The Dark Knight (2008),[157][158][159] and director Robert Eggers said that it visually inspired his film Nosferatu (2024).[160]

New version

Despite a mixed initial reception from critics and audiences, Batman Returns has undergone a critical reappraisal in the years since its release and is now considered a classic of the superhero genre. Several publications, such as Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, now rank it among the best Batman and superhero films, with some calling it "the greatest Batman movie ever made".[o] The film is seen as "underrated" and a "series peaking early," with subsequent films failing to live up to its vision.[9][201] Burton's artistic choices, which were criticized at the time, are now seen as prescient and ahead of their time.[9] The "darker" and more "bleak" aspects of the film have been re-evaluated in the wake of later, more serious superhero films. Burton noted the irony of the film being deemed 'too dark,' given that later films—including The Dark Knight trilogy (2005–2012) and The Batman (2022)—went even darker.[p] Burton said that while Batman Returns was seen by some as bleak, for him it was a mixture of gothic, playful, kinky, and experimental tones.[202] The Hollywood Reporter notes that the film was "truer to Tim Burton's dark vision than its predecessor".[205][203] According to The Ringer, the very "fatalistic and noir elements" that Roger Ebert criticized in 1992 are now "the going currency of event movies".[9] Critic Brian Tallerico said that the elements which originally upset critics and audiences are what makes it still "revelatory... It's one of the best and strangest movies of its kind ever made".[141]

So i basically went away, and googled "legacy", "retrospective", "influence", etc and site:variety.com or hollywoodreporter.com, latimes, nytimes, etc to mass harvest the best quality sources that would typically be beyond question, and then went through them for key commentary rather than relying on lists from lesser sites and rankings some reviewers would consider subjective, i.e. only one author. I know personally that I've been astonished when looking up lists of like best action or sci-fi and not seeing Die Hard or Aliens on them, but we can give a greater credibility to high quality subject specialist subjects like Variety or authored books by specialists/professionals. If you look at the old version, I was quoting places like Comic Book Resources, and I mention its influence on the genre, but in the second version, I've been able to use much stronger sources and their direct commentary, and provide more detail on how it influences the genre.

I think focusing on the aspects you deem most important to its legacy is the place to start. You've obviously got a lot of information on it being referenced in other media, for example. I notice it says Sallly Hardesty is "iconic" but I didn't know her name til I read that so I'd maybe separate out hte references for her and Leatherface and back that up a little. If someone asked me for an iconic horror character it'd be Nancy Thompson or Sidney Prescott, but maybe it's true and I'm just not traveling in TTCM circles, but stuff like that definitely needs backing up robustly. If you read my new Batman REturns section, there's no real mention of the Penguin at all and that's because, to my shock, I couldn't really find a wide array of references talking about him, the reviews back up his importance, IMO he is obviously iconic, but people say Zoe Kravitz is a hotter Catwoman than Anne Hathaway or Michelle Pfeiffer so maybe I'm in a bubble.

The cultural impact section is good, lots of key names and films citing it as an influence. I think you've got good coverage of its horror legacy. I might be missing it, but some commentary on its standing compared to other entries in the series would be good.

Is this what you meant or have I misunderstood your question? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More or less. I Googled Sally Hardesty with "iconic" and my sources mentioned that, though not alot. I can always do without that and leave that to her own article. Legacy sections can always be either straightforward or complicated, depending on what you are looking for and the film itself. I decided to add marketing into the release section because of how integral it was to the film's success (some people still believe the film was a true story like the ads and opening lead you to believe). Not much I can find on how that influenced other films, though I am sure it is there if I look for it. Listing "greatest films" can be limited and reserved for the highest quality of sources. I think that is what you were meaning. Paleface Jack (talk) 04:54, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She may be Iconic, it's just not something I've personally come across. When using Google make sure you do "Sally Hardesty" AND "Iconic" with the quotation marks and you should get precise results. I did that plus "site:variety.com" (without the quotation marks" and got one result, which may be of use, but it's describing Leatherface as Iconic not Sally - Variety. This one describes it as an Iconic franchise but no Sally. I tried the google string on latimes and nytimes as well without results, but there may be more sites you can check that I can't think of right now. Do something like this and you get specific results you want which is generally better than using the site's own search feature. EDIT: I'm being a bit myopic here, you don't just have to search for Iconic as previously mentioned, there are other terms such as "classic", "legend", etc. The best articles I find for this are ones doing retrospectives, so if you look around important anniversaries for example they should often give you a broad statement on the film's legacy and influence.

The marketing section you have is good and interesting as is, but I understand it might be hard to find more sources discussing it. I would maybe try to find some sources that discuss its effectiveness if possible. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. I agree, retrospectives are very useful. I will attempt to implement the search method you suggest and see what comes up. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scrooged

I guess I didn't realize it that the setting of the movie or timeline wasn't important. I sincerely apologize for that. I am so, so sorry. Please forgive me. Christopher K. Howell (talk) 05:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC) But may I ask why? I thought this was Wikipedia. I thought I was allowed to make changes. Christopher K. Howell (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are allowed to make changes, the edit summary explained why those changes were undone. You cannot make changes and noone can change those changes. The plot for Scrooged has been refined multiple times to be comprehensive while adhering to WP:FILMPLOT which instructs us to keep the plots under 700 words, but this is a maximum guideline, we are meant to keep them as tight as possible. So in this scenario, the year isn't stated in the film as far as I'm aware, so you're assuming based on when the film was released, which wouldn't be allowed. The other additions weren't necessary to understanding the plot, namely when Lew died or that Cross's dad was a butcher, so it's just unnecessary detail that makes the plot longer. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:48, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about that. Christopher K. Howell (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try not to let that happen again. Christopher K. Howell (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Wow, that was really exciting. I bet you're a big Lee Marvin fan,"

Apologies if I was brusque. I think this is the most appropriate one of these things for cooperation.

		The Half Barnstar
		For cooperation.Halbared (talk) 10:17, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

trying again

I keep trying to get my Christmas present ready: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Unser Mund sei voll Lachens, BWV 110/archive2. If you have the time, please check if you can still support after I added things and rephrased for flow. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]