Talk:Pacific Rim Uprising

Requested move 12 June 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There is consensus that the previous RM reached the wrong conclusion. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Pacific Rim: Uprising → Pacific Rim Uprising – The billing block of the film indicates there is not a colon, contrary to what editors in the last RM erroneously believed. This article notes that the film is spelled without a colon, according to the studio, and plenty of reliable sources (Variety, THR, Deadline, Collider, IGN, TheWrap, Wired, Empire, NPR, RogerEbert.com) exclude the colon. A film title without a colon is also not that uncommon, see Alien Resurrection, The Matrix Reloaded, Terminator Genisys, Jurassic World Dominion, etc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 05:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. The "no-colon" evidence is indeed at a higher and more numerous level than the sources that still depict the colon. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support per well-prepared nom, Roman Spinner, and my own lying eyes. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Future

Would ping but can't an IP, one of the many reasons I would strongly recommend you use an account. Please follow WP:BRD, and when you make an edit and are reverted with a reason, do not just restore your edit, but start a discussion like this. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS concerns the existence of articles, not content. Articles themselves should be consistent. Separating the content into two level 2 headings is not ideal as they are small, and not directly related to the article subject. "Future" seems logical as they concern the future of the article's subject even though they happened in the past in real time. Indagate (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The "other stuff exists" logic is a bad argument for anything, including style choices, even if the guideline is specifically about wanting to keep articles. The WP:FILM guidelines make no suggestion that would indicate "Future" is a good idea as a section heading (because it isn't). Future is a terrible section heading in general]] (because vague non-specific time words should be avoided in good writing) and especially so when it is talking about things that are literally all in the past. It is unfortunate many other articles have done this and continue to do but that does not make it any less terrible. (I understand the twisted logic to attempt to excuse it but it is better to not do it at all.) Indagate has made no effort to provide any alternative suggestion and has repeatedly added back the same bad heading. You know it is bad ("not ideal"), please suggest literally anything else. Things that follow after are Sequels, be they cancelled sequels or animated (web) television series. How is better to label things in the past as "Future" than to accept a TV show as a sequel series? -- 109.77.197.187 (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The previous section heading "Other media" was generically awful but still better than the recent change to the illogical "Future" section heading.[1] -- 109.77.197.187 (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The WP:FILM guidelines don't say anything about it as far as I'm aware, so they also "make no suggestion that would indicate "Future" is a" bad "idea as a section heading". You say it's a style choice, hence WP:STYLEVAR applies. I do not "know it is bad", I said "not ideal" in relation to separating the content into two level 2 heading, not about "future" as a sub-heading. Please don't take words out of context IP. A sequel is generally something that directly follows something, I'm not familiar with the anime series but based on the description here, it doesn't sound like a sequel. I disagree that it's a "bad heading" so have made "no effort to provide any alternative suggestion" because don't see a need to, you changed the status quo. I don't see a need to change from "future". Pinging @Chompy Ace as you linked their edit. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The "Future" section refers to this film (Uprising) connected directly to sequels and television series as time passes; it is used in some articles such as Guardians of the Galaxy (film)#Future, WandaVision#Future, and The Suicide Squad (film)#Future (For example: the Guardians of the Galaxy (film) article was released in 2014 at that time, so the Future section was warranted with two sequels and a television series, meaning at this time). Chompy Ace 22:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

"something that directly follows something" yes and a tv series can be a sequel to a film series, they follow on from each other and are in the same continuity. I never said that other articles did not use the section heading, you keep saying you see no problem and that it's fine, but we should be able to do better than "fine". Wikipedia does all kinds of things that are a bad idea until eventually it doesn't (took years before MOS:BOLD happened, and even longer before WP:OVERLINK happened). I understand the excuses you keep making but please stop using "Future" as a section heading for things are literally not "Future". -- 109.77.197.187 (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not about OSE, it's about consistency and consensus. As Indagate noted, it has been standard practice on film articles for many years to use the "Future" section heading; "Sequels" would only work if the section only covers sequels, not if there are spin-offs or reboots or inspired media. I also don't think this is a WP:RELTIME issue, it's referring to the future of the film, not the future of the reader's present. If you have a better alternate heading that is not "Sequels" (I've already explained why that doesn't work for Uprising), please suggest it here and we could elevate the matter to WT:MOSFILM or WT:FILM. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I also suggested Legacy in one of my edit summaries, but it feels like over-emphasis for some films. Sequels does work as a section heading if you just take the word literally, it is the next in the sequence. A spin-off is by definition a sequel (a film that follows) spin-off is merely a subtype of sequel. Considering the minor leaps of logic, contortions and excuses, people keep making to justify using "Future" (yes I understand, but no, I still disagree) it is far easier to explain how "Sequels" does actually fit. Take the word wikt:sequel a bit more literally, sequels are simply what follows. -- 109.77.197.187 (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Legacy is reserved for something else, see The Dark Knight#Legacy for an example. I disagree with your interpretation of the meaning of "sequel", I think there's a clear distinction between a sequel, spin-off, reboot, remake, continuation, follow-up, revival, and prequel. It would be inaccurate to say that all those terms are types of sequels. But even if we go with your definition, it will only cause confusion and lead to drawn-out debates. I can already imagine it: Why is Rise of the Planet of the Apes listed as a sequel to Planet of the Apes (2001)? It's a reboot, they don't share the same continuity! Why does it say Bumblebee is a sequel to The Last Knight? It's a prequel/reboot to the Bayformers films! InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not interpreting the meaning of the word wikt:sequel, I'm reminding you of the dictionary definition of the word, it is literally the next thing in a series. Editors seem entirely unwilling to acknowledge the problems with using the section label "Future" for things that are clearly in the past. Although my preference is to describes "Sequels", of all kinds as sequels, as sequels, I have seen articles also use the section heading Franchise or Post-release, which are less worse choices than "Future". (Also Bumblebee is very literally a sequel, the next film in the Transformers series, it might _also_ be a prequel (a type of sequel by definition) or a reboot (a term producer Di Bonaventura has expressly rejected[2] read the actual article not the headline) but also being another thing does not make the film any less a sequel, and anyone attempting to make that argument does not understand what the word wikt:sequel means.) I hope Wikipedia editors will eventually stop labelling things from the past as Future, but I understand that in many cases these things were actually in the Future when the section heading was first written, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, it could do so much better. -- 109.78.198.42 (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm no linguist, but I know for a fact that in the real world, "sequel" has always been used to refer to films that follow a previous film both in release order AND chronological/timeline order. If a film follows a previous film in release order, but is narratively set before the events of the first film, it's a prequel, not a sequel. It doesn't matter what Wiktionary says, or what the literal/original meaning is according to whatever dictionary you find. By your own admission, editors past and present have repeatedly told you that "Future" is a superior heading to "Sequels" or "Post-release" or "Legacy" or "Franchise" when it comes to describing sequels, spin-offs, prequels, and reboots. There is clear consensus for this, so it's long past time you WP:DROPTHESTICK. This is veering toward WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

"Cancelled Sequel" section: WP:NOR violation?

The aforementioned section of the article states that del Toro would not return for a third movie, but implies that it states there will be no third movie because he stepped out. The only source cited is del Toro's Twitter account. While i'm not entirely sure of this, this could be viewed as WP:NOR violation, specifically WP:STICKTOSOURCE, WP:PST, and/or WP:PRIMARY because:

- It relies on unclear or inconsistent passages or on passing comments

- It uses passages open to multiple interpretations (i.e. del Toro will not direct the third movie) which the WP:NOR page states "[Such passages] should be precisely cited or avoided."

- It draws conclusions not evident in the reference (in this case, citation no. 73, del Toro's tweet)

- It does not include citations from or refer to secondary sources confirming the movie's cancellation. (del Toro's tweet is considered a primary source)

To remedy this potential violation of Wikipedia policy, I propose that either:

1. The section title and/or body be edited so that confirmation of cancellation is not implied, or that

2. Secondary sources be cited so that the number 73 citation (del Toro's Twitter thread) is no longer the primary source for this statement. 187.46.135.8 (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello. The direct tweet being used as a citation has been replaced with a secondary source on the tweet. Thanks, Mike Allen 01:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)