Jump to content

Talk:Top Gun: Maverick/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Reverted move to mainspace

@Ammarpad and Da Vinci Nanjing: I've moved the article back to draftspace, as there is nothing cited in the article that filming has begun, per WP:NFILM guidelines. If you have a reliable published source that clearly states that filming has begun, then please present it, and I'll move the article to mainspace. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@BilCat: I didn't move it on my own volition and have no interest on whether that article exists entirely. I only executed a technical request posted at WP:RMT. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Np. I know you responded to a request at RMT. I notified you as a courtesy that I had reverted the move so you'd know why. - BilCat (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Jon Hamm's rank

Jon Hamm is playing a three-star admiral? At age 48 that would place him around 25-26 years of service. Eh... Now that I really think of it, that's actually within the realm of possibility. It's not unprecedented for even an officer to achieve four-star rank, in 26 years of service (Admirals Worth H. Bagley and Paul D. Miller both achieved four-stars in 26 years). Most officers these days, who are appointed to the rank of vice admiral normally reach that rank at around the 30 year mark. Neovu79 (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I also call BS on the casting of characters. None have any sources to confirm they are replacing former characters. Only Tom and Val seem to be confirmed, although there is no confirmation for Kazinsky's rank.143.159.23.1 (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Use of tax payer money

The trailer, available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz9lnIDdkMo shows use of government aircraft. Is it fair to say that it makes the US tax payer a financier of the production? StandardWind (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Seems a bit of a stretch. By that logic, any film that uses a public road or facility would also be funded by taxpayers. BOVINEBOY2008 16:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I concur. However, it does mean that the Department of Defense "has considerable influence over the script", as stated here. I recall seeing similar articles covering that kind of thing with other films that use military assets. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Controversy section

As I stated, the section has problems with original research and undue weight, and Washington Examiner, and New Tang Dynasty TV are non reliable, partisan sources, and Donald Trump Jr. is not a film critic either.--220.101.15.164 (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The two sources you mentioned are not unreliable sources, there is no proof anywhere on Wikipedia which says that they are...aside from your and a few other editor's say so. The fact that they may be "partisan" (i.e. you just don't like its views) doesn't disqualify them either given how there are plenty of sources which are used which are just as (if not more) partisan. For example the main article references The Independent - a source that by its own admission is partisan. I will also note (per this edit [1]) that one other source (The American Thinker) is similarly a legit source for the reasons i have just given. Also the son of the POTUS isnt a film critic he is...the son of the POTUS so what he says (at least on this topic anyway) will obviously matter. Discuss this issue here first before you (or any one else) makes any further changes to this. Flaughtin (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
You don't need 10+ sources on a single issue. Furthermore, per Media Bias/Fact Check, American Thinker is a questionable sources which spreads conspiracy theories [2], while New Tang Dynasty TV is questionable in regards to China related news [3]. Per WP:RS, they are not necessary when the story is reported by reliable sources already--60.242.159.224 (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Media Bias/Factcheck isn't even a reliable source it might as well have been a blog that you created. I repeat there is no proof anywhere on Wikipedia which says that they are...aside from your say so. Try another argument because this one obviously isnt working. Flaughtin (talk) 10:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Turns out I was right all along. Here's what Wikipedia actually says about your unreliable source: There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable. Editors question the methodology of the site's ratings.. Like i said, find another argument because your current one just isnt working. Flaughtin (talk) 11:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Re. the bit on an ex-USN pilot's claim that the movies' patch selection is arbitrary and therefore the flag replacement is meaningless, the source appears confused and is deriving a false conclusion from (arguably) correct premises. I suspect he has not seen the screenshot of the change himself. Yes, the selection and placement of the patches in the movie is arbitrary. However, that has nothing whatsoever to do with how or why a specific patch might change. Let us remember that this is a single patch that has been significantly altered but remains in the same place, not multiple patches moved around or replaced as the source seems to mistakenly think. We are talking about apparently removing a large mission patch and replacing it with one that is identical except for censoring the national flags of certain countries that just happen to be problematic to the fragile snowflakes of the Chinese Communist Party: trying to suggest this is just the movie-makers being typically un-authentic stretches belief to breaking-point and comes off as disingenuous. This whole confused and confusing bit should probably be removed and the contrary American Thinker source moved elsewhere. Abelaard Snazz (talk) 03:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Nope, what you are doing is original research. The link noted that the original 1986 patch belonged to Maverick's father and referred to his Vietnam War tour, while the new patch referred to the events of the original movie.--60.242.159.224 (talk) 08:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
So we're to believe the patch selection is (a) random and meaningless, and simultaneously (b) makes perfect rational sense? Firstly, this mess of an argument is clearly conflating the (confused) pilot's statement with the abc.com.au source's claim regarding the patch change. Secondly, the abc.com.au source attributes its claims with "some also speculated" which is self-evidently insufficient. Who is claiming it, based on what evidence, and most relevantly (the reader will wonder) what do these mysterious new non-Japanese/Taiwanese flags represent from the first movie? The inquiring reader may also find his or her credulity stretched to the limit by the idea that this "storyline change" just happens to coincidentally make the movie palatable to the ChiCom censors by removing the national flags of U.S. allied nations the CCP dislikes. It's a nice bit of deflection away from uncomfortable questions but it doesn't stand up and is not sufficient for inclusion, absent specific further sourcing.

Abelaard Snazz (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I removed the Controversy section last month and it was recently replaced by an anonymous editor. Rather than possibly engage in an "edit war" (can you engage in an edit war with an unregistered, anonymous account??) I will offer the topic back to the talk page. Why did I remove it? 1) It is completely inconsequential to the film. It has nothing to do with the production or the plot. 2) It is trivia. 3) It is purely politically motivated to cast aspersion on China. The only people who seem to care about this are conservative American political figures. 4) It is completely speculative. 5) Just because you can provide a dozen sources talking about a controversy does not mean that there is a controversy, just that someone "newsworthy" is yelling about it and journalists need to get paid.

DFS (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I concur that it should be removed. "Controversy" is an WP:UNDUE claim, and a standalone section is not warranted. If anything, there could be a mention of it in the "Marketing" section because that is the context in which there was a response. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


So, not only did China get the movie censored, it has Wikipedia censoring even a mention of it. There are plenty of reliable sources, and often this the ONLY news story about the film a newspaper might have published. So "undue" seems like BS. I'm not going to edit war with China or their proxies, unwitting or otherwise. It's too tiring, and crap like that is why I edit using an IP. Paramount will never admit what they did or why. But there are plenty of reputable sources, not random social media, that discuss the issue, enough to make the "controversy" notable. A few sources: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hollywood-accused-of-kowtowing-to-chinese-censorship-in-top-gun-sequel-lhfv5b062: this mainly for the photos. Call it OR if you insist, but a blind man can see that the Japanese and ROC flags were replaced by dummy "flag"s -- not of real countries, just designs with similar colours. https://www.businessinsider.com.au/top-guns-maverick-appears-changed-to-please-chinas-communist-party-2019-7?r=US&IR=T "'Top Gun' appears to bow to China’s communist party by changing Maverick’s jacket" by Alex Lockie, Jul 21, 2019 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/trump-goes-tiktok-hollywood-keeps-kowtowing-chinas-censors/ Robbie Collin, 7 August 2020 The PEN report referenced in the Telegraph story is https://pen.org/report/made-in-hollywood-censored-by-beijing/ "Another prominent—and recent—example of such censorship-driven content decisions is the mysterious disappearance of the Taiwanese flag in the 2019 trailer for the much-anticipated Top Gun sequel (Skydance Media et al., 2020). When the trailer for the movie was released, eagle-eyed viewers noted that Tom Cruise’s leather bomber jacket—iconically adorned with Navy Tour patches—had changed since its appearance in the original 1986 film. In place of the Japanese flag was simply a red triangle against a white background, and in place of the Taiwanese flag Cruise’s jacket now sports a random patch that looks similar to the flag at first glance.127 Depictions of the Taiwanese flag are a prime target for censorship in China. Yet, given that the movie was at that point over a year from being released, it seems that Paramount Studios did not wait for censors to view the final product before deciding that it would be better to convert the Taiwanese flag into a meaningless symbol." China has an army patrolling media to enforce their spin. All the WP articles about recent Chinese history are battlegrounds. Any treaty they signed but don't like is called an "Unequal Treaty". As if any treaty, especially after a war, was "equal". Anyway, use the above or ignore it. At least it won't be immediately deleted here as it would be, no doubt, if I put it in the article. 123.208.236.48 (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I would recommend that this article be taken down. It is totally based on hearsay and unreliable information. Is there any proof that this movie actually exists? No. There isn't. It's just vaporware. Let's remove this article to preserve the integrity of this site. 73.6.96.168 (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome to propose it for WP:AFD, which is the proper procedure for article removal. You make some pretty bold claims in the face of cited facts... so I will sit back and watch in amusement while you attempt this. As for this site having integrity... yeah, that was lost looong, looong ago. And the presence of the TG:M article - be it fact or fiction - is certainly not remotely close to the balance point of integrity at WP. Thanks for the lol today! Picard's Facepalm (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Premise?

Since there is a trailer for the film, should we use that to guess what this film is about? I just can't help but notice that there is no "Premise" section for this article and yet there is a trailer for the film. Red4Smash (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Probably best to wait for at least some kind of official review or plot release. Obviously the studio is playing it very close to the vest until the release is a real thing. We can likely guess based upon the trailer at some of the points - but in all honesty it probably ends up falling under WP:SPECULATE. Just my $.02 Picard's Facepalm (talk) 04:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Concur. Best to wait. BilCat (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

"Hold My Hand"

We might want to mention Lady Gaga's song "Hold My Hand" and add more detail about the soundtrack in general. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Title character article

Is the main character of Pete Maverick Mitchell notable enough to have an article after two films or does it take a trilogy before it is worthy. Comparison might be to a Ghostbusters character after only two films which had character articles for Ray Stantz, Egon Spengler and others long before the last film to make it a trilogy.. or Tony Montana after an original and a remake. Perhaps there are others like Marty Mcfly however that’s a character in a trilogy. Is Mr Mitchell notable with enough info considering how well known the original is and upcoming sequel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:C21B:900:9E2:59F2:DF8F:B484 (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Your barrier is WP:GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

New editor removing information

I restored this information a few times already, because a new editor, apparently first editing as User:2600:8800:4a80:44ef:60c9:c6a4:8d10:c791 and now as User:Dibol is hellbent on removing this. The claim that this is not sourced is not true: sources are heraldjournalism.com and www.augsburger-allgemeine.de. IMDb also had this, but somebody took care to remove this over the last 24 hours. 17:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  • See my talk page. It's not vandalism if I'm removing INACCURATE INFORMATION. None of the sources you mentioned EVER confirmed that these actors are playing the characters from the original film, and last time I checked, the IMDB entry you mentioned is a USER-SUBMITTED information. Wikipedia policy actually labeled IMDB as a NON-RELIABLE SOURCE.Dibol (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
    Please don't scream. I can read you well without the capitals. I mentioned three sources, and since you are absolutely right regarding IMDb - even though it is sometimes used as a source on Wikipedia - that leaves us with two more sources. So please stop the removals. Debresser (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Debresser: I can't read German, so I can't speak to the reliability of that site. However, heraldjournalism.com publishes user-submitted content, and though there is some sort of editorial system in place, it doesn't seem high quality. As a case in point, the headline for it's article reads "Tom Hanks Is Continuing Top Gun 2." To my knowledge, Tom Hanks has nothing to do with the movies, as it stars Tom Cruise! No reputable site would let that kind of mistake slide by. - BilCat (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
    That is a good point. Still, I am not sure if that mistake would be enough reason to decide that that the site is not reliable in general. And there are many more sources available, which I will now add. In any case, the editor should talk this over here or at WP:RS/N, instead of edit warring. Debresser (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
    The issue in question is all of the sites you mentioned are USER-SUBMITTED INFORMATION. That is the main issue. It's repeated erroneous information from IMDB with very little citation given made from these "reporters" in question.Dibol (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m coming into this debate from the edit squabbles over at List of Ed Harris performances. The sources that are being provided are beyond poor. And are also just from the same two non notable websites making the assertion. And if @BilCat: is correct in saying herald journalism is user submitted, then this should realistically be open and shut: unreliable sources, they shouldn’t be included. It’s why we don’t use IMDB as a source. Rusted AutoParts 15:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but it certainly seems to me that Herald Journal takes user submissions. Excerpts from their editorial policy:
  • All submissions are altered for accuracy, clarity, quality, and length. Herald Journalism doesn’t guarantee that authors can review their work before publication thanks to time constraints inherent within the production method.
  • Submit solely exclusive content that has not been printed elsewhere (e.g., on websites, blogs, newsletters, magazines, books, etc.). Herald Journalism tends to need 1st right of refusal and can copyright all works selected for publication. There aren't any exceptions.
  • Herald Journalism does not tend to publish any inaccurate, misleading, or distorted News. We only present factual content in a way that does not mislead a significant audience. In some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information. Make every possible effort to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context. - BilCat (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
There are about 5 sources for each of the changes I made. Okay, so Herald Journal is not good. What about the other 4? Debresser (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Fact of the matter is none of those sources work due to their un-notability. When Hamm and Harris were cast their character names were not disclosed by the reliable sources that confirmed their additions. Where are these names generating from? It’s very clear to me that someone added those names onto IMDB, these sources saw that and included the names, but since then the names on IMDB have been removed. So those sources are not valid in this situation considering. Rusted AutoParts 19:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

This may be "very clear" to you, but I call that "conjecture"! Debresser (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Regardless, at this point since there's at least three editors contesting these edits perhaps you need to understand you should maybe stop forcing the content back in. Rusted AutoParts 21:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
THIS ARTICLE NEEDS TO BE REMOVED. The movie does not exist. 73.6.96.168 (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Then propose it for WP:AFD. I will offer this little tip about the world though: Just because you cannot see something does not mean that it does not exist. Something for you to ponder on. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. I guess we will just have to take your word for it. You say it exists, so it does. OK. 73.6.96.168 (talk) 08:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
You can still WP:AFD it, if you disagree so strongly. I'd love to watch that exchange happen, TBH.  :) Picard's Facepalm (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
The movie has been released now. Hopefully we can all agree that it exists. The claim it didn't exist was totally unwarranted, and likely just trolling. BilCat (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
of course it was trolling and pisspoor trolling at that 2603:800C:500:3615:F0AB:5C58:E1B6:A479 (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Movie Intro

don't be fooled like i almost was cuz it is nearly identical to the original complete with the aesthetics and fonts for the actors names similar to the original. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:800C:500:3615:F0AB:5C58:E1B6:A479 (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Which one's better, "superior to" or "superior over"?

The former seems wrong to me, but that may as well just be my conscience being triggered. GreenGrenier (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC) "Superior to" is more grammatical. Seinfeld429 (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Seinfeld429 Alright, that seems reasonable enough. Someone's done the edit for me to make it clearer while still keeping "superior to". GreenGrenier (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Lorne Balfe?

So we all know Lorne Balfe is score producer but the music by should only be for composers only. For example Hans Zimmer was score producer for 13 Hours and Terminator Genisys which were both composed By Lorne Balfe but they don't mention Hans in the "music by" list so why even put Lorne Balfe in the music list.

So in future just please remove Lorne because in my opinion "music by" is for composers only not score producers MOVIEFAN2001 (talk) 09:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

There's an edit with a note stating Balfe's involvement in the film as a score producer— someone did it, not me. GreenGrenier (talk) 09:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Monica Barbero starring

I don't know why people are claiming she's not on the billing block of the poster. Where is this research being conducted? I don't see the billing block linked or referenced in the article, and she's clearly main cast, as much as Pullman, Powell or Harris. The infobox instructions state that in absence of a billing block poster, use the top billed actors -- which she is. DaRkAgE7[Talk] 03:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

As far as my searching can find, all references to the billing block are original research -- all the movie posters list no cast at all, not even Tom Cruise. Unless anyone can come up with another official source, I think the list should be based on the movie's website *Starring* section, and I think the Template:Infobox parameter description supports this. I have made this update. Any other list, barring a referenced source, seems like WP:Original Research to me, and therefore arbitrary and should be avoided. DaRkAgE7[Talk] 04:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The poster with a billing block was given only to cinemas, it was not easily available. Here is a regal cinema poster with a billing block. Pause and read the block. Poster billing block.. if there is a HD copy online it would be great. and Regal cinema Poster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:C21B:901:ED54:3968:4DAE:99C1 (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Problem with: "...then pushes further into high-hypersonic speed, destroying it."

I have a problem with the phrase: "Maverick flies the prototype to its speed objective, then pushes further into high-hypersonic speed, destroying it."

It can be argued either way about pushing it from 10.0 to 10.1, personally I'm on the side that the Maverick character did push it intentionally.

Where I disagree with is 10.2 and 10.3; I think the character's facial expression was clear that the plane was taking itself to those speeds, and that the pilot (T Cruise) had not intended (at least right then) to continue to those speeds.

How do we write that in a concise manner? I dunno.

. LP-mn (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

See WP:FILMPLOT and WP:STREAMLINE. Less detail not more is the answer. Keeping the plot section concise frequently means not including specifics, so you leave out even more of the details and say he meets the objective but goes further, too far and destroys the prototype, or similar such as "and the prototype is destroyed" (so as not to presume any intent). The technical specifics are not important, that he goes too far, intentionally or unintentionally, is the character detail that is important to the plot. -- 109.78.196.165 (talk) 00:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Score box in Reception

I’ve only ever seen boxes full of Metacritic scores and individual reviews in music and video game articles and think they aren’t needed for films, but to avoid an edit war I’m taking it to the Talk page to see what the community thinks. Thanks y’all! TropicAces (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Is the idea to keep that Infobox as is, or is it to grow to one dozen reviewers, two dozen reviewers, three dozen reviewers, etc. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm glad to see the box or table is gone from the Reception section already. Other Project use them but Wikipedia Project Film discouraged them for a long time and almost no film articles use them. Past discussions have pointed out that not all critics give numbered scores or review grades that work well in a table, and there is also the question of which critics to include or not include in any table. In my personal opinion the more fundamental issue is WP:PROSE and that the article must include meaningful descriptive text and not unnecessary lists or tables (even necessary tables should have meaningful summary text to tell encyclopedia readers what point the table is supposed to be making). -- 109.78.196.165 (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Connely's image in Critical Response section

There seems to be a dispute on whether the image should be included or not. But the critical response section praises various points, and there is no common special mention of Connely. So in my view, it need not be included. Kpddg (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Connely did receive praise for her performance. She is seen also as deflecting from the "homoerotic" aspects in the original Top Gun as covered in this article's Critical response section by critics. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
But her name is not even mentioned in the Critical Response section, other than in the image. Kpddg (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Deadlline Hollywood is the opening review in this section and it states: "Penny who now runs the local bar. Jennifer Connelly takes on the role and brings a lovely natural touch to the relationship." ErnestKrause (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
But there is nothing unique... others are also equally praised. Kpddg (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Actually, the Deadline Hollywood article does single her out with the quote I gave above. If others were "equal" as you say, then lets wait to see what other editors think of which actors were most singled out. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

A bad caption is not a good reason to delete an image, that does not make for a better encyclopedia article. Bad placement is not a great reason either. Editors keep doing things like this. They want to include an image but cannot think of a good caption and so they generically include something like "was praised blah blah blah". The caption is truly awful though, and an encyclopedia should definitely be able to do better than "love interest" and a vague WP:UNDUE generalization about her performance being praised. One review from Deadline praising her is not enough to make broad generalizations. I would also point out that Cruise is clearly visible in the poster in the Infobox, so I would suggest that it would be better to include an image of Connelly or Teller or another suitable cast member in the Production section before including a second image of Cruise. An image of Cruise would not seem to be inappropriate for the Critical response section either, so I made a bold edit and swapped the images (and tried to improve the image caption) but it was reverted without any explanation, not even a polite warning that this this issue was being discussed already. Keep the image of Connelly but give it a better caption and a better location in the article, please. -- 109.78.196.165 (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

It is possible to state in the caption that the Deadline reviewer was among the reviewers who praised her. Adding too much Tom Cruise images only does not recognize that others were also in the film. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
A lone review does not warrant the need for an image. Kpddg (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I hope other editors will agree that an image of Cruise is a better choice for the Critical response section than Connelly. I have reused the Rotten Tomatoes Editorial, which provides a sample of opinions from various critics, as as a reference to support the image caption that Cruise was praised and some critics called this the best of his career. The caption may need minor adjustment but I think that is a fair generalization based on a reliable source. I disagree with ErnestKrause on where to put the image, but I do think having the image improves the article, just not in the Critical response section. I hope we can keep the image of Connelly, for now at least. I would understand if editors later decide to include instead photos of different people from the cast or crew, e.g. the producer, the director, or Miles Teller, Val Kilmer etc. Three images is not too much in an article this size, there's room for more. -- 109.76.138.177 (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Original Release Date

The top of the page states that the film was originally to be released on July 12 2019 but delayed due to post production and Covid-19. Under marketing it says that the first trailer was posted online and premiered on July 18 2019. Both are sourced but obviously one of them is incorrect.--Cassiodorus585 (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Both statements are correct, and are not contradictory. BilCat (talk) 09:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
BilCat is correct. MaximusEditor (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Temp article lock

I suggest a temp article lock as I have just had to spend the last half a hour removing edits that either messed up the info box or displayed wrong information. Just food for thought. MWBarretto24 (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I second this as just within the same time length, 4 or more vandalism edits have occurred. Each with there own reverting after it. Although it might die down soon, yet it would be worth it for the mean time. Jerry Steinfield (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Correction, it (vandalism) keeps coming! Jerry Steinfield (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the Guide for semi-protection:

Are most of the vandalism coming from IP Addresses?

Are there regularly new vandals?

Are more than 5% of all edits vandalism edits?

Phileo (talk) 08:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Enemy in Top Gun Maverick

Should there be a note that in some screenings (including mine) the foreign enemy was mentioned as Iran? The problem is that I can no websites that mention this, only articles that guess who the enemy was. There are a lot of tweets that mention hearing Iran in their screening but obviously this is no good as a citation. 90.254.249.214 (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

A citation will have to be provided for mentioning this. Kpddg (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Not clear that the enemy was stated in the film, but secondary sources such as The Ringer have looked at the available information and determined that the only plausible enemy is Iran.[4] Forbes.com has an article that repeatedly mentions Iran[5] and various Iranian details in the film. (Slate.com has some reasons why it might not be Iran[6] but it appears that article was an attempt at humor.) -- 109.76.138.177 (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
But this is just speculation from sources, the actual makers have not said anything of the kind. Kpddg (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
speculation from sources There are subtle difference between speculation (like when filmmakers promoting a film and saying how much they want to make a sequel before a film has even come out) and reasonable inference by reliable secondary sources. An encyclopedia should not include outright speculation but if done very carefully the article could reasonably include what has been inferred by multiple reliable secondary sources, with suitable warnings and caveats. the actual makers have not said anything the film makers have deliberately adopted strategic ambiguity. Even in the first film the unnamed enemy was a contradictory amalgamation but clearly meant to be Soviet Russia. I'm in no rush to add it to the article, but I would not say it absolutely has to be excluded either. -- 109.76.138.177 (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately I think speculation is WP:OR. We need firm WP:RS. MaximusEditor (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
It depends on the type of speculation; there is verifiable speculation (permitted) and unverifiable speculation (not permitted). If a reliable source is doing the speculation and not some Wikipedia editor, for example, then that's verifiable speculation. The real question is whether or not said speculation is getting prominent or significant coverage. If the consensus agrees that it is, then sure, we can include that in the article with inline citations. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Whichever enemy it is, would their pilots really be expected to fly planes with instrumentation labels in English?
Nuttyskin (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Sometimes SteelerFan1933 (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Roles of the five 'minor candidates'

There seems to be an uncertainty about the roles of the minor characters among the candidates Fritz, Omaha, Yale, Harvard and Halo. While our article has assigned each of them a respective role as F/A-18E pilot, F/A-18F pilot, and F/A-18F WSO and also has paired the "F's"... are there citable sources to make this sure? In the Top Gun Fandom Wiki, there are lots of reversals back and forth on that topic. --KnightMove (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Misuse of stylized form TOPGUN (see WP:SSF and WP:CSF)

Normally, I would be bold and make this change, but this is a fairly active article, so I'll mention this on the talk page first. There are only two instances of "TOPGUN" in the article (to refer to the U.S. Navy (Strike) Fighter Weapons School). I contend that they should be written as "Top Gun" according to WP:SSF and WP:CSF and usage within the movie. (I realize that "TOPGUN" is also used in other Wikipedia articles, but I would contend that that usage is also incorrect.) "TOPGUN" is clearly a stylization. Wikipedia standards tell us not to use special stylizations such as "TIME" (for Time (magazine)) and "The GAP." In both Top Gun movies, the opening screen text says that the aviators call the school "TOP GUN," with a space (and of course we would ignore the all-caps). The movie title and logo use a space. I'm a Navy pilot (also a professional editor) and have spent time around the school and its students and graduates; they all pronounce "Top Gun" as two words (roughly even stress on the two syllables, with a slight pause in between) and never as one word (no noticeable break between the words and more emphasis on "Top"). I'm aware that some articles and books use "TOPGUN," but many don't, and that just brings us back to WP:SSF anyway. Holy (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections to this explanation and line of reasoning for two months, I have made the changes. Holy (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit conflict with User:Donthreatenme

@Donthreatenme and I are having an edit conflict. Summary of events:

I invite editors to examine both Donthreatenme's version of the plot summary and the one he is opposed to. I believe that the latter is

  • more succinct
  • avoids unnecessary phrases like "One day", "Upon arriving", and "Sometime after the mission"
  • has important detail the other lacks, such as a mention of Iceman protecting Maverick (as his "sea daddy", really) all these years despite his being a terminal O-6
  • does not have grammatical errors like "insists to ground Maverick"
  • does not have run-on sentences such as the one beginning with "Maverick confides with former girlfriend Penny Benjamin"
  • does not have pointless/extraneous detail, such as mentioning the missing-man formation at Iceman's funeral, or Amelia (only mentioned once and otherwise unimportant)

I also invite Donthreatenme—who I gather is not a native English speaker—to explain why he believes that his version of the plot summary is superior. Ylee (talk) 05:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

First, let's talk about the 400-700 word count. Your preferred version is 633, and the most recent revert took that all the way up to 678. So there is no merit to concern about word count, and in fact, they are making it worse. Second, I tend to agree that your version has fewer grammatical errors. There's still room for improvement, but I think we should take it back to that version and build from there. And finally, comments like "back to summary" and "back to a full summarized version" seem to indicate the IP and newly-created user account Donthreatenme are the same person. We can address the editor separately in another venue and protect the page if necessary, but for now, I'll revert it back. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Donthreatenme inserted his version of the plot again. Can we protect the page without interfering with the ongoing box office/reception updates, though? Ylee (talk) 01:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Just ANI it, if the issue is with one editor, and it's a content dispute, they aren't gonna lock it. FrederalBacon (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

As advised above, I took this to WP:AN3. Ylee (talk) 09:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Donthreatenme was blocked (extended to sitewide after belligerency on user's talk page). IP editor 210.245.54.31, however, has made two edits to the Plot. One of the edits is more or less the same as in the version that Donthreateme kept reverting to. It is not the same IP address as the one Donthreatenme used before creating the account, but the text is almost identical. Is this something for WP:CHK? Ylee (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

 Looks like a duck to me EDIT: Clarifying, that might not be enough for a checkuser on it's own (someone might just have liked the way it was worded and restored it similarly). However, that looks super suspicious, I'd certainly keep an eye out, if anything else makes it quack more, SPI it. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
On second though, it certainly appears to be quacking louder, I'd SPI it. "Arrived from standby" in both, IDK how true that is, I haven't seen the movie, but that wording is very specific. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I didn't mention that edit because I don't really have a problem with its changes but, you're right, "arrived from standby" is pretty distinctive. (The phrase is not a direct quote from the film, but the fact that the character being referenced is stated to be "on standby" is a minor plot point.) I'll follow your advice about SPI. Ylee (talk) 06:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Widespread critical acclaim

The lead's "widespread critical acclaim" seems like unsourced puffery. While it does have a 97% rating on RT, the average rating is still an 8.2, which isn't some absurdly high 95+. It also misses out on the "Universal acclaim" rating from Metacritic. Barring any sources that say otherwise, we should probably simplify this to "The film received positive reviews, with critics deeming it superior to its predecessor". Thoughts? -- GoneIn60 (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@GoneIn60 I would frankly put it in the middle, and just say it received “critical acclaim”. The critical reception for this film is significantly more than just “positive reviews”, I think it really did get acclaim, but criticisms do need to be noted. Some sources are already collected in the Reception area that does focus on some issues, so adding that to the lede won’t be too much of an issue. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 09:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Criticism in the lead? For a film boasting 97% on Rotten Tomatoes and 78 on Metacritic, just two short of universal acclaim? That's undue right there. 2001:8F8:172B:5385:9063:48ED:178F:FCEF (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
We need a strong source that specifically says it was critically acclaimed. We cannot make that call on our own. Dcdiehardfan, are you aware of any that do? If so, let's get a statement added to the Critical response section citing that source. This is required to give the lead statement adequate support (see WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY). Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I strongly dislike that phrasing, either it was "critically acclaimed" or it was not. It is it is similarly redundant to say it received "widespread" acclaim, we would never say it was "narrowly" critically acclaimed and if it wasn't widely acclaimed does that really count as "acclaimed"? In this case since the Metacritic summary[7] only rises to "generally favorable" and not their highest level of "universally acclaimed" I would agree that the phrase "widespread critical acclaim" should not have been used, generally positive reviews or generally favorable reviews seems more appropriate. The suggested text "The film received positive reviews, with critics deeming it superior to its predecessor" would work too. -- 109.79.70.46 (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

While our wording on such evaluations will always contain a subjective component, in this case I think it is more of a constructed problem. Metacritic lists 55 positive reviews and 8 mixed/average ones. In this I see no argument against the wording as-is. --KnightMove (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this analysis misses the point. First, we need a source that explicitly says "critically acclaimed". While Maverick was well received, it's no Citizen Kane or Schindler's List. Second, counting raw numbers doesn't say anything about how positive each review is on average. You could have 0 negative, 0 mixed, and 200 positive reviews that all give it 3/5 stars, and that wouldn't be considered critical acclaim. Also see past discussions here and here. These are just the first two I found searching the archives. The general consensus at the WikiProject has been to directly attribute strong claims like this to a source (WP:INTEXT). --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
@GoneIn60 @KnightMove Sorry for my lack of response, I was busy, but reassessing the situation, I do agree that my assumption might veer a bit towards original research. I think we can maybe reduce the wording down to “praise”, and if the section doesn’t already, highlight how many critics seem to agree with the notion it is superior to the original. I can’t do any major work, but I plan on doing some work on the reception section. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
We could use my suggestion above or change it to something like "The film was praised by critics, who deemed it superior to its predecessor" as you suggest. I would be fine with either one, but "widespread" needs to go. That's unnecessary puffery. I added a {{discuss}} tag to the lead. Hopefully that generates additional feedback. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
@GoneIn60 Yea, I’m fine with that, I think the text should also add other things critics highlighted too, but for now, that’s a good base phrasing. Should we do a poll or something to see if everyone agrees? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
No, I don't think an RfC is necessary unless we start seeing a split in consensus. Let's change it to this latest suggestion for now, and if anyone decides to weigh in further, we can make more adjustments as needed. As for additional text about highlighted aspects, that would need proper sourcing. At least one statement with a strong source would need to be added to the § Critical response section before we can consider adding it to the lead section. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Alright, so yea, for now, let us change it to above wording. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

The current wording downplays the critical performance of the film. It did receive widespread acclaim (as puffery-like as that may sound). According to this source, the film received “widespread acclaim” and was named the best film of the year by many critics; that is more than just “was praised”. Some critics even called it the “best move in 10 years” during its premiere at the ComicCon. Here’s one that says it was “critically acclaimed”. FrB.TG (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Metacritic is not the sole arbitrator of whether a film received critical acclaim, and even more so when Maverick is only two points short of what would be considered universal acclaim on their site. We can't always rely on rigid criteria. There are demonstrably other sources which state the film received critical acclaim, so these should be cited instead. 2001:8F8:172B:3EC0:508A:8553:EA1:78D7 (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

"Widespread critical acclaim" is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that would require a corresponding level of sourcing. Metacritic, one of the WP:BESTSOURCES we can get for something like this due to its status as a review aggregator, calling it "Generally favorable reviews" is a pretty strong point against us describing it as "widespread critical acclaim". TompaDompa (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

So you're saying that claiming "widespread acclaim" isn't okay when there's a source using those literal words? Even if not "widespread acclaim", making a claim of "critically acclaimed" should be enough based on the three sources I have provided above and the agreement above that we need sources explicitly saying the film was "critically acclaimed". We don't always have to go with review aggregators when there are multiple other sources that suggest otherwise. Here's three more: "universal acclaim" (although it's basing it on RT), "overwhelmingly positive first reactions" and "critically acclaimed" [8] [9] [10]. Being called "the best film of the year" and even "the best movie in 10 years" definitely fall within the definition of "critical acclaim", if not "widespread (critical) acclaim". These are eight high-quality sources supporting the use of "critical acclaim" at the very least. FrB.TG (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
The "agreement above" was referring to a "strong source". While these are decent news sources you've provided, they are not equivalent to peer-reviewed research papers, journals, books, or sources written from a seasoned perspective that have had the luxury of time to analyze the film's overall critical and/or cultural impact. Now that doesn't mean we should discount them necessarily, but we should recognize that the language contained within caters to a different audience. Enthusiastic descriptors like "widespread" are redundant (you would never say "narrow" in this context), and "critically acclaimed" isn't really encyclopedic until better sources confirm it. Now if the consensus thinks "critically acclaimed" is OK based on what we have now, then so be it, but I am adamantly opposed to "widespread" in any shape or form. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I should also clarify that some of those news snippets are either focusing on early reactions, or like in the case of Variety, it's clear they are basing their "critical acclaim" label on RT's 97% score, which we know can be misleading. This is why you need quality sources that undergo serious vetting and analysis for these kinds of claims. Variety simply revealed their hand, but I would venture to guess the rest are making the same mistake and using that label loosely. It's not hard to find dozens of sources that base their analysis solely on the Tomatometer. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
  • It's definitely WP:PUFFERY, "acclaimed" is even given as an example of a word to watch. One of the problems with permitting newspaper sources as reliable sources is that editors often don't distinguish between newspaper tone and the slightly more conservative encyclopedic tone. I think the proposed wording is fine, but I would tweak it slightly: "The film received mostly positive reviews, with some critics deeming it superior to its predecessor". I think that better captures the weight of positive reviews, but I don't think the opinion that it is better than the original should be advanced as unanimous. Betty Logan (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
    That's another alternative for sure, although "some" should probably be avoided per WP:WEASEL. Also, RT's summary states the film is "a long-belated sequel that surpasses its predecessor", so we should be able to assume this is the consensus among critics. Perhaps change the second half to, "with the critical consensus deeming it superior to its predecessor". -- GoneIn60 (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
    Clearly many critics have advanced that line of thought, but I'm not sure the impression is unanimous enough to constitute a consensus that it is superior to the original. For example, this is what Cineworld states: "Critics have lauded the movie as a joyous big screen experience with some even saying that it surpasses the original." Personally I think that summary is pretty much spot one in summing up the consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I think the challenge is that all these terms can be relative, and we all bring to the discussion our own impressions of what "critical acclaim" means. First, I don't consider the term to be MOS:PUFFERY if multiple reliable sources use it and if we attribute them directly, even as I get that the term can feel more associated with non-blockbuster films. (Another way to think of it is that it is critically acclaimed for a blockbuster of its kind!) Secondly, I think the above example of "mostly positive" is a rather underwhelming tone because films are rarely ever literally universally well-received; to me "mostly" indicates that there were notable detractors, which isn't the case here. Third, we should consider the 97% at Rotten Tomatoes with caution since it's simply positive reviews versus negative reviews and essentially not a metric convertible to prose. Overall, it's definitely tricky to nail down the language. Perhaps we should have a subsection listing all the different sentences (and their sources), culling from what has already been shared above plus more, and figure out what wording could be quoted directly or paraphrased, or what sources seem the most authoritative. Can search with explicit "reviews" or "critics" in the queries. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for weighing in, Erik. I have no issues with using in-text attribution, but that workaround is more appropriate for the body, not the lead. So unfortunately, that wouldn't solve our lead problem. Also per my recently-added comments above, I would strongly advise that attribution be linked to the strongest sources available (which in my opinion, should not include news snippets, when possible, for this kind of claim). -- GoneIn60 (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Follow-up

It appears the article text has settled on "widely praised by critics", which I'm fine with. Since phrases like "critical acclaim" and "critically-acclaimed" can be interpreted as a way of describing a film that achieved legendary, hall-of-fame-like status, I think it's a good move at this stage to avoid that kind of label. We can always revisit down the road once reputable sources provide a better picture of long-term reception, accolades, and achievements. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Box Office rankings

The film has been breaking multiple box office records and has not only broken into the Top 10 of the domestic box office, but it is also now the highest grossing release by Paramount. These should be included as they are extremely notable box office records. Also, every film in the Top 10 of the domestic box office mentions on their page said ranking. There is no reason why it shouldn’t be listed here. Zvig47 (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

They are by no means "extremely notable" and that's not even what "record" means. Being number 9 isn't a record, it's eight positions from being a record. The reason not to list these rankings is that, going by the coverage in the body of reliable, published material on the subject that I have seen, they are WP:MINORASPECTS that should not be unduly emphasized. It's also rather telling that there is no push to include that it is number 4 in Australia (as of my writing this). That is of course (per the sources I've seen, at least) also a WP:MINORASPECT, but it is nevertheless a clear example of WP:Systemic bias. TompaDompa (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
There is no push to include its ranking in Australia because Australia is never singled out. On box office websites such as Box Office Mojo and The Numbers, it lists the film's by their domestic box office (United States and Canada), oversees box office (the rest of the world), and worldwide. Stop trying to make this something it isn’t. This is simply an attempt to treat the film the same way others with high box office rankings are treated. Zvig47 (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Those are two US-based box office websites you just brought up. It's not exactly astonishing that they are US-centric in how they report data. That's WP:Systemic bias in the sources for you. TompaDompa (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Listen, I just think this film should be given the same treatment as other high ranking films. No reason why we can’t list it’s worldwide ranking. Also if we list that this is Cruise's biggest film, why can’t we say that this is Paramount's biggest film as well.Zvig47 (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there any opposition to listing its worldwide ranking in the box office section? Obviously not in the lead as that is long enough. It should at least be mentioned in its box office section though. Zvig47 (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. It has been removed multiple times—by me (diff), Juneilluve (diff), and Roman Reigns Fanboy (diff). So obviously there is opposition to listing it. TompaDompa (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Also needless to mention we shouldn't include every ranking achieved by a film. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Exactly why I was mentioning the most important ones. While domestic gross can be debated, worldwide gross should be mentioned if the film enters the Top 15 or higher. Zvig47 (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

And what's your definition of it being important? Just because it's in categories in top 15 in US and Canada? Sorry but that kind of logic doesn't make any sense. The film has broken a lot of records, hence my statement.

We include only if it's confirmed to gross in a particular country. Not two countries together. You've made up an arbitrary definition of what to include. Sorry but that's not happening. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

August

The Numbers.com currently lists Top Gun as Number 2 for the August 12-14 weekend box office. This could change, but the data currently stands. https://www.the-numbers.com/weekend-box-office-chart 2601:447:4000:220:407B:2CEC:FD0A:1854 (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

It's misleading to note the surge in ranking without also mentioning the "re-release" and any marketing efforts that go along with that. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Precisely. We are not the film's PR team. It is also rather dubious if including weekend 12 is WP:DUE per WP:PROPORTION. TompaDompa (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Plot wordings

I guess a common headline to discuss specific plor descriptions will come in handy. --KnightMove (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

"...make escape more difficult"

"Cyclone relaxes the mission parameters so they are easier to execute but make escape much more difficult." - I think it is wrong to narrow down the problem on the escape. If they fly at lower speed, enemy fighters may intercept them more easily - be it before they could launch their missiles on the uranium plant, or after. This plays a major role throughout the training - and in the actual mission, as meanwhile the Daggers are 1 minute from target, the bandits 2 minutes. Had they flown the attack 90 seconds slower, the bandits would have engaged them before reaching the target. So I would reword the "escape" to enemy interception, whatever exact wording is best. --KnightMove (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

KnightMove: Yes, when Cyclone relaxes the mission parameters allotting more time to reach the target and allowing the pilots to fly higher, it increases the risk of interception and being spotted by radar (making them more likely to be hit by SAMs). However, the greatest increase in risk has to do with the fighters safely returning to the carrier, or in other words, their "escape". Cyclone's number one priority is mission success; safely returning is #2. He wouldn't set parameters that would greatly undermine the chances of hitting the target. When Cyclone first suggests to Maverick that the mission parameters should be adjusted, Maverick pushes back and clarifies that the lesser time gives the strike aircraft a better chance to return safely. This is all about the their escape, so I don't think it needs to be adjusted. While I appreciate your concerns, keep in mind that this is a brief, concise summary that doesn't need to delve into too much detail. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Also for reference, here are the changes you attempted. Interception by enemy jets is not the only increase of risk; getting hit by SAMs is as well. Instead of getting too detailed, we are trying to keep it brief. Other concerns of mine include the wording "they come close again", which is honestly a poor grammatical choice. The previous version states they "reunite", which says enough IMO. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

No release in China is a notable fact, not "excessive precision" or "editorialising"

It is notable that Top Gun: Maverick has unexpectedly become one of the highest-grossing movies of all time even with no release in the second largest cinema market in the world (an indisputable fact with multiple sources available) but several editors refuse to allow mention of the lack of a China release in the article. Excuses such as "excessive precision" and "editorialising" have been made in defence of the almost instant removal of the cited information. Yet half the first 'box office' paragraph is made up of mention of two unrelated movies; the associated points can be made without naming them. If it's acceptable to reference Spiderman: No Way Home as the #1 movie of the pandemic era in an article about Top Gun: Maverick (a post-pandemic release) then it's notable that the latter has greatly exceeded sales expectations despite no release in a country that can make up to half a billion USD for a big Hollywood blockbuster. This significant and notable fact about Top Gun: Maverick is much more worthy of mention than specific box office figures for Belgium, Finland and Portugal. There are several lines in the Spiderman: No Way Home article about that movie's lack of a release in China. 82.21.19.72 (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

This is the kind of analysis that needs to come from the sources (and be presented in WP:PROPORTION to the coverage it gets in the sources). Otherwise, it's textbook WP:SYNTHESIS.
The Spider-Man: No Way Home article mentions the lack of a release in China in the "Release" section, not the "Box office" section. That is something that could also be done here, as long as it's cited and WP:PROPORTIONAL.
I agree that the points in the first paragraph of the "Box office" section can be made without mentioning the other movies. I'll remove them. TompaDompa (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Lorne Balfe while notable was not soundtrack composer

I'm continuing to remove Lorne Balfe and footnote from the music Infobox parameter as not a composer(s) of the original music score per Template:Infobox_film. It is also duplicative with the article text in the relevant section. --OQZYwD0R (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but as this is not vandalism, please be ware of violating WP:3RR. Other editors such as myself are watching the article and can revert as well. BilCat (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I've put it back for now as he is credited as a composer on some tracks and even listed as the first artist on the cover --OQZYwD0R (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
OK, good. BilCat (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

F-18 is called a Super Hornet, P-51 is called a Mustang, SU-57 is called a Felon

The Su-57 Felon designation is the name used by NATO here [[1]] and by Russian Wikipedia here [11]. The Russian version of the name is written «Преступник» which you can machine translate to verify. Someone keeps reverting this even though there are reliable citations being presented. Can the naming of this plane be discussed before reverting reliable sources in the Plot section? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I 100% understand what NATO reporting names are and what they mean. I have even personally done research on declassified NATO documents to identify and confirm rumored reporting names, but that is beside the point. I just need to illustrate the fact that I know what you are talking about. I am well aware of reports that the name "Felon" was assigned to the Su-57.
Many people, specially in the West, such as you (this is not an insult) are accustomed to using NATO reporting names as the nickname of a particular aircraft, giving them the same level of meaning as official manufacturer names. And understandably so.
However, those names are not the official name of that particular aircraft xyz. And using them in such a manner is incorrect. The manufacturer nor the military agency that commissioned the aircraft did not give the aircraft such a name. On the other hand, the same cannot be said of the F/A-18, F-14, and P-51, which received official nicknames. In fact, it is not uncommon for a manufacturer to not issue a nickname at all. See Mitsubishi F-2 and NHindustries NH90.
Here in Wikipedia we write in a formal and encyclopedic manner- which is why we do not write aircraft names suffixed with an NATO reporting name. Again, this is per Wikipedia's own manual of style: WP:NCAIRCRAFT.
"Name:This should be the official name either given by the manufacturer or the military. Do not use nicknames or foreign reporting names, (Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 not Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 Fishbed) for example."
Even the Russian Su-57 Wikipedia page you cite abides by this.
Chokoladesu (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
NATO is a military alliance and they use this designation. Wikipedia naming convention states: "This (naming designation) can be either the manufacturer's designation or the military designation...." The NATO designation is a military designation. Wikipedia policy is to rely on reliable sources and I have provided it; you should have a reliable source countering it and not just a long elaboration. On your third point, the Russian article identifies it as a Felon in the lead section of its article, both in the English version and its Russian version which I provided above; its in the first sentence of the lead section of the Russian article. You can use machine translation to see the Russian page in a translated version. Do you have any reliable sources to counter it. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
I am not disputing that the NATO reporting name is Felon. I am explaining to you that per MOS, NATO reporting names are not used to generally refer to an aircraft. It is written very, very clearly. Here is it again.
"This should be the official name either given by the manufacturer or the military. Do not use nicknames or foreign reporting names, (Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 not Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 Fishbed) for example." What part of this do you not understand?
You keep talking about the Russian article yet it abides by the same MOS. The NATO reporting name is neither present in the article name or anywhere else other than the opening where the NATO name is noted.
Chokoladesu (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
You appear to be misquoting your own version of Wikipedia policy which in the correct form states: "or military designation..." (where NATO is a military alliance), and you have not provided a reliable source WP:RS for your position. You need to have a reliable source if you wish to object to using NATO designations. Do you have a reliable source? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Either your reading comprehension is bad (in which case I apologize for my tone) or you are arguing in bad faith by blatantly ignoring clearly worded sentences. The part in the MOS clearly writing about reporting names is so crystal clear I cannot imagine any possible reason why you would be mistaken. My "reliable source" is the literal Wikipedia MOS.
You ignore the part outlining usage of NATO reporting names, then claim that it constitutes designation yet the MOS clearly defines a difference between name and designation:
[MANUFACTURER]-[DESIGNATION]-[NAME], for example Morane-Saulnier MS.755 Fleuret.
Designation, in other words, is the model number, which may be the one issued by the manufacturer or the military. "Military" here refers to the armed force which commissioned the aircraft.
For example, Lockheed's "L-500" or the USAF tri-service sequence for transport aircraft, "C-5", for the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy. Another example is Cessna's "Model 404" and the USAF tri-service sequence for transport aircraft, "C-28" for the Cessna 404 Titan.
And I hope this is the last time I have to copy this but here you go anyway:
"Do not use nicknames or foreign reporting names, (Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 not Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 Fishbed) for example."
Chokoladesu (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Still no reliable sources WP:RS for your edit and Wikipedia is generally against the type of original research you are presenting WP:NOR. NATO is usually not referred to as a source of "nicknames" as you appear to be suggesting. Possibly wait a day or two to see if other editors respond and if there is any support for your position. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Again you are obviously arguing in bath faith by claiming "reliable source" is needed when this was never an issue of sourcing, and framing what I'm saying as "original research" when it is not. Wikipedia's own MOS per aircraft naming is clearly written and the linked articles have their own good sourcing. Chokoladesu (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the workaround here was to tuck the "Felon" mention into an explanatory footnote, which works well, but thought I'd point out that WP:NCAIRCRAFT is a guideline about article titles, not article content. It does not dictate what you can and cannot do within an article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:AIRNATO does recommend only using the NATO reporting name in the lead of aircraft articles. It's also generally applied to usage in other articles, as the use of the NATO name can be contentious. Of course it doesn't have to be followed, but ingnoring it just invites unnecessary problems. But, as you said, the footnote works. BilCat (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Same problem with SA-3 Goa. Holy (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

that was completely unnecessary. Chokoladesu (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
What was completely unnecessary? Holy (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
the amount of technical information in the present version of this article. we absolutely do not need to know the model of SAM used. Literally no other fighter jet movie article does this. Chokoladesu (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
OK. Why did you make that response to me? I didn't claim or imply that "the amount of technical information in the present version of this article" was necessary. Holy (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "NATO assigns new reporting name for Su-57 5th generation jet fighter". ruaviation.com. 1 November 2019. Retrieved 2 November 2019.

Musical

We don't need to continue this silliness. BilCat (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Musical film is a film genre in which songs by the characters are interwoven into the narrative, sometimes accompanied by singing and dancing. The songs usually advance the plot or develop the film's characters, but in some cases, they serve merely as breaks in the storyline, often as elaborate "production numbers".


That said, I was wondering if Top Gun: Maverick qualifies as a musical due to Rooster singing and others doing body movements that technically qualify as dancing. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so...music does not have a major role here Kpddg (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Oh. Sorry. I thought the breaks in the storyline condition made it a musical. Also, it doesn't have to be a "production number", just that it often was. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not the Sound Of Music lol as stated the music doesn't have a major role in the film. MWBarretto24 (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I knew it technically qualified as a musical, so I was just humorously wondering if it qualified on wikipedia. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Anyways I should've known that Top Gun: Maverick is obviously not Encanto. Like I said, i'm sorry. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Please note WP:FILMGENRE. The genre should be based on reliable sources, so any question or claims about the genre should include reliable sources to back it up. Even if a film contained several musical numbers, and this film does not, that would still not necessarily make the primary genre a musical for the purposes of an encyclopedia article (and not even a Buzzfeed listicle either). -- 109.79.70.46 (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Bear too in mind, this crazy hot film is also largely a military operation, and I highly doubt the Department of Defense is about to recognize singing as music. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Jeez, I got it, you don't need to rub it in. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 16:27, 20 July 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.

Let's Keep September 7 Data In The Article

$1,442,543,869 rounded up is 1.443 billion. It is also impolite to erase the data from September 7 too.2601:447:4000:220:8C9E:572C:5803:A98A (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Why don't we mention the film's all time BO rank in the opening section?

The film just eclipsed Frozen II to become the 11th highest grossing film of all time. The one time I tried to mention it's all time rank in the opening section of the article, it was immediately undone, with the user citing "This addition has been suggested and rejected repeatedly." But why? The film is on the brink of the all time top 10; it's too far away from Furious 7 to catch it, but I think 11th is pretty high and warrants mentioning, no? Shamus248 (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

When suggested previously, it has been deemed out of WP:PROPORTION. TompaDompa (talk) 05:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I guess. I mean I'm under no illusions it'll climb any higher. I guess 11th place is too dubious to mention, but hypothetically, how high would it have to be to warrant being mentioned? 2nd, 3rd, 5th or something like that?? Shamus248 (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
It is not possible to give a specific rank that would make it due for inclusion, because it depends on the coverage it gets in the sources. TompaDompa (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Ehren Kruger

As described in the article, Peter Craig and Justin Marks had delivered earlier scripts which were dismissed with the respective projects. But they partly survived in the actual script which was merged and adjusted by Eric Warren Singer by August 2017. Christopher McQuarrie was hired in October 2018 for changes during production. Ok. But when and how did Ehren Kruger get into this? --KnightMove (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

First sentence

Per the best practice I have outlined at User:Erik/Best practices § First sentences about films, the first sentence should mention the 1986 film and actor Tom Cruise for non-specialist readers as the most noteworthy contexts to establish for this film. A quick WP:SET shows Cruise being headlined much more than director Kosinski, 175K results versus 5.2K results. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Accolades for Top Gun: Maverick

Because of how many acccolades TGM has won or been nominated so far, do you think we should put a separate page for it? Or should we wait it all out? DougheGojiraMan (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

American military propaganda in introduction: Let's recall principles

About mentioning the criticism of the film being American military propaganda in the lead section, I would like to recall some of the principles:

Currently, the lead section only mentions that "The film was widely praised by critics..." And I am 100% for that statement, which is absolutely true and by the way I am a huge fan of the film myself! But even with 96% positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, it is not NPOV to totally ignore the criticism in the lead - the more regarding the fact that also positive reviews either support that claim, or answer to it. Examples:

It is perfectly obvious and also made perfectly clear that the "propaganda" claim is the main criticism of the film, a significant view published by multiple reliable sources. I have also given a source clearly stating it as the main criticism: "Even before reading [a harshly negative review giving only 1/2 of a star (out of five), I knew it was going to be either a long joke or blasting the movie’s role as propaganda for the imperialist U.S. military... what little criticism I have seen has noted the nameless, unidentifiable threat they are fighting in the movie—just America vs. … not-America." This is a summary over the reviews and the public perception, not only an "observation on Twitter, as well as another source's opinion", as GoneIn60 has called it. So I ask you to clarify what you demand. I would assume that several of the sources I have given here should suffice, although it would not even be necessary to set a bundle of them, as the statement is hardly controversial. --KnightMove (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

There are a lot of issues with the coverage of the "propaganda" aspect in this article. First, I'm not denying that this criticism exists. It definitely does. What we need to be careful of is making claims that say that criticism is "the most common", based on a few anecdotal accounts of a couple authors. They browsed Twitter and/or read a couple reviews, and then said the criticism was the type that stuck out the most to them. This is not an adequate source in which to draw such a conclusion from.
The Mary Sue even has a disclaimer to warn that some of its published content includes "gossip, rumors, conjecture, opinions" going on to caution about the potential inaccuracy of its claims. There was an RSN Discussion as well that concluded articles from that publisher need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. The author, Alyssa Shotwell, may be a well-known blogger of the site, but she doesn't have the qualifications necessary for statistical analysis (which is required to conclude what is and isn't "the most common"). Furthermore, we cannot combine multiple sources to draw a conclusion that is not specifically called out in any particular source. Doing so is a form of WP:SYNTHESIS which is not permitted. So concluding it is a common criticism because you are counting multiple sources is something we should be avoiding.
I also advise looking at MOS:FILM#Controversies and MOS:FILMHIST. We need to be careful not to allow a relatively minor aspect to consume too much of the article, as these guidelines repeatedly warn against. We need to trim the "propaganda" aspect down to a brief paragraph of 3-4 sentences, and we also need to include criticism of the criticism (articles that criticize the propaganda claim) in a separate paragraph of the same section to adhere to WP:NPOV. And finally, I don't think this really belongs in the "Critical response" section. Like we typically do with historical inaccuracies, we should create a separate level 2 section to cover all this. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  1. The propaganda claim has nothing to do with historical inaccuracies. It was brought forward mostly in comments that are addressed, and qualify, as film reviews, so no need not to add it in the critical response.
  2. We need to cover all relevant aspects, but that does not mean we need to include replies to replies to replies etc. on as many levels as exist in the sources. We need to cover all relevant views, which usually includes positive and negative ones. But would we need to include this review, explicitly replying to the positive ones ("Pardon me for being the party crasher here, but it seems as though much of this sequel’s rousing critical reaction...")? I would not conclude that from the rules. I would also not conclude that if the propaganda claim is relevant enough to be included, replies to it are automatically relevant enough to be included.
  3. Still I would not object at all to include such replies, although it is hardly compatible with your request to 'trim the "propaganda" aspect down to a brief paragraph of 3-4 sentences', which I certainly do not regard as adequate. For certain, it can be trimmed down a great deal.
  4. However the paragraph develops, WP:NPOV hardly requires a criticism of the criticism in the section while leaving out the entire aspect from the introduction leaving only the praise there. Ok, let's do it without a "most common" claim, there are certainly other wordings. What about "Criticism included a perceived role as American military propaganda"? --KnightMove (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
The propaganda claim has nothing to do with historical inaccuracies. This is stating the obvious. I wasn't suggesting we create a "Historical accuracy" section, but instead, I was describing the common practice of treating controversy as its own sub-topic and moving that coverage to its own section, regardless of what we name that section. This is the gist of what MOS:FILM#Controversies suggests we do. Keep in mind that some of the coverage is from non-film critics (e.g., Roger Stahl, Kevin Fox, Ward Sutton), who are addressing the claim that it's propaganda. They are not reviewing the film as a whole in what we typically consider to be a film review. Making this a subsection of "Critical response" is akin to placing oranges in the apple basket.
We need to cover all relevant views That's right, we do. There are quite a few sources that belittle and/or counter the propaganda claim that I've gathered and plan to include in the article. These are significant viewpoints that deserve just as much coverage. Altogether, we should be able to trim this section down to 2 paragraphs, balancing the various viewpoints. It's also important to mention that there are over 400 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, as well as thousands of other sources covering the film. Even if you have a dozen or so sources that cover the propaganda aspect, I would still argue this is a very small percentage of all coverage out there. Remember, even a positive review has negative coverage within it. While a film critic may have given the film a good grade, there are almost always some aspects of the film in their review that they didn't like. We need to take all those negative aspects into account, which is why I contend that the "propaganda" aspect is relatively minor. We need sources that actually tell us it's significant; counting the sources ourselves is a form of original research.
And finally, like you said, we should continue to develop that section. Let's get that in order first, and then we can worry about how to summarize in the lead section. After all, WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Flesh out the body first. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
FYI: I posted a discussion notice at WT:Manual of Style/Film. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Kevin Fox' article is of course a complete, dedicated and even overall positive review of the film, as are most others cited in the section. You may be right about the two others you have mentioned.
I think the body of the section in discussion in already fleshed out pretty well, and you rather suggest that it contains already way too much flesh. I don't expect that further reworking of content and headline would substantially change the way to address it in the lead.
"We need to take all those negative aspects into account" - "We need sources that actually tell us it's significant". I don't know if this ends up in a consistent logic, but if so, then it will exactly result in mentioning the propaganda claim. That one is brought forward by numerous and significant sources, and is replied to by other sources. Of course, if you create a list of all criticisms that have been issued by anybody, or only by professional film critics, the list will be long. There is also a complaint that Penny "show(s) up as a trophy at the end of the film in a supermodel pose — I am not making this up — leaning on a shiny Porsche as if he’s won the grand prize on The Price is Right." I don't know if anyone else has stated a problem with that, but until further confirmation and/or reception is proven, this is exactly the kind of criticism we should totally ignore. As are most other criticisms of the film... with, possibly, exactly one exception. Maybe also more.
I am curiously awaiting other opinions and therefore have also posted a notice in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Top_Gun:_Maverick_-_propaganda_criticism. --KnightMove (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out that Kevin Fox is not a notable film critic. If he was, his review would be listed among those compiled by Rotten Tomatoes; it is not. The point about fleshing out the section is the addition of missing content – the inclusion of counter viewpoints that are in opposition to the propaganda label. At the same time, we need to trim back the amount of coverage supporting viewpoints currently have, in order to achieve an acceptable balance. This should be easy, as there are quite a few in there now from non-print publications of lesser-known authors. Kevin Fox's opinion would be one of them.
As for your last comment about "all criticisms", I am NOT advocating to include all of them in this article. My point was that many exist, and absent a source that tells us the propaganda criticism is the most significant, we should not give it too much weight in the article. There's plenty of room for compromise here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
My opinion, after reading through the above articles and doing a cursory search for others, is that the due weight for this criticism needs to be considered—and that the due weight in this instance seems to be "pretty low". The critical consensus is overwhelmingly positive, and the criticisms are coming from a low of frankly lower-tier blog-style sources; they shouldn't be discounted entirely, but blacknerdproblems or Mubi are not what I would hang any prose on. If it's such a slight element of the overall reception, than it would be undue to give it its own section (the same way a 'historical accuracy' section would be undue outside of the reception section if comments on its accuracy were not well-reported.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I think mentioning the military propaganda perspective is worthwhile, but we need to make it distinct from critical reception of the film. I find critical reception to mean how film critics have received the film, and it is clear that the film has been well-received in that arena. I find the comments about the propaganda to be more like social commentary. For example, we could have a historical film that is well-received by film critics, but it could get criticized (in the negative sense) by historians. Another example, with Black Panther (film), we have an "Analysis" section with "Cultural importance" and "African and African-American representation" subsections that have so-called social commentary that go beyond typical film critical reception. So I think in addition to keeping but refining the sentence, we should have a distinct section that can be called "Social commentary" or "Representation of US military", which can include a wider scope for a range of comments about that. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I have thought about it and I agree that a broadened section would be best, but then not only about the representation of the military, but their role, which will cover their representation and their influence on it. There we could consolidate the current criticism section and the last paragraph in Writing, which does not totally fit in there and is partly redundant to the former section. But then even more, this should finally be added in the introduction. --KnightMove (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

It seems that there are no objections against that, and I think even the previous opinions are implicitly supportive. I start with reshaping the section. --KnightMove (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, "The film was actively supported and influenced by the United States Department of Defense and the United States Navy to present the US military in a positive light. Therefore some critics, scholars and journalists criticized the film to be propaganda." Replace US DOJ and US Navy army with Chinese or Russian military, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Here is Merriam Webster's definition of propaganda: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. [1]
the first three critics used the word "propaganda" in their opinion pieces. the subsequent three critics criticized the us military for glorifying war.
Professor Roger Stahl outlines how they exert influence in Hollywood, and how they want to steer pop culture to glorifying war
the last two critics also criticize the movie for glorifying war.
"Role of the US military" are the wrong set of words to use. LilAhok (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
@LilAhok: Sorry, I have really tried, but I don't get your point. What do you want to have changed, and in what way? --KnightMove (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Ha, I just saw this section, my apologies! I left the Jacobin piece in because it at least addresses the concern, but the last peice was 100% NPOV so I removed it Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Definition of PROPAGANDA". www.merriam-webster.com. Retrieved 2022-11-03.
One of the citations is from a blatantly communist publication, how is that not biased? It even has a militant, aggressive title. I removed it. Noxian16 (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Two

Gonein60 is determined to use the two phrases out-dogfights and successfully destroy. I do not feel either is proper, any opinions?Infactinteresting (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

That's extremely vague without context. For one of the statements in the plot summary, it currently reads, "Maverick dogfights his skeptical students and prevails, winning their respect." I'm actually fine with that version. For the other statement, however, you added unnecessary bloat when you wrote, "The teams are successful in their mission to destroy the plant". The original text was fine and more succinct: "The teams successfully destroy the plant". --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Because "successfully destroy" is not preferable. What's a version you would accept?Infactinteresting (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
So far, no one else has chimed in, and that text has been in place for months with no other objections. I'm not seeing a reason to change it. If you do, you're going to need to elaborate beyond "not preferable". --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Three-quarters profitable after four days

The "Box office" section currently says The $300 million worldwide opening put the picture roughly three-quarters of the way to profitability in just four days in theaters, hitting the mark without a release in China. This wording being lifted verbatim from the source (with "put" replacing "puts") notwithstanding, profitability after four days of release is very obviously a WP:MINORASPECT that should not be included in the article. The source is an opinion piece whose thesis is that Hollywood does not need to design movies to appeal to the Chinese market to turn a profit, rather than a source about the profitability of this film per se. If sources on the net profit the film made from its entire theatrical run emerge we can and should add that analysis to the article (as we already do for e.g. Avengers: Endgame), but "three-quarters profitable after four days" is just silly. I removed this but was reverted, so I thought I'd bring it up for discussion here. TompaDompa (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

When I originally added reference to good global box office numbers despite no release in China, the world's second biggest market (clearly notable to box office performance, as indicated by reference to China in multiple other "box office" sections found on this resource), you immediately deleted it and claimed it was "excessive detail". (The article genuinely was excessively detailed such as mention of the weather in France and detailed figures for tiny markets such as Belgium, which you never challenged.) When I posted in talk you said it would only be acceptable if it was analysis that came from the source. So I sourced (from a highly reputable media organisation) a notable reference to the film's success in lieu of a China release and you immediately deleted that with a new excuse that four days' data was not enough to comment on the fact it had recouped x amount against its cost despite no China release. Fortunately someone else reversed your deletion and called you out on the faulty logic (yes, you can analyse how much a film has recouped against cost at any time after release). It's clear that no reference to performance in lieu of a China release - or even that it never got a release there - would be acceptable to you in this article. You'll just keep moving goalposts. No-one cares why, just leave the article alone and allow this notable fact to remain. 82.21.19.72 (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
The film being financially successful without being released in China is a completely separate issue from the "three-quarters profitable after four days" issue. If that was the point of adding this in the first place, the appropriate thing to do would have been stating that part of the source's analysis directly (rather than indirectly implying it) and give it WP:INTEXT attribution. Since we went over this back in August (Talk:Top Gun: Maverick/Archive 1#No release in China is a notable fact, not "excessive precision" or "editorialising"), I'll just reiterate what I said back then: This is the kind of analysis that needs to come from the sources (and be presented in WP:PROPORTION to the coverage it gets in the sources). [...] The Spider-Man: No Way Home article mentions the lack of a release in China in the "Release" section, not the "Box office" section. That is something that could also be done here, as long as it's cited and WP:PROPORTIONAL.. For now, I have rewritten the added part to focus on the Chinese aspect rather than the incidental "three-quarters profitable after four days" thing, which is to say that I have stated that part of the source's analysis directly rather than indirectly implying it and given it WP:INTEXT attribution. TompaDompa (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
You keep changing reasons/moving goalposts why my edits cannot stand. I/others pointed out it's not excessive detail to mention box in the context of geographic release (including no release in the world's #2 market) and you can analyse profitably after any number of days, and I note you abandoned those positions simply to find new ones. So I'll focus mainly on your latest. Firstly, "the film being financially successful without being released in China is a completely separate issue from the "three-quarters profitable after four days" issue" conveniently ignores that this is analysis of the film's performance from a reliable source (a journalist best known for his interest and work in film, published by the Washington Post) which makes that point in reference to no release in China. So whether you think it's directly related to my original edit you deleted is irrelevant (I will argue it obviously is: more talk of success despite no release there), it's still analysis from a source (which you previously said is acceptable) and it's not unproportionate (note: instead of linking to policies like a high school monitor, try explaining why you think a policy is not adhered to; and if you are going to throw rules around, work by them yourself). Secondly, your edit uses weasel words in that it still fails to state the film was not released in China. You see, there's no context given for your interpretation of what the article says in relation to China. Brings me to the bonus round: you are not an honest actor. Anyone reading your comment above would think I made an indirect implication from the WP article whereas you directly quoted it for accuracy, when in truth we both did the same thing in taking words from the article to build a sentence of our own without changing the meaning; the difference is you refuse to include the reference to no release in China, which the article clearly mentions several times, and therefore purposely disguise a central premise of the article and my edit. Sure, since you refuse to allow any discussion of box office in relation to geographic release (apart from the weather in France, which you never challenged) I could go to the release section and add a reference to China there but I'm positive you'll come up with reason to revert that. You do not edit with honesty, consistency, good faith, or neutrality. 82.21.19.72 (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Retract your WP:ASPERSIONS or take it to WP:ANI.
On the topic at hand: while one can theoretically calculate profitability after any number of days of release, profitability after four days of release is a highly non-standard metric. What's more, it undersells the film's box office performance since the notable thing about it was never that the film made money quickly, but rather that it had an unusual longevity. If we had sources discussing profitability after the full theatrical run, we would obviously remove the "three-quarters profitable after four days" part when adding the more updated one. It would not belong in the "finished" version of the article. It's a WP:MINORASPECT.
As for the profitability in relation to not being released in China, we currently have a single source mentioning it, an opinion piece in The Washington Post making a broader point about it being possible to bring in large amounts of money without securing a Chinese release. The source is not even primarily about Top Gun: Maverick, the film is just one piece of evidence supporting the author's overarching thesis. Going by the sources we currently have, this is not really a central aspect of box office analysis of this movie. Does Variety discuss the lack of a release in China in relation to the film's profitability? Forbes? The Hollywood Reporter? Deadline Hollywood? That would carry additional weight and constitute evidence that it is not a WP:MINORASPECT.
Like I brought up back in August, the Spider-Man: No Way Home article mentions the lack of a release in China in the "Release" section. It goes into quite a bit of detail about it, in fact. If we can add something similar here, that would be great. A bare "The film was not released theatrically in China" would not bring much of value to the article (which is why I haven't added it—though I would not remove it if someone else added it either, as long as it's properly sourced), but if we can give a short explanation as to why, it would.
I have rephrased the sentence in question slightly. Take a look and see if you think it's an improvement. TompaDompa (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Should there really be a separate section for "Role of the US military"?

It seems like there's not a big controversy going around the movie regarding military-industrial complex aspect. Sure, there had been some commentators sharing their opinion and concerns about it and some of it should be reflected in the article but the entire section feels like somebody just kept looking out to find lengthy articles on the subject while it wasn't a big part of general conversation. I mean, are "People's World" and "Inlander" such notable papers enough to quote them here? The quoted parts in the entire section reads like the rehash of the same ideas. We can just summarise them in the critical reception part by mentioning notable publications like "Boston Globe" and "Los Angeles Times" and the point will be clear enough. Azerbek (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think a subtopic has to be controversial for there to be a separate section. Sometimes a film will touch on a larger aspect of society, and that can warrant a more appropriate space for summarizing such comments. We have had "Historical accuracy" and "Political commentary" sections to cover comments from people who do not normally write about movies (which the "Critical reception" section mainly covers). It could be that People's World and Inlander are insufficient sources, but that does not necessarily refute having a subtopic. Looking for more about this subtopic, I found The Guardian, The Independent, and San Francisco Chronicle talking about the military aspect, and none of these have been referenced here either. I'm fine with the section but do think it could simply be separate from the "Reception" section. It can be annoying how everything that happens after a film's release is shoehorned under a generic section heading. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 23:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment – I've been meaning to circle back to this (see the "American military propaganda..." section above), but haven't found the time. By no means do I think this section is complete. If we're going to have one, it needs to adhere to WP:NPOV. There are just as many reputable sources that belittle the idea the military played a big role. While most who address the issue feel the military had some involvement and influence, the analysis varies from source to source depending on the author's political bias. The section currently presents only one side of what's out there. It's also too long. 2-3 paragraphs at most – about half of what's there now – is sufficient. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree that both shortening of the current contents and adding other opinions would be good. I won't find the time myself, but I will start with removing the final sentence & source, which does not contribute much to the topic. Of course, if someone objects, I won't argue much about it. --KnightMove (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the section has nothing to do with the movie and should be removed at once. But considering how woke Wikipedia is it's understandable why such a dumb section is kept. Bruce Campbell (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The role of the US military on the one hand, the criticism about it on the other, are relevant aspects to be covered in the article. As the former has nothing to do with the "critical response", the latter was also only partly brought forward by film critics, a section in its own right appears inevitable and is no reason to cry wolf. But now I have shortened it a great deal and hope this might be a good step to find a consensus solution. --KnightMove (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Censorship of Quentin Tarantino Quote

I don't believe the Tarantino quote describing his feelings about the movie needs to be censored but I don't want to start an edit war. @Infactinteresting introduced the censored version of the quote, and I've pointed them to to Wikipedia:CENSOR and explained my thought process. Other's opinions. are welcome! Philipnelson99 (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:BOWDLERIZE is clear: we never censor quotes like that. TompaDompa (talk) 07:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Why do we have to include a four letter word? What is the point?Infactinteresting (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Did Variety censor when they put f__ in the title?Infactinteresting (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
That's irrelevant. The Variety article says “I fucking love ‘Top Gun: Maverick.’ I thought it was fantastic,” Tarantino said. We either include the quote verbatim without censoring it or we refrain from quoting it. TompaDompa (talk) 05:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Different sources have different style preferences. We have our own Manual of Style on Wikipedia, and it is very clear about not censoring. See the link provided above by TompaDompa. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, while we don't censor such quotes, we are still perfectly entitled to necessarily select them. I would not see any problem with starting the quotation at his value statement "fantastic". --KnightMove (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

While the trim may be technically fine, I don't think it's necessary, because it comes off looking like we are trying to censor. I don't feel too strongly about it though. Philipnelson99, TompaDompa, anyone else, thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
For reference, here's the trim edit. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I have no attachments to the quote whatsoever, but if the full quote is included, then censoring it is against policy. Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't know that we need to include Tarantino's opinion in the first place. Like Philipnelson99, my main concern is that we not WP:BOWDLERIZE. We should recall that WP:GRATUITOUS points out that while being offensive is not in itself grounds to remove content, neither is it a reason to include it ("Not censored" does not give special favor to offensive content). TompaDompa (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
@Philipnelson99: It's nowhere claimed to be the "full quote", and it's even obvious that it isn't. The former wording (also selecting Tarantino's statements) could even be regarded as worse, as the reader could interpret as the full quote of everything Tarantino has commented on the film. --KnightMove (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Not sure how it's obvious to the reader that it isn't the full quote. And this conversation started because an editor tried to censor explicit language from a quote. I'm not sure the fantastic bit even needs to be included in the front as Tarantino said verbatim, “I saw it at the theaters. That and [Steven] Spielberg’s ‘West Side Story’ both provided a true cinematic spectacle, the kind that I’d almost thought that I wasn’t going to see anymore. It was fantastic.” The way it's written currently in the article looks like Tarantino's words have been chopped up specifically to not include the word. Anyway, it's your call, just don't chop up the quote to remove an offensive word because that's bowdlerizing. Philipnelson99 (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Tarantino said the "fantastic" twice, before and after this sentence, which should be an additional reason to keep this evaluation. I don't see a reason to change the wording as-is; if someone else sees it, feel free. I just remove the double referencing - it is one source for one closed statement. --KnightMove (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

PLOT - enemy SAM faced

Ok - it states "defended by SA-3 Goa surface-to-air missiles (SAMs)". I question this statement. I will agree that for the details of the shots in the movie that the launcher does look more like the SA-3! However - look at the age of that system. AS I watched it- I was thinkin more of the 9K37 Buk NATO reporting name "Gadfly" desig SA-11. - It is newer and probably better. Also the 9K37 has been received by Iran, Syria, ... Wfoj3 (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Good point. We don't need to be that detailed unless the exact model is specifically revealed in the film. Is it? I don't recall, but if it isn't, then we shouldn't be speculating here. Describe it as simply surface-to-air missiles and call it a day. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Top_Gun:_Maverick/Archive_1&oldid=1197263400"