User talk:Erik

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hi, you recently moved Run (upcoming film) to Run (2025 film). I just wanted to point out that 2025 movie that was just released this past weekend is *not* the upcoming Uwe Boll film that is the subject of the article. I left a note in the article's talk page attempting to clarify this, as well as fixing the description on the disambiguation page, but if you could move the current article back and/or create a separate page for the true 2025 film, that would help avoid further confusion, as it looks like an anon editor has already added a plot summary for the 2025 alien invasion movie to the body of the Uwe Boll film's article. --Fierce Beaver (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, shoot, my bad! I'll see what I can fix. Erik (talk | contrib) 00:06, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Erik, I'm sorry to inform you that MichaelQSchmidt, a prolific Wikipedian, has passed away. You appeared in his ten most-edited talk pages (other than his own), so I thought I'd let you know. Condolences can go to his talk page, where there's a link with more details. Graham87 (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Graham. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:37, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erik, I'm not sure why you find the addition of the insignias to be "relatively indiscriminate"? I'm not insisting on their inclusion, but as a specialist in insignia, I felt that their inclusion on a page about a fictional subject which focuses a great deal on paramilitary characters was helpful. I felt I did as good a job as is possible in referencing the insignia. But I see that you disagree. TexasBob85 (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize that you made an effort to present the insignias and only reverted because I thought it did not fit policies and guidelines related to fictional topics. When we write about creative works, they have to be "in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works" per WP:PLOT. This gets more in depth at WP:WAF.

I researched the topic but did not come across anything that commented about the insignias or specific military elements (or the weapons or vehicles or other technology used). If secondary sources had commentary about the insignias, that would warrant inclusion. If you still feel strongly about it, we can continue the discussion on Talk:RDA (Avatar) and request a third opinion through WP:3O. Erik (talk | contrib) 22:18, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you've been very clear about your reasons and I'll respect your revision as the creator of the article. As an amateur historian, I find the Wikipedia conception that secondary sources are more authoritative than primary sources maddening and that commentary is more notable than primary sources of fact. I'm fine with this being the end of it. If I should find a book or other source that would provide more "significance" then I'll come back to you and ask for inclusion. I appreciate your taking the time to discuss it. Have a good day. TexasBob85 (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please, always feel free to challenge! I don't WP:OWN the article and only share what I've seen prominent in secondary sources. I do agree with you about the conception! For franchises or topics with rich fictional universes, I tend to look for wikias that go into primary-source detail about that. There is at least one for the Avatar franchise. Not sure if you've considered that already, to put your contributions somewhere at least? Erik (talk | contrib) 23:00, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't thought about other wikis - thanks. TexasBob85 (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Erik. I wanted to ask you this before going out and making more changes on my own. I've noticed that you've been editing out films that mention the "action-horror" hybrid genre in the lead, to just say one thing over the other. I understand wanting to stick the primary genre as possibly can per WP:FILMLEDE, however I feel what you are doing is rather disruptive. I believe this because not only has this genre been the status quo for many years regarding these articles, it's also because this hybrid-genre does carry some weight to it regarding the classification of these movies, especially since there are legitimate websites that still use this classification.

Also, one thing I wanted to add is that you forgot to add redirects to the genre changes you make, which I also find to be disruptive. Even if people reading know what you're talking about, I think a redirect should be important to include when making these changes. Regardless, I wanted to ask for your opinion on this before making any more edits on these articles. Valddlac (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I can explain what I was seeing. I came across the term and saw that it had no encyclopedic coverage, with action horror film redirecting to a section in action film (which may be a WP:XY issue in itself) with nothing in particular to say. Out of curiosity, I researched that particular genre but did not see any potentially encyclopedic coverage, just endless listicles. So it's an encyclopedic dead end and not worth linking to.

As for using the term without linking, while some reviews call a film an action-horror here and there, it did not seem like any one film was more called an action-horror than some other genre, based on my WP:SET.

As for adding redirects, I'm not sure what you mean? Do you mean adding links to the principal genres? If so, that's a separate matter where WP:OVERLINK would apply since such genres are commonplace. You're welcome to disagree with me on that point and add such links. Let me know your thoughts. (For what it's worth, in the same vein, I've previously seen "dark fantasy film" overused in the same way and came to conclusions similar to the above.) Erik (talk | contrib) 20:55, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I do agree about the lack of encyclopedia coverage when you were referring to the genre, especially compared to other terms being used without a wikipedia article such as "science fiction-action" or "action thriller" redirecting to the action film page. With that being said, the term is still used to an extent so at the very least, I think it would be important to find one valid source that mentions both in the same sentence. If you want an example of what I mean by this, Resident Evil has different sources that describe it as either an "action" or "horror" film, yet Rotten Tomatoes uses both to describe the film. Although, you can make the argument that RT is not a valid source for genre classification which is fair. I know that the purpose of this website is an encyclopedia. But if it is still being used from time to time, it should still be given a mention while describing these types of films.

I was referring to linking when I mentioned redirecting. While I do agree it is commonplace to mention genres, it is usually considered common sense to add brackets in the WP:FILMLEDE, even if it is just one genre being mentioned at times. I'm assuming that's what you mean by linking. Valddlac (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I went down this particular road because of a discussion at Jaws (film) with an editor who wanted to redo and add to the genres in the first sentence. I started a discussion about this in general at WT:FILM and got to thinking about guidelines for genres in opening sentences. Like here, for example, Rotten Tomatoes presents genre classifications in a database format, as does IMDb and other similar websites. It does not tell us if the film is more horror or more action, and it's also likely that such database entries are not a result of thoughtful assessments. It's more worthwhile to see how reviews and other significant coverage of the film describe it. (Some films may not even have a majority of reliable sources agreeing on a genre.)

I'm not saying that "action horror" is not a valid term, and I'm sure there are many other kinds of valid mashups. But not all of them warrant their own encyclopedic entry, and not all of them get more commonly used than principal genres. "Action horror" could be used in the article body with citations, but I'm not sure if any film uses that genre classification more often than anything else to pass MOS:FILMGENRE for the first sentence. Erik (talk | contrib) 21:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I should have clarified myself better when I mentioned that valid mashups lack their own wikipedia entry. I meant to say those mashup terms like the ones I mentioned in my reply tend to be commonly cited and perceived as valid, despite them not having encyclopedic pages or at the very least having a section or sub-section on an encyclopedic page, similar to the "action-horror" mashup term.

After thinking this through, you do make a good point about the term not being commonly used. I guess my reasoning was with certain films that I feel have this fusion genre at the forefront.

At the very least regarding the edits you made, I would like to revert the edits you made on the Resident Evil series for consistency reasons with the main page for the overall series and the second film. If that’s okay with you, of course. Valddlac (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you don't have to ask my permission. I was WP:BOLD and made these edits. If you disagree, you can revert me. For Resident Evil, I am seeing that the film series is in part called "biopunk" which I completely doubt is a due-weight classification of it. It's something that could be explored in the article body, but it's too minor to be in the opening sentence. So at minimum, I can't agree with that very specific label.

In general, I would recommend broad research about what reliable sources have called the films. Like obviously if you search "resident evil" "action horror", you will find results agreeing with you, but it won't be clear if it's the most common. Better to do something general like search for "resident evil" films OR "resident evil" movies OR "resident evil" franchise without prejudice and finding the reliable sources and seeing what genre classifications these sources use. It helps to list these on the talk page to set a consensus. I say this because I've seen this done with other films' articles where editors opine what they think the genre should be, and we need to instead follow what sources do, and it helps to see that. Erik (talk | contrib) 12:22, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Who Framed Roger Rabbit? § Organizing the cast section. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]