5725:
were to edit and put in an extra whitespace somewhere, that's +1 kB. Hence, I could go into the article and reformat the entire wiki text with whitespaces and carriage returns, while not changing anything with how the article is actually viewed/read, and the number you are looking at would jump enormously. As continually stated, we need to be looking at the "readable prose size" provided by the user script, which is 68kB and well within article size limits. Now to each of the options. For 1, though
Triiiple suggested a further split, I don't feel the content he suggested is expansive enough to have in a separately split off article. As they said, and I agree, at this point it would be better to have a slightly larger article (this), and a good sized article (this) along with an additional subpar one (the proposed split of community info). For 2, I don't see any issue with the current layout. It is following the basic parts of filmmaking (Development, pre-production, filming, post-production), with subdivision as needed. Also, this article is part of the Good Topic of MCU films, which per its criteria, should have generally the same structure of each article. The other articles of the topic are formatted like this (with subdivision as needed), and I don't see any reason this has to change either. For 3, the development done by Snipes very much led to the eventual film we have today. Just because Snipes wasn't involved with the film, means we should truncate the work done by them in the article, providing historical context. I don't see the need to have this greatly reduced. For 4, I feel I've stated my opinion on this above, that the content as is is placed correctly. If that means it may be beneficial to gain a second reviewer's opinion on the matter, then I suggest we pursue that. -
5642:: The pre-history of Snipes in Development is antiquated for the purposes of a Knowledge (XXG) article on Coogler's film. Snipes was not part of any of the awards ceremonies or awards reception parties or anything else after Coogler took over. If you are in love with your two large paragraphs and large quotebox of Snipes then move it to his biography page. If Snipes had stayed with the project it might have made sense to keep this information. Now that Snipes is divorced from all the awards ceremonies and reception of the film, then he is antiquated history and minimizing reference to him here to one sentence is a better option. If you are in love with your 2 paragraphs of material on Snipes which you have written here, then you should move it to the Snipes biography page and not leave it here on the page for Coogler's film in its current 2 paragraph form.
3276:? Because that is what I would call trolling. Second, this all appears to have stemmed from a big misunderstanding on your part; people weren't taking kids to see this film because it is a good film for kids to see, they were taking black kids to see this film because it is a good film for black people to see and these kids may not have been able to see it otherwise. I find it highly suspect that you read through these sources and decided that their being children was the most notable part of the situation, not the blatant race issues that everyone else is focusing on. If this is the whole problem that you are attempting to address, then I am still strongly against this move.
5648:(last on list): The current Writing section is misnamed by your account and should be re-titled as Filmscript since you are excluding the pre-Filmscript writing evaluation which led up to it by your own accounts to me when I asked previously about this issue. Academy Awards are now based on the firm and non-debatable distinction that films written as adaptations are separate and distinct from original dedicated filmscripts in films for over 10 years now. They receive separate Academy Awards depending on whether you produced your film on the basis of the one approach or the other approach. My previous request listed as Option IV here is that you reconsider placing an
5661:
chime-in in support of each other automatically. I urge you, as an alternative in your interest, to select together which Option or
Options in the above list look best for you in order for me to move directly towards completing this assessment before the end of this week if possible. Even if you select only one or two of them, it would be I think in the interest of readers of the article for you to do this. I again urge you not to state that all four options are feckless since Option I at least was introduced and originally tacitly endorsed by all three of you. These are the four Options for your evaluation to make your best selections.
6163:
can decide on at least one option from the 4 placed above and implement it, then it might be possible to see that as sufficiently constructive to move forward to a final read-through in this assessment. Choose one of the options, your choice between the two of you, implement it and let me know when you are ready for a final read-through. It is the cumulative read time of the full article which remains an issue, it takes too long over thirty minutes to read in the form that the article is currently presented in. Implementing any one of the 4 options, any one of your choice, would allow a final read-through to take place at this time.
2782:
would fit in this article, but it seems like a near-certainty that if it was added in a way that offended these sensibilities it would be reverted, which violates the stability criterion for GA. Basically almost all of the reliable sources assume that this film is targeted at children and teenagers, but the only way such content can be included in the article as is in the context of charities raising money to send specific groups of young people to see the film, or in opinions attributed inline to people like Loverd; all the reliable sources assume this film is targeted at children and young adult, and these statements which
5403:
should not be taken into consideration). If the article length really is still an issue for you when using the proper calculator, then we could look at
Triiiple's suggestion. If we split off the community response and analysis stuff then we would be below 60kB. If we wanted to make this decision based on 10kB less vs. having these sections here in the main article where I think they are more useful to readers, then we could look to get some outside opinions specifically for that question. Hopefully with some extra input on that debate, we may be able to get this review wrapped up. -
5636:. It is odd to my reading that one of you stated that you did not see how such a newly outlined Design section could not contain subheaders for Set design and Costume design. If you reconsider on this Option II, you will be strongly on your way to allowing me to complete this GA assessment. Please consider this option again since it takes only 5-10 minutes to cut-and-paste this new TOC version in your edit preview screen to complete (that is how long it took me to do this in my edit preview screen with excellent results with a much simpler TOC with simplified nesting).
2832:, and I don't know how mentioning how a film targets an audience is relevant, at least in this case. For a film like Deadpool (which is R-rated and not your typical action/superhero film), sure. But what makes this film unique out of the hundreds of other PG-13 action films? You've also not provided any sources to back up what you're talking about for others who have no clue what you are even trying to reference (like myself) to view and consider. Also, as point of order, this discussion should have probably been on the normal talk, and not the GA review. -
5171:
on for 2 full paragraphs in the
Development section. This film is Coogler's film, and Coogler should be the start and end of this Development section. Even though I presented some of the Snipes material for this section, the current Snipes material is almost at the level of being a pre-history for Coogler's project. My suggestion is to trim the Snipes material which currently take up 2 full paragraphs into a single sentence or so, and to get into the Coogler material as quickly as possible. Two paragraphs on the Snipes pre-history is just too much detail.
3594:
when I went back to find the exact quote I couldn't find it within a reasonable length of time to leave the edit window open. I'm not convinced I just imagined it, but I really can't be bothered reading back over that whole exchange; I settled for the closest/first quote I could find, even if it was not "literal" (I left the word in essentially by accident). Your responding by sarcastically insinuating that I, an
English teacher with experience working as a translator and proof reader, do not know what the word "literally" means is ... well, it's
5628:: The full outline as now appearing in the article's TOC is nested three level deep and is unnecessarily deeply nested from the standpoint of a new reader of the article. That is not to say that all three of are not fully in love with the article's TOC as you have written and nursed it for over a year. The current TOC looks over-developed and unnecessarily deeply nested to a new reader of the article. The alternate outline I presented above in full detail is far simpler and follows the fine example set by such peer reviewed films as the GA for
2814:
it is nonsense to say that reliable sources are insisting that this film is only for children. The only thing that maybe gets close to that is the stuff about wanting black kids to see the film, which is very obviously because this is an important film for all members of those communities and they want to get underprivileged children to the theatres. As per usual, your input is confusing, ill-informed, and frustrating in its blatant attempts to create a problem that does not exist based on your dislike for us and these articles. -
3024:
all the time even in good articles. It’s a product of the collaborative editing process. The issue arises after the initial revert is made and how editors respond to that revert. I don’t even see any discussions of this topic on the article’s talk page. If you have a concern about a this topic not being addressed in the article, I suggest you start a discussion about it there, not in GA. The article seems quite stable and this doesn’t appear to be a main aspect of the subject, whose omission would prevent it from passing.—
3848:
the reviewing editor of this assessment page, I am supposed to be neutral and am limited in what I can say, however, both Favre and Adam have been making good faith edits to improve the article here, and Hiriji has made multiple allegations against each of them in this subsection and elsewhere. Is there something I can offer to do, while remaining neutral, which can try to limit the repeated allegations which are being made against Favre and Adam on this review page for several days by Hiriji. His block log here
2987:
decontextualized it, causing two editors to argue against something I didn't say. (Yes, I know Adam disagrees with me, based on his personal issues with calling these films entertainments for children, since apparently some adults don't like to admit that the media they enjoy are primarily meant for children; I personally have no such issues -- I liked this film, and yet see no reason to deny what it is.) Anyway, if the article is not stable, it can't be a GA; them's the rules, and you have to abide by them.
5303:
last week abridged the size by ten percent, which shaves only 3-4 minutes off the total read time. Just too much detail, even after
Triiple's useful split. Please remove the TOC index limit in order to fully display the full outline in the article TOC box. Please condense the excessive detail on Snipes in the Development section. Its Coogler's film and his involvement should be the start and end of this Development section, with one sentence indicating he inherited some preliminary pre-history from Snipes.
1963:
impact at this time. First, is the immensely successful showing as the #1 film for domestic receipts for Marvel films in history which strongly changes the way
Hollywood looks at predominantly black cast films as being 'A' class options for big budget productions. Second, the film has been a cultural blockbuster to black communities for taking cultural pride in what minorities can accomplish on the screen as summarized in the striking acceptance speech by Winston Duke at the MTV awards last night here
4009:
as a subsection where the writing process took place - I don't think it makes sense to have the writing info before pre-production here anyway, since the pre-production section starts with
Coogler's hiring and then goes on to talk about him starting work as a co-writer, so the actual writing of the script that they used for the film has to have happened after that. Also, I just double-checked and did not see any actual writing info that we missed which should be moved to the writing section. -
2851:, which is a serious concern for how neutral these articles are, since they seem to be written to push the (fringe) view that the films are super-cereal works meant exclusively for mature audiences. I'm not saying there's anything "unique" about this film; this is just the first GAN of one of these articles that has happened since the problem came to my attention a few days after the theatrical release of
2673:, which was 60kb. So I definitely think we can look at some "prose" reduction, without losing content. As Adam said too, the reception section has a lot of prose there (I scanned that separately, and it's 34kB), so I can look into that (mainly the box office section). Also on the topic of size, I've never heard of using a print out page count in judging an article, so I think we should avoid doing that.
2015:
have already given you three cites for this; do you need me to provide 3 more cites for this in order for you to include it? Will a total of 6 cites be sufficient for you to include this topic at this time. Separately, BP2 has started casting and preliminary writing of new cast members for BP2 according to multiple reliable sources during the last month which should be mentioned here and you can see:
3249:
would be highly disruptive behaviour on my part; saying that unless I am willing to do so then my multiple content concerns are invalid is nearly as disruptive. Do you seriously not understand that the GA "stability" criterion applies not only to edit-warring but to ongoing content disputes? If you do not understand this, then you should voluntarily withdraw from performing GA reviews until you do.
5084:
250Kb. Also, this version of the TOC looks much more accessible than the current 3-4 layered TOC in the current article even when it is expanded as demonstrated by Adam yesterday. The other option, without the new TOC, is to continue to abridge 2 or 3 of the longer sections of the article to trim the size of the article a little further which should be brought to somewhere under 250Mb.
2736:, that is, that the article reading time should be at about thirty minutes or less, and not take much more than that to read which is excessive for the average reader. Target this abridgement of prose to reduce the size of this full article by one third of the text, and let me know when you are ready. Regarding the Lexus in this film, I did research this over the week-end since
3077:, FWIW) that would still make the article unstable if my concerns were not addressed, especially when I've stated a number of times that I'm frankly terrified to directly edit these articles (except when either my edits are really minor or the film just came out and so is highly visible so any edit-warring will be noticed and acted upon) because I know I'll be edit-warred at.
5622:: Triiiple's option of another split was placed on the table by him, and then it was apparently withdrawn by all 3 nominating editors (Triiiple, Adam and Favre), even though Avatar uses this approach to its benefit. Its up to you three if you want to withdraw this idea though it was Triiiple who put it on the table and it actually looked like a reasonable option to me.
3370:
subsequently split off the majority of the info to a separate list. We are both working on this, and give our availability through the weekend to work on here, we'll probably be able to implement this the beginning of next week and to have you comment further. But I just wanted you to know where this stands and that we're working on it, in case you were curious. -
42:
1675:
Films are part of a historical and industry process which includes more than just the time and place of its original release and distribution. No-one could have fully predicted the back-to-back blockbusters for Marvel in early 2018, and some short comment on the number of reliable sources that have already commented on this issue is useful for this article.
3553:'edit-warring and talk-page IDHT, the article is not truly stable, and cannot be a GA; the fact that another closely related article's already being a GA has been the cause of edit-warring and talk-page IDHT in the recent past is just a happy extra, but the principle would be the same even if it were purely hypothetical.
6281:
This is a giant article listed as only low importance for the Africa studies
Wikigroup on the article's Talk page. The article was approaching 300KB originally which suggests that it was being considered as being at the level of importance of a U.S. President's biography. The three nominating editors
6186:
I think we can drastically reduce the "Community response" section and then merge whats left into the "Cultural importance" section. The vast majority of the "Community response" section deals with a single campaign to fund screenings for minority youth. This could be reduced to a couple of sentences
6117:
And by second opinion, we mean another user who can act as a reviewer of the Good
Article nomination, not a user who has a total of 2 edits to the article, and the one in question (the "overly detailed" tag) was not given a reason for why it was added. That is what we are asking for by requesting the
4043:
from 2012 is a much improved approach. Also, the new Writing section should conform as well to the approach taken in the other sci-fi peer review articles for '2001' and 'Promethueus' which I mentioned above. Here is one of many, many sentences currently in the Development section which should appear
4008:
for our production section structure. This is not a requirement in general, but it is what we do for all the MCU film articles for consistency within the Good Topic which is important. Since writing is not one of the four phases, it is not one of the main sections of the production, but we do have it
3139:
on this. Since this article has been put on page protection weeks ago, the article has been stable with no edit warring or serial reversions. If you are aware of any ANI concerning this article then it should be linked here for immediate consideration of this significant issue of edit warring. Please
2971:
You appear to be adding a new topic comment into a section called "Checklist as of 21 June", which at the moment is not supported by any other editor. I am placing the section title of your edit as "Younger audiences", your words, so that it is not confused with a previous discussion of the Checklist
2813:
What are you talking about Hijiri? You have just made up a problem, assumed your solution will be reverted, and come to the GA review to complain about that. MPAA ratings are irrelevant and unencylopaedic, and regardless of that there is no "child rating" or "adult rating", you just made that up. And
2256:
The new receipts data in the latest Entertainment Weekly I think needs to be included as I cited it above outpacing Infinity War. See my other comments above. New sections on Development look nice but keep in mind that the article is at 250Kb. Let me know when you have a look at my comments above and
1284:
People are always going to make comparisons like this, but we can't keep updating film articles every time a new film is compared to an old one. I think there may be a balance here, where we could get a small mention in, but I'll leave it up to Favre since he is more comfortable with the "Box office"
6291:
to repeat on future peer reviews for nominated articles by the three co-nominating editors here. The current article has a very good reference section and all the citations are fully formatted. The images in the article check-out and are useful and informative to readers. The last abridgement to the
6087:
This outline is based on the existing peer reviews articles mentioned above and appears to look better than the one you are currently using with 3 levels of nesting. I urge the editors to try to mediate with Favre on rejecting all four options as feckless. Reading time of article is excessive due to
5660:
These are the four options on the table. The three of you should get together either on-page here or off-page on your own Talk pages to decide carefully which Option or Options from the above list are best for you. In the past, you have made much here of the fact that all three of you are willing to
5170:
While waiting to see if Yintan has a follow-up, it is possible to continue the discussion of the article length and its level of detail as still being over 250Kb in length. The discussion should focus on the length of the first two paragraphs discussing Snipes which starts over 10 years ago and goes
4807:
I’m not basing this on the article but how films are made in the real-world. Films based on adapted screenplays for the most follow the same pattern. What you are proposing just doesn’t follow the logical flow of how the film came to be. If I want to read about post-production, it doesn’t make sense
4792:
is written for films with dedicated filmscripts and not adapted filmscripts which are more complex. Since BP is an adaptation which was preceded by the graphic novels then the current Writing section is mistitled and should be more accurately titled as "Filmscript writing". The refactored version of
4034:
The complex structure of this article is inadequately represented in the article's Table of contents at the top of the page, largely due to the extensive level of detailed information you are both carrying in the many subheader sections. The approach used in other peer reviewed film articles such as
3969:
Stating this a different way, "writing" covers the actual script written by the actual writers of the film. So from a chronological perspective, keeping the info on Bailey separate, is correct, because that was just developmental writing. That's also a secondary reason why writing is a subsection of
3510:
You can't show up to an article under GA review and start an edit war just to stop it from passing. I don't know where you have come from Nergaal, but this is highly suspect. As has been explained multiple times already we go off the peak position, not the latest numbers. That is a pretty basic one.
3369:
Just wanted to update you. Adam has done another copy-edit reduction pass on the article, but we are both working towards reducing the box office section (which he didn't do in the recent edits), which will cut down the size a good amount. With this, we are determining that it would be beneficial to
3301:
By the way, I do find it funny that my pretty civil statement of "A few of the things you listed I had not come across as common criticisms myself, and the parenthetical about the target audience was pretty pointed. It just didn't come across as objective when I saw it" is apparently me 'flipping my
3023:
Sorry I’m late to the discussion, but I’m not following. I don’t see any active edit wars or significant day-to-day changes so I don’t see how the article is not stable. Are you basing this on what you perceive may happen if someone were to add this particular content? If so, bold edits get reverted
2786:
in our article make no sense without that assumption, and yet our article has been deliberately structured not to make that statement, because at least one of its primary authors vehemently denies the statement, based apparently on nothing but personal opinion (since, again, all the reliable sources
2731:
Since you are both in agreement about the need for abridging prose, it is going to be important that both of you do a thorough run through and abridgement of all of the sections and I will review the abridged article when both of you finish abridging the full text of the article. The general rule at
2477:
The various Infobox quotations, about 3-4 of them which appear throughout the article, appear to lack particular usefulness and seem non-contextual. The article already has more quotes in its written text than is necessary for a peer reviewed article. These Infoboxes of Snipes, the director, and the
2460:
The discussion of the Lexus appears to be very close to what would otherwise look like paid promotion, and paid promotion is against Knowledge (XXG) policy. Five sentences on this one topic which even tell readers about comic book version featuring the Lexus is detail which seems inordinately minute
2363:
to the Box Office receipts of the film, and not an enumeration of every aspect of promotion which may have been marginally associated with the release and marketing of the film, such as comic books about the Lexus. Ping my account when you are ready regarding the other issue I have commented upon in
2014:
There are just too many articles that are telling us that the back-to-back blockbusters for Marvel with BP and IW have re-established the industry expectation for what success means in future Marvel releases. Already we know that BP2 and IW2 will be measured against the success of these two films. I
1913:
Its too early for anything resembling a legacy section here but with BP now being listed by Entertainment Weekly as outpacing Infinity War in combined receipts something should be said at least about its industry impact, both economically and culturally. The Infinity War people got this fact correct
1715:
Very useful section, and readers I think would be well-informed if some of the positive black community response to the film would be further added here. It would be useful to readers of this article to understand the importance of the film to the black community and minorities in general throughout
1690:
comparisons are coming up now doesn't mean it is going to be a significant comparison moving forward. This may be something better to revisit down the track once we have a better idea of how all these films set together in the public conscience. Perhaps if we are ever pushing for FA in the future? -
1491:
News flash from latest issue of Entertainment Weekly. The very last issue of Entertainment Weekly is now giving numbers for combined domestic and intl receipts for the Marvel universe films and putting BP at the very top ahead of Infinity War for combined receipts. This is on page 40 in the June 22,
732:
You have doubly over-quoted sections tripping over each other here, a blockquote near the top of the section and an Infobox quote off to the right side in this section. The blockquote to me looks a little overdone and one a sentence summary is all that is needed at most to shorten it and replace it.
345:
I think we both disagree with you on that, they are not marketing material at all. If either of those scenes was before the credits, they would be included in the plot summary, and being placed during or after the credits should not affect whether a scene is included or not. Also, they are discussed
330:
The last two short sentences in the plot section dealing with credits should be dropped as not being part of the plot of the film but more related to the marketing of the film. Once the credits start to roll, the optional inclusion of voice-overs for the credits, promotional materials, and gag-reels
6286:
in its scope. It is of importance that the three nominating editors make some note to themselves that they are bringing some personal edit history with other disgruntled editors based on their old interactions with them to nominations like this one. They should address this disruptive editing issue
6201:
I still believe that is useful content, and maintain my position that the slightly larger size is justified (also, a lot of the content was added per this review...). I really must insist that we get some more opinions on this as we have already reduced the size of the page significantly and worked
6177:
Again, like Adam and Favre I don't think size here is as major of a concern as its being made out to be. According to Favre, the readable prose size is well within the "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)" category and I am of the
6162:
Both of you ought to have some sense by now that I have been assuming good faith in the edits you have been making. There still is no follow-up from Yintan or Triiiple which somewhat leaves things on the fence for the moment in terms of waiting for second and third opinions. If however, both of you
5302:
That reads as 255Kb before Triiiple's edit and 248Kb right after his edit. The main issue is the excessive read time for the article which is currently well over thirty minutes which is Knowledge (XXG)'s guideline for excessive burdens on readers of articles. Adam's edits and your recent edits from
5083:
If neither of you tries this new version of the outline (it takes less than 10 minutes to do in the edit preview box), then you will not be able to see that in doing it you would be able to remove a good deal of redundancy in the article. This would shorten the article further which remains at over
5002:
Even if that were not the case, the re-factoring that you have suggested does not make much sense. It jumbles up all the production information and implies that some of it was not part of the production of the film. Frankly, while I respect you and all the effort that you are putting into reviewing
4878:
I agree with Triiiple. John, these concerns are starting to get a bit random. I made my change in the article to show what it could look like, but I didn't make it permanent because there is no consensus to make that change from the group. If you look at the expanded version and think it is better,
4755:
Please re-factor this so that I can do a final read through this week-end with a final assessment up or down. I have tried to use your own section titles for this re-factoring to simplify it. The outline also works well as an improved Table of Contents for the article as a whole. You may optionally
3847:
In trying to visit the Talk page of Hiriji to leave a message to request that he stop his personal attacks against User:Favre and User:Adam on this assessment page, I noticed that both of you were contacting him regarding his interaction with another editor on another page at the same time. As I am
3062:
Well, maybe. I can say for certain that the nominator, the editor who wrote the above-linked comments about these films not being targeted at (or even appropriate viewing for) children, and you have all engaged in both edit-warring and talk page IDHT whenever I raise content issues like this on any
2917:
made children cry. (And you'd better believe that I will oppose that article's getting promoted to GA without that fact's inclusion, since literally every spoiler review I read/watched made the same point.) Anyway, pointing out that the film (and to an even greater extent the tie-in merchandise) is
2617:
is and how they are compared in the long term then we can add discussion on that. For now, it is just too early. I know you have found some sources comparing them, but those sources are all rushing to conclusions. Give it a bit of time, and the whole thing will clear itself up. You can't expect the
2514:
featured in the original. That is what the reliable sources are using following the premise that the writing of a new script has, as among its first stages, the settling of the question of who its main characters will be and then writing a script for what they will be doing. The main editors appear
1962:
Ok to not include a Cinematic impact section at this time, but I would like to see a small section of the Industry impact of the film at this time, especially after the super performance at the MTV movie awards last night. There are two strong reasons for including such a short section for Industry
1311:
article, because that film was looking to surpass this one. In these sections, I always find it is better to always discuss the film in relation to those that came before it, and obviously anything in the present. If we continually look to comment on the release of future films in relation to this,
688:
I have added a writing subsection. Regarding a casting one, casting occurs throughout the entire production process, so in this preference of formatting it is better to exclude such a subsection. In addition, this is a similar style of formatting implemented across all of the MCU film articles. I'm
484:
then he is not doing anything else, period. A one sentence account of the following would do the trick and usefully inform readers without forcing them to look up the years of Snipes being forced away from participation: "Snipes reported to federal prison on December 9, 2010 to begin his three-year
443:
I don't have strong feelings on this. I don't think it absolutely has to be added, but I wouldn't be against a short line that perhaps gave context to why we stopped discussing him. I would just be concerned about adding something from a source that does not mention the film, which could be getting
424:
Without your stating simply that he was in court, readers will not for the most part remember if his highly publicized government disputes came before or after or during his interest in this film. If this happened either before or after the film then you might be correct to exclude it, but since it
394:
There should not be any problem making some mention of Snipes extensive issues with the courts, something short to indicate that it is common knowledge. I am not sure that your "In June 2006, Snipes said he hoped to have a director for the project soon" quite covers it all, and this seems your last
5739:
There is already a second opinion of the level of detail in the article as being excessive. The read time is well over thirty minutes which is against WP:TMI. While the other 2 co-nominators are contemplating their responses, and I hope at least one of them will mediate your response that all four
5724:
Again, I don't believe any of these options are necessary. You are continuing to point to the 250kB size of the article when myself and the others have stated this is not a number you should be referencing. Looking at that number, that counts every-single character included in the article. So if I
3768:
Imply ≠ =. It is a perfect example of vague, weak phrasing which is repeatedly used in this article. As I've said, it doesn't pass 1.a and any attempt to rectify that has been brutally reverted. That single edit I did took care of 3 problems with the article, and since has been reverted 3 times.
2598:
Sorry, I have been distracted with a few things over the last couple of days. My biggest concern here is your insisting that the article is too big, which it is not. I am not saying that there aren't a few places where it could be cut down a bit, but the fact is that there is only 86kB of readable
2531:
It is significant that the article as a whole go through a significant re-editing and abridgment of un-necessarily detailed material. A 275Kb article for this film appears much too long. These revisions should shorten several of the longer section by a least thirty percent. My hardcopy printout of
1590:
I'm sorry, I misunderstood with your wording. As stated earlier, the info on any records or numbers should be compared to films released before Black Panther. So it shouldn't be noted it outpaces IW, mainly because that film is still in theaters, and very well could ultimately end its run ahead of
579:
Can you be more specific? A lot of work has got into cutting these down and making them concise, so a little more direction on this would help. I don't think we should be removing good content simply because the sections are getting a little longer than some other articles that readers may be used
4081:
When you just did that in the article it did not help you since you expanded it and deleted the expansion immediately. I am trying to make better use of you strong effort at shortening the article from this week-end. You and Favre would be much better served by re-factoring the article using this
3593:
I was pretty sure one of JWT's comments was an explicit invitation to provoke an edit war rather than just "assume" you, TT, F1F93 or ATW would auto-revert and say the article was unstable on that basis, and wrote the above comment, including the word "literally", on that basis, but unfortunately
3467:
It is blatantly obvious to anybody with basic knowledge of English that these two sentences are at least confusing. However, three times the edits have been disregarded. Furthermore, the edits still list the movie as #3 when it has been surpassed since by AIW, again, because 3 different editors
3213:
in the article or to move your discussion to the article's Talk page to make consensus there, and you have ignored Triiiple. Both Adam and Favre have told you that this is a Disney film with a PG-13 rating and you appear to be ignoring them. You appear to have no support for your position. In the
790:
Digital filming is such commonplace in the industry today that it doesn't need to be noted. We do discuss the format, camera, and lenses used by the DP. If there was a special way of filming (ie Infinity War in the IMAX format, or Christopher Nolan on actual film), then that would be something to
673:
Article does not single out a section for Writing or for the process of Casting (process of selecting the cast as opposed to listing descriptions of the characters depicted as portrayed on the screen). Nice Design section here. Costume design and Set design are usually separated when discussed in
485:
sentence, and was held at McKean Federal Correctional Institution, a federal prison in Pennsylvania. On June 6, 2011, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear Snipes's appeal. Snipes was released from federal prison on April 2, 2013, finishing his period of house arrest on July 19, 2013."
4940:
What will not be happening is this random restructuring that you are suggesting. Again, this page is part of a Good Topic that we are keeping reasonably consistent: each production section is chronological, split into development, pre-production, filming, and post-production per the guideline at
3248:
ongoing content disputes. If your interpretation of TT's comment, that he was asking me to make a bold edit that I knew would be reverted in order to knowingly provoke an edit war, then the comment was highly disruptive, and he should retract it. Provoking an edit war in order to undermine a GAN
2781:
I find it somewhat problematic that one of the principal editors of this article, and others in a closely linked "series", gets "triggered" when other editors mention the fact that these films are targeted primarily at younger audiences on talk pages. I'm not entirely sure where such a reference
2603:
says that "the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time" for that size. I believe that the added reading time there is mostly coming from the reception section, which is all pretty valuable stuff. Perhaps the box office section is a bit much, but that isn't really my area of
1759:
I've added a bit more about responses in other countries to try and show the global scope and relevance a bit better. If there is anything specific that you want us to add then let us know, but I agree with Favre that a lot of the other things that I can think of are probably covered well in the
1674:
Since you have already historicized the reception of BP by including its comparison to other films in the top ten lists you have included and referenced throughout this article, then some short comment from the very large number of reliable sources citing BP by name on this issue is useful here.
409:
Snipes' personal life, at least in this context, doesn't need to be highlighted in this article. His issues with the courts weren't because of this film, and I don't think there was any correlation between those issues and him never being a part of this incarnation of the film. It has never been
5419:
No change of mind here and I have consistently been stating that the article appears to have too much detail which needs to be addressed. Triiiple seems to have the best idea right now, and since both Adam and Favre are supporting Triiiple on this, then it should be done as a page split. I have
5402:
I am slightly concerned that you appear to be changing your mind from earlier in the review John, and are also not using the actual page size calculator when demanding we increase the page (especially note that your measurements have been taking into account wiki formatting and references which
2909:
I didn't add that subsection -- I don't know who did, but whoever it was probably owes me an apology. (I should also note that I didn't even notice it had been added until I saw your edit summary just now.) You called the fact that these films are marketed to children an "opinion", and said you
2744:
has had a similar issue with the Austin Martin which I think is dealt with in a peer review quality manner there in that article's "Effects" section. If you can formulate something like that here on BP and get it out of the Marketing section, then I will try to keep an open mind if you do it in
2038:
Again, this is something better to examine in the future, just not today. And as I stated before, a lot of this is more general MCU release perspective, not specifically to this film. Also, the sequel has not started casting nor writing for it, as none of the links you provided say any of that.
1072:
comic book featuring the Lexus vehicle? This is obscure in the extreme. Reduce these five sentences on the Lexus to one sentence. Identify the vehicle and pick your three favorite cites from the ones you already have from all of your five sentences here, and be done with this edit as one normal
703:
Sections within the development section are a little on the long side. Readers singling out one section at a time being read in isolation from each other are likely not to notice, but readers trying to do a top-to-bottom reading of the entire article will notice the length of some of these long
5615:
Thanks for Favre's last note. There are 4 options on the table at present to fix the excessively high length issues of this 250Kb article which currently under WP:TMI fails to meet the criteria of reasonable reading length for new readers of the article. Another editor tried to tag the article
1689:
I think this is similar to the "Box office" section. I wouldn't want to encourage adding sections to film articles that list different films that reviewers thought were better or worse. I think this is even less noteworthy than a mention in the "Box office" section. Also, just because a lot of
609:
Both of you have written a nice section with good references but a 250Kb article is going to put a strain on some readers available time to get through the whole article in a reasonable amount of time. Let me simplify this to state that I do not think you need that long quote at the end of the
564:
Also important for the various sections in the Development section is that they are getting a little on the long side and the wording could likely be tightened somewhat for the benefit of readers. The material itself is fully researched and from reliable sources though tighter rendering of the
5336:
article, which is all wikitext and formatting. I would expect that number to be quite large, given the reference section alone where we are very thorough in crafting them (unlike many other articles). To the content, I agree with Triiiiple. Also, this is in contradiction to your very earliest
3988:
Writing section to make the article stronger and have a better outline. Include the Pre-production Writing section in the integrated version of the larger Writing section which should appear directly before the Pre-production section with all the "bits-and-pieces" from the various subsections
3896:
That's a useful new article creation you have made. In looking at the Production section, it would be nice to see your good Writing section moved up in the outline above the section it is currently in and after Pre-production. I noticed that the other sections Production have randomly covered
1999:
I also believe this is a long term thing. We can keep it in mind and work on it when there is good info available, but at the moment there has been more talk about it potentially making an impact than it actually making one, and we already cover that talking in the other reception sections. -
1025:
I'm really not seeing this amount of detail as needed for the Lexus in this pretty long section. A one sentence version could simply state: "Marvel Studios formed a multi-level partnership with Lexus on the film, with the 2018 Lexus LC being featured in it by doing (a), (b), (c) and (d)." Or,
3698:
So you are saying we should pass a GA that DOESN'T CLEARLY EXPLAIN what it is saying? Only self-arbsorbed people editing these kind of articles would know the jargon you guys use. Even AGF, this article IS NOT UP TO DATE, since it completely ignores the fact that the peak position has been
2679:
To your third point, Adam and I both understand what you are saying, and are not looking at this film in a bubble. As I previously mentioned, at least in regards to records and rankings, the Film project has determined it is best to state and maintain the highest peak positions for them, and
1517:
Thanks for that restore. The title of the new EW article is "Are superhero movies really review-proof", and the numbers it is giving for combined receipts are $ 700M domestic for BP and just under $ 650M domestic for IW. It still does not link through Google, though I have a copy on my desk.
166:
Setting up the review for this film may take a day or two. Could you mention in the meantime why you believe that it is not too soon to nominate this article for review given that the film was only released this year and it is less than six months since its opening. Are you sure that all the
1087:
I disagree with it being overdone. We are also not saying anything remotely close to what you think we are. Simply that we have thoroughly covered all aspects of the film's marketing and its partners, but not so much that it's like a hidden advertisement for any of the partners mentioned. -
3954:
Here is one of several sentences currently in the Development section which should appear in Writing only: "In January 2011, Marvel Studios hired documentary filmmaker Mark Bailey to write a script for Black Panther, to be produced by Feige." Also, when you move "Writing" to be above the
3165:
What on earth are you talking about? ANI? If you don't understand the concept of article stability and its relationship to content disputes, regardless of how many reverts have been made within any particular 24-, 168-, 720- or 744-hour period, I have to question your ability to perform
2986:
I did not add it to any section. I added it to the bottom of the GAN as it was when I noticed it, which is how these are normally supposed to work. And it doesn't matter if my position is "not supported by any other editor", since it has also not been opposed by any other editor -- you
3243:
hit me with IDHT and some weird political stuff. I also brought up another, significant, content problem that should be dealt with before the page is promoted, and if it cannot because the article's shepherds don't want to then the article is unstable as it is subject to not one but
2493:
but the main editors of this page appear committed to the creation of this artificial plastic historical bubble which they have placed around this film, which does not exist in real world of film criticism and is contradicted by multiple reliable sources which I have provided above.
6220:
which is in need of a Films section. Triiiple would be doing a significant service to the article for African-American culture as well as making a contribution to making the article on BP more accessible and more reader-friendly. A short summary as Triiiple suggests fits the needs.
1546:
I do have the physical copy if needed. As long as you cover somewhere in the article that BP outpaces IW for domestic receipts by over $ 50M at this time then its ok to use whatever online cite you have. Confirm to me where you place BP as #1 for domestic receipts in this article.
214:
I have to wonder if that Featured Topic should be reconsidered, since very few of the articles are actually "stable": they contain serious and obvious problems, and attempts to correct them are often met with auto-reverts and a brick wall of "not broke don't fix" on the talk page.
5420:
already pinged Yintan for any added views he may have but he has not signed on since 4 July, and he should be given another day or two. Ping my account when Triiiple's page split is accomplished. Separately, could Adam and Favre have a look at the last entry on my own Talk page.
2972:
by other editors. If you need to modify the title of this section to suit your topic then you can adjust it, but please do not disrupt the previous discussion of other editors with new topics unrelated and unformatted with respect to the previous discussion already in progress.
2918:
marketed primarily to children seems relevant and encyclopedic to me; otherwise, the references to black children having a superhero who looks like them, and to charities taking children to see the film for that reason, would make no sense, and the article would not reflect the
3659:
No one told you to start an edit war Hijiri. And even if someone did, it doesn't matter. The point is, there is no stability issues here, only a couple editors who are apparently against this article being promoted to GA for reasons that have nothing to do with its quality. -
4941:
MOS:FILM. If there is enough information within one of those sections to justify a full subsection then that is made, so in this case in the pre-production section we have a lot of information on the writing of the film and even more on its design, so those have been created.
5373:
Adam has already offered to remove the TOC index limit, and since he's not online at this moment, I am requesting that one of you remove it. I will respond to the two other issues you just raised when you remove the TOC index limit in the article as already offered by Adam.
2846:
Umm... no, I didn't say anything about MPAA, BBFC, An Bórd Scannáin or any other film ratings. I was talking about how the films are marketed to children. Completely different. At least one of this article's principal authors threw a hissy fit the last time I mentioned this
6187:
by removing a lot of the details from the involvement of individual participants. I think this cut would be a lot more useful than cutting the production information before Coogler's involvement without which we wouldn't know how it got into his hands in the first place.--
4808:
that I have to skip to another section to find the visual effects process. Or if I’m reading about pre-production, I have to look elsewhere to read about costumes and sets. As for your examples, there are many other good and featured film articles that follow this format.—
1947:
I agree with Adam. I think at this moment in time, specifically for this review, we simply do not have enough info to add info like this. But in a few month (say the end of the year), or even in a year or so's time, I definitely think there will be info we can add then. -
2430:
After checking on several other GA film articles, I am finding that this candidate article appears to be excessively long and dealing excessively with details in the film past normal expectations for even thorough Knowledge (XXG) articles. At 275Kb it is much larger than
2680:
disregard future films over taking that position. If this wasn't followed, it would be a constant need to continually update every weekend as a new film comes out (especially with a modern film like this). I also agree with the comment Adam made above regarding this and
6102:
John, the three of us seem to be in agreement that there is no significant size concern here, and I don't think we are going to change our minds. If you still insist that this is an issue then could you please ask for a second opinion? I think it would really help. -
5143:
On 26 June you had template tagged the article as having too much detail, and the nominating editors have trimmed the article by about ten percent. The current article is about 250Kb in length. Could you make a short comment on the level of detail in the article now.
1966:: “Thank you all for not just investing in not just a beautiful story, but investing in a continued conversation for what this industry and what this culture can achieve, and what we all can aspire to be.” It deserves a short section at this time for Industry impact.
1744:
I have added a couple additional sources, but the big points (the GoFundMe campaigns, representation on-screen comments) have been covered in this section in terms of the community's response. I feel what you are asking for is a lot of what we do cover in Analysis. -
2684:. Additionally, many of the articles you linked are not really speaking "historically" to these two films, only really that they have narrative connections, something we note in the article. I've not yet come across such an article I feel you are looking for to add.
594:
I agree with Adam here, that we shouldn't be reducing the content simply because it is lengthier than some other articles. That would be a detriment to the readers, because we've found some good information here to give a great overview of the film in my opinion. -
1894:
dedicated a whole section to every MCU film that Tony Stark appeared in. An alternative that I can suggest, which could be a good change for all the MCU film articles, would be to include a see also or further info link at the top of the future section pointing to
3939:
Writing was part of the "pre-production" process, hence it being a subheader of that section. Could you point to some of the "randomly covered bits-and-pieces of Writing" you mentioned? I felt we had grabbed all major ones and moved them to the writing section. -
1861:
sequels, not subsequent MCU appearances (which in this case Infinity War would be). All info on the status of a sequel is in this section currently, which, as of Feige's March 2018 comments, nothing specific about the sequel to reveal, but it is being planned. -
2443:
at about 130 Kb. The article needs to be cut back either by tightening the text and abridging excess detail, or you may consider creating sibling articles for special interest issues to which the main editors of this page appear to have become overly attached.
3083:
Yeah, but normally discussion can take place and editors arguing based purely on their own feelings in spite of the sources are not able to force the article to conform to said feelings. This doesn't take place on MCU articles, and becomes even more difficult
847:
Nice trims by you last night to this section, though I am wondering if you could go a little further and get it down to a single paragraph. There is already and fairly nice article for the soundtrack already linked and there is no need for duplication here.
4058:
Again, development information does not belong in the writing section. If your concern is what is displayed in the table of contents, then that can be changed as we have control over what level of subheaders is shown in it. Adding one more level you get
5478:
For the record, I have no concerns over the article’s length and think a single slightly larger article is better than one good article and one subpar article. However, this maybe the only way to move forward beyond this obsessive concern for article
4793:
the outline works much better in such cases and should be used here. It takes less than 10 minutes to fully refactor this article and the article is then brought much closer to such current peer-reviewed film articles such as "2001" and "Prometheus".
4003:
Regardless of where the section is, the writing section should not cover the hiring of writers as that is development information not about the actual writing process. As for moving it up in the heirarchy, we follow the four phases of filmmaking per
3617:
I wasn't insinuating that you didn't know what it means, I was just pointing out that you made a big claim there and it was not correct (yes, I did so in a sarcastic way but I don't think I can be blamed for being a little over all this nonsense). -
2515:
to wish to not pay attention to these reliable sources as I have linked them above. If you have a citation which calls these reliable sources speculative then you can link it here. Otherwise these reliable sources should be included in this article.
1636:
which came right after it. A number of reviewers have gone out of their way to compare the two films and it is worth editing some of that in here which would be useful since both films are considered blockbusters even when placed next to each other.
1980:
I still believe anything such as this can fit in any of the subsection we have currently under "Reception" without any new subsection needed. And I believe all that we have added there, give a very good overview of the film. I have going to see if
5272:
The TOC index should be unlimited in the article in order for everyone to see the full nesting of sections which you are using in the current version of the article. The size of the artile is listed in the edit history fields as you can read them
462:, because just because the tax evasion occurred while Snipes was planning development of the film, we don't know that the conviction was reasoning behind Marvel Studios not involving him anymore. The most we can add I feel, is what I've done with
1651:
See my response to the box office comment above. We again should be talking about BP as itself, and not really in relation to subsequent films. Which, if there is any notable info there, is probably better suited at a general MCU article such as
5252:
I'm not seeing anything near 250 kb, except "Wiki text" which isn't a parameter to judge in this case. We should be looking mostly at the "readable prose size" (which I've bolded) to judge the size of the article. That is only 69 kB, which per
3268:
There are no current content disputes. We are saying that you are free to bring one up at the talk page. Regardless, I'm still confused why this "children" thing is an issue. Firstly, do you seriously want to change the lead to something like
3471:
The reviewer should consider a quick-fail for this GAN, since regular contributors to this article don't look interested in bringing it up to GA standards, and would rather undo any edits from other editors than to accept any sort of tweaks.
2488:
appears arbitrary and not useful. Films in general appear within historical contexts which sometimes have significant influences upon future film-makers. Many useful reliable sources have spoken extensively about the relation of this film to
2257:
the new article in Entertainment Weekly on combined receipts in the 6-22-2018 issue. (There was just a large edit conflict on a large edit I have made and I may have lost 1 or 2 edits of your useful edits, please bring them back as needed.)
5463:
At this moment, if Favre and Triiiple can see this as a positive move forward then I am supporting them to go ahead with the split. I have already pinged Yintan for another viewpoint which he should be able to answer in another day or two.
346:
in the production section and it is ideal to mention plot stuff that is discussed in production first in the plot summary to give context to that later info. And if you are specifically worried about the post-credits scene being set up for
186:, and the criteria for maintaining that topic is that we need to nominate each film article within a month of the film's home media release. Honestly, we don't usually get a response to the nomination straight away as you have done here. -
1228:
s space and time, it did make and set these records, even if they have since been broken by today, or a film in 5 years. Regarding the #1 film for black audiences, I know I have not seen what the previous one was, but will investigate. -
3747:
During its theatrical run, it became the highest-grossing solo superhero film, the third-highest-grossing film of the MCU and superhero film overall, the ninth-highest-grossing film of all time, and the highest grossing film by a black
3769:
But after I have spent 30 mins just typing here, "in other territories" is still present in the article and apparently none of the 3+ reverters has yet any idea why that is a terrible phrasing. At this rate I'll have to do it myself.
6202:
with the reviewer to improve an many aspects until this point. Having one last issue that we disagree on seems like the perfect time to get some more thoughts on it, and requesting second opinions at the GAN page is not difficult. -
5656:
of the filmscript from previously written graphic novels. By pulling all the bits-and-pieces together, you will have a better article and will be able to remove some of the redundancy and make this material more concise and shorter.
5616:
accurately as failing this criteria and was reverted by Favre as I recall, though I agree with that editor as to the excessive level of detail. There are four options of the table which can potentially adequately resolve this issue.
3112:, when I raise issues on the talk page during a GA review my comments go completely ignored, and like I said above when I raise them at any other time I get hit with a wall of IDHT, which is even worse after the article is promoted.
880:
back in early June. While it is more concise that what I have currently adjusted the section too, what has been added some more context/info for the reader here that does not go nearly as in depth as the stand alone article does. -
6122:
is exactly what I was trying to convey. Absolutely nothing changed in the article, yet we lost nearly 950 bytes by removing extra whitespace in refs. Hence why the 250 kB is give a false illusion of size. Also, please note that
1350:
Thanks! I'll look to see if the sources we already have state this, or find one that does (or if you can too Sassy, that'd be great.) Also, I looked at that third source and feel if anything, it would be better for inclusion at
5331:
First to the size. The page size script I linked to is a very accurate tool for reading what the actual "reading size" is, so that is what we should be basing the "size" on. Looking as you did in the edit summary, looks at the
249:
Writing is fairly good in the lead section. In the last paragraph here it may be worth coming straight out and naming the #1 top grossing film for comparison. Also in the Box office section below if its not yet done there.
5513:
As Favre stated, I don’t we’ve crossed that point yet, where such drastic steps are needed. If for some reason the article continues to expanded, I would not be opposed to re-evaluating this situation but we aren’t there
2142:
I'll need to see the added material you state needing some extra time for adding to this article citing your comments for sections 4, 6.1, and 6.3 above, prior to my making further comments. Ping me when you are ready.
301:
Nice and concise plot summary. My comment would be to trim the mid-credits and after credits mini-segment at the very end here, which is not really adding anything particularly useful to the well written plot summary.
2483:
The principle applied by the main editors in this article of creating a sort of plastic bubble around the historical reception of this film as limited to only those films which appeared before or at the same time as
1928:
I agree that a section along the lines of "Cinematic impact" would be good. Once we start to hear about future projects being inspired by this one I would be happy to put that together (similar to the one I made for
1575:
Your are telling me that you do not have a single source that tells you that the current domestic receipts for BP is at $ 700M and the current domestic receipts for IW is at $ 640M. Is that what you are telling me?
1964:
5317:
Again, that is all useful information on how the project came to be. Its omission would be far worse than the couple of minutes of added read time, which would still only correspond to a drop-in-the-bucket.--
3783:"it became" is hardly the same as "it is", and this is the standard wording to avoid the problematic practice of constantly updating box office numbers. This is what is done for all film articles that follow
1454:
6178:
opinion that the topic does justify the added reading time. That said, I've been thinking about where we can cut some detail since it seems this is John's only path forward. I know I originally suggested
1890:
I understand what you are going for here, but we do want to avoid this sort of thing. It is just very problematic to have mentions for future appearances like this in every future section - imagine if
1312:
we'll just be continually chasing our tail. However, the third link you provided might have some useful info to add here, but I think that would be for the Critical response section, not Box office. -
5257:, still within the "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)" class (but much closer to it than when you first brought up the point). -
3056:). This means that if there is a content dispute that was raised but left unresolved because of edit-warring or IDHT on the talk page (or both), the article is not stable and should not be promoted.
2895:
Nobody is saying that this film is "exclusively for mature audiences", and nobody should be saying that it is intended only for children as well. Both of those are obviously stupid things to say. -
1716:
the world. Since your Analysis section is already fully developed you might be able to add a little more here as a framing for the Analysis section which comes next in the reading of this article.
5285:(cur | prev) 16:09, 6 July 2018 TriiipleThreat (talk | contribs) . . (248,774 bytes) (-6,374) . . (→Accolades: moving to main article, has over 40 noms and should help reduce overall byte size)
2626:
We don't mean to be difficult here, and again I want to emphasise that I'm not saying the article is perfect or anything. But I disagree with these demands being necessary to get the page to GA. -
2510:
There is more than ample evidence from reliable sources that a sequel is in the works when they report that actors are being contacted concerning new roles being planned for the sequel which were
5355:
Instead of cutting useful information, another option (although I'm not terribly fond of the idea myself) maybe to split the community reaction and analysis sections into a separate article like
183:
5003:
this article and helping us improve it, you can't tell us to completely change the structure of the page. So, if you prefer the more expanded version of the table of contents as can be seen in
2206:
I've added some replies to your comments above, but I haven't made any changes to the article until Favre has some time to have a look at what has been said here and give some input as well. -
3102:, and some of the stuff in our article doesn't make sense unless one assumes that not only this film but the dozens of major superhero films with white protagonists were targeted at children.
3911:
John, could you clarify exactly what you mean in terms of moving the section? All of this writing information that is in the current section was naturally/chronologically where it is now. -
3491:
are prone to OWN behaviour and auto-reverting should almost always be auto-failed at GAN; if this is not done, the reviewer should be made to seriously consider whether GAN is their forte.
2691:. We have no official (or reliable-source reported) confirmation of anyone returning to write or direct the film (otherwise we would include that). We also have no actors stating they are
2657:
Regarding the size of the article, as Adam stated above me, we should be looking at the readable prose size for the article which sits at 86kB. Comparing to the other articles you noted,
3549:), and the only thing that stopped me from doing so was my own good sense. If the only thing that keeps the article stable is the fact that no one can bear to put up with the article's
2461:
and easily abridged: "A Lexus was used in some of the action sequences of the film", with your three favorite cites, or whatever one sentence version you prefer is all that's required.
1843:
which should probably be mentioned here or at least somewhere in the article. Also should some comment be added that there is or is not a sequel in planning now in the summer of 2018?
6282:
have taken this into account, however, and have been able to trim the article to under 250Kb. I find the article now to be comparable in size to the peer reviewed FA film article for
1054:
Just because it says a lot about Lexus does not mean we should remove it, this is all noteworthy marketing info that we would not remove if it did not all involve the one company. -
1265:
1011:
Also, it's five fairly short sentences in the whole section that are dedicated specifically to the Lexus content, with 2 provided contextual info (for the Super Bowl commercial). -
5288:(cur | prev) 23:46, 5 July 2018 Adamstom.97 (talk | contribs) m . . (255,148 bytes) (0) . . (Reverted edits by Adamstom.97 (talk) to last version by Favre1fan93) (Tag: Rollback)
1262:
826:
Given how we have formatted the section, the post-credits info plus editing, and then separate VFX, I don't feel a subsection with a single paragraph for editing is necessary. -
350:, we have it sourced that Marvel did not ask Coogler to put that scene in, so it was never intended as only marketing for a different film even if some of us feel like it is. -
2532:
this file has gone over 24 pages in normal font size which is excessive as a burden placed on readers of this article. Abridgment of many of the sections by a third is needed.
689:
not quite sure if you are stating anything in the last sentence of your comment, but I feel the general "Design" heading is sufficient, without need for further subdivision. -
47:
3178:
for the outstanding maintenance templates, not waited for the nominator to voluntarily withdraw their nomination. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but an editor with
614:
including that long quote. That would shorten the section. The other section breaks you have added to this section, for example "Costumes", is well thought out and useful.
4770:
Agree with the others, I don’t refractoring is needed. Design is an integral part of production. The page like most film articles are fractured according to the stages of
1455:
http://www.showbiz411.com/2018/03/11/box-office-firsts-black-directors-have-1-black-panther-and-2-wrinkle-in-time-ryan-coogler-second-black-director-in-billion-dollar-club
5567:
I am still in agreement with Adam and Triiiple that I do not see the issue as it currently is (after splitting off the box office and awards table) being a size issue. -
3186:
is probably my second or third favourite of his films, but there's more to Knowledge (XXG) than those two articles), probably should not have been performing GA reviews.
80:
2607:
There is nothing unusual about how we are treating the Lexus information, and we should not be deleting information from the article because one editor doesn't like it.
1261:, I need to add that I am finding an avalanche of reliable sources which compare these two films by name as being back-to-back blockbusters for Marvel. Here is Fortune
3632:
I think now that I've withdrawn the claim, the burden should be on you to demonstrate that it was incorrect, if you are going to keep bringing it back up. I actually
3546:
Are you basing this on what you perceive may happen if someone were to add this particular content? If so, bold edits get reverted all the time even in good articles.
3338:
6216:
Triiiple's suggestion looks constructive, and there is no reason that he should be discouraged from effectively moving the material he indicates to the article for
3871:
3407:
3066:
The issue arises after the initial revert is made and how editors respond to that revert. I don’t even see any discussions of this topic on the article’s talk page.
895:
I'm inclined to let you decide which of these you prefer, generally the shorter the better for subjects, such as Soundtrack, that already have their own main page.
2790:
Just my two cents on something that should be in the article but isn't, and its not being there makes a bunch of the article make no sense -- take it or leave it.
2704:
These are my thoughts. I will try my best to address reducing some of the reception section (namely the Box office section) as soon as I can in the coming days. -
70:
4067:. We generally find the simpler version to be beneficial, but there will always be exceptions to that. Does the expanded table of contents solve these issues? -
3787:, so if you have an issue with it you should take this discussion over there and propose a widespread change rather than be difficult here for no good reason. -
3636:
think it was incorrect; I just don't want to read through all the harassing messages I received above to find the proof, which is the only reason I withtracted (
1068:
This section as a whole is overdone by a least a third. Both of you want to tell me that the success or failure of marketing Black Panther was dependent upon an
3870:
Thank you for your patience. The article's "readable prose size" has been reduced from 86kB to 68kB, in part by splitting off much of the box office section to
3406:
Thank you for your patience. The article's "readable prose size" has been reduced from 86kB to 68kB, in part by splitting off much of the box office section to
410:
indicated that Marvel was ever truly considering Snipes for some role, nor waiting to start active development on the film until he was released from prison. -
126:
909:
I think it is probably fine now, still pretty short but includes a few bits of context just to help those who don't want to go read the soundtrack article. -
1183:
blockbuster which followed Panther. Something more than just a passing comment which you have included in your Pre-sale section already. Your comparisons to
1460:
6135:) is a guideline, so we shouldn't be looking too much to WP:TMI, when it doesn't give us anything to measure the content against (where SIZERULE does). -
2019:
4044:
in Writing only: "In January 2011, Marvel Studios hired documentary filmmaker Mark Bailey to write a script for Black Panther, to be produced by Feige."
2610:
The box quotes help break up the large amount of text in the article, just as images would, and there are no other quotes anywhere the same size as them.
122:
3717:
be up to date. By using the peak position, it will forever have held that, even if surpassed. This is pretty standard practice with the Film project. -
2185:
Nice of you to make those good additions promptly. My follow-up comments are above. Your strong reference section is useful to readers of this article.
1299:
Thank you for clarifying about meaning the top grossing black director. As far as I've seen, I did not see any mention of what was the previous hold.
52:
2952:
other editors' comments without either their consent or, at the very least, leaving a notification that it was you and not them who made the change.
1425:
107:
1257:
My reference was to him as the top grossing black director in Hollywood in history, which is what I meant. Regarding the issue of comparisons with
1896:
1657:
1270:
just off the top of the google search list when you type in the two film names next to each other. This needs some short comment in this section.
2558:
Multiple links to many of the reliable sources I have already provided in the sections of this review above. Ping my account when you are ready.
2016:
3955:
Pre-production section, then the Writing section appears in the main outline of the article at the top of the article which is an improvement.
3436:? Are people this craptastic about using a less vague term than "overall" and deliberately revert to a blatantly factually inaccurate version?
2359:
It would be nice to see Marketing trimmed by as much as a third. The principle here should be essential marketing deployment which contributed
5434:
I would still like some more input on whether making the split is what is best for the article, perhaps with a request for second opinions at
3214:
meantime I have conducted a 6-month search of the edit history and the only instance I could locate of serial reverts was last November when
3070:
99:
2039:
Additionally, we don't include "wishful" thinking for actors wishing to return in similar situation as Jordan where their character died. -
1899:
where readers can learn more about other appearances by these characters in addition to the info on specific sequels that we have here. -
812:
Might be nice to see Editing broken out as a separate section as you have already done with the section for Visual effects, side-by-side.
5740:
option are feckless, here is the outline I previously presented as a possible enhancement based on the FA for Prometheus and the GA for
3209:
to support your argument about content disputes but you have presented none. You have been asked by Triiiple to either try to make your
3109:
3105:
If you have a concern about a this topic not being addressed in the article, I suggest you start a discussion about it there, not in GA.
3091:
The article seems quite stable and this doesn’t appear to be a main aspect of the subject, whose omission would prevent it from passing.
3074:
2640:
I also have been away the past couple of days. I also have thoughts on your comments JohnWickTwo, and will hope to add those shortly. -
2095:
That should get things started for now. More later, and the reference section looks especially strong and fully formatted at this time.
1243:
Can you please specify where you are seeing about the #1 film for black audiences? I don't believe I see where were have listed this. -
1392:
1199:. Similarly, should readers of the article be told what the previous #1 film for black audiences was for comparison and clarification.
5652:
Writing section before the section where you have presently placed it and pull in all the comments you make in the article about the
3053:
3049:
1429:
75:
156:
5185:
It became Coogler’s film but it didn’t start that way. How it became Coogler’s film is very relevant including Snipes involvement.—
3339:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2018/07/04/review-ant-man-and-the-wasp-is-great-big-crowd-pleasing-summer-fun/#52c126594f57
2913:
And you flipped your shit at me immediately before that for making an off-handed comment that a number of critics pointed out that
2271:
Nice restore on those edit conflicts and ping me when you are ready with the other edits for the other comments I have made above.
1040:
Again, I don't see this as an issue nor a highlight of Lexus. By adjusting it to one sentence, it would become an unruly run on. -
4774:. Writing is typically a part of Development, costumes a part of pre-production, visual effects a part of post production, etc.—
6292:
article made today is useful and makes the article more reader accessible and more reader friendly, and the article is passed.
3225:. Possibly you could consult with another editor to help make your case since you appear to have no support for your position.
2478:
professor, should all be deleted or possibly replaced by useful images. There are far too many quotes already in this article.
3649:
3607:
3562:
3500:
3258:
3195:
3121:
2996:
2961:
2931:
2864:
2799:
224:
3332:
997:
We are just detailing the marketing that took place. There is not much else you can do with a section called "Marketing". -
969:
Nothing else was planned to be added, so not sure I understand this comment, as we've made the Lexus info pretty concise. -
3175:
480:
My own inclination is to Adam on this one; a short one-liner is all that is needed. If Snipes is incarcerated for 3 years
5499:
has been there for many years. It is not my policy but Knowledge (XXG) policy. Your idea for the split is a useful idea.
5007:, then we can make the change to that. Otherwise, I don't think we are going to be able to satisfy you with this one. -
1410:
As far as I know, Gray and Coogler are the first and second black directors to reach the billion dollar milestone (WW).
3239:
I gave you a link of a previous content dispute on the talk page, which was abandoned because several of the article's
718:
I've subdivided the Design section, but see mine and Adam's response above to your 3.1 comment regarding shortening. -
5208:
Just so you know I just split the accolades section into its own article, which should help reduce the overall size.--
3801:
Dude, did you even read anything from the wall of text I typed here? Because at this point it's next to impossible to
2022:
6118:
second opinion (which in turn notifies users visiting the GA nom page for this). Also, circling back the size point.
3052:), while the actual criteria for promotion require it to be stable with no ongoing edit-warring or content disputes (
2613:
We can't predict what will happen in the future. Once we know for sure what the relationship between this film and
3874:. This new page size is much more in the range of the other films you mentioned previously. Please let us know. -
3410:. This new page size is much more in the range of the other films you mentioned previously. Please let us know. -
1026:
whatever wording you like, but not 5 sentences, since its already a pretty long section without your 5 sentences.
4756:
leave the Music section were it is now or include it in the Production section as outlined above at your option.
3897:
bits-and-pieces of Writing which should all be brought together and integrated into this one section on Writing.
1653:
115:
17:
3752:
During its theatrical run, it became... the third-highest-grossing film of the MCU and superhero film overall...
3699:
surpassed. But you can't AGF a bunch of people who thing "in other territories" is a legitimate term for a GA.
3041:
I don’t see any active edit wars or significant day-to-day changes so I don’t see how the article is not stable.
6244:
6217:
6192:
5519:
5484:
5364:
5322:
5213:
5190:
4813:
4779:
3029:
5539:? Or for us posting a notice somewhere asking for more editors to chime in before a decision is made here? -
5341:
a sentence about Snipes not working on it, and gave no indication then you felt the info was too in depth. -
3274:
is a 2018 American superhero film based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name, targeted at children
610:
opening Development section here. It states that they don't see eye-to-eye so why not just state it that way
1561:
If I can get access to the article in question, I will add it in, because nothing stating this is online. -
3461:" the film's largest markets were China UK, SK. It became the fifth-highest-grossing in other territories"
2829:
3345:
1482:
1415:
1400:
1334:
6132:
5254:
2600:
2164:
I was able to get to those three sections sooner than I thought. Replied to each of those again above. -
1876:
Maybe a quote could be added from The Washington Post's "What's next" article which I have linked above.
6297:
6226:
6207:
6168:
6140:
6108:
6093:
5730:
5715:
5698:
5666:
5572:
5558:
5544:
5504:
5469:
5443:
5425:
5408:
5393:
5379:
5346:
5308:
5262:
5224:
5176:
5149:
5089:
5012:
4798:
4761:
4072:
4049:
4014:
3994:
3975:
3960:
3945:
3930:
3916:
3902:
3879:
3856:
3792:
3759:
3722:
3665:
3623:
3584:
3516:
3415:
3390:
3375:
3337:
I'm including a link with an article from Mark Hughes (Forbes) on Ant-Man and the Wasp. 27th paragraph.
3307:
3230:
3174:
reviews you've apparently performed in the last three weeks -- you should, for example, have autofailed
3149:
2977:
2900:
2837:
2819:
2754:
2709:
2645:
2631:
2589:
2563:
2537:
2520:
2499:
2466:
2449:
2390:
2369:
2339:
2318:
2297:
2276:
2262:
2236:
2211:
2190:
2169:
2148:
2122:
2100:
2085:
2044:
2029:
2005:
1990:
1971:
1953:
1938:
1919:
1904:
1881:
1867:
1848:
1825:
1806:
1779:
1765:
1750:
1735:
1721:
1695:
1680:
1665:
1642:
1596:
1581:
1566:
1552:
1537:
1523:
1497:
1468:
1437:
1360:
1317:
1290:
1275:
1248:
1234:
1204:
1165:
1144:
1130:
1093:
1078:
1059:
1045:
1031:
1016:
1002:
988:
974:
960:
941:
914:
900:
886:
867:
853:
831:
817:
796:
781:
752:
738:
723:
709:
694:
679:
647:
633:
619:
600:
585:
570:
555:
522:
508:
490:
471:
449:
434:
415:
400:
380:
355:
336:
321:
307:
283:
269:
255:
205:
191:
172:
150:
6128:
3069:
Technically, even if I were raising the particular content dispute here on the GAN for the first time (
1532:
I do not have access to a physical copy of the issue, but if/when it comes online, I can add it in. -
1268:
167:
international markets have had their openings along with their DVD releases or are any still pending?
1891:
92:
3970:"pre-production", because it pertains to the script process that produced the film audiences saw. -
2696:
1393:
http://www.indiewire.com/2017/05/highest-grossing-movies-black-directors-film-box-office-1201815358/
6240:
6188:
5515:
5480:
5454:
5360:
5318:
5209:
5186:
4809:
4775:
3531:
You can't show up to an article under GA review and start an edit war just to stop it from passing.
3134:
3059:
Are you basing this on what you perceive may happen if someone were to add this particular content?
3025:
200:
Expanding on Adam's response, that is the main reason, but there are no other releases pending. -
5687:
5553:
Would be nice to hear from Farve and Yintan on this to move forward possibly over this week-end.
3646:
3604:
3559:
3497:
3255:
3192:
3118:
2993:
2958:
2928:
2861:
2796:
221:
6182:
but like Favre, I don't the content here would make for a viable article. So instead, how about
3925:
Writing section after Development and before Pre-production is what I meant as a new placement.
3144:
and identify the editors by name involved in that ANI for each intervention you are indicating.
500:
459:
3810:
3774:
3736:
3713:
We avoid current positions for the very fact you just mentioned - doing so, the article would
3704:
3477:
3452:
3441:
3341:
2618:
article to be perfect, even at GA we will need to be updating and improving it moving forward.
1512:
1478:
1432:
confirming it, but no one else seems to have made an article about it as far as I can find. -
1411:
1396:
1345:
1330:
1300:
876:
I've adjust the section further. Of note, please see a version of the section that existed in
503:
of the article. I have added a very small sentence about this, that should be satisfactory. -
6293:
6222:
6203:
6164:
6157:
6153:
6136:
6104:
6089:
5726:
5711:
5694:
5678:
5662:
5568:
5554:
5540:
5535:
5500:
5465:
5458:
5439:
5421:
5404:
5389:
5375:
5356:
5342:
5304:
5258:
5203:
5172:
5165:
5161:
5145:
5085:
5008:
4794:
4757:
4068:
4045:
4029:
4025:
4010:
3990:
3971:
3956:
3941:
3926:
3912:
3898:
3891:
3875:
3852:
3788:
3755:
3718:
3661:
3619:
3580:
3512:
3411:
3401:
3386:
3371:
3364:
3303:
3226:
3160:
3145:
2973:
2943:
2896:
2833:
2815:
2750:
2749:. The article size at the current 275Kb is too much detail. Let me know when you are ready.
2726:
2722:
2705:
2641:
2627:
2585:
2579:
2575:
2559:
2553:
2549:
2533:
2516:
2495:
2462:
2445:
2386:
2380:
2365:
2354:
2350:
2335:
2329:
2314:
2308:
2293:
2287:
2272:
2258:
2251:
2247:
2232:
2222:
2207:
2201:
2186:
2180:
2165:
2159:
2144:
2137:
2118:
2112:
2096:
2081:
2040:
2025:
2001:
1986:
1982:
1967:
1949:
1934:
1915:
1914:
and went out of their way to make the BP landscape one of the battlefields in Infinity War.
1900:
1877:
1863:
1844:
1821:
1802:
1775:
1761:
1746:
1731:
1717:
1691:
1676:
1661:
1638:
1592:
1577:
1562:
1548:
1533:
1519:
1508:
1493:
1464:
1448:
1433:
1386:
1356:
1326:
1313:
1286:
1271:
1244:
1230:
1200:
1161:
1140:
1126:
1089:
1074:
1055:
1041:
1027:
1012:
998:
984:
970:
956:
937:
910:
896:
882:
863:
849:
827:
813:
792:
777:
748:
734:
719:
705:
690:
675:
643:
629:
615:
596:
581:
566:
551:
518:
504:
486:
467:
445:
430:
411:
396:
376:
351:
332:
317:
303:
279:
265:
251:
201:
187:
168:
146:
6124:
5496:
5435:
3802:
3595:
3550:
3240:
2733:
182:
The reason we have been pushing to nominate this so quickly is that this film falls within
3984:
That's an accurate statement of what you did, though I'm saying that the article needs an
1930:
674:
books, which you have not done, but which books dealing with films in general accomplish.
3576:
3487:
Nergaal said it, not me. But yeah, articles that are subject to edit wars because the GA
3182:, almost all in a three-week period and a fairly narrow topic area (I love Kurosawa, and
2874:
Hmmm... why don't you have a quick look at the heading you created for this discussion...
429:
development then it should receive a short simple statement of his concurrent disputes.
3842:
3838:
3637:
3468:
insist on reverting it. And these are just issues I came across in the BO section.
3641:
3599:
3554:
3492:
3250:
3187:
3113:
2988:
2953:
2923:
2856:
2791:
216:
6301:
6248:
6230:
6211:
6196:
6172:
6144:
6112:
6097:
5734:
5719:
5702:
5670:
5576:
5562:
5548:
5523:
5508:
5488:
5473:
5447:
5429:
5412:
5397:
5383:
5368:
5350:
5326:
5312:
5266:
5217:
5194:
5180:
5153:
5093:
5016:
4817:
4802:
4783:
4765:
4076:
4053:
4018:
3998:
3979:
3964:
3949:
3934:
3920:
3906:
3883:
3860:
3814:
3796:
3778:
3763:
3740:
3726:
3708:
3669:
3654:
3627:
3612:
3588:
3567:
3520:
3505:
3481:
3445:
3419:
3394:
3379:
3349:
3311:
3263:
3234:
3200:
3153:
3126:
3033:
3001:
2981:
2966:
2936:
2904:
2869:
2841:
2823:
2804:
2758:
2713:
2649:
2635:
2593:
2567:
2541:
2524:
2503:
2470:
2453:
2394:
2373:
2343:
2322:
2301:
2280:
2266:
2240:
2215:
2194:
2173:
2152:
2126:
2104:
2089:
2048:
2033:
2009:
1994:
1975:
1957:
1942:
1923:
1908:
1885:
1871:
1852:
1829:
1810:
1783:
1769:
1754:
1739:
1725:
1699:
1684:
1669:
1646:
1600:
1585:
1570:
1556:
1541:
1527:
1501:
1486:
1472:
1441:
1419:
1404:
1364:
1338:
1321:
1294:
1279:
1252:
1238:
1208:
1169:
1148:
1134:
1097:
1082:
1063:
1049:
1035:
1020:
1006:
992:
978:
964:
945:
918:
904:
890:
871:
857:
835:
821:
800:
785:
756:
742:
727:
713:
698:
683:
651:
637:
623:
604:
589:
574:
559:
526:
512:
494:
475:
453:
438:
419:
404:
384:
359:
340:
325:
311:
287:
273:
259:
229:
209:
195:
176:
160:
3806:
3770:
3732:
3700:
3473:
3437:
983:
Its fairly certain that the Lexus marketing people will really like this section.
6287:
more closely with an experienced editor like Cullen in order for this situation
5138:
3217:
5223:
John, can you please state how you are looking at the article's size? Per the
4789:
4771:
3205:
You have been asked to provide the links for any disruptive editing or ANI on
2676:
I am still in agreement with Adam regarding the Lexus info and the box quotes.
1195:
era has dawned, which has become the dominant box office standard now and not
955:
As amusing as it is, I suggest not adding anything further on the Lexus here.
1857:
Per formatting of other MCU articles, each "Future/sequel" section discusses
3385:
Week-end or start of next week sounds fine. Let me know when you are ready.
2621:
There is no new information on the sequel, otherwise we would have added it.
2687:
Regarding the potential sequel, we have to remember it is still just that,
1632:
It would be nice to see at least something about comparisons of Panther to
704:
sections in Development as a whole. Try to shorten the narrative a little.
2773:
Article really should mention that the film is targeted at young audiences
4005:
3784:
862:
Will look into doing this (per my availability, may be a day or two). -
2910:
wouldn't take children to these films because of their mature content.
1591:
BP. If IW concludes its run still below BP, then it could be added. -
776:
Should it simply state that all filming was digital in so many words.
1428:
which puts Coogler at second (before he did surpassed Gray) and then
316:
I feel these are sufficiently suffice in the overall plot summary. -
2313:
My comments are above. Ping me when you are ready after your edits.
1307:, any comparison you are looking for seems better to include at the
3054:
Knowledge (XXG):Good article criteria#The six good article criteria
3080:
If so, bold edits get reverted all the time even in good articles.
5244:
Prose size (text only): 69 kB (11349 words) "readable prose size"
2229:
There is one thing I'm going to look at more to my comment in 6.1
3805:
seening how much energy I put in into 3 edits you still ignore.
6088:
excess level of detail as previously tagged by another editor.
3098:
of the sources, though, including in the titles of the sources
184:
Knowledge (XXG):Featured topics/Marvel Cinematic Universe films
1213:
I disagree. We shouldn't be consistently updating any records
458:
That is partially my concern to, that we would be approaching
331:
are normally excluded from the discussion of the film itself.
5707:
For Option II, see my edit of July 6 above as started here:
3849:
3731:
The current phrasing blatantly implies it is CURRENTLY #3.
3140:
link the relevant ANI reports which you are discussing for
1774:
Thanks to both editors for this. Its very useful material.
2695:
returning for this potential film, only desires and hope.
1303:
any chance you might know/have insight to this? Regarding
1187:
were correct when they were done prior to the release of
5978:
4.1 'Historic Opportunity' (your current Design section)
4547:
4.1 'Historic Opportunity' (your current Design section)
3851:
appears to indicate a long history of personal attacks.
3050:
Knowledge (XXG):Good article criteria#Immediate failures
6236:
6119:
5708:
5004:
4064:
4060:
3433:
3223:
3179:
3099:
3085:
2949:
2911:
2788:
936:
Interesting and well-written here with good citations.
877:
499:
That is still too much detail that isn't really in the
463:
134:
103:
2292:
I've responded to all of your outstanding comments. -
1492:
2018 issue. It should be updated here and elsewhere.
517:
Your one sentence version is all that's needed here.
5532:
Would you be opposed to asking for a second opinion
3044:
Not having an active edit war just means it doesn't
1839:
There was a cameo of some of the characters here in
1329:
F. Gary Gray, Fate of the Furious, $ 1.239 billion.
1217:obtained with other films that come after it, even
375:Interesting and well-documented character details.
6005:4.2 Costume design (your current Costumes section)
4879:and everyone else agrees, then it can be restored.
4600:4.2 Costume design (your current Costumes section)
1424:I don't think that would work to cite. I've found
1125:Is Ultra HD the same as '4K version' hi-def here?
5744:, both of which are peer reviewed articles, here:
1221:, despite it releasing a couple months after. In
2787:either take it as a given or state it outright).
2227:I've also responded some after Adam's comments.
3872:List of box office records set by Black Panther
3408:List of box office records set by Black Panther
3222:was trying to control a disruptive editor here
2117:I've replied to your initial comments above. -
3458:"it became the highest-grossing film overall"
1179:Section should incorporate comparisons to the
8:
5234:Prose size (including all HTML code): 130 kB
3086:after the articles are promoted to GA status
5237:References (including all HTML code): 26 kB
2654:Here are my thoughts from John's comments:
6032:4.3 Set design (your current Sets section)
4653:4.3 Set design (your current Sets section)
3598:, and one for which you should apologize.
1191:but need to be updated now that the after
30:
550:See Production comments above on Snipes.
2697:We are not a news reporter or rumor mill
2922:number of sources that point that out.
2604:expertise. As for your other concerns:
1897:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films
1801:Nice Cultural importance section here.
1658:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films
61:
33:
3751:
3750:Let's take out the non-relevant info:
3746:
3544:
3529:
3270:
3103:
3089:
3078:
3064:
3057:
3039:
565:narrative would be nicer for readers.
3989:collected into this one new section.
3745:Not it doesn't. Here's the sentence:
2439:at about 175Kb, and much larger than
7:
5683:What is Option 2? Just removing the
5227:script, this is the current output:
3451:Looks to me like this article fails
6239:brought it down to 245,326 bytes.--
3596:almost certainly a policy violation
3110:Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
1391:Don't know if this is any good... (
1073:single sentence in your own words.
628:I've reduced the DuVernay quote. -
3571:(edited 00:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC) )
3108:As pretty clearly demonstrated on
24:
3543:told to do that two sections up (
2828:Ratings shouldn't be mention per
2745:comparable fashion to the GA for
2740:of you are for it and the GA for
2435:at about 110Kb, much larger than
3180:scarcely 400 edits to their name
2950:refactoring or recontextualizing
2732:Knowledge (XXG) needs to follow
2584:Any progress over the week-end?
5337:comments, where you want us to
3754:It became ≠ it currently is. -
1985:has any additional thoughts. -
1477:Just found the same one! Nice.
1160:See individual sections below.
5248:References (text only): 1903 B
1264:, here is The Washington Post
1:
5901:3.5 Post-production (Editing)
4392:3.5 Post-production (Editing)
4063:which you can compare to the
482:during the film's development
3075:this other unresolved issue
6317:
3170:GA reviews, let alone the
3100:currently numbered 267~270
444:close to a SYNTH issue. -
6302:16:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
6249:14:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
6231:14:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
6212:13:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
6197:12:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
6173:03:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
6145:00:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
3395:14:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
3380:04:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
3264:14:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
3235:13:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
3201:13:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
3154:12:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
3127:09:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
3034:07:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
3002:00:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
2982:00:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
2967:22:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
2937:22:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
2905:22:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
2870:21:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
2842:20:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
2824:20:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
2805:10:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
2759:20:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
2714:19:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
2650:17:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
2636:01:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
2594:00:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
2568:23:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
2542:23:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
2525:23:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
2504:23:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
2471:23:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
2454:23:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
2395:19:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
2374:00:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
2344:19:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
2323:23:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
2302:17:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
2281:18:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
2267:18:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
2241:17:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
2216:23:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
2195:13:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
2174:03:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
2153:18:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
2127:17:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
2105:13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
2090:13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
2049:19:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
2034:00:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
2010:21:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
1995:19:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
1976:23:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
1958:17:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
1943:23:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
1924:18:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
1909:23:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
1886:13:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
1872:17:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
1853:13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
1830:13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
1811:13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
1784:13:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
1770:12:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
1755:03:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
1740:17:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
1726:13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
1700:23:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
1685:13:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
1670:17:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
1654:Marvel Cinematic Universe
1647:13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
1601:19:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
1586:00:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
1571:19:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
1557:23:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
1542:17:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
1528:18:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
1502:18:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
1487:18:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
1473:18:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
1442:18:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
1420:17:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
1405:17:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
1365:17:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
1339:17:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
1322:17:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
1295:23:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
1280:13:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
1253:03:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
1239:17:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
1209:13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
1170:13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
1149:17:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
1135:13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
1098:19:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
1083:00:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
1064:21:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
1050:19:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
1036:23:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
1021:17:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
1007:23:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
993:13:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
979:17:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
965:13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
946:13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
919:23:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
905:13:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
891:03:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
872:17:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
858:13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
836:17:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
822:13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
801:17:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
786:13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
757:19:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
743:23:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
728:17:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
714:13:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
699:17:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
684:13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
652:23:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
638:17:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
624:18:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
605:17:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
590:23:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
575:13:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
560:13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
527:23:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
513:17:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
495:18:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
476:17:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
454:23:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
439:13:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
420:17:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
405:13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
385:13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
360:23:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
341:13:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
326:17:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
312:13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
288:13:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
274:17:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
260:13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
230:10:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
210:02:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
196:23:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
177:20:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
161:20:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
18:Talk:Black Panther (film)
6218:African-American culture
6113:22:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
6098:20:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
5735:19:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
5720:19:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
5703:18:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
5671:18:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
5577:17:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
5563:11:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
5549:05:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
5524:11:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
5509:11:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
5489:01:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
5474:01:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
5448:00:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
5430:23:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
5413:22:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
5398:20:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
5384:19:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
5369:19:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
5351:19:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
5327:19:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
5313:19:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
5267:18:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
5218:16:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
5195:16:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
5181:16:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
5154:02:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
5094:15:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
5017:02:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
4818:02:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
4803:01:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
4784:01:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
4766:00:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
4077:23:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
4054:22:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
4019:22:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
3999:17:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
3980:17:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
3965:17:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
3950:16:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
3935:13:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
3921:12:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
3907:11:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
3884:04:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
3861:03:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
3815:07:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
3797:22:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
3779:21:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
3764:17:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
3741:16:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
3727:16:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
3709:14:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
3670:02:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
3655:00:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
3628:00:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
3613:00:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
3589:23:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
3568:23:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
3521:12:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
3506:12:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
3482:12:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
3446:10:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
3420:04:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
3350:11:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
3312:08:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
2669:at 60kb. I also sampled
3358:Checklist as of 29 June
2425:Checklist as of 21 June
1730:Will look into this. -
1711:6.3 Community response
3866:Checklist as of 5 July
1628:6.2 Critical response
5630:2001: A Space Odyssey
4037:2001: A Space Odyssey
2441:2001: A Space Odyssey
2080:Adequate to article.
1820:Adequate to article.
5611:Options on the table
3638:withdrew + retracted
3432:WTH is the point of
2948:Please refrain from
2364:the above sections.
1892:Iron Man (2008 film)
1760:analysis section. -
808:3.4 Post-production
6127:is an essay, where
669:3.2 Pre-production
6277:Closing assessment
6059:4.4 Visual effects
5847:3.3 Pre-production
4706:4.4 Visual effects
4286:3.3 Pre-production
3094:It's mentioned in
2665:are at 51kB, with
2659:Gone with the Wind
2433:Gone With the Wind
6284:Prometheus (2012)
6077:
6074:
6072:
6045:
6018:
5991:
5964:
5941:
5914:
5887:
5860:
5833:
5806:
5779:
5755:
5634:Prometheus (2012)
5298:
5295:
5293:
5278:
5240:Wiki text: 243 kB
5231:File size: 718 kB
3652:
3610:
3572:
3565:
3503:
3428:Bad faith reverts
3333:talk page stalker
3261:
3198:
3124:
2999:
2964:
2934:
2867:
2802:
241:Start full review
227:
89:
88:
6308:
6161:
6076:
6073:
6046:
6019:
5992:
5965:
5942:
5915:
5888:
5861:
5834:
5807:
5780:
5757:
5754:
5692:
5686:
5682:
5538:
5462:
5357:Themes in Avatar
5297:
5294:
5280:
5277:
5207:
5169:
5142:
4788:The article for
4033:
3895:
3846:
3645:
3603:
3570:
3558:
3496:
3405:
3368:
3336:
3254:
3221:
3191:
3164:
3138:
3117:
3096:so frickin' many
3073:-- there's also
3063:of these pages.
2992:
2957:
2947:
2927:
2860:
2795:
2730:
2583:
2557:
2384:
2358:
2333:
2312:
2291:
2255:
2226:
2205:
2184:
2163:
2141:
2116:
1516:
1453:How 'bout this?
1452:
1430:this Reddit post
1390:
1349:
1227:
546:3.1 Development
395:word on Snipes.
220:
139:
130:
111:
43:Copyvio detector
31:
6316:
6315:
6311:
6310:
6309:
6307:
6306:
6305:
6279:
6235:For reference,
6151:
5793:3.1 Development
5690:
5684:
5676:
5632:and the FA for
5613:
5533:
5495:The policy for
5452:
5201:
5159:
5136:
5134:
4180:3.1 Development
4065:current version
4023:
3889:
3868:
3836:
3430:
3399:
3362:
3360:
3330:
3215:
3158:
3132:
3131:Agreement with
2941:
2775:
2720:
2573:
2547:
2427:
2378:
2348:
2327:
2306:
2285:
2245:
2220:
2199:
2178:
2157:
2135:
2110:
1931:Deadpool (film)
1506:
1446:
1384:
1343:
1225:
1175:6.1 Box office
1121:5.2 Home media
245:0 Lead section
120:
97:
91:
85:
57:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
6314:
6312:
6278:
6275:
6274:
6273:
6272:
6271:
6270:
6269:
6268:
6267:
6266:
6265:
6264:
6263:
6262:
6261:
6260:
6259:
6258:
6257:
6256:
6255:
6254:
6253:
6252:
6251:
6241:TriiipleThreat
6189:TriiipleThreat
6071:
6070:
6069:
6068:
6067:
6066:
6065:
6064:
6063:
6062:
6061:
6060:
6044:
6043:
6042:
6041:
6040:
6039:
6038:
6037:
6036:
6035:
6034:
6033:
6017:
6016:
6015:
6014:
6013:
6012:
6011:
6010:
6009:
6008:
6007:
6006:
5990:
5989:
5988:
5987:
5986:
5985:
5984:
5983:
5982:
5981:
5980:
5979:
5963:
5962:
5961:
5960:
5959:
5958:
5957:
5956:
5955:
5954:
5940:
5939:
5938:
5937:
5936:
5935:
5934:
5933:
5932:
5931:
5930:
5929:
5913:
5912:
5911:
5910:
5909:
5908:
5907:
5906:
5905:
5904:
5903:
5902:
5886:
5885:
5884:
5883:
5882:
5881:
5880:
5879:
5878:
5877:
5876:
5875:
5859:
5858:
5857:
5856:
5855:
5854:
5853:
5852:
5851:
5850:
5849:
5848:
5832:
5831:
5830:
5829:
5828:
5827:
5826:
5825:
5824:
5823:
5822:
5821:
5805:
5804:
5803:
5802:
5801:
5800:
5799:
5798:
5797:
5796:
5795:
5794:
5778:
5777:
5776:
5775:
5774:
5773:
5772:
5771:
5770:
5769:
5752:
5751:
5750:
5749:
5748:
5747:
5746:
5745:
5612:
5609:
5608:
5607:
5606:
5605:
5604:
5603:
5602:
5601:
5600:
5599:
5598:
5597:
5596:
5595:
5594:
5593:
5592:
5591:
5590:
5589:
5588:
5587:
5586:
5585:
5584:
5583:
5582:
5581:
5580:
5579:
5530:
5529:
5528:
5527:
5526:
5516:TriiipleThreat
5481:TriiipleThreat
5455:TriiipleThreat
5361:TriiipleThreat
5319:TriiipleThreat
5292:
5291:
5290:
5289:
5286:
5275:
5274:
5250:
5249:
5246:
5241:
5238:
5235:
5232:
5221:
5220:
5210:TriiipleThreat
5199:
5198:
5197:
5187:TriiipleThreat
5133:
5132:Article length
5130:
5129:
5128:
5127:
5126:
5125:
5124:
5123:
5122:
5121:
5120:
5119:
5118:
5117:
5116:
5115:
5114:
5113:
5112:
5111:
5110:
5109:
5108:
5107:
5106:
5105:
5104:
5103:
5102:
5101:
5100:
5099:
5098:
5097:
5096:
5048:
5047:
5046:
5045:
5044:
5043:
5042:
5041:
5040:
5039:
5038:
5037:
5036:
5035:
5034:
5033:
5032:
5031:
5030:
5029:
5028:
5027:
5026:
5025:
5024:
5023:
5022:
5021:
5020:
5019:
5005:this test edit
4971:
4970:
4969:
4968:
4967:
4966:
4965:
4964:
4963:
4962:
4961:
4960:
4959:
4958:
4957:
4956:
4955:
4954:
4953:
4952:
4951:
4950:
4949:
4948:
4947:
4946:
4945:
4944:
4943:
4942:
4909:
4908:
4907:
4906:
4905:
4904:
4903:
4902:
4901:
4900:
4899:
4898:
4897:
4896:
4895:
4894:
4893:
4892:
4891:
4890:
4889:
4888:
4887:
4886:
4885:
4884:
4883:
4882:
4881:
4880:
4847:
4846:
4845:
4844:
4843:
4842:
4841:
4840:
4839:
4838:
4837:
4836:
4835:
4834:
4833:
4832:
4831:
4830:
4829:
4828:
4827:
4826:
4825:
4824:
4823:
4822:
4821:
4820:
4810:TriiipleThreat
4776:TriiipleThreat
4732:
4731:
4730:
4729:
4728:
4727:
4726:
4725:
4724:
4723:
4722:
4721:
4720:
4719:
4718:
4717:
4716:
4715:
4714:
4713:
4712:
4711:
4710:
4709:
4708:
4707:
4679:
4678:
4677:
4676:
4675:
4674:
4673:
4672:
4671:
4670:
4669:
4668:
4667:
4666:
4665:
4664:
4663:
4662:
4661:
4660:
4659:
4658:
4657:
4656:
4655:
4654:
4626:
4625:
4624:
4623:
4622:
4621:
4620:
4619:
4618:
4617:
4616:
4615:
4614:
4613:
4612:
4611:
4610:
4609:
4608:
4607:
4606:
4605:
4604:
4603:
4602:
4601:
4573:
4572:
4571:
4570:
4569:
4568:
4567:
4566:
4565:
4564:
4563:
4562:
4561:
4560:
4559:
4558:
4557:
4556:
4555:
4554:
4553:
4552:
4551:
4550:
4549:
4548:
4520:
4519:
4518:
4517:
4516:
4515:
4514:
4513:
4512:
4511:
4510:
4509:
4508:
4507:
4506:
4505:
4504:
4503:
4502:
4501:
4500:
4499:
4498:
4497:
4471:
4470:
4469:
4468:
4467:
4466:
4465:
4464:
4463:
4462:
4461:
4460:
4459:
4458:
4457:
4456:
4455:
4454:
4453:
4452:
4451:
4450:
4449:
4448:
4447:
4446:
4418:
4417:
4416:
4415:
4414:
4413:
4412:
4411:
4410:
4409:
4408:
4407:
4406:
4405:
4404:
4403:
4402:
4401:
4400:
4399:
4398:
4397:
4396:
4395:
4394:
4393:
4365:
4364:
4363:
4362:
4361:
4360:
4359:
4358:
4357:
4356:
4355:
4354:
4353:
4352:
4351:
4350:
4349:
4348:
4347:
4346:
4345:
4344:
4343:
4342:
4341:
4340:
4312:
4311:
4310:
4309:
4308:
4307:
4306:
4305:
4304:
4303:
4302:
4301:
4300:
4299:
4298:
4297:
4296:
4295:
4294:
4293:
4292:
4291:
4290:
4289:
4288:
4287:
4259:
4258:
4257:
4256:
4255:
4254:
4253:
4252:
4251:
4250:
4249:
4248:
4247:
4246:
4245:
4244:
4243:
4242:
4241:
4240:
4239:
4238:
4237:
4236:
4235:
4234:
4206:
4205:
4204:
4203:
4202:
4201:
4200:
4199:
4198:
4197:
4196:
4195:
4194:
4193:
4192:
4191:
4190:
4189:
4188:
4187:
4186:
4185:
4184:
4183:
4182:
4181:
4153:
4152:
4151:
4150:
4149:
4148:
4147:
4146:
4145:
4144:
4143:
4142:
4141:
4140:
4139:
4138:
4137:
4136:
4135:
4134:
4133:
4132:
4131:
4130:
4104:
4103:
4102:
4101:
4100:
4099:
4098:
4097:
4096:
4095:
4094:
4093:
4092:
4091:
4090:
4089:
4088:
4087:
4086:
4085:
4084:
4083:
3867:
3864:
3834:
3833:
3832:
3831:
3830:
3829:
3828:
3827:
3826:
3825:
3824:
3823:
3822:
3821:
3820:
3819:
3818:
3817:
3691:
3690:
3689:
3688:
3687:
3686:
3685:
3684:
3683:
3682:
3681:
3680:
3679:
3678:
3677:
3676:
3675:
3674:
3673:
3672:
3579:beneficial. -
3465:
3464:
3463:
3462:
3459:
3429:
3426:
3425:
3424:
3423:
3422:
3359:
3356:
3355:
3354:
3353:
3352:
3325:
3324:
3323:
3322:
3321:
3320:
3319:
3318:
3317:
3316:
3315:
3314:
3288:
3287:
3286:
3285:
3284:
3283:
3282:
3281:
3280:
3279:
3278:
3277:
3135:TriiipleThreat
3026:TriiipleThreat
3021:
3020:
3019:
3018:
3017:
3016:
3015:
3014:
3013:
3012:
3011:
3010:
3009:
3008:
3007:
3006:
3005:
3004:
2884:
2883:
2882:
2881:
2880:
2879:
2878:
2877:
2876:
2875:
2849:on a talk page
2808:
2807:
2774:
2771:
2770:
2769:
2768:
2767:
2766:
2765:
2764:
2763:
2762:
2761:
2702:
2701:
2700:
2685:
2677:
2674:
2652:
2624:
2623:
2622:
2619:
2611:
2608:
2545:
2544:
2528:
2527:
2507:
2506:
2480:
2479:
2474:
2473:
2457:
2456:
2426:
2423:
2422:
2421:
2420:
2419:
2418:
2417:
2416:
2415:
2414:
2413:
2412:
2411:
2410:
2409:
2408:
2407:
2406:
2405:
2404:
2403:
2402:
2401:
2400:
2399:
2398:
2397:
2130:
2129:
2093:
2092:
2074:
2073:
2072:
2071:
2070:
2069:
2068:
2067:
2066:
2065:
2064:
2063:
2062:
2061:
2060:
2059:
2058:
2057:
2056:
2055:
2054:
2053:
2052:
2051:
1833:
1832:
1816:6.5 Accolades
1814:
1813:
1795:
1794:
1793:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1788:
1787:
1786:
1709:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1267:, and here is
1173:
1172:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
951:5.1 Marketing
949:
948:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
841:
840:
839:
838:
806:
805:
804:
803:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
388:
387:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
239:
237:
236:
235:
234:
233:
232:
165:
140:
87:
86:
84:
83:
78:
73:
67:
64:
63:
59:
58:
56:
55:
53:External links
50:
45:
39:
36:
35:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
6313:
6304:
6303:
6299:
6295:
6290:
6285:
6276:
6250:
6246:
6242:
6238:
6234:
6233:
6232:
6228:
6224:
6219:
6215:
6214:
6213:
6209:
6205:
6200:
6199:
6198:
6194:
6190:
6185:
6181:
6176:
6175:
6174:
6170:
6166:
6159:
6155:
6150:
6149:
6148:
6147:
6146:
6142:
6138:
6134:
6131:(the same as
6130:
6126:
6121:
6116:
6115:
6114:
6110:
6106:
6101:
6100:
6099:
6095:
6091:
6086:
6085:
6084:
6083:
6082:
6081:
6080:
6079:
6078:
6058:
6057:
6056:
6055:
6054:
6053:
6052:
6051:
6050:
6049:
6048:
6047:
6031:
6030:
6029:
6028:
6027:
6026:
6025:
6024:
6023:
6022:
6021:
6020:
6004:
6003:
6002:
6001:
6000:
5999:
5998:
5997:
5996:
5995:
5994:
5993:
5977:
5976:
5975:
5974:
5973:
5972:
5971:
5970:
5969:
5968:
5967:
5966:
5952:
5951:
5950:
5949:
5948:
5947:
5946:
5945:
5944:
5943:
5927:
5926:
5925:
5924:
5923:
5922:
5921:
5920:
5919:
5918:
5917:
5916:
5900:
5899:
5898:
5897:
5896:
5895:
5894:
5893:
5892:
5891:
5890:
5889:
5873:
5872:
5871:
5870:
5869:
5868:
5867:
5866:
5865:
5864:
5863:
5862:
5846:
5845:
5844:
5843:
5842:
5841:
5840:
5839:
5838:
5837:
5836:
5835:
5819:
5818:
5817:
5816:
5815:
5814:
5813:
5812:
5811:
5810:
5809:
5808:
5792:
5791:
5790:
5789:
5788:
5787:
5786:
5785:
5784:
5783:
5782:
5781:
5767:
5766:
5765:
5764:
5763:
5762:
5761:
5760:
5759:
5758:
5756:
5743:
5738:
5737:
5736:
5732:
5728:
5723:
5722:
5721:
5717:
5713:
5709:
5706:
5705:
5704:
5700:
5696:
5689:
5680:
5675:
5674:
5673:
5672:
5668:
5664:
5658:
5655:
5651:
5647:
5643:
5641:
5637:
5635:
5631:
5627:
5623:
5621:
5617:
5610:
5578:
5574:
5570:
5566:
5565:
5564:
5560:
5556:
5552:
5551:
5550:
5546:
5542:
5537:
5531:
5525:
5521:
5517:
5512:
5511:
5510:
5506:
5502:
5498:
5494:
5493:
5492:
5491:
5490:
5486:
5482:
5477:
5476:
5475:
5471:
5467:
5460:
5456:
5451:
5450:
5449:
5445:
5441:
5437:
5433:
5432:
5431:
5427:
5423:
5418:
5417:
5416:
5415:
5414:
5410:
5406:
5401:
5400:
5399:
5395:
5391:
5387:
5386:
5385:
5381:
5377:
5372:
5371:
5370:
5366:
5362:
5358:
5354:
5353:
5352:
5348:
5344:
5340:
5335:
5330:
5329:
5328:
5324:
5320:
5316:
5315:
5314:
5310:
5306:
5301:
5300:
5299:
5287:
5284:
5283:
5282:
5281:
5279:
5271:
5270:
5269:
5268:
5264:
5260:
5256:
5247:
5245:
5242:
5239:
5236:
5233:
5230:
5229:
5228:
5226:
5219:
5215:
5211:
5205:
5200:
5196:
5192:
5188:
5184:
5183:
5182:
5178:
5174:
5167:
5163:
5158:
5157:
5156:
5155:
5151:
5147:
5140:
5131:
5095:
5091:
5087:
5082:
5081:
5080:
5079:
5078:
5077:
5076:
5075:
5074:
5073:
5072:
5071:
5070:
5069:
5068:
5067:
5066:
5065:
5064:
5063:
5062:
5061:
5060:
5059:
5058:
5057:
5056:
5055:
5054:
5053:
5052:
5051:
5050:
5049:
5018:
5014:
5010:
5006:
5001:
5000:
4999:
4998:
4997:
4996:
4995:
4994:
4993:
4992:
4991:
4990:
4989:
4988:
4987:
4986:
4985:
4984:
4983:
4982:
4981:
4980:
4979:
4978:
4977:
4976:
4975:
4974:
4973:
4972:
4939:
4938:
4937:
4936:
4935:
4934:
4933:
4932:
4931:
4930:
4929:
4928:
4927:
4926:
4925:
4924:
4923:
4922:
4921:
4920:
4919:
4918:
4917:
4916:
4915:
4914:
4913:
4912:
4911:
4910:
4877:
4876:
4875:
4874:
4873:
4872:
4871:
4870:
4869:
4868:
4867:
4866:
4865:
4864:
4863:
4862:
4861:
4860:
4859:
4858:
4857:
4856:
4855:
4854:
4853:
4852:
4851:
4850:
4849:
4848:
4819:
4815:
4811:
4806:
4805:
4804:
4800:
4796:
4791:
4787:
4786:
4785:
4781:
4777:
4773:
4769:
4768:
4767:
4763:
4759:
4754:
4753:
4752:
4751:
4750:
4749:
4748:
4747:
4746:
4745:
4744:
4743:
4742:
4741:
4740:
4739:
4738:
4737:
4736:
4735:
4734:
4733:
4705:
4704:
4703:
4702:
4701:
4700:
4699:
4698:
4697:
4696:
4695:
4694:
4693:
4692:
4691:
4690:
4689:
4688:
4687:
4686:
4685:
4684:
4683:
4682:
4681:
4680:
4652:
4651:
4650:
4649:
4648:
4647:
4646:
4645:
4644:
4643:
4642:
4641:
4640:
4639:
4638:
4637:
4636:
4635:
4634:
4633:
4632:
4631:
4630:
4629:
4628:
4627:
4599:
4598:
4597:
4596:
4595:
4594:
4593:
4592:
4591:
4590:
4589:
4588:
4587:
4586:
4585:
4584:
4583:
4582:
4581:
4580:
4579:
4578:
4577:
4576:
4575:
4574:
4546:
4545:
4544:
4543:
4542:
4541:
4540:
4539:
4538:
4537:
4536:
4535:
4534:
4533:
4532:
4531:
4530:
4529:
4528:
4527:
4526:
4525:
4524:
4523:
4522:
4521:
4495:
4494:
4493:
4492:
4491:
4490:
4489:
4488:
4487:
4486:
4485:
4484:
4483:
4482:
4481:
4480:
4479:
4478:
4477:
4476:
4475:
4474:
4473:
4472:
4444:
4443:
4442:
4441:
4440:
4439:
4438:
4437:
4436:
4435:
4434:
4433:
4432:
4431:
4430:
4429:
4428:
4427:
4426:
4425:
4424:
4423:
4422:
4421:
4420:
4419:
4391:
4390:
4389:
4388:
4387:
4386:
4385:
4384:
4383:
4382:
4381:
4380:
4379:
4378:
4377:
4376:
4375:
4374:
4373:
4372:
4371:
4370:
4369:
4368:
4367:
4366:
4338:
4337:
4336:
4335:
4334:
4333:
4332:
4331:
4330:
4329:
4328:
4327:
4326:
4325:
4324:
4323:
4322:
4321:
4320:
4319:
4318:
4317:
4316:
4315:
4314:
4313:
4285:
4284:
4283:
4282:
4281:
4280:
4279:
4278:
4277:
4276:
4275:
4274:
4273:
4272:
4271:
4270:
4269:
4268:
4267:
4266:
4265:
4264:
4263:
4262:
4261:
4260:
4232:
4231:
4230:
4229:
4228:
4227:
4226:
4225:
4224:
4223:
4222:
4221:
4220:
4219:
4218:
4217:
4216:
4215:
4214:
4213:
4212:
4211:
4210:
4209:
4208:
4207:
4179:
4178:
4177:
4176:
4175:
4174:
4173:
4172:
4171:
4170:
4169:
4168:
4167:
4166:
4165:
4164:
4163:
4162:
4161:
4160:
4159:
4158:
4157:
4156:
4155:
4154:
4128:
4127:
4126:
4125:
4124:
4123:
4122:
4121:
4120:
4119:
4118:
4117:
4116:
4115:
4114:
4113:
4112:
4111:
4110:
4109:
4108:
4107:
4106:
4105:
4080:
4079:
4078:
4074:
4070:
4066:
4062:
4057:
4056:
4055:
4051:
4047:
4042:
4038:
4031:
4027:
4022:
4021:
4020:
4016:
4012:
4007:
4002:
4001:
4000:
3996:
3992:
3987:
3983:
3982:
3981:
3977:
3973:
3968:
3967:
3966:
3962:
3958:
3953:
3952:
3951:
3947:
3943:
3938:
3937:
3936:
3932:
3928:
3924:
3923:
3922:
3918:
3914:
3910:
3909:
3908:
3904:
3900:
3893:
3888:
3887:
3886:
3885:
3881:
3877:
3873:
3865:
3863:
3862:
3858:
3854:
3850:
3844:
3840:
3816:
3812:
3808:
3804:
3800:
3799:
3798:
3794:
3790:
3786:
3782:
3781:
3780:
3776:
3772:
3767:
3766:
3765:
3761:
3757:
3753:
3749:
3744:
3743:
3742:
3738:
3734:
3730:
3729:
3728:
3724:
3720:
3716:
3712:
3711:
3710:
3706:
3702:
3697:
3696:
3695:
3694:
3693:
3692:
3671:
3667:
3663:
3658:
3657:
3656:
3651:
3648:
3643:
3639:
3635:
3631:
3630:
3629:
3625:
3621:
3616:
3615:
3614:
3609:
3606:
3601:
3597:
3592:
3591:
3590:
3586:
3582:
3578:
3575:You may find
3574:
3573:
3569:
3564:
3561:
3556:
3552:
3548:
3547:
3542:
3539:
3538:
3533:
3532:
3528:
3527:
3526:
3525:
3524:
3523:
3522:
3518:
3514:
3509:
3508:
3507:
3502:
3499:
3494:
3490:
3486:
3485:
3484:
3483:
3479:
3475:
3469:
3460:
3457:
3456:
3454:
3450:
3449:
3448:
3447:
3443:
3439:
3435:
3427:
3421:
3417:
3413:
3409:
3403:
3398:
3397:
3396:
3392:
3388:
3384:
3383:
3382:
3381:
3377:
3373:
3366:
3357:
3351:
3347:
3343:
3340:
3334:
3329:
3328:
3327:
3326:
3313:
3309:
3305:
3300:
3299:
3298:
3297:
3296:
3295:
3294:
3293:
3292:
3291:
3290:
3289:
3275:
3273:
3272:Black Panther
3267:
3266:
3265:
3260:
3257:
3252:
3247:
3242:
3238:
3237:
3236:
3232:
3228:
3224:
3219:
3212:
3208:
3207:Black Panther
3204:
3203:
3202:
3197:
3194:
3189:
3185:
3181:
3177:
3173:
3169:
3162:
3157:
3156:
3155:
3151:
3147:
3143:
3142:Black Panther
3136:
3130:
3129:
3128:
3123:
3120:
3115:
3111:
3107:
3106:
3101:
3097:
3093:
3092:
3087:
3082:
3081:
3076:
3072:
3068:
3067:
3061:
3060:
3055:
3051:
3047:
3043:
3042:
3038:
3037:
3036:
3035:
3031:
3027:
3003:
2998:
2995:
2990:
2985:
2984:
2983:
2979:
2975:
2970:
2969:
2968:
2963:
2960:
2955:
2951:
2945:
2940:
2939:
2938:
2933:
2930:
2925:
2921:
2916:
2912:
2908:
2907:
2906:
2902:
2898:
2894:
2893:
2892:
2891:
2890:
2889:
2888:
2887:
2886:
2885:
2873:
2872:
2871:
2866:
2863:
2858:
2854:
2850:
2845:
2844:
2843:
2839:
2835:
2831:
2830:WP:FILMRATING
2827:
2826:
2825:
2821:
2817:
2812:
2811:
2810:
2809:
2806:
2801:
2798:
2793:
2789:
2785:
2780:
2777:
2776:
2772:
2760:
2756:
2752:
2748:
2743:
2739:
2735:
2728:
2724:
2719:
2718:
2717:
2716:
2715:
2711:
2707:
2703:
2698:
2694:
2690:
2686:
2683:
2678:
2675:
2672:
2668:
2664:
2660:
2656:
2655:
2653:
2651:
2647:
2643:
2639:
2638:
2637:
2633:
2629:
2625:
2620:
2616:
2612:
2609:
2606:
2605:
2602:
2597:
2596:
2595:
2591:
2587:
2581:
2577:
2572:
2571:
2570:
2569:
2565:
2561:
2555:
2551:
2543:
2539:
2535:
2530:
2529:
2526:
2522:
2518:
2513:
2509:
2508:
2505:
2501:
2497:
2492:
2487:
2486:Black Panther
2482:
2481:
2476:
2475:
2472:
2468:
2464:
2459:
2458:
2455:
2451:
2447:
2442:
2438:
2434:
2429:
2428:
2424:
2396:
2392:
2388:
2385:responded. -
2382:
2377:
2376:
2375:
2371:
2367:
2362:
2361:significantly
2356:
2352:
2347:
2346:
2345:
2341:
2337:
2331:
2326:
2325:
2324:
2320:
2316:
2310:
2305:
2304:
2303:
2299:
2295:
2289:
2284:
2283:
2282:
2278:
2274:
2270:
2269:
2268:
2264:
2260:
2253:
2249:
2244:
2243:
2242:
2238:
2234:
2230:
2224:
2219:
2218:
2217:
2213:
2209:
2203:
2198:
2197:
2196:
2192:
2188:
2182:
2177:
2176:
2175:
2171:
2167:
2161:
2156:
2155:
2154:
2150:
2146:
2139:
2134:
2133:
2132:
2131:
2128:
2124:
2120:
2114:
2109:
2108:
2107:
2106:
2102:
2098:
2091:
2087:
2083:
2079:
2078:
2077:
2050:
2046:
2042:
2037:
2036:
2035:
2031:
2027:
2023:
2020:
2017:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2007:
2003:
1998:
1997:
1996:
1992:
1988:
1984:
1979:
1978:
1977:
1973:
1969:
1965:
1961:
1960:
1959:
1955:
1951:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1940:
1936:
1932:
1927:
1926:
1925:
1921:
1917:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1906:
1902:
1898:
1893:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1883:
1879:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1869:
1865:
1860:
1856:
1855:
1854:
1850:
1846:
1842:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1831:
1827:
1823:
1819:
1818:
1817:
1812:
1808:
1804:
1800:
1799:
1798:
1797:6.4 Analysis
1785:
1781:
1777:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1767:
1763:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1752:
1748:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1737:
1733:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1723:
1719:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1701:
1697:
1693:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1682:
1678:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1667:
1663:
1659:
1655:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1644:
1640:
1635:
1634:Infinity Wars
1631:
1630:
1629:
1602:
1598:
1594:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1583:
1579:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1539:
1535:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1525:
1521:
1514:
1510:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1499:
1495:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1484:
1480:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1470:
1466:
1462:
1459:I found one!
1458:
1457:
1456:
1450:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1388:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1354:
1347:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1266:
1263:
1260:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1224:
1223:Black Panther
1220:
1216:
1215:Black Panther
1212:
1211:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1197:Age of Ultron
1194:
1193:Infinity Wars
1190:
1189:Infinity Wars
1186:
1185:Age of Ultron
1182:
1181:Infinity Wars
1178:
1177:
1176:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1071:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1004:
1000:
996:
995:
994:
990:
986:
982:
981:
980:
976:
972:
968:
967:
966:
962:
958:
954:
953:
952:
947:
943:
939:
935:
934:
933:
920:
916:
912:
908:
907:
906:
902:
898:
894:
893:
892:
888:
884:
879:
875:
874:
873:
869:
865:
861:
860:
859:
855:
851:
846:
845:
844:
837:
833:
829:
825:
824:
823:
819:
815:
811:
810:
809:
802:
798:
794:
789:
788:
787:
783:
779:
775:
774:
773:
758:
754:
750:
746:
745:
744:
740:
736:
731:
730:
729:
725:
721:
717:
716:
715:
711:
707:
702:
701:
700:
696:
692:
687:
686:
685:
681:
677:
672:
671:
670:
653:
649:
645:
642:Much better.
641:
640:
639:
635:
631:
627:
626:
625:
621:
617:
613:
608:
607:
606:
602:
598:
593:
592:
591:
587:
583:
578:
577:
576:
572:
568:
563:
562:
561:
557:
553:
549:
548:
547:
528:
524:
520:
516:
515:
514:
510:
506:
502:
498:
497:
496:
492:
488:
483:
479:
478:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
457:
456:
455:
451:
447:
442:
441:
440:
436:
432:
428:
423:
422:
421:
417:
413:
408:
407:
406:
402:
398:
393:
392:
391:
390:3 Production
386:
382:
378:
374:
373:
372:
361:
357:
353:
349:
344:
343:
342:
338:
334:
329:
328:
327:
323:
319:
315:
314:
313:
309:
305:
300:
299:
298:
289:
285:
281:
277:
276:
275:
271:
267:
263:
262:
261:
257:
253:
248:
247:
246:
243:
242:
231:
226:
223:
218:
213:
212:
211:
207:
203:
199:
198:
197:
193:
189:
185:
181:
180:
179:
178:
174:
170:
163:
162:
158:
155:
152:
148:
145:
141:
138:
137:
133:
128:
124:
119:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
96:
95:
82:
79:
77:
74:
72:
69:
68:
66:
65:
60:
54:
51:
49:
46:
44:
41:
40:
38:
37:
32:
26:
19:
6288:
6283:
6280:
6183:
6179:
6133:WP:SIZESPLIT
6075:
5768:3 Production
5753:
5741:
5659:
5653:
5649:
5645:
5644:
5639:
5638:
5633:
5629:
5625:
5624:
5619:
5618:
5614:
5388:Expanded. -
5338:
5333:
5296:
5276:
5255:WP:SIZESPLIT
5251:
5243:
5222:
5135:
4129:3 Production
4061:this version
4040:
4036:
3985:
3869:
3835:
3714:
3633:
3545:
3540:
3536:
3535:
3534:Dude, I was
3530:
3488:
3470:
3466:
3431:
3361:
3342:SassyCollins
3271:
3245:
3210:
3206:
3183:
3171:
3167:
3141:
3104:
3095:
3090:
3079:
3065:
3058:
3045:
3040:
3022:
2920:overwhelming
2919:
2915:Infinity War
2914:
2853:Infinity War
2852:
2848:
2783:
2778:
2746:
2741:
2737:
2692:
2688:
2682:Infinity War
2681:
2670:
2666:
2662:
2658:
2615:Infinity War
2614:
2601:WP:SIZESPLIT
2546:
2511:
2491:Infinity War
2490:
2485:
2440:
2436:
2432:
2360:
2228:
2094:
2075:
1858:
1841:Infinity War
1840:
1834:
1815:
1796:
1710:
1633:
1627:
1513:SassyCollins
1479:SassyCollins
1412:SassyCollins
1397:SassyCollins
1383:
1353:Infinity War
1352:
1346:SassyCollins
1331:SassyCollins
1309:Infinity War
1308:
1305:Infinity War
1304:
1301:SassyCollins
1259:Infinity War
1258:
1222:
1219:Infinity War
1218:
1214:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1174:
1156:6 Reception
1155:
1120:
1069:
950:
931:
842:
807:
772:3.3 Filming
771:
668:
611:
545:
481:
426:
389:
370:
348:Infinity War
347:
296:
244:
240:
238:
164:
153:
143:
142:
135:
131:
117:Article talk
116:
112:
93:
90:
81:Instructions
6294:JohnWickTwo
6223:JohnWickTwo
6165:JohnWickTwo
6158:Adamstom.97
6154:Favre1fan93
6137:Favre1fan93
6129:WP:SIZERULE
6090:JohnWickTwo
5874:3.4 Filming
5820:3.2 Writing
5727:Favre1fan93
5712:JohnWickTwo
5695:Favre1fan93
5679:JohnWickTwo
5663:JohnWickTwo
5569:Favre1fan93
5555:JohnWickTwo
5536:JohnWickTwo
5501:JohnWickTwo
5466:JohnWickTwo
5459:Favre1fan93
5422:JohnWickTwo
5390:Favre1fan93
5376:JohnWickTwo
5343:Favre1fan93
5305:JohnWickTwo
5259:Favre1fan93
5204:JohnWickTwo
5173:JohnWickTwo
5166:Adamstom.97
5162:Favre1fan93
5146:JohnWickTwo
5086:JohnWickTwo
4795:JohnWickTwo
4758:JohnWickTwo
4339:3.4 Filming
4233:3.2 Writing
4046:JohnWickTwo
4030:Adamstom.97
4026:Favre1fan93
3991:JohnWickTwo
3972:Favre1fan93
3957:JohnWickTwo
3942:Favre1fan93
3927:JohnWickTwo
3899:JohnWickTwo
3892:Favre1fan93
3876:Favre1fan93
3853:JohnWickTwo
3756:Favre1fan93
3719:Favre1fan93
3541:essentially
3412:Favre1fan93
3402:JohnWickTwo
3387:JohnWickTwo
3372:Favre1fan93
3365:JohnWickTwo
3241:"shepherds"
3227:JohnWickTwo
3161:JohnWickTwo
3146:JohnWickTwo
3071:and I amn't
3046:immediately
2974:JohnWickTwo
2944:JohnWickTwo
2834:Favre1fan93
2751:JohnWickTwo
2727:Adamstom.97
2723:Favre1fan93
2706:Favre1fan93
2642:Favre1fan93
2586:JohnWickTwo
2580:Adamstom.97
2576:Favre1fan93
2560:JohnWickTwo
2554:Adamstom.97
2550:Favre1fan93
2534:JohnWickTwo
2517:JohnWickTwo
2496:JohnWickTwo
2463:JohnWickTwo
2446:JohnWickTwo
2387:Favre1fan93
2381:JohnWickTwo
2366:JohnWickTwo
2355:Adamstom.97
2351:Favre1fan93
2336:Favre1fan93
2334:replied. -
2330:JohnWickTwo
2315:JohnWickTwo
2309:Favre1fan93
2294:Favre1fan93
2288:JohnWickTwo
2273:JohnWickTwo
2259:JohnWickTwo
2252:Adamstom.97
2248:Favre1fan93
2233:Favre1fan93
2223:JohnWickTwo
2202:JohnWickTwo
2187:JohnWickTwo
2181:Favre1fan93
2166:Favre1fan93
2160:JohnWickTwo
2145:JohnWickTwo
2138:Favre1fan93
2119:Favre1fan93
2113:JohnWickTwo
2097:JohnWickTwo
2082:JohnWickTwo
2076:8 See also
2041:Favre1fan93
2026:JohnWickTwo
1987:Favre1fan93
1983:Adamstom.97
1968:JohnWickTwo
1950:Favre1fan93
1916:JohnWickTwo
1878:JohnWickTwo
1864:Favre1fan93
1845:JohnWickTwo
1822:JohnWickTwo
1803:JohnWickTwo
1776:JohnWickTwo
1747:Favre1fan93
1732:Favre1fan93
1718:JohnWickTwo
1677:JohnWickTwo
1662:Favre1fan93
1639:JohnWickTwo
1593:Favre1fan93
1578:JohnWickTwo
1563:Favre1fan93
1549:JohnWickTwo
1534:Favre1fan93
1520:JohnWickTwo
1509:Favre1fan93
1494:JohnWickTwo
1465:Favre1fan93
1449:Favre1fan93
1434:Favre1fan93
1387:Favre1fan93
1357:Favre1fan93
1327:Favre1fan93
1314:Favre1fan93
1285:section. -
1272:JohnWickTwo
1245:Favre1fan93
1231:Favre1fan93
1201:JohnWickTwo
1162:JohnWickTwo
1141:Favre1fan93
1127:JohnWickTwo
1090:Favre1fan93
1075:JohnWickTwo
1042:Favre1fan93
1028:JohnWickTwo
1013:Favre1fan93
985:JohnWickTwo
971:Favre1fan93
957:JohnWickTwo
938:JohnWickTwo
897:JohnWickTwo
883:Favre1fan93
864:Favre1fan93
850:JohnWickTwo
828:Favre1fan93
814:JohnWickTwo
793:Favre1fan93
778:JohnWickTwo
749:Favre1fan93
747:Reduced. -
735:JohnWickTwo
720:Favre1fan93
706:JohnWickTwo
691:Favre1fan93
676:JohnWickTwo
644:JohnWickTwo
630:Favre1fan93
616:JohnWickTwo
597:Favre1fan93
567:JohnWickTwo
552:JohnWickTwo
519:JohnWickTwo
505:Favre1fan93
487:JohnWickTwo
468:Favre1fan93
431:JohnWickTwo
412:Favre1fan93
397:JohnWickTwo
377:JohnWickTwo
333:JohnWickTwo
318:Favre1fan93
304:JohnWickTwo
280:JohnWickTwo
266:Favre1fan93
252:JohnWickTwo
202:Favre1fan93
169:JohnWickTwo
147:JohnWickTwo
104:visual edit
6204:adamstom97
6105:adamstom97
5654:adaptation
5650:integrated
5640:Option III
5541:adamstom97
5440:adamstom97
5405:adamstom97
5009:adamstom97
4790:Filmmaking
4772:filmmaking
4069:adamstom97
4041:Prometheus
4011:adamstom97
3986:integrated
3913:adamstom97
3789:adamstom97
3662:adamstom97
3620:adamstom97
3581:adamstom97
3513:adamstom97
3489:nominators
3304:adamstom97
2897:adamstom97
2816:adamstom97
2747:Goldfinger
2742:Goldfinger
2693:definitely
2628:adamstom97
2599:prose and
2208:adamstom97
2002:adamstom97
1935:adamstom97
1901:adamstom97
1762:adamstom97
1692:adamstom97
1287:adamstom97
1056:adamstom97
999:adamstom97
932:5 Release
911:adamstom97
582:adamstom97
446:adamstom97
352:adamstom97
188:adamstom97
48:Authorship
34:GA toolbox
6184:Option V:
6120:This edit
5928:3.6 Music
5688:TOC limit
5646:Option IV
5626:Option II
5225:Page size
4445:3.6 Music
3843:Alex Shih
3839:Cullen328
3748:director.
3642:Hijiri 88
3600:Hijiri 88
3555:Hijiri 88
3537:literally
3493:Hijiri 88
3434:this edit
3302:shit'. -
3251:Hijiri 88
3211:bold edit
3188:Hijiri 88
3114:Hijiri 88
2989:Hijiri 88
2954:Hijiri 88
2924:Hijiri 88
2857:Hijiri 88
2792:Hijiri 88
2689:potential
1835:7 Future
1139:It is. -
1070:essential
878:this edit
464:this edit
264:Added. -
217:Hijiri 88
144:Reviewer:
71:Templates
62:Reviewing
27:GA Review
6237:that cut
6180:Option I
5953:4 Design
5620:Option I
4496:4 Design
4082:outline:
4006:MOS:FILM
3785:MOS:FILM
2663:Deadpool
2437:Deadpool
843:4 Music
791:note. -
501:WP:SCOPE
460:WP:SYNTH
157:contribs
76:Criteria
5479:size.—-
3807:Nergaal
3771:Nergaal
3733:Nergaal
3701:Nergaal
3474:Nergaal
3438:Nergaal
2779:Comment
612:without
371:2 Cast
297:1 Plot
127:history
108:history
94:Article
6125:WP:TMI
5497:WP:TMI
5436:WP:GAN
5139:Yintan
3803:wp:AGF
3640:) it.
3551:owners
3453:wp:GA?
3218:Oshwah
3048:fail (
2734:WP:TMI
2671:Avatar
2021:, and
1859:direct
580:to. -
427:during
278:Nice.
5514:yet.—
5334:whole
5273:here:
3715:never
3634:don't
3455:1.a.
3172:eight
1933:). -
425:came
136:Watch
16:<
6298:talk
6245:talk
6227:talk
6208:talk
6193:talk
6169:talk
6156:and
6141:talk
6109:talk
6094:talk
5742:2001
5731:talk
5716:talk
5699:talk
5693:? -
5667:talk
5573:talk
5559:talk
5545:talk
5520:talk
5505:talk
5485:talk
5470:talk
5457:and
5444:talk
5438:? -
5426:talk
5409:talk
5394:talk
5380:talk
5365:talk
5347:talk
5323:talk
5309:talk
5263:talk
5214:talk
5191:talk
5177:talk
5164:and
5150:talk
5090:talk
5013:talk
4814:talk
4799:talk
4780:talk
4762:talk
4073:talk
4050:talk
4039:and
4028:and
4015:talk
3995:talk
3976:talk
3961:talk
3946:talk
3931:talk
3917:talk
3903:talk
3880:talk
3857:talk
3841:and
3811:talk
3793:talk
3775:talk
3760:talk
3737:talk
3723:talk
3705:talk
3666:talk
3624:talk
3585:talk
3577:this
3517:talk
3478:talk
3442:talk
3416:talk
3391:talk
3376:talk
3346:talk
3308:talk
3231:talk
3176:this
3150:talk
3030:talk
2978:talk
2901:talk
2838:talk
2820:talk
2755:talk
2738:both
2725:and
2710:talk
2667:2001
2661:and
2646:talk
2632:talk
2590:talk
2578:and
2564:talk
2552:and
2538:talk
2521:talk
2500:talk
2467:talk
2450:talk
2391:talk
2370:talk
2353:and
2340:talk
2319:talk
2298:talk
2277:talk
2263:talk
2250:and
2237:talk
2212:talk
2191:talk
2170:talk
2149:talk
2123:talk
2101:talk
2086:talk
2045:talk
2030:talk
2006:talk
1991:talk
1972:talk
1954:talk
1939:talk
1920:talk
1905:talk
1882:talk
1868:talk
1849:talk
1826:talk
1807:talk
1780:talk
1766:talk
1751:talk
1736:talk
1722:talk
1696:talk
1681:talk
1666:talk
1660:. -
1643:talk
1597:talk
1582:talk
1567:talk
1553:talk
1538:talk
1524:talk
1511:and
1498:talk
1483:talk
1469:talk
1461:Here
1438:talk
1426:this
1416:talk
1401:talk
1361:talk
1355:. -
1335:talk
1318:talk
1291:talk
1276:talk
1249:talk
1235:talk
1205:talk
1166:talk
1145:talk
1131:talk
1094:talk
1079:talk
1060:talk
1046:talk
1032:talk
1017:talk
1003:talk
989:talk
975:talk
961:talk
942:talk
915:talk
901:talk
887:talk
868:talk
854:talk
832:talk
818:talk
797:talk
782:talk
753:talk
739:talk
724:talk
710:talk
695:talk
680:talk
648:talk
634:talk
620:talk
601:talk
586:talk
571:talk
556:talk
523:talk
509:talk
491:talk
472:talk
466:. -
450:talk
435:talk
416:talk
401:talk
381:talk
356:talk
337:talk
322:talk
308:talk
284:talk
270:talk
256:talk
206:talk
192:talk
173:talk
151:talk
123:edit
100:edit
6289:not
5359:.--
5339:add
3246:two
3184:Ran
3168:any
2784:are
2512:not
1656:or
6300:)
6247:)
6229:)
6210:)
6195:)
6171:)
6143:)
6111:)
6096:)
5733:)
5718:)
5710:.
5701:)
5691:}}
5685:{{
5669:)
5575:)
5561:)
5547:)
5522:)
5507:)
5487:)
5472:)
5446:)
5428:)
5411:)
5396:)
5382:)
5367:)
5349:)
5325:)
5311:)
5265:)
5216:)
5193:)
5179:)
5152:)
5092:)
5015:)
4816:)
4801:)
4782:)
4764:)
4075:)
4052:)
4017:)
3997:)
3978:)
3963:)
3948:)
3933:)
3919:)
3905:)
3882:)
3859:)
3813:)
3795:)
3777:)
3762:)
3739:)
3725:)
3707:)
3668:)
3653:)
3650:やや
3626:)
3611:)
3608:やや
3587:)
3566:)
3563:やや
3519:)
3511:-
3504:)
3501:やや
3480:)
3444:)
3418:)
3393:)
3378:)
3348:)
3310:)
3262:)
3259:やや
3233:)
3199:)
3196:やや
3152:)
3125:)
3122:やや
3088:.
3032:)
3000:)
2997:やや
2980:)
2965:)
2962:やや
2935:)
2932:やや
2903:)
2868:)
2865:やや
2855:.
2840:)
2822:)
2803:)
2800:やや
2757:)
2712:)
2648:)
2634:)
2592:)
2566:)
2540:)
2523:)
2502:)
2469:)
2452:)
2393:)
2372:)
2342:)
2321:)
2300:)
2279:)
2265:)
2239:)
2231:-
2214:)
2193:)
2172:)
2151:)
2125:)
2103:)
2088:)
2047:)
2032:)
2024:.
2018:,
2008:)
1993:)
1974:)
1956:)
1941:)
1922:)
1907:)
1884:)
1870:)
1851:)
1828:)
1809:)
1782:)
1768:)
1753:)
1738:)
1724:)
1698:)
1683:)
1668:)
1645:)
1599:)
1584:)
1569:)
1555:)
1540:)
1526:)
1500:)
1485:)
1471:)
1463:-
1440:)
1418:)
1403:)
1395:)
1363:)
1337:)
1320:)
1293:)
1278:)
1251:)
1237:)
1207:)
1168:)
1147:)
1133:)
1096:)
1081:)
1062:)
1048:)
1034:)
1019:)
1005:)
991:)
977:)
963:)
944:)
917:)
903:)
889:)
870:)
856:)
834:)
820:)
799:)
784:)
755:)
741:)
726:)
712:)
697:)
682:)
650:)
636:)
622:)
603:)
588:)
573:)
558:)
525:)
511:)
493:)
474:)
452:)
437:)
418:)
403:)
383:)
358:)
339:)
324:)
310:)
286:)
272:)
258:)
228:)
225:やや
208:)
194:)
175:)
159:)
125:|
106:|
102:|
6296:(
6243:(
6225:(
6206:(
6191:(
6167:(
6160::
6152:@
6139:(
6107:(
6092:(
5729:(
5714:(
5697:(
5681::
5677:@
5665:(
5571:(
5557:(
5543:(
5534:@
5518:(
5503:(
5483:(
5468:(
5461::
5453:@
5442:(
5424:(
5407:(
5392:(
5378:(
5363:(
5345:(
5321:(
5307:(
5261:(
5212:(
5206::
5202:@
5189:(
5175:(
5168::
5160:@
5148:(
5141::
5137:@
5088:(
5011:(
4812:(
4797:(
4778:(
4760:(
4071:(
4048:(
4032::
4024:@
4013:(
3993:(
3974:(
3959:(
3944:(
3929:(
3915:(
3901:(
3894::
3890:@
3878:(
3855:(
3845::
3837:@
3809:(
3791:(
3773:(
3758:(
3735:(
3721:(
3703:(
3664:(
3647:聖
3644:(
3622:(
3605:聖
3602:(
3583:(
3560:聖
3557:(
3515:(
3498:聖
3495:(
3476:(
3440:(
3414:(
3404::
3400:@
3389:(
3374:(
3367::
3363:@
3344:(
3335:)
3331:(
3306:(
3256:聖
3253:(
3229:(
3220::
3216:@
3193:聖
3190:(
3163::
3159:@
3148:(
3137::
3133:@
3119:聖
3116:(
3028:(
2994:聖
2991:(
2976:(
2959:聖
2956:(
2946::
2942:@
2929:聖
2926:(
2899:(
2862:聖
2859:(
2836:(
2818:(
2797:聖
2794:(
2753:(
2729::
2721:@
2708:(
2699:.
2644:(
2630:(
2588:(
2582::
2574:@
2562:(
2556::
2548:@
2536:(
2519:(
2498:(
2465:(
2448:(
2389:(
2383::
2379:@
2368:(
2357::
2349:@
2338:(
2332::
2328:@
2317:(
2311::
2307:@
2296:(
2290::
2286:@
2275:(
2261:(
2254::
2246:@
2235:(
2225::
2221:@
2210:(
2204::
2200:@
2189:(
2183::
2179:@
2168:(
2162::
2158:@
2147:(
2140::
2136:@
2121:(
2115::
2111:@
2099:(
2084:(
2043:(
2028:(
2004:(
1989:(
1970:(
1952:(
1937:(
1918:(
1903:(
1880:(
1866:(
1847:(
1824:(
1805:(
1778:(
1764:(
1749:(
1734:(
1720:(
1694:(
1679:(
1664:(
1641:(
1595:(
1580:(
1565:(
1551:(
1536:(
1522:(
1515::
1507:@
1496:(
1481:(
1467:(
1451::
1447:@
1436:(
1414:(
1399:(
1389::
1385:@
1359:(
1348::
1344:@
1333:(
1316:(
1289:(
1274:(
1247:(
1233:(
1226:'
1203:(
1164:(
1143:(
1129:(
1092:(
1077:(
1058:(
1044:(
1030:(
1015:(
1001:(
987:(
973:(
959:(
940:(
913:(
899:(
885:(
866:(
852:(
830:(
816:(
795:(
780:(
751:(
737:(
722:(
708:(
693:(
678:(
646:(
632:(
618:(
599:(
584:(
569:(
554:(
521:(
507:(
489:(
470:(
448:(
433:(
414:(
399:(
379:(
354:(
335:(
320:(
306:(
282:(
268:(
254:(
222:聖
219:(
204:(
190:(
171:(
154:·
149:(
132:·
129:)
121:(
113:·
110:)
98:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.