# Talk:Inside Out (2015 film)

Could someone please change the Voice Cast section so that the list isn’t 4-5 letters wide? It’s impossible to read. LemonPokeCake (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the column formatting that made the list unreadable on narrow screens. 73.140.171.157 (talk) 04:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Dream Productions is now released, so I would like for somebody to edit the sentence "A four-episode short series titled Dream Productions that takes place between the events of Inside Out and Inside Out 2 is set for release on Disney+ on December 11, 2024" on the Expanded Franchise section to acknowledge this. 2603:6010:8B00:44FF:B5DF:2E59:1890:8ACB (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Just to fully explain my reverts on recent edits.  My concern here is that content is being removed or changed because an editor feels that what was said about the film and production company was unfair.  My response is that unfair or not, if this is what reliable sources and authoritative commentators were saying at the time, then the article should reflect that.  They may, in retrospect, have been wrong.  But it is important that the article should reflect what was said and thought when the film was released.
That's not to say the article can't be improved or balanced with others' thoughts.  But removing sourced content because you disagree with the opinions expressed is not an improvement. Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps I can clear this up. I think I admittedly got carried away in the "reasoning" for my edits. That may have given the impression I was editing by emotion, but the way in which I edited was actually in accordance with my understanding of Wikipedia's rules. Basically, I gave too much of my feelings before clicking submit, but not necessarily in the actual edits. I reworded sentences to be more neutral (not my sole opinion) yet still supportive of what was actually said in the attached sources. I only removed two sources, one which was very odd and perhaps misplaced, and the other which I felt did not add meaningfully to Inside Out's article. In the grand scheme of things, Pixar announcing sequels and DreamWorks' financial problems giving probable to cause to believe that Pixar might be in similar trouble with Inside Out did not impact its success or have the presence those writers indicated it did. It's like Inside Out was being used to put other films down at times, which wasn't needed since it was a huge success anyway. I think there's a place for these comments and they can be mentioned, but I thought there was undue weight given to these more antagonistic ideas. That one in particular did not tell me as a reader how Inside Out resonated with audiences or made a meaningful impact, it seemed to just bring up conflicts that could be considered in one's head. Other sentences I though benefitted from a slight addition, because no author can factually determine on their own why a movie was successful, so I added a few clarifying words just to be more neutral. I'll continue to review the article for other angles or approaches for saying neutral things or look for other sources to clarify or add perspective that meaningfully contributes.
DESERTSCHo0L20 (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
I am just going to add that this whole issue happened because you only read the "reasoning" I left in my edits, assumed the edits were improper without actually looking at what I removed or changed to see that I actually made good, constructive edits, and then simply reverted all my edits just because my "reasoning" gave the impression that my edits are "probably" in defiance with Wikipedia's rules. They were not. They were all made in accordance with WP:NPOV. I did not even remove any critic's opinion. In fact, I added a critic's correctly-sourced opinion which you deleted without explanation. The only removal I made was of an article talking about the film's second trailer (6 months before the movie came out) because an editor used that to bring up Toy Story 4 and sequels, which was not a focus of the source and has nothing to do with Inside Out's reception. Also, we are not allowed to state a writer's opinions as facts or in Wikipedia's voice per WP:NPOV; we have to rephrase slightly so that the readers understand this was a writer's opinion and not necessarily fact (thought also not necessarily false).
While I can understand that I probably should not be showing my annoyance with whatever I deleted, that doesn't change the fact that a person should actually look at what actually matters, which are the changes I made and if it was due to personal opinion or not. My issue wasn't with the sources (except for the one I mentioned which was completely unnecessary to the article if you actually read it), my issue was with the fact that Wikipedia editors/contributors were misusing sources to spin their own personal narratives to talk about Pixar's perceived decline and other trivial (frankly childish and imaginary) matters that actually have nothing to do with Inside Out's success and in fact take away from talk of the reception it actually had. That's what I was deleting. But this assumption that I was actually editing by emotion or editing in defiance of Wikipedia's rules has caused me to have to wait 24 hours to fix the article again to avoid a ban. Next time, I would hope that you would please actually read and analyze the changes I made instead of assume everyone before me was correct based on the "reasoning" I leave. Thank you.DESERTSCHo0L20 (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)