# Talk:Halloween (franchise)

Pick one. We don't need two, and we are not supposed to sandwich text between two visual images. I give the community time to pick one and stick with it, or I'll remove them both (because we don't need either, they are just an ancillary benefit).   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree.  The whole thing reeks of some fan site nonsense that's not needed.  Rcarter555 (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Should there not be a table for this? 193.240.174.244 (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

No. Per WP:MOSFILM#Critical reception and Wikipedia:Review aggregators. Here's the problem; seven of the films pre-date Rotten Tomatoes. The point of a reception table is to be able to quickly compare how films were received across a franchise. If you go to RT's page for each of the films you're going to find a few things. First, most of the earlier films don't have very many reviews. That calls into question the statistical significance of the approval percentage. Next, it's not fair to compare a film with 20 reviews on RT (they likely had more in real life) with a film that has 200 reviews. That would be like comparing a medical study with 20 participants with one with 200...you're going to question the reliability of the 20 participant study.
So, comparing across simple numbers is really a no-go. Next, if you look at the actual reviews listed for the older films you'll find more modern reviews present (either as the primary review period or inter-spliced with the original film reviews that were transcribed to the internet). We know, because it's not hard to show, that a lot of horror franshises found more favorability years (decades) later than they had when they first came out. Friday the 13th was bombed when it came out, but is more highly regarded today because of its impact on the genre. So now you're not even providing an accurate picture of how the film was viewed when comparing it to the other films in the table.
The short is, RT and other aggregators are better used for films post 1998, after they were established, because the data is more accurate and has enough reviews to be a more reliable comparison. Yes, all of this matters when you're presenting information to a reader and they are left with a false impression of how these films were reviewed.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 17:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I concur with everything Bignole said. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

This is more of a general style question, but I'll ask here: I've seen experienced editors separate paragraphs based on any number of reasons, regardless of length. @Bignole is not one of those editors, at least not in this current little edit war.[1] Is there a definitive style guide on this? 70.163.208.142 (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The average paragraph is 4 to 6 sentences, or 200 words (if those sentences are particularly short). The first 5 films listed average about 120 words, Halloween 6 is just over 200 words, and the rest are about 140 words to 200 words (everything other than the remake are closer to 150 words). That is why I tend to merge those paragraphs.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
While I get that some paragraphs may be short, it is odd to read the "Overview" section and feel like it will be a paragraph for each film, then suddenly, there doesn't seem to be a paragraph after Halloween Kills. I think it would be more worthwhile to consider a bulleted list with a bullet for each film, or a table like the "Films" one but with just title, release year, and concise plot summary. That would improve "scanning" so a reader can get their bearings. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I would argue that there is an inconsistency in the level of detail of the summaries (I don't think that Part 6 needs to be that long), and that the section (like all sections) should be written from a professional writing standard and not simply a place to bullet plot summaries that can easily be read on the individual pages. We do it just fine at Friday the 13th (franchise), and Halloween isn't more complicated in plot than F13.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Halloween Ends
$64,079,860 domestic
$41,311,907 other territories
$68,122,658 worldwide
these figures don't make sense 2A02:C7C:5EC4:6B00:D88E:A18E:F39D:91EF (talk) 10:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, someone didn't add properly. It's fixed now.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

In H20 there are two BIG pieces of informations that prove that the movie follows Halloween II: Laurie's son references Halloween II's finale ("he's dead, you saw him burn") and the fact that Laurie and Michael are siblings. So the page is wrong at least twice: 
- "H20 occures directly after the first film, not the second". Wrong.
- "Halloween H20: 20 Years Later ignores the events that transpire after the first film and opens twenty years after those events and establishes that Michael Myers (Chris Durand) has been missing since being shot in 1978. There is a misconception that this film follows the first two films". Wrong again.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.0.124.247 (talk) 09:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC) 

couldnt find any mentioned here. Could anyone add them? (I dunno the rules of adding RT ratings, or would have done myself). Manasbose (talk) 07:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)