# Talk:Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

To whom it may concern, I believe it's pretty standard in film articles that we include the theatrical poster. Was there a logical, valid reason for replacing the poster with an SVG-traced logo of the movie? Or was it simply a personal preference of this article's major contributor? You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

It was replaced so that a commons file could be used (the logo being one), as I was about to upload some other fair use images for analysis within the article body, and it's always good to keep the number of non-free files down. However, the poster has been re-added per GA comment below. Thanks for asking, anyway :) Kingsif (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from [[Talk:{{subst:Scott Pilgrim vs. the World}}]]. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Rusted AutoParts 19:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Will look over this article, submit changes needed before passing. Rusted AutoParts 19:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

First off, a film article should have a film poster in the infobox.
Is the Ellen Page speculation really needing to be included? Unless she was in consideration or in negotations, which in that case the sentence about her should be rewritten.
Not sure the Brie Larson picture in Music is necessary. Also I don't think the two pictures of Emily Haines are needed, just the one if a picture of her is to be used.
Analysis section should be placed above Release section.
Top ten list is not expansive enough to be included in article. So it should be removed.
Ensure all sources used in the article are archived.
Work on those, I'll keep an eye out for any other changes that need work. Rusted AutoParts 19:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this! I’ve included the poster, removed the Ellen Page mention since it wasn’t very sustained speculation. The Brie Larson image was included half to have the caption (the information is all in the article, but not as succinct) and half to use a picture of the European premiere (release would be too saturated with it) - I ask if you think that a picture of the premiere in London would fit and be suitable elsewhere?
I though the MOS would have Analysis below release (above response)? Also, is it a GA requirement that all sources are archived? It’s not a criteria I’ve ever seen. I can do it, but am on mobile at the moment so it would have to be later.
Not sure if it's a requirement but I've found it's a preference. It's a process I had to do for Steve Jobs and La La Land so that all sources in the article can still be accessed in the event they get deleted or lost. Rusted AutoParts 21:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I’ll move the top ten list (it isn’t exactly short) to the accolades page.
Kingsif (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I'll also add that I am especially eager for feedback on the Analysis section - it feels like one of the weaker Analysis sections I have written, so I'm after even the smaller comments there. Kingsif (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@Rusted AutoParts: I see you’ve added a note about the Haines pictures, and while I’d say that the left image is a good comparison of appearance and the right of performance physicality (though the left works better than the right), perhaps we can put a pin in the image talk for now (see here, you may want to contribute), and resolve other queries. You’ll see I’ve started updating and improving sources, are there any other comments/concerns you have? Kingsif (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. That discussion seems at a bit of a standstill so it may end in no consensus. Rusted AutoParts 04:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
@Rusted AutoParts: All the refs have been migrated to a cite source format, archive links added where possible (some pesky links just don't want to be archive by the Wayback Machine for some reason, but the urls work). Just need to organize and alphabetize, is there anything else? (done) Kingsif (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I feel every issue has been dealt with. Great job. Passed  Rusted AutoParts 05:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Plumtreelogo.png
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Turns out it's easier to violate WP:3RR than to discuss. Removing a link which clearly shows filming locations and dates that may be useful to this article won't get you anything. User:Kingsif's next revert will be fourth thus will be reported. If anyone else is strongly against the source, please comment below. nyxærös 12:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Remarkably, I wasn't going to fourth revert, I was going to report you. You added it, so undoing again is breaking 3RR. Congratulations. I explained very simply why it's completely pointless, so pointless there's no need to discuss. Since you gave no actual reason to re-add, it was clear an attempt at discussion wouldn't go anywhere. You have no reason to have been so hostile to me when I'm trying to keep a page clean, your editing attitude sucks and this righteousness - preemptively saying you're going to report me - is a massive AGF violation. But since you only care about 3RR when it's other editors, why would you give a shit about that? Go disrupt other articles instead of poking me. Kingsif (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
So I wanted you to revert me again, just like you started to revert my edits months ago? The source won't be used for its images and "there's no text to add information" is incorrect. Removing a potentially useful source doesn't make the page "clean". Go disturb others and revert their edits without a valid reason. nyxærös 08:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
So you're saying you were deliberately provoking a user to try and get them to do something you want to report them for? What an asshole. I didn't even look at the user who made the edit before I reverted, actually I didn't until now. Hi. So you think I'm prolonging so feud you've made up? No, I'm trying to keep the talkpage of an article I got promoted to GA clean. If your immediate assumption of someone reverting you with a good reason is that they must have some vendetta against you and that gives you a free pass to ignore them and be rude as all hell in your first revert, you have some issues. Let it go, take each run-in on their own. But perhaps the fact you keep making edits that need reverting and run into the same editors often should tell you something. Go mess around adding unnecessary links to articles that aren't my GAs (because that is a little stalker-y, like you intentional came here to provoke...) Or better yet, don't go mess around at all! Kingsif (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Hahahaha. Find out what the question mark means. It is actually incredible to see such a dumb comment. You are the one who is deliberately reverting my edits since La casa de las flores if I remember correctly. Promoting to GA doesn't mean you can own the article. As you can see, the hound is you. Get it? I'm making sure that you understand me in order to prevent further communication. A warning about four reverts reporting is not being "rude as hell", it is for your own good. You are also the one who is uncivil, "asshole". nyxærös 18:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Dude, I had no idea it was you. I mention the GAs to point out that obviously I watch the articles that I get promoted - the fact you have popped up on two of them making edits that I genuinely find disruptive, and would have reverted no matter the editor, does not reflect well on you. So you can't plausibly suggest I'm hounding you at all. I haven't crossed 3RR, but you make it clear you were provoking me to that. So, er, what's dumb here? Kingsif (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, I'll be surprised if both of you don't get blocked for 3RR judging by the above discussion. Unless one or both of you would care to civilly discuss what's going on here, I don't plan to get involved in this further. DonIago (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't want any discussion at all. I just reverted a bad edit and immediately get rude comments and a guy that thinks we're in a feud or something refusing to let it go and mocking me without provocation. I'm not going to take his crazy talk, but if you're around this page @Doniago:, could you just say whether you think the link in refideas has any possible future use to put an end to it? If you have any opinion on whether an interaction ban is warranted, weigh in, too. Kingsif (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I can't currently review the link itself, and I'd defer to other editors on that...but we're also talking about a single link that's not even in the article itself, so the objective harm of leaving it there is minimal, at least while forming a consensus as to whether it should be removed. I think you both may want to review WP:BRD as you seem to have foregone it in this case, not to mention focusing on arguments regarding content rather than your fellow contributors. I think you both violated WP:NPA, and I think if I was an admin I'd be tempted to block both of you...not necessarily for a long time but because this entire discussion is ridiculous and has little to do with the edit that actually provoked this conversation.
I suspect I'm being overly-optimistic here, but I'd like to see you both apologize and have a cogent discussion regarding the merits of the link, but I won't hold my breath. Short of that, disengaging might be the best option. I can't weigh in on the merits of an interaction ban based on the single argument that I'm seeing here. DonIago (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Being honest, I will not be apologizing for anything, so your estimations are correct. I obviously watch this talk page, and when I saw a link to a twitter image added I just removed it: there's no use, and the downside is that when users see refideas they try to shoehorn the content in or even say an article can't meet GA with outstanding potential refs. I gave an edit reason explaining why. If a user had reverted my removal and given an edit reason explaining why they thought it might be useful, I'd have left it: Sebastian didn't, he wrote "figures". That's some immediate and unprovoked passive-aggressive bad faith right there. Throughout this failed discussion, I've been trying to explain both why the link is unnecessary and why Sebastian characterizing me as "hounding" him for keeping an eye on pages I watch is insulting. His comments? Laughing at me. I expect an apology, I have no need to give one. I don't expect discussion, given Sebastian's long history of insulting people instead of doing that, and he has still not given any reason as to why his twitter link might be useful. I even politely suggested an EL and he mocked that, so where do you think this is going. Kingsif (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I came here looking for the MPAA rating of this movie. I think it should be in the sidebar on the right. Renegades Hang (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

See WP:FILMRATING; we don't typically include film ratings unless the rating attracted attention for some reason or was otherwise notable per coverage from sources. You can always check on IMDb though. DonIago (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)