Talk:Fantastic Mr. Fox (film)

message: *Wes Anderson Enlists Bill Murray For ‘The Fantastic Mr. Fox’ —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Fantastic Mr. Fox is the last appearence of the 1994 20th Century Fox logo :-( --Henrytvwhiz (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headlines 

message: My name is Alex Mirabella and I have added a section regarding the personnel for the soundtrack. I understand that Wikipedia warns against adding the personnel for a film's orchestra but the film did not utilize an orchestra. I understand that the songs by Georges Delerue utilized an orchestra but the recordings for these songs were already existing. Please allow the soundtrack personnel to appear on this article as it does not go against any rules previously written for this site. I just wish to inform people of the musicians who helped in creating the soundtrack. Alex Mirabella  —Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Soundtrack Personnel

message: While I don't doubt that the plot as it is given on this page is accurate (I live in California), I was reading through it and it seems to be, in form, very different from other Wikipedia film article plot summaries. For example, character quotes are interspersed throughout the summary: Just like this except it's something you've never seen before in a Wikipedia article!. (talk) 07:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? It looks fine to me. - 98.208.98.195 (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot section seems unprofessional 

message: The plot needs to specify a key detail.  Around the middle, it is said that Mr. Fox's house is in a tree.  It then goes on to say that that said house goes under siege by the antagonists, and that the family escapes by digging.  Given that the house is in a tree, it needs to be specified what exactly is happening here, to avoid confusion.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if you've seen the movie or not, but their house isn't under a tree. Their house is the inside of a tree and the dig through the floor to escape the farmers. AniMate 21:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't, and thank you so much for the clarification, I'll correct my mistake now, and clarify further that it isn't like a tree house.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Oh, you already fixed my error.  Thanks..  but I still feel there should be a bit more clarification, however, I do not wish to go about that the way I had planned, as I don't think it would flow that well with the rest of the article.  Do you know of a way we might do this?— Dædαlus Contribs 05:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specification 

message: The scientific names used in the movie are incorrectly formatted. "The genus name is always written with an initial capital letter. In current usage, the specific name is never written with an initial capital. For example, the entire tiger species is Panthera tigris" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_name  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.65.58 (talk) 11:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goof 

message: Fantastic Mr. Fox became a Nominee for the 82nd Academy Awards: http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/82/nominees.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colorgetic (talk • contribs) 19:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards 

message: I think it should be noted that the top critics at RT have given this film 100%, which is higher than UP's rating. Many other film articles note the Top Critics response in their reception section so it would not be out of the ordinary. Jack mcdowell (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception 

message: The box office numbers seen on this article need to be updated. The total grosses of this movie are as of now $41,026,048.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andulias (talk • contribs) 11:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Box Office 

message: In the chase/fight scene near the end the main theme from "A fistful of dollars" is playing. Then a chorus of children start singing the names of the three villains to the tune. If you read the credits at the end its listed with the rest of the music.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.28.65 (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spaghetti western music 

message: * Semylen, Phil de. " 	 Mr. Fox's Fantastic Sets." Empire.
WhisperToMe (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Should this article state how the film differs from the book on which it is based? At present, the book article contains such a section - but as that is the original work, I suggest it belongs here. Achillea (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither article should have such a section unless reliable sources have made note of the differences. Doniago (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison with the book 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Fantastic Mr. Fox (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100128111245/http://lineboil.com:80/2010/01/who-animated-fantastic-mr-fox/ to http://lineboil.com/2010/01/who-animated-fantastic-mr-fox/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080731182222/http://www.timeout.com:80/chicago/articles/music/39791/from-the-uk-to-the-magic-kingdom to http://www.timeout.com/chicago/articles/music/39791/from-the-uk-to-the-magic-kingdom
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5m2lEZqVv?url=http://www.goldenglobes.org/nominations/ to http://www.goldenglobes.org/nominations/
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5p6kTm4hN?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oscars.org%2Fawards%2Facademyawards%2F82%2Fnominees.html to http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/82/nominees.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100131024421/http://www.nbrmp.org:80/awards/awards.cfm?award=Special%20Filmmaking%20Achievement to http://www.nbrmp.org/awards/awards.cfm?award=Special%20Filmmaking%20Achievement
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Fantastic Mr. Fox (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012044310/http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2007/09/26/wes-anderson-enlists-bill-murray-for-the-fantastic-mr-fox/ to http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2007/09/26/wes-anderson-enlists-bill-murray-for-the-fantastic-mr-fox
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726072341/http://screencrave.com/2009-12-14/15th-annual-critics-choice-award-nominees/ to http://screencrave.com/2009-12-14/15th-annual-critics-choice-award-nominees/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is no reason to repeat the names of the cast in the plot, because that's what the cast section is for. By the same token, there is no reason to repeat plot details in the cast section, because that is what the plot is for. This is just unnecessary repetition that serves no useful purpose. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I do appreciate your efforts, but in this case I don't think it's really an improvement. You've linked common terms, which generally isn't something we should be doing. You added parentheticals, which is a pet peeve of mine and to my mind means that we're not adopting as good a WP:TONE as we ought to, and in the Plot specifically suggests to me that the details aren't needed. Similarly, what song(s) the animals dance to isn't pertinent to the story. You also added a number of non-principal voice actors to the Cast section, which isn't intended to list every person who acted in the film. I do apologize if I'm coming off as overly-harsh here, but I just don't think the changes you're making are leading to a better article. I do appreciate you bringing the question here though! DonIago (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what the point of your last revision was, as it appeared to address the most minor of my concerns noted above while doing nothing to address the more pressing concerns, including the parentheticals and addition of superflous cast members. DonIago (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

text: I mentioned them in my last comment here and they're basically identical to what I said in my first comment. DonIago (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with DonIago's comments immediately above and his comments from yesterday. I really fail to see the value of these added details. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

text: True, but Wikipedia works on the principal of consensus. If multiple editors are disputing your edits, most likely you shouldn't be making them. Alternately, you can consider dispute resolution, but to reinsert edits without getting a clear consensus would constitute edit-warring. DonIago (talk) 04:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

text: But at this point you should be running text past us first, not plugging it in and then hoping nobody will object to it. You know there's at least two editors contesting your changes, so you shouldn't be changing the article until this discussion has run its course. DonIago (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

text: I was hoping to avoid being this blunt, but frankly, I didn't see that any of the changes you made were improvements to the existing article, and none of the revisions I looked at addressed all of the concerns I brought up before, so I don't know why you keep asking me to reiterate them. Thank you for your understanding. DonIago (talk) 05:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

text: Again, then- I don't feel any of the changes you made were improvements, and unless any editor speaks up here willing to express a belief that at least some of your changes were improvements, I hope you will understand that you do not have a consensus for your changes and that consequently re-inserting some or all of them, especially in light of the fact that you know they're contentious, might be construed as edit-warring. If you want to pursue this further, you're welcome to contact WT:FILM or consider dispute resolution. I don't see a point in further discussing this without the involvement of additional editors. DonIago (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with . It's time to put this matter to rest. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

text: Did you click on the highlighted text "dispute resolution"? DonIago (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

text: Conveniently, if you're having trouble understanding how dispute resolution works, you can ask a question at WT:DR. I'd even encourage that approach since it may encourage editors there to improve the page to clarify whatever you're having trouble with. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 04:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

text: Well, the fact that this discussion is still going on, a full month after it started, is a good indication you are not hearing our comments and responses to your edits and to your questions here. How much clearer can we make it? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 02:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: AAA, if you want to continue the discussion, it's on you to get other editors involved, as you attempted to do by opening the DRN case. Jacobite and I clearly feel both that there's no significant merit to your proposed changes and little point in continuing the discussion, so why would we make the effort to involve other editors? Also, I have repeatedly said that I didn't feel any of your changes were improvements. How is any of that unclear to you? Frankly I think you're being pointy and should drop the stick now, and I may not respond to further comments that appear to be an effort to continue beating a dead horse rather than a clear effort to move this along. Jacobite and I have tried to work with you on this, and I at least cannot understand why you are having trouble understanding what I believe to be clearly-worded statements. Bluntly, I'm only responding now because I see the DRN case was closed and felt you deserved a response in light of that. DonIago (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast and plot 

message: Was this (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fantastic_Mr._Fox_(film)&diff=829186844&oldid=829161433) still a cast and plot bloat? ArchAngelAvenger (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC about the cast and plot 

message: * No - one word is removed, one word is added. The net change in the number of words is nil. This cannot be considered a bloat of any kind. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: * That link appears to point to a single edit. Please consider restating this RfC more clearly. DonIago (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Threaded discussion

message: Are the aforementioned genres appropriate in the Categories section? Most sources label this as an "animated adventure" (Rotten Tomatoes, IMDb). As for "chase films", the film pretty much involves the wolves being hunted or chased by the farmers (thereby fitting under "American Chase films" category). What do you say? 124.150.67.252 (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We categorize articles based on the article's verifiable content. The only mention I see of "chase" is in "Eric Chase Anderson", so I can't support any categorization of this film as a "chase film" at this time; that would seem to be original research as a "chase film" is a specific type of film, and we can't make that claim based solely on plot elements, just as a film with comedic elements isn't necessarily considered a comedy film. IMDb is absolutely not a reliable source, and I don't trust RT's genre classifications (I'll take AFI, BFI, and AllMovie before RT), so I question your claim that "most sources" label the film as an "animated adventure" given that RT and IMDb are the only two you provided. DonIago (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, maybe "chase film" is far-fetched. But most importantly, and (hopefully) to your satisfaction, the film's entry on AFI includes "adventure". As for BFI, there are no genres listed unfortunately. I don't think BFI even includes genres? And finally, AllMovie just has "comedy". 124.150.67.252 (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it's just a matter of updating the film's genre classification (either in the lead or elsewhere as appropriate) and then adding the category, as at that point the category is supported by content within the article. DonIago (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I proceed with adding "adventure" in the lead (or any place I deem fit)? 124.150.67.252 (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I've expressed any opposition to updating the genres listed in the article text provided they were reliably sourced. I believe the only reservations I've expressed had to do with adding categories that weren't supported by text within the body of the article. DonIago (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories: "Animated adventure films" and "Chase films"?