Talk:Ace Ventura: Pet Detective

message: *We Interviewed Cannibal Corpse About That One Time They Were in 'Ace Ventura: Pet Detective'
*An 'Ace Ventura' Reboot Might Happen, But Fans Can Rest Easy In Knowing It Won't Be An Exact Replica
*The Stars of 'Ace Ventura: Pet Detective': Where Are They Now?
*Ace Ventura: Pet Detective review: Does it hold up to modern views?
*Comedy in the ’90s, Part 2: The Year Jim Carrey Arrived
References to use. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to use 

message: A few news articles have covered Joe Rogan bringing up the transphobic issues in this film, like this and this. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joe Rogan 

message: :The applicability of WP:FRINGE to the "Transgender portrayal" section was requested at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Ace Ventura: Pet Detective permalink. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there are two somewhat messy preexisting sections above, I thought it would be appropriate to have a new and distinct section for the applicability of WP:FRINGE. I hope you don't mind my moving your comment to this section. Will await additional feedback from the noticeboard's editors. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said over at the Fringe Theory Noticeboard, the invocation of WP:FRINGE for this section is entirely spurious. XOR'easter (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

text: I'd have no objection to it being trimmed, and to it becoming a paragraph in the 'critical reception' section rather than having its own section. I don't think it should be cut entirely though. GirthSummit (blether) 16:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There's definitely enough coverage that it has to be mentioned somewhere in the article, but yeah, I'm not sure giving it its own top-level section is WP:DUE.  It could be a subsection of the critical response section, or just a paragraph of it, depending on how prominent this aspect is in modern coverage of the film (which would require spending some time going over sources.) Alternatively the section could be turned into a broader one (or a broader subsection of the critical reception section) about its long-term reevaluation; although, again, I'm not sure its long-term evaluation covers much outside of this, so I would expect such a section would still be largely about this unless people can come up with a bunch of sources for other aspects. If you look at eg. Gone with the Wind (film), which seems like the most comparable case, it has a top-level section for Analysis and controversy, with Racial criticism as a subsection of that - that seems like the way to go here, though I would avoid "controversy" per WP:CSECTION and there might not be enough sources to break it up into multiple subsections. (I definitely don't think this is WP:FRINGE, though - these views are definitely non-fringe based on the existing sourcing, the question here is WP:DUE and how much weight to give them, both in terms of overall text and in terms of the article structure.) --Aquillion (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't find WP:DUE applicable here. It is a matter of sorting content, and this subtopic is too distinct from other subtopics to be grouped with others. Commentary not from film critics have usually gotten their own section, like "Historical accuracy" or "Political commentary". Furthermore, the section is at the end of the article body after the staple sections. Also, from what I've seen, in recent sources that cover Ace Ventura: Pet Detective more than in passing, this portrayal gets brought up. Like this brings it up as part of revisiting the film. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Fringe theories noticeboard

message: The article has had "Transgender portrayal" as the section heading for a long time now, and IP editor  believes that it should be "Criticisms of transphobia" instead. I do not think this complies with WP:STRUCTURE. What do other editors think? Do we need to request a Wikipedia:Third opinion? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Jim Carrey and the filmmakers haven't done anything like that, so that's not relevant here. The section details criticisms people have had of the film being transphobic. Ergo, 'criticisms of transphobia' is an appropriate subheading that describes what the section's discussing and applies to WP:STRUCTURE 92.10.13.209 (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Carrey already commented on it at the time of release, as reiterated by The Ringer here. That is covered in the "Production" section. A more complete approach to WP:STRUCTURE would be to move Carrey's commentary to that section, thus rendering "Criticisms" ineligible. "Transgender portrayal" can cover the criticisms and the at-the-time explaining-away. I don't think you'll change your mind, though, so do you want to request a Wikipedia:Third opinion? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No I don't. We came here to reach a consensus and see what other editors think, so that's what I want to happen. 92.10.13.209 (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I mention WP:3O because it's what is suggested at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE involving only two editors. While this page is on 127 editors' watchlists (per page statistics), that does not necessarily mean that one of these editors will show up and weigh in for sure. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I know but they might, so I'm gonna wait. It's only been a few hours. 92.10.13.209 (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section heading