Talk:Wes Anderson

message: This page is being vandalized with someone constantly adding "Mortimer" as a middle name. This is absolutely not factual information. The user never uses the same IP address but all of the changes are coming from the same area of Illinois. I am a very new user and don't have the knowledge or skills to properly stop this, instead, I find myself reverting the info back all the time. 
Can we lock-down that bit on info and make the name unalterable? This has been going on for over a year, there is no way to block or warn the user as they never use the same IP (Sockpuppetry). Can someone please help?--81.64.38.94 (talk) 11:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been semiprotected until January. This means that anonymous editors won't be able to change the article. I hope this addresses your concern. EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Constant Vandalism, "Mortimer"

message: If there's a hard-and-fast rule for this that I'm unaware of, I apologize, but is it really necessary to include people who have worked with Wes Anderson only twice on the list of Recurring Collaborators? Yes, they worked together twice, and that makes them recurring, sure. But does that make it significant enough for inclusion? 
Unrelated: Again, I'm not familiar with the stylistic conventions here, but should there be a section on Collaborators AND a grid of Recurring Collaborators? It seems redundant.
Viralhyena (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Milena Canonero has worked with Wes Anderson twice, but she's a very significant costume designer. The costume designer before her worked with Wes Anderson on his first three films.--70.178.226.227 (talk) 07:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the "Recurring collaborators" table isn't really necessary. His most important collaborations are mentioned in the prose. The table seems to be mostly trivia rather than encyclopedic information. I'll go ahead and remove it. Kaldari (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

text: If anyone wants to keep the table, please explain why. It's been up for discussion for 3 years, and no one has bothered defending it. Also since this is a BLP, the entries in the table should probably be cited. Kaldari (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Oppose reinserting unless there's a better argument than WP:INTERESTING. I might be persuaded to change my mind if there's sources that have commented on these collaborations. DonIago (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Support the reinsertion, that's my vote. Sources would be nice for sure. SweetTaylorJames (talk) 09:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Support the reinsertion, on the basis of e.g. this source Los Angeles Times--Megustalastrufas (talk) 10:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Support came here expecting the table to still be here and was sad to not see it, having recently watched his latest movie and recognizing cast from his previous.  theAfroDuckMann (talk) 3 November 2021  — Preceding undated comment added 06:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

text: You are probably right. Megustalastrufas (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. DonIago (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, I, an anonymous contributor, had the same thought you did at virtually the same time and just barged in and made the change, BEFORE checking the talk page. My apologies if I acted out of order and/or stepped on any toes. 23.24.8.241 (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Collaborators/Recurring Collaborators

message: I added a new section on Anderson's style and techniques. The section is fully cited to a number of high quality outside sources. I think it is a good start to a much needed addition to this article. I previously added this section back in the spring but some tyrant editor deleted it immediately for no good reason. I am asking that editors not to delete this section but make changes or suggestions for how it could be improved instead. A great way to stifle the improvement of Wikipedia is to speedily delete worthwhile additions for being imperfect. Mbroderick271 (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Section on his style and techniques 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Wes Anderson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070114002957/http://productionweekly.com:80/2006/08/02/wilson-and-anderson-reminisce-over-a-cup-of-darjeeling/ to http://productionweekly.com/2006/08/02/wilson-and-anderson-reminisce-over-a-cup-of-darjeeling/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090814074833/http://omglists.blogfaction.com:80/article/101175/5-signs-youre-watching-a-wes-anderson-movie to http://omglists.blogfaction.com/article/101175/5-signs-youre-watching-a-wes-anderson-movie/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The facts presented in this aricle have appropriate references. Most of the references are from media cites such as Entertainment Weekly, others from BBC or the WSJ. Most everything that needs to be cited is properly notated, with relevance and no real distrations outside of the large charts, which I find necessary. As far as I'm aware, there are no realclaims or biases, no statements out of reach that would make Anderson seem a certain way. The information is from different sources, no one source overused. I have no real ground to critique the article on Anderson: the references are good, there are no viewpoints that are out of bounds, and there is no real plagarism. Without reading too much into it, I have hardly any suggestions as to how to change the page. The only minor suggestion I would have is to perhaps find a way to condense the charts or find more sources outside of entertainment sites (though it makes sense why those are used).
Fescandon (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts on the Page  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Wes Anderson. 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/20150923221554/http://www.bworldonline.com/weekender/content.php?id=86473 to http://www.bworldonline.com/weekender/content.php?id=86473
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) 04:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have removed the "Mortimer" from the subject's name. This appears to be a totally unsubstantiated (maybe vandal) edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wes_Anderson&type=revision&diff=314421752&oldid=313996464. It then seems that two years later it appear in the reference "Browning, Mark (2 February 2011). Wes Anderson: Why His Movies Matter (Modern Filmmakers). Praeger. p. 190. ISBN 9781598843538.", since there is no other reference for this name, it's prudent to assume that the book's author got the name from Wikipedia. One should also note that the name is refuted by the subject's team at OTRS Ticket:2018120310011079 Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for this. I'd been going back and forth on it, as there appeared to be a source to back it up, but if the source has been refuted, that's good to know. Can an inline note be inserted if not already present? DonIago (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've done the inline note already. Also the subject has been kind enough to send a copy of his proper birth certificate into OTRS - obviously that's not a reliable source (as you cannot see it), but it's better than nothing. Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool cool. Thanks for your diligence on this! DonIago (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subject's full name. 

message: He is of Scandinavian ancestry. Most Scandinavian Andersons/Anderssons spell their names with two S’s. Was his family surname originally spelled Andersson at some point?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8BF9:45F0:2999:DD7:7B36:125E (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was his family surname originally Andersson at some point? 

message: Any objection to turning on auto-archiving for any thread on this page that's older than 10 years or so? I know the thread at the top has seen some recent activity (which means it won't be auto-archived anytime soon now), but many of the others appear to have run their course. DonIago (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Enabled, as there didn't appear to be any objection. DonIago (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto-archving? 

message: Someone from Lansing, Michigan, has been using multiple IPs to insert names of famous film directors who have notionally influenced Anderson.  reverted the mess and said "this is becoming a laundry list". None of the names have been referenced. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, let's continue to keep this stuff out. Binksternet (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laundry list of influences 

message: He's listed twice in the recurring collaborators table.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfryer99 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, second Tony has been removed, thank you.--Megustalastrufas (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tony Revolori Listed Twice 

message: Should we put a dagger next to deceased actors in the collaborators section? I say no: a) it just creates more maintenance; b) Some of the individuals listed do not even have articles, and it's entirely possible that no public information will be released upon their deaths, leaving the list incomplete; c) the death is not necessarily relevant to the list - Pallana was not in three Wes Anderson movies while alive - it's possible that he would not have been in any others, and we are just speculating that there would have been further collaborations; and d) users who are interested in the actors can go to the individual pages. This is a page about Wes Anderson, and the only point of the chart is to show that he often works with the same actors. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk  12:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I see two actors with the daggers (and no explanation of what the daggers mean, or sources to support their placement), neither of whom had been in many of Anderson's more recent films. As such, this seems to be borderline trivia. People die. Unless there are sources that discuss the actors no longer appearing in Anderson's films due to their passing ("Anderson had hoped to have X in film Y, but the actor passed away before the film began production..."), I'm not really seeing why it's necessary to include this here. If anything, it seems as though it might be better handled as well-sourced prose below the table (similar to how we handle the Cast sections of film articles). DonIago (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No daggers, please. They distract from the point, which is that Anderson often returns to the same people. If a particular collaborator is called out in reliable sources for their death preventing them from further collaboration, then we can tell the reader in prose why that might be so. To make that statement ourselves is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Binksternet (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daggers in collaborators section 

message: Edgar Rice Burroughs is listed as his grandfather on IMDb as well as ancestry sites and Scottish Wikipedia. I don't know how to edit it to make that a second line in his relatives 2603:8000:3400:6A7:9DCD:1D6F:8770:F85A (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Needs better sourcing. IMDb and Wiki host user generated content, and so wouldn't be suitable for this.  I don't know which ancestry sites you're looking at, but user generated content is a common problem with those too.  I searched online for a bit and couldn't find any sources for this that looked usable. Squeakachu (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edgar Rice Burroughs is his grandfather 

message: As well-meaning editors keep adding Henry Sugar under the "Directed features" filmography here, can we just get it on the record that HS is not a feature film (it is a short), and as such, it should not be added to that section? Or, if editors feel otherwise, let's get that consensus established. Thank you! DonIago (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry Sugar 

message: when talking about the nomination for best live action short film it says wonderful world of henry sugar instead of the proper title 'The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar'. i cant tell why this is and i think if theres no reason for this it should be changed Avoidkennethlamarnoid (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: , thanks. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wonderful “World” of Henry Sugar