Talk:Venom (2018 film)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gman802. Peer reviewers: TonyPJs.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2021

Add "category:2017 3D films" and mention the release date under "marketing". Venom has been released in 3D. Mo.sarvi (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a reliable source to support your request. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Lead response summary

@Wallyfromdilbert: you have ignored WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO as well as a request to go to the talk page, and you yourself told me to come here as if there would be an explanation waiting for me. I have already explained that your version is not as accurate to the response section but you have not responded to that yet. Please explain what justifies your edit warring? - adamstom97 (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

This content has already been discussed in the section above, where you never responded to my last comment there. Regarding the content you are adding to the article, which is neither long-standing nor was part of the article during its GA assessment, it is not "widely supported by published reviews". See MOS:FILM. You are also removing content that is directly from the cited sources we discussed in the prior section. Finally, claiming that a performance received "some praise" when it actually had mixed reviews is WP:UNDUE. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I forgot that we had that discussion after the GA review. Regardless, the two versions of the article are not the same as the one that the above discussion resulted in so it is irrelevant, and as I have been saying repeatedly we need to ensure that we represent the whole response section not just the critical reviews. We have a whole section about the hugely positive response to the characters and their relationship which is what that part of the sentence is referring to, in addition to the positive comments about Hardy's performance from some critics. That is why I removed the "critics" part of the sentence. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

MOS:FILM says "Any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis and reflect detail that is widely supported in published reviews." Generally, audience reception is not included in the lead, and when it is, it should not be stated in a way that conflates it with the critical reception. I also don't think that your description of the audience response above or the content you had added accurately reflects the main body audience reception, which is particularly about a queer interpretation of a romantic interest between the characters. Finally, as I stated in my last reply, only highlighting the praise for a performence that received mixed reviews is not accurate as per the policy at WP:WEIGHT. I think it would probably be helpful to merge this discussion into the prior discussion to keep it all together. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I've already explained that we aren't just talking about critical reception, so that quote from MOS:FILM does not apply. Per WP:DUE, the lead needs to summarise the whole article with appropriate weight so ignoring an entire section is not going to happen. I agree that we shouldn't say critics were positive about their relationship if we are talking about audience feelings, which is why I was the one who removed the part about being specifically critic reviews. Feel free to suggest alternative wording. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)