Talk:We're the Millers

December 2013

How the hell would you know that they'll win at the people's choice awards next year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.241.234 (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Genre

I think the film fits well into the generic "comedy". It seems to be referred to in general as a comedy. Chunk5Darth cites the BBC referring to it as a "romantic comedy". I could just as easily cite metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes or even the Washington Post, all of which refer to it as simply a "comedy". Chunk5Darth also cited the film's own web page defining itself as an "action comedy". While such a primary source may have it's own ideas of what genre their film is, secondary sources here should carry more weight. My personal view is that while there are elements of romance and action in the film, they don't rise to level of actually placing he film in either of those two genres. Actually my own view is that it's probably more of a "road trip" movie than anything else. But my views are rather irrelevent. The sources generally call it a "comedy" and per WP:VERIFY I think we should too. – JBarta (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"Road trip comedy".... seems the BBC thinks so too... – JBarta (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Since all the sources at least call it a 'comedy', that broad term is probably the best bet in terms of what to call it in the lead. DarkToonLink 03:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of the lede is to summarize as much as possible. If the genre can be broadened to anything beyond the generic "comedy", while being attributed to reliable sources (one of which is the production company's own definition), it would serve Wikipedia better. Chunk5Darth (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• As for "all the sources call it a comedy"... really? All the sources call it a film. Should we just call it a film as well? WP:COMMON equally applies. Chunk5Darth (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it a romantic comedy if only a handful of sources call it so? Is it an action comedy if virtually no one but the films marketers call it so? Is it a romantic action comedy because a Wikipedia editor cobbled together two thin sources and made up his own genre? Is it a road trip comedy because another Wikipedia editor likes that and found a source to back it up? Or... is it just a plain old comedy because that's what the preponderance of sources generally say?? While we'd like to think we're journalists over here whipping up articles, we're only editors... carefully documenting what others think. And if it helps, for an obvious "romantic comedy", such as When Harry Met Sally..., both metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes include the word "romance" when listing its genre... so the sources certainly do know a romantic comedy when it falls on them. I think a suitable approach/compromise might be to quote a well known critic/reviewer by name calling it a "romantic comedy" or "action comedy" or "whatever comedy" and noting it in the Critical response section. That would get in a minority view, without upsetting the neutrality and verifiablity of the lead. – JBarta (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no WP:SYNTH violation here, only decent wording for two comedy sub-genres. Instead of the clumsy romantic comedy/action comedy, I wrote romantic action comedy, and backed it up by reliable sources. In case you have not noticed so far, this is how Wikipedia works - you have a statement, you back it up with a reliable source, and into the article it goes. Not sure why you're forcibly turning this non-issue into a world crisis. Chunk5Darth (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You should really re-read WP:SYNTH. The "romantic action" comedy edit was a textbook example. WP:SYNTH states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." And that's EXACTLY what you did by combining "romantic" from one source and "action" from another, thus coming up with the unique genre of "romantic action". And your view on "how Wikipedia works" is a little simplistic and doesn't address the points I made above. – JBarta (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Given that all sources agree that it is a comedy movie, with various personal interpretations about subgenre, it is best to call it a 'comedy' in the lead. The lead isn't meant to be overly bloated with information anyway. Details about possible subgenres can be discussed in reception quotes and marketing sections anyway, and the plot section covers such information to lead to these genre conclusions anyway. DarkToonLink 00:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Casey Mathis age?

Article says she's 21. How do we know this? – JBarta (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I was going to wait on this, but I did some further looking and found absolutely nothing reliable in support of her being 21. I'm going to remove those bits from the article. If someone figures out where that came from we can always add it back in. – JBarta (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly, Casey seems to get older as the article progresses. She started out as a plain ordinary "kid", then became a runaway "tween", then a teen and teenage, then more precisely a 15-year old, finally ending up as a 21-year old. It's a good thing I intervened because by the end of the year she might be pushing 30. – JBarta (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I solved the age thing. It can be done by working off the birth dates shown on their drivers licenses when they go through the airport. Here is a picture of their licenses.

We'll start with four facts...

1. Casey's birth date is 04-18-1992
2. Kenny's birth date is 01-28-1995
3. Kenny is 18 years old
4. The film takes place on or near the 4th of July

Kenny's birthdate plus 18 years is 01-28-2013.

That means the movie takes place on or near 07-04-2013

07-04-2013 minus 04-18-1992 (Casey's birth date) equals 21 years, 2 months, 16 days.

So Casey is 21.

I won't add that back into the article because it's not mentioned specifically in the film, isn't really important in the film, and it borders on original research.

Another interesting tidbit is that while Casey is Casey "Mathis" in the film credits, her drivers license says Casey "Matthis".

– JBarta (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

When The Script was written?

Is there anybody in there who knows the exact date? For me, it's almost impossible to think that this plot (or similar one) was never used in movies of 80s-90s. Idea as simple as it's just hanging in the air waiting for someone to catch...really strange.

Kolamavu Kokila

Tasties.food.2017 has repeatedly added the claim that "The tamil film Kolamavu Kokila is inspired from this film (though uncredited)".

Several problems.

1) It is unclear whether you are saying "Kolamavu Kokila inspired We're the Millers" or "We're the Millers inspired Kolamavu Kokila".

2) More critically, to make this claim in the article, you will need a reliable source which directly supports the claim. Most videos on youtube, all blogs, all internet forums and your opinion have one thing in common, they are not reliable sources; we cannot use them as sources here. What is a reliable source? That's outlined at WP:IRS. I cannot add a reliable source for this claim because I have not found a reliable source for the claim. Without a source, we cannot include the claim. If you feel one of the sources does meet the criteria outlined at [[WP:IRS], please discuss the issue here. If you do not understand what is required for WP:IRS, we can discuss that as well.

3) Edit warring is a bad idea. If you make a change to an article, such as the "inspired from" claim and another editor reverts your change, unless you can clearly address their concern, do not restore your change. A good rule of thumb here is bold - revert - discuss: if you boldly make a change and someone reverts you, discuss the issue before restoring your change. This particular edit has been added six times and reverted six times by two editors. The editor adding the material has been warned for WP:3RR and will be blocked from editing if necessary; let's not go there.

4) There are no "lords" on Wikipedia and no one here is a "movie pirate". Please do not attack other editors. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Inviting other involved editors from this article and Kolamavu Kokila to the discussion: Ravensfire, Madrenergic, Vaselineeeeeeee. I am already here, obviously, and Tasties.food.2017 is pinged above. If I have overlooked any other editors involved in adding, removing or discussing this issue, please add them. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Well put SummerPhDv2.0. I have not found reliable sources for this either and therefore should not be included. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 05:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

My answers here:- we're the millers was the ORIGINAL film. This film which was mentioned "Kolamavu Kokila" is inspired from that film, just the characters and situation modified. Despite giving you sufficient sources, you would want the Prime Minister of India to make a statement regarding this, in order to be considered as a source, which he wouldn't do anyway. One user commented earlier that I was making up stuff, as if the world is full of jobless people around. Hence I rest my case. I will "no longer" make any edits on this page, and leave it under your esteemed kingship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasties.food.2017 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The sources you have used so far are worthless blogs, forum postings and such. Sources of that kind say lots of things: the Earth is flat, HIV does not cause AIDS, London is the capital of France, etc.

We are not asking for the prime minister of India. We are asking for a "reliable source". In most cases for something of this nature, that would be a reasonably mainstream newspaper or magazine, as outlined at WP:IRS. For example, while we can certainly find blogs that say The Lion King was inspired by various other works, in The Lion King we cite Disney and rogerebert.com saying it was inspired by Hamlet. (Incidentally, that does not make anyone at Disney a "film pirates".)

This is not about "lords", "esteemed kingship" or any other such nonsense. This is simply about Wikipedia having standards. We don't want Wikipedia to say that the Earth is flat, The Lion King is inspired by King Lear or anything else we cannot verify. You might be right about another film being inspired by this one. To add it here, though, you will need to cite a reliable source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

There was once a bank robbery. The rest of the people on the streets witnessed the whole thing take place right before them. They approached the "lords" to report the matter But The "lords" asked them for "reliable sources" to show that there indeed was a robbery. The poor men tried their level best to knock some sense into them, but despite their sincerest efforts, the "lords" would keep saying ... "No unless there are 'reliable sources' I am not even going to consider this case"

Then it happened that one fine day the robber himself came out and declared "Yes indeed, I have robbed a bank"

Now the lords jumped up and said " AHA ... there it is .. now this is a reliable source. The robber himself has said it. Now we can take up the case"

seems familiar .... ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasties.food.2017 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Concur with the advice you've been given by multiple editors above and continue to completely ignore. Find a good reliable source, not you, not some blog, but a good source or please stop wasting other editors time here. Ravensfire (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Not at all familiar. We're writing an encyclopedia not researching a crime.

Information added to Wikipedia must be verifiable. You have several options here:

1) Find reliable sources, re-add the material and cite them.

2) Somehow establish consensus that out of the over 5 million articles on Wikipedia, this issue is of such Earth-shattering importance that we should set aside one of Wikipedia's 5 core principles to report that this film inspired another film. I don't really see why this issue is so important.

3) Demonstrate that the sources you have provided meet the requirements laid out at WP:IRS.

4) Decide that it really isn't that important, give up and move on.

5) Work to change WP:VERIFIABILITY such that Wikipedia articles can be based blogs and forum postings. Again, this is a pillar of the project. It can be done, but it would not be easy.

6) Dig in your heals, continue to insist you are right, the entire project should bend to your thoughts, etc.

Regarding #1, reliable sources don't seem to have reported this. I don't really see a way of helping you with this.

If you intend to pursue #2, I think your next step would be a Request for Comments.

I cannot help you with #3. IMO, they are clearly not reliable sources.

#4 is entirely yours.

I can explain how you would need to proceed with #5, though I highly doubt you will succeed.

#6 is entirely quixotic. If this is your plan, sharpen your lance and get those windmills, just don't expect satisfaction. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

OK I will stop editing this page as well, it is clear I am banging my head against a brick wall.

Let me make a few things very very clear.

I have clearly stated the facts. I have also given a few links that would suffice. But it is very obvious that you have no interest in any facts. All your interest is in running your fingers through google and looking for related material and making your own autocratic decision on what is "reliable". For example, I have clearly mentioned all the information you need, if you had an iota of interest in the truth, go watch the both the movies. But NO you wouldn't do that would you ? You would take take no effort and find out for yourself.

All you want is "reliable sources that comes out of a running your fingers through a google search bar".

Clearly your conscience is mortgaged to the print media, as if anything that appears in Print and only in print is the word of GOD.

Sorry, you have lost any moral grounds to lecture me about some "core" principles and on what I need to do.

Earlier I did mention you all as being hand in glove with movie pirates. I take it back, entirely. I can see you all like a computer algorithm that can only make a mindless decision exactly as defined in its specification. So just like trying to convince a computer, no matter what I say, it is going to make no difference, and I fully understand that.

Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasties.food.2017 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Everything_you_need_to_know#Verifiability - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The same user has started re-adding the info using User:Lavawraps. The source on this article is still not reliable, however, I saw an addition at Kolamavu Kokila where they cited a radio station [1]. This source may still be questionable, although it's the best source they've given so far. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Meters: Pinging Meters who was also involved at the Indian film article. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

SPI opened since first account is already blocked for edit warring this claim on the two articles. Waiting for comments on the new source on talk:Kolamavu Kokila . It seems possibly a reliable source, but it calls Kolamavu Kokila a blatant copy of We're the Millers and the plot description does not seem to support that.. Meters (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm exceptionally disappointed (although not entirely surprised) that they stooped to block evasion with a WP:SOCK. I've been thinking about how to include this, and like Meters, I'm torn. At best, the radio station would need to be attributed to the director as their opinion only, but it's so different from what the other, poor sources that Tastie has provided that I'm leery. In terms of placement, the lead is not a good place for this as well. Production section perhaps. This may be a good one for WP:RSN. Ravensfire (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

CU shows that user:Lavawraps sock is actually an unrelated, blocked editor known for this type of action, and not user:Tasties.food.2017. Meters (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Quite happily striking that part of my comment... Ravensfire (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I guess I'll strike mine too, although it still does seem very suspicious. Yes, we could see what others think about the source at RSN. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Atleast bother to ask around before spouting some nonsense. Bunch of sherlock holmes detectives need not get together and conclude that I am some annonymous guy "Lavawraps". I have only one account and that is my own.

What is this, may I ask ? Or are you going to ban my ip for asking this ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tasties.food.2017 You created your own sockpuppet investigations under my name, made your own conclusions before even any botheration to ask, typical lords. I want it rid.

Instead of making some irresponsible comments, please have the decency to apologize when you are wrong.

Let me make it clear.

About all the nasty stuff that you all ganged up to write about me.

(1) I DONT have to hide under the garb of a spammer to make my edits. Everytime I edited, there was a comment in the history. Next before jumping to a conclusion and smearing someone with dirt, please atleast bother to ask.

(2) I REFUSE to participate in any discussion for a variety of reasons:- (a) I cannot discuss with a bunch of lords who neither understand the language, nor the reference nor the context, but consider themselves to have the greater right to decide right and wrong.

(b) Simply bossing around, deleting posts at will, and ordering around someone by saying "discuss and convince me, then I will make a call whether to add this or not" .. sorry, that won't work. Descend to earth like any other normal contributer, and talk, maybe there is some scope for discussion.

(c) This is a page about a TAMIL movie. It cannot be discussed with bosses, who pretend to understand all. If there is another contributer who understands the context, get him on board, and I can have a discussion upto any lengths he wants.

(3) I despise and abhor the idea that a system that was supposed to be democratic is being controlled by a bunch of people who consider themselves above all. Your repeated claims of this being some sort of "collaborative effort" is just a hoax. It is clearly an autocratic system totally contrary to the system that Jimmy Wales must have initially conceived of.

(4) Lastly and MOST IMPORTANTLY, please dont spam my page or dont email me or dont edit my messages. This is just a response to all the nasty stuff that you all ganged up and said about me. You need not go to great lengths to have my IP address or my email facility blocked.

ALSO, I DONT OPERATE UNDER ANY ALIAS. THIS IS MY ONE AND ONLY ID.Tasties.food.2017 (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing untoward here. There appeared to be socking by new account that restored the edits you were blocked for edit warring over..I opened an SPI. A checkuser investigation was run and it showed that the sock was not you, but instead was another user who makes a habit of purposely making edits that appear to be socking by other editors. You were exonerated and that editor's account was blocked instead. I'm sorry we incorrectly thought that you were doing the socking, but that's exactly why the editor in question makes these types of edits.If you want to be angry at someone, I suggest that you direct your anger towards that editor. The above suggestions that you were socking have been struck through.

Several editors are discussing your claim and sources. One of the sources may be usable, but there are still concerns. If you don't wish to participate in the discussion that's your choice. We'll decide what to add, if anything, without you.if you choose not to participate. Please lay off the inflammatory comments. Meters (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The welder will be in a

Jasmine thanks again merry new bill thanks for all the @ 2600:100D:B041:F0E8:14EE:EC8F:B129:2D0 (talk) 02:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks 2600:100D:B041:F0E8:14EE:EC8F:B129:2D0 (talk) 02:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

10’15 2600:100D:B02C:C660:34C5:D0BB:98E0:F1C9 (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Inaccurate information better?

@User:Quentin X Not sure why it matters if someone is mentioned on the poster or not. If someone stars in a movie by being in nearly every scene, they should go in the 'starred' section. Omitting Wil Poulter from the 'Starring' section because he doesn't appear on the poster is incorrect information which I thought would be against Wikipedia's values. Maybe it's a good general rule to enforce consistency but in this case it does not work. Sirhephaestus (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sirhephaestus Gene Hackman is not in the Infobox for The Firm for the same reason. Is it right? Who knows. Is it MOS? Yes. Quentin X (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)