Talk:Zombies (2018 film)

Director confusion

As per this discussion on my Talk page, there is an issue with this film's director – essentially, we have conflicting sources on this: the Disney P.R. is saying it's Paul Hoen, Deadline is saying it's Jeffrey Hornaday. Until we can resolve this sourcing conflict, I am removing the director from the article. We may not know who it really is until Zombies actually airs in February... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

So, who was the director?

Is it Hornaday or Hoen?Keylonrocks7356 (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

It was Hoen. (I surmised on my Talk page that Disney had updated their Press Release after a director switch, while Deadline had not, and it looks like I guessed correctly.) But you have to wait for the end credits to see this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

Why does this film article have a TV infobox? TV infobox is for series, as many of the parameters clearly show. And you'll notice that other TV films use the film infobox, because they are still films. — Film Fan 16:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I have a question into a veteran editor about this, to see what he thinks. My answer is that in the same way that WP:FILMOGRAPHY puts TV movies under 'Television' rather than under 'Film', TV movies should use {{Infobox television}}. For one thing, {{Infobox film}} does not have a parameter for 'network' which is something that you would obviously want displayed for a TV movie... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) TV infobox is for all Television including TV series and TV movies. See template instructions, some of the parameters specifically are there to cover TV movies. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right – it's clear: under 'show_name' it even says The name of the television program, film or miniseries. Use the full name and do not wikilink it. (emphasis mine) That's pretty clear. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

As a quick followup, after looking the templates and looking at the differences, "infobox film" is more for actual films, those released in theaters. Infobox television is appropriate for both television series and television films. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Categories

I removed a bunch as I couldn't find support for them based on what was in the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I did provide a reliable source supporting the film's genre and the categories I had added, yet Amaury claimed that the issue was "a bunch of category bloat" rather than sourcing. That's ridiculous. There are film articles listed under way more categories. Unless someone points me to a guideline or policy that establishes a limit of categories per article, there's no such thing as "category bloat". You can add as many categories to a page as necessary, so long as they are all relevant to and defining of the article's subject. Aside from removing the categories, Amaury also removed the source I added to the infobox for no reason whatsoever. snapsnap ^(talk) 02:21, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

No, you provided sourcing for all of one additional genre: musical comedy. In addition, you removed one genre for which there was sourcing support: dance. You are still adding unsupported, and frankly extraneous, categories, including "high school" and "monster", neither of which are WP:DEFINING in this case, especially the latter. And you are edit warring. And you are ignoring WP:BRD. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The source wasn't attached directly to "dance", so I hadn't seen it at first glance, though I had added "American dance films" to the page. Perhaps some of the categories I added were unsupported or extraneous, but definitely not all of them. The source I provided did mention both "musical comedy" and "teen musical". All I did was replace vague categories (such as "2010s teen films" and "Zombie films") with more appropriate ones. Doesn't change the fact that Amaury just blindly reverted my edits as though none of my additions were valid. And how is "high school" not defining? Even the poster mentions the school's name. snapsnap ^(talk) 03:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

No – Gerardo Perez reverted first because I asked him to look at your edit. Amaury then reverted after you re-added the cats, and ignored the Talk discussion here. In terms of the cats, some of the additions were OK (e.g. adding the dance category – dance is a genre directly from the Disney P.R.), or were using a subcat over a cat. But there were a lot of cats added, probably too many, and some were definitely either questionable, or extraneous. For "teen", I'd want to see more than just one source using that term. (Frankly, it would also be best if more than one source that referred to this as a "comedy" before using that as a genre/cat as well...) We definitely don't need "high school" (the film takes place at more than just the high school), and "monster". I also don't believe that your edits to the lede were an improvement, which was the other problem... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I merely added "2010s monster movies" because "Zombie films" is a subcat of "Monster movies", so the "monster" category wasn't that far-fetched. I added "high school" because a lot of the sources seem to highlight the fact that the movie is set in a high school. The category is for "movies whose primary setting is a high school", not just movies whose sole setting is a high school. I've never seen the movie, though, so I can't be sure.

The LA Times was probably the only reputable source I found for comedy – how many more do we need, really? As for "teen", the fact that the majority of the main characters are teenagers should suffice, though there are sources calling it a teen film ("teen romp", "teen musical", "teen romance").

I did, however, forget to explain my changes to the lead section: I removed "American" because it was redudant (all Disney Channel Original Movies are American), and it's not customary for DCOM articles to include the genre in the lead section. snapsnap ^(talk) 19:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

When it comes to genres, we generally deter to the press releases only. Not that other sources can't be reliable, but there is such a thing as using too many genres. Teen, for example, is just such a generic term that it's unnecessary. However, using the wording American DCOM is not as saying all DCOMS are American is WP:OR. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I generally don't care too much about categories if there is some reasonable link to something the article states. WP:NOTDEFINING applies for stuff that shouldn't be categorized because that is not what the topic is really about, just setting info in a lot of cases, such as high school aged kids attend high school when high school is just a passing setting not really relevant to the story. I think genres should be locked down in the article before adding genre categories. Anything beyond a few genres is likely excessive and any genre in the article should have pretty strong support in multiple reliable sources. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Not genres for this film specifically, but if both "drama" and "dance" were in, say, five sources, then there's easily no argument that they can't be used. However, if "comedy" is only in one source, then it shouldn't really be used as it doesn't seem to be an "important" genre, so to speak. It could also be that a film isn't really a comedy and there was a mistake or misunderstanding somewhere that led to that source reporting that. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, there are not enough sources to support "comedy". Still, the page currently has zero genre categories. It doesn't even include "musical" or "dance" categories, which are the main genres established for this particular film. IJBall agreed with me above regarding the dance category. American teen musical films should be added as well. As for the lead section, I stand by my point that adding "American" before DCOM is completely redundant – Disney Channel Original Movie films is a subcategory of American teen films, while the List of Disney Channel original films page is categorized under Lists of American films. snapsnap ^(talk) 02:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that "dance" and "musical" and "zombie" are reasonable categories, but not the others. In terms of the lede, no one else supports your position, and as per both TVLEAD and FILMLEAD it is completely appropriate to include "American" in the lede here. What categories are present doesn't determine what is or is not appropriate to go in the lede... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTDEFINING, however gives a test that if it is not in the lead it is likely not defining and unlikely needed as a category. American is part of both WP:TVLEAD and WP:FILMLEAD as a standard part of nationality context so should be included. We can't presume readers are familiar with the fact DCOMs are all American. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead section aside, can we all agree on the "dance", "musical" and "zombie" categories? snapsnap ^(talk) 03:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Zombie is already a category and, of course, in the title. It is also a monster film in that zombies are considered monsters so I guess monster date categories would apply if there isn't a zombie date category. Dance and musical seems well supported but I haven't seen the film so can't say if it really is a musical film by that definition as that requires part of the exposition to be in the song lyrics and not just a movie with music in it. Still I'd go with the references here even if it goes against the strict defininion. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

As long as the categories are defining and actually relevant, I don't see a problem. Remember that just because a film or TV series has something in it doesn't necessarily mean it should be categorized under such. For example, a series with twins shouldn't have a "series about twins" category unless the series actually focuses on the twins. If the twins are just your typical run-of-the-mill characters, then that category is not defining. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

There isn't a 2010s zombie category, which is why I added the 2010 monsters category. Since everyone appears to be in agreement, I'll go ahead and (re)add the dance and musical categories. snapsnap ^(talk) 04:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Listing directors in the lead

This revert by Amaury, made with the edit summary "We don't list directors in the lead", is inexplicable. It is absolutely standard for an article about a film to mention its director in the lead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Directors certainly can be listed in the lede. But I don't think it means they should be reflectively listed in the lede, esp. for a TV film. If the director is prominent, list them in the lede. If not, I see no reason to list them in the lede. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

It is basic factual information about the film readers would expect to find. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it absolutely should be in the 'Production' section (and in the infobox) – it's not in the 'Production' section currently (which is under-written), so it should be added there. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's notable enough to include in the lede. In general, we don't include director info for TV films in the lede. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I won't restore it without agreement. However, if Paul Hoen is notable enough to have a dedicated article, it seems baseless to exclude his name from the lead on the grounds that he is not "prominent". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, part of the issue here is that you're missing the context – Jeffrey Hornaday was originally announced as the director for this TV movie. Hoen looks to have been a later substitute (for unknown reasons). As a result, IIRC, there really aren't any good sources out there that talk about Hoen directing it, because the initial sources about this film all mentioned Hornaday. Bottom line: While I think all of this can/should be mentioned in the 'Production' section, I don't think it should be mentioned in the lede... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:PLOTBLOAT

Guidelines aren't "top-binding rules?" If they were, they wouldn't be top-binding rules. The current plot summary violates WP:PLOTBLOAT in length. That's a fact. My summary is shortened to meet the 400-to-700 length. Stop changing it, there's no need for it to be that long! 2604:6000:130E:49B0:1184:E58E:35BE:6389 (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. Emphasis mine. A random IP isn't going to show up here and tells us how to do things. Amaury • 23:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

First, "A random IP isn't going to show up here and tells us how to do things" doesn't counter-argue or invalidate anything I said. Second, you've made no argument as to why my reasoning is wrong. You've also made no case for how essential the unnecessary details I removed in my summary are. The only "consensus" is coming from yourself. The lack of rationale is coming from you, not me. 2604:6000:130E:49B0:952A:349:6DDA:23A0 (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

You never cited that. You had an incomplete edit summary. If you have just cited WP:FILMPLOT or WP:TVPLOT, this all could have been avoided... As it is, I intend to compare the two versions, and if the shorter one looks OK, I will switch the article to that one. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

"Never cited" what? The incomplete edit summary was an accident. I mean to type "violates WP:FILMPLOT." 2604:6000:130E:49B0:952A:349:6DDA:23A0 (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Proper procedure when you do that is to immediately follow-up with a WP:Dummy edit where you complete the edit summary for the previous edit. Otherwise one could assume that you didn't write anything after "violates" on purpose. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I did that, but when I saved the changes it didn't appear in the history. 2604:6000:130E:49B0:EC0B:F9AF:3622:F437 (talk) 11:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Stylization and Hyphenating the title

With regard to not only my edit being reverted but a series of reverts which have all occurred on previous edits similar to mine initiated by a small group of users, the debate is whether to specify that the movie’s title is stylized as Z-O-M-B-I-E-S. I was previously unaware of others attempting to make the same change I had; the reason I had made the change is that the title of the movie is hyphenated according to Disney’s official websites. Additionally, IMDB, MovieFone, Google Play, Amazon, and the Disney Channel fan-run Wikia (fandom) page stylize the movie as the hyphenated title. I see no reason as to why it should not be mentioned that the title of the movie is mentioned as being stylized as the hyphenated word; nearly every source, official and unofficial, hyphenates it. InvadingInvader (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

In this case, including that is pointless and trivial. It is exactly the same as the title, except with dashes. It is also clearly visible in the infobox image. There is literally no reason to include the stylization in the lede. Multiple other editors agree with this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

IJBall What other editors? I only see one or two editors actually make this change as of recent, and many registered and anon editors. believe similarly. Additionally, many other articles for media and companies list stylizations, such as ExxonMobil, Kiss (band), Epic (2013 film), and WALL-E all list stylizations. It’s also important to reiterate that Wikipedia, Common Sense media, and Rotten Tomatoes are the ONLY big-name sources found on a google search that use the current stylization; every other source either capitalizes or hyphenates the name. If such stylization is frequently used on not only official Disney platforms like Disney+ and the vast majority of their YouTube channel videos but also third party resources like IMDb, Apple Music, and the fan-run Fandom page and is nearly ubiquitous, there is no valid defense for lacking the inclusion of a stylization note. Note that we’re not changing the title but noting the title has been stylized with hyphens. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Please learn to indent your replies. It is pointless. See also WP:OSE. Other articles doing it wrong doesn't mean this article should also do it wrong. Amaury • 18:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the stylization is fine per MOS:TMSTYLE. If you look at MOS:TMRULES (which is above the previous link), one example is Alien³. That version would be shown after the normal English spelling (Alien 3). Editors should argue for or against stylization here using this guideline. The fact that Disney+ shows Z-O-M-B-I-E-S here helps indicate that it is an appropriate stylization to share in the opening sentence after the normal English spelling of Zombies. After mentioning that stylization, Zombies should be used in the rest of the article body. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

One those about "trademarks" – this isn't even a trademark. Second, the very thing you reference clearly says When a stylization appears only in a logo rather than within text (in either primary or independent reliable sources), it generally does not need to be mentioned at the top of the article. That is exactly the situation here. The so-called "stylization" in this in this case is utterly trivial – it's the exact same word/title, just with dashes added. This absolutely is no way a substantive "stylization" and does not need to be mentioned in the lede. This isn't even a substantive stylization like Alien³ or NUMB3RS – it's the exact same word with just dashes. It's not ledeworthy. It's likely not even worth mentioning. And it's right there in the included poster art if anyone cares. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I pointed out Alien³ and Alien 3 because it shows that these guidelines are directly applicable to films, including here. (The guidelines show another film-related example with Se7en versus Seven.) Furthermore, the first sentence of MOS:TMSTYLE states, "In the article about a trademark, it is conventional to give the normal English spelling in the lead section, followed by a note, such as "(stylized as ...)" (or "(stylised as ...)" depending on the article's variety of English), with the stylized version (which may include simple stylization, like capitalization changes, decorative characters, or superscripting..." I think that the full capitalization counts, as well as the decorative characters with the hyphens. Please note that the Disney+ page shows "Z-O-M-B-I-E-S" in text under the Details section, not just in the logo. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

All secondary sources cover this as just Zombies. Nothing special. And this is not a trademark, so that guideline is irrelevant. And, regardless, it's just that: a guideline. Amaury • 19:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

This seems rather cut and dry use of "stylized as ...". If this was something like Friday the 13th Part 2 versus Friday the 13th Part II, then I would be on the side of IJBall, as the differences would be negligible and not significant enough to need to be mentioned (especially when the only place to see the difference is the film's poster). But this seems more significant a change, and clearly part of Disney's marketing. It certainly makes this page all the more fun. LOL.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Why do you say it is not a trademark? The guidelines use Alien³ and Se7en as examples of stylized names used by the films' companies to identify these products. Are you saying Zombies is different from these two films in some way? If so, what? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Amaury Your claim about the movie being stylized as such only in primary sources is incorrect. See google search page, TV Tropes page, fan-run Wikia, movie on Amazon, fan-run Wikia, the movie on Blu-ray.com. All of those websites either hyphenate, capitalize, or mention that the movie is stylized as the hyphenated variant. The only websites that do not hyphenate or capitalize the movie are Rotten tomatoes, Common Sense Media, and Best Buy. That’s it. Nearly every other major and notable source on the web use or mention hyphenated or capitalized title. Also, apologies for the indentation; I’m on iOS right now. InvadingInvader (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I said secondary sources, not primary sources. Secondary sources hold far more weight than primary sources. Furthermore, the Wikias do not count and do not lend any credibility to your argument as they are not reliable sources. Amaury • 01:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Amaury The fan wikis are not useful for determining academic information but they are useful in determining what fans informally think, so they should count as they outline what general populations who have watched the movie say. The intended edit myself and other editors wish to make is to note how it is officially styled and not move the page or use it article-wide. Simply mentioning that it is styled hyphenated in primary sources and some secondary sources at the beginning, or even phrasing my intended edit as “sometimes styled as” or “officially styled as” would note that the movie is sometimes styled with hyphens.

Additionally, IMDb is a secondary source which may not be useful for citing opinions or establishing notability of subjects but is extremely useful in determining what the movie is commonly called or leading to other normally-citable sources; same with Google. What I’m citing is not necessarily how it should be styled but rather how companies officially style it. You can’t inherently say that IMDB and Fan-run Wikias are inherently and completely unreliable; they are unreliable for citing opinions or journalistic content but should be considered to support an argument in talk pages that already have sources to establish an existing claim. And does official styling or naming for Zombies even need secondary source at all? Disney’s styling mentioned on its official websites, minus trademark symbols, should be sufficient backing.

Anyways, if you are adamant on secondary sources to support what Disney has widely published, article from J14 (a magazine tailored towards the targeted age group and generation of the movie), article from BusinessWire, and article from BroadwayWorld should be sufficient. InvadingInvader (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The last two references you mentioned just all cap the titles, they don't add the hyphens or support the proposed stylization addition. Press release is a Disney creation and didn't use the hyphens even there. In fact all Disney Press releases I've seen do that. I see no value or improvement to the article in adding this to the intro sentence, it is just basically trivia that is adequately shown in the poster art.

Also as a general peeve of mine, a text to speech reader can't render text stylizations in any useful manner so this is an accessibility issue in general for this sort of thing. If stylization is to be discussed it should be a plain text description of it, not an attempt at creating an image with text. Useful would be "stylized in all capital letters with hyphens between each letter", not "stylized as Z-O-M-B-I-E-S". Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd be open to that. InvadingInvader (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe if we instead changed it to “marketed as Z-O-M-B-I-E-S by Disney”? This not only points out the concerns of IJBalls and other editors about secondary sources and indicates that the movie is only hyphenated in first-party listings but also gets the information I intend to implement. InvadingInvader (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

With regard to Geraldo’s TTS perspective, we could list it as “marketed as Z-O-M-B-I-E-S with hyphens”InvadingInvader (talk) 13:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

No, we really can't, as per Geraldo's point about accessibility. Geraldo's suggestion of "(stylized in all capital letters with hyphens between each letter)" is better that anything with "Z-O-M-B-I-E-S" in the lede (which I find stupifyingly obvious, and thus unnecessary), but I still think the so-called stylization here is only used in the logo, and doesn't need to be mentioned at all. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

It should be mentioned in the lead no matter what; Disney is marketing and stylizing the movie with hyphens in publications. You did reference the policy regarding stylizations in a previous reply; the hyphens (or at least an all-capitals variant) are appearing in official primary publications, which fulfills the criteria described in MOSTMRULES which Erik initially cited. My suggestion is including it as “marketed as Z-O-M-B-I-E-S” but having voice recordings of the article mention that it’s hyphenated instead of spelling it out. My thinking is that including that it’s “marketed” with hyphens clarifies that Disney is the primary proponent of hyphens while secondary sources either don’t include hyphens or substitute it with an all caps title. Either way, the information is not unnecessary at all; it’s just a matter of how to include it. InvadingInvader (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Geraldo’s idea is the most likely one though; it does something to WALL-E in how it mentions it’s styled differently in official publications with a different character for the hyphen in the original title. InvadingInvader (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE. Just because there's some particular information available doesn't mean it should be included, especially when the majority of secondary sources refer to it as just Zombies. Amaury • 15:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Amaury Official stylizations are not undue at all; see this part of WP:ON. Disney is officially marketing the movie as Z-O-M-B-I-E-S on Disney+, and using all-caps on other websites, so the hyphens and/or all caps should at least be mentioned. Per WP:ON, even if the official name is disputed, it should be mentioned. If someone wants to watch the movie (at least legally), they will not see "Zombies" as the title but rather "Z-O-M-B-I-E-S". I'm not saying that the title of the article should be changed; I am simply saying that the alternate title should be mentioned. I can't see how this can be an unnecessary addition or WP:UNDUE at all by simply mentioning how a movie is titled in official media produced by the distributor; Official stylizations don't have to have secondary sources in order to be proved credible; only a credible primary source. InvadingInvader (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Can Amaury or IJBall please explain why Z-O-M-B-I-E-S is not a trademark where Alien³ and Se7en are? Furthermore, nobody is disputing that Zombies in common English spelling is proper for the article title, the beginning of the opening sentence, and the article body, per the secondary sources that write about it. Furthermore, I agree that Z-O-M-B-I-E-S is not consistently used as such by Disney, but usage does happen, as indicated by the Disney+ page for the film, so noting that stylization seems no big deal and in line with other films' articles following these same trademark guidelines. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Disney+ does not count because it is a primary source. I said that secondary sources far outweigh primary sources in almost all cases—this being one of them. Virtually every source in the article does not use capitalization or dashes. The way the title—not a trademark—is stylized for the movie is WP:TRIVIA and belongs over on the Wikias, which are meant for trivial nonsense. If a program's title were stylized as "the adventures of mickey and donald," it would be completely ridiculous to have "The Adventures of Mickey and Donald (stylized as the adventures of mickey and donald) is a cartoon." "The Adventures of Mickey and Donald is a cartoon" would be sufficient. It's the same case here, the only difference being that it's all in capital letters with dashes. Pointing that out, especially when it's already obvious by looking at the title or poster art, as IJBall and Geraldo Perez have stated, is completely superfluous and adds nothing of value to the article. Amaury • 21:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Amaury, what makes Z-O-M-B-I-E-S not a trademark when Alien³ and Se7en are? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Amaury Per IJBall's argument; the hyphenated stylization DOES NOT appear exclusively in the logo; it appears as the official title of the movie per how Disney publishes the movie on Disney+. And it’s not trivia; it’s marketing. Doesn’t get much more blunt than that. If it’s being marketed as the title, it’s not trivia; it’s a styling. There is absolutely no need to have a secondary source to note something that is as blunt as this stylization of the title in a frequently-accessed primary source. InvadingInvader (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Per MOS:TMSTYLE there is no reason not to include a parenthetical or endnote that shows the stylized title. MOS:TM applies to names and phrases used to identify individuals, movements, groups, forums, projects, events, and other non-commercial entities and their output, and TMSTYLE clearly states that the stylized title—withdecorative characters—should be noted in the lead.— HTGS (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't apply as a composition title is not a trade mark. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Geraldo Perez Composition titles used in an official capacity are trademarks. If Disney thinks “WALL•E” is a trademark, by Socratic method, “Z-O-M-B-I-E-S” is to. It is undeniably more of a trademark than “Zombies (2018 film)”, and Disney has likely trademarked the hyphens already.

Despite it it’s a trademark or not one, the movie would also be known as Z-O-M-B-I-E-S regardless. A google search for Zombies 2018 shows results for not only the DCOM but other 2018 zombie movies. Google searching Z-O-M-B-I-E-S shows only results for the DCOM and it’s sequels. Even Google it self-it’s the name, and if Wikipedia is supposed to be a Free People‘s encyclopedia, it should be for all people, and contain the viewpoints of all majority‘s and significant minorities. Google adheres to the hyphens and Disney is officially marketing the movie with the hyphens, that demonstrates a significant enough minority in itself. I won’t push for moving the article, but the only thing that really stands in the way of the hyphens being included in the title of this article is WP:COMMONNAME. That’s how much the hyphens are included. InvadingInvader (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

What argues against its being a TM is Disney in its own press releases doesn't treat it as such. Disney production PR renders the title as "ZOMBIES" in those, no hyphens. Disney+ uses the hyphens. Consistent use is required for it to be a valid TM. On the poster "Disney Channel Original Movie" and "Disney" are the trade marks for Disney's products and services, not the title of the composition itself. All the sources in the article either spelled it "Zombies" or "ZOMBIES". The only location that shows the hyphens is the poster. Also Google doesn't generally use the hyphens. Search for "Zombies Disney" - what Google gives you is related to what you search for. I still think the poster is sufficient per even MOS:TMSTYLE says When a stylization appears only in a logo rather than within text (in either primary or independent reliable sources), it generally does not need to be mentioned at the top of the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

To add. This is basically an editorial choice as to whether or not to put this in the intro, not required or prohibited, just what editors by consensus think is best for the article. If the decision ends up being to add it, I'd suggest a footnote with a bit more context and explanation than just a simple parenthetical. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

As per your earlier point about accessibility, "[sometimes] stylized in all capital letters with hyphens between each letter", is the only acceptable option. I straight up oppose any solution to this that ends up with "sometimes stylized as Z-O-M-B-I-E-S", due to the accessibility issues. And, yes – a {{efn}} footnote is an even better solution here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Geraldo Perez Maybe write it as “sometimes stylized as Z-O-M-B-I-E-S”? That takes into account the inconsistency while also addressing the hyphens. I don’t think the hyphens are enough when WALL-E’s lead states that the movie is sometimes using an interpunct instead of a hyphen. The change that I intend to make is at least mention in the lead within the text, just once, that the title of the movie sometimes uses hyphens. Nothing more, nothing less. Kind of funny in that there are people who are so against such a minor improvement. InvadingInvader (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

That is the crux of the disagreement. I think adding that text slightly degrades the article by adding unnecessary content to the intro as the poster is right next to the lead and better illustrates it with a picture. I would find a footnote acceptable though as it gives more detail in an accessible manner and IJBall above seems amenable to that solution. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: I could agree with this. A footnote would be the best option, as it gets this trivial point across without having a bunch of unnecessary text there. I don't see any point in having it at all, of course, as it adds nothing of value to the article, but I could get on board with it as a footnote. Amaury • 18:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Amaury: Adding a variation of the title does not degrade the article in any way nor add useless information, and using a footnote addresses hyphens too subtly. Conventions per MOS:TMSTYLE are in favor of including the hyphens and should not treat such hyphens as WP:TRIVIA or WP:UNDUE, especially when Disney is marketing the movie directly to audiences who want to watch the movie with the hyphens.InvadingInvader (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

As Geraldo pointed out earlier, even that guideline states: When a stylization appears only in a logo rather than within text (in either primary or independent reliable sources), it generally does not need to be mentioned at the top of the article. That is the case here. And even so, again, secondary sources hold far more weight than primary sources, and virtually none of them style the title, which is not a trademark, that way. Either understand that or don't. A footnote would be sufficient, if this is even added, which it doesn't need to be, as it again adds nothing of value to the article. And note that I never said it degrades the article. Don't put words in others' mouths. Amaury • 05:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Amaury, it’s clear by this point that the stylization appears in primary sources, as well as a limited number of secondary sources. If you have any reason not to follow guidance from MOS:TM then give those reasons, but if you’re citing TM, it’s already very clear on this matter; the stylization should be included. — HTGS (talk) 07:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

A footnote cannot work at all. MOS:TMSTYLE should govern as universally as possible, and should only provide an exception for something like stylizing something in a character that is not in WikiText like the subtly-edited B in the XBOX logo and the double X in the logos of FXX TV Network and ExxonMobil. Movies that have stylized titles almost always and should always include stylizations. WALL-E follows this guideline very well by including a once-mentioned sentence at the beginning showing that the movie's official styling uses. IJBall, please back up your claim with policy, convention, and/or tradition ; all the policies so far that have been cited do not suport the removal of the styling mention. If Disney+ is consistently marketing the movie with hyphens, even more so than it does with WALL-E's interpunct, there is absolutely no reason to not include the hyphens.

With regard to accessibility, I ran the original intended edit through a TTS program, and it only spelled out the word. While a significant minority would benefit from the addition of "stylized in all capital letters with hyphens between each letter", including the hyphens in the lead ONLY ONCE would not hurt the article at all, as a majority of Wikipedia users can see. I agree we should make the Wikipedia project accessible to as many people as possible, but tailoring articles to more so benefit those using TTS inequitably and artificially creates unjustifiable reasons for limiting necessary edits and additions to articles. InvadingInvader (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, if there are any concerns on if Z-O-M-B-I-E-S is a trademark, since it was first publicly used with this movie, rest assured it is. US trademark law operates on a "first to use" rather than a "first to file" basis. Since Z-O-M-B-I-E-S is the only stylization that Disney+ uses to refer to the movie, and considering that Disney YouTube channels and internet properties all at least occasionally refer to the movie and the franchise surrounding it using hyphens, it is undeniable that Z-O-M-B-I-E-S is a trademark regardless of whether it can be found in a US trademark lookup database. InvadingInvader (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: Did you read all of this? I did, and argued against the footnote for being too subtle. A majority of editors who have partaken in this discussion (4 to 3) have argued in support. And I rebutted the suggested solution already. Most of your side's arguments do tend to rely on personal opinion and preference rather than consensus, law, and general helpfulness. As an example, MOS:TMSTYLE provides that if a styling is used in primary sources to a substantial or significant extent, it should be mentioned. Your side completely ignored that and was adamant on only using secondary sources, which MOS:TMSTYLE does not say is the requirement for mentioning. Jimbo Wales phrased it best himself in WP:DUE: if a significant minority holds a certain view, it should be at least mentioned. With regard to accessibility, a TTS program just spells it out, which should not be a huge issue. Changing an entire idea just for one group does not respect a majority. A majority of netizens anyways can see and/or don't need TTS. That, in combination with the relative ubiquity of the hyphens in primary sources and lack of need for secondary sources, justifies that the hyphens should be not only included but added directly to the lead as opposed to a footnote, which doesn't do the hyphens justice. It's arguable that the removal of the hyphens or even the limitation of its prominence could be argued as censorship, but I won't board that train.

The reason why I implemented the hyphens is because no responses from the opposite side of the dispute responded within about 24 hours, and how this debate has lasted over a week. Counting the unique editors who have participated, four have been in support (including myself) and three against.

On a side note, I also do feel personally attacked subliminally by some of the remarks made by you and a few fellow editors siding with you in this dispute and outside of the dispute, which I take to be extremely blunt and teacher-like orders towards me like I'm a child. I'm not, and just because I haven't been on Wikipedia for the same amount of time as all of you doesn't constitute as an excuse to treat me this bluntly. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

"Consensus isn't a vote", and editors who are not willing to compromise don't last long on Wikipedia. And, from my perspective, you seem to be an editor who is more interested in "winning", then in coming up with the best solution for article – again, that is not conducive to Wikipedia editing. This is not an "attack", it's just an observation – though maybe it can also be taken as constructive criticism. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The allegations you make are absolutely incorrect. I have no interest in personal victory with this; the reason why I advocate for hyphens is for the quality of life of the article. Even if you do want to make this about winning, though, I would continue to discourage you from doing so. However, many of the arguments you do make seem to put in my mouth about secondary sources and WP:TRIVIA do seem to reflect the "I am always right because of this being trivia and a secondary source" notion; I personally try to avoid such notion or at least use policy and/or sources.

I sincerely think that the footnote solution is too subtle. Secondary sources should not be used to determine styling; when was the last time you read an uncapitalized Adidas mention in the NY Times? The intended edit I only wish to see ultimately placed on the page is just an in-line mention that the movie's official text stylization according to Disney has hyphens. I'm not planning to fill the entire article with hyphens being every 3rd character in the article. You may believe my references to WALL-E and it's interpunct stylization to be the bad type of WP:WAX, but WALL-E has been designated as a "Good Article", and WP:WAX does state that WAX arguments using featured or good articles are much more credible than other WAX arguments between uncertified articles. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

That's the whole point. Since this is completely trivial and shouldn't be mentioned at all to begin with, if it is to be included, a footnote is more than sufficient. That way it gets its mention, but without being a focus point of the article since it's completely and utterly trivial. Amaury • 21:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Amaury: The information isn't trivial when Good articles like WALL-E are including it front and center. Footnotes are too subtle for information as prominent as this; it would have to be hovered over (or tapped on using iOS or Android). The styling, being used by so many primary sources and fulfilling the requirements of MOS:TMSTYLE, should not be limited to a footnote.

I would be open to the lead sentence being "Zombies, stylized with hyphens between each letter, is....". That way, the information is prominently mentioned and compatible with TTS, but in any case, the stylization and hyphens should be more prominent than a footnote. InvadingInvader (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Footnote compromise implemented by another editor. Outside of concerns about whether this version is problematic in MOS:ACCESS terms, I think we are done here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It appears that the majority of editors here either support inclusion of the stylization, or oppose it, but would accept a footnote. I have made the addition (diff here), including the stylization in a footnote as a compromise, because otherwise this discussion looks to be neverending—and I'm sure none of us want to waste more time than necessary on such a trivial detail of the article. — HTGS (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Footnote looks fine InvadingInvader (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Need Better Reviews

Common Sense Media and LaughingPlace are about as "bottom barrel" reviewers as you can get. I would suggest that we get real reviews from publications like Variety, etc. Otherwise, I would support just cutting the 'Critical reception' section, because a section based around Common Sense Media and LaughingPlace isn't worth keeping. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

IJBall Acknowledged. I’ll look at more reviews when I get a chance. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Poster

Hi what is Reference of the poster I need it for another wiki ئاریا سالار (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)