Archives

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30 31,32,33,34

This page has archives. Sections older than14 days may be auto-archived byLowercase sigmabot III.

Hey, Erik. I wanted to ask you this before going out and making more changes on my own. I've noticed that you've been editing out films that mention the "action-horror" hybrid genre in the lead, to just say one thing over the other. I understand wanting to stick the primary genre as possibly can perWP:FILMLEDE, however I feel what you are doing is rather disruptive. I believe this because not only has this genre been thestatus quo for many years regarding these articles, it's also because this hybrid-genre does carry someweight to it regarding the classification of these movies, especially since there are legitimate websites that still use this classification.

Also, one thing I wanted to add is that you forgot to add redirects to the genre changes you make, which I also find to be disruptive. Even if people reading know what you're talking about, I think a redirect should be important to include when making these changes. Regardless, I wanted to ask for your opinion on this before making any more edits on these articles.Valddlac (talk)20:30, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I can explain what I was seeing. I came across the term and saw that it had no encyclopedic coverage, withaction horror film redirecting to a section inaction film (which may be aWP:XY issue in itself) with nothing in particular to say. Out of curiosity, I researched that particular genre but did not see any potentially encyclopedic coverage, just endless listicles. So it's an encyclopedic dead end and not worth linking to.

As for using the term without linking, while some reviews call a film an action-horror here and there, it did not seem like any one film was more called an action-horror than some other genre, based on myWP:SET.

As for adding redirects, I'm not sure what you mean? Do you mean adding links to the principal genres? If so, that's a separate matter whereWP:OVERLINK would apply since such genres are commonplace. You're welcome to disagree with me on that point and add such links. Let me know your thoughts. (For what it's worth, in the same vein, I've previously seen "dark fantasy film" overused in the same way and came to conclusions similar to the above.)Erik (talk | contrib)20:55, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I do agree about the lack of encyclopedia coverage when you were referring to the genre, especially compared to other terms being used without a wikipedia article such as "science fiction-action" or "action thriller" redirecting to the action film page. With that being said, the term is still used to an extent so at the very least, I think it would be important to find one valid source that mentions both in the same sentence. If you want an example of what I mean by this,Resident Evil has different sources that describe it as either an "action" or "horror" film, yetRotten Tomatoes uses both to describe the film. Although, you can make the argument that RT is not a valid source for genre classification which is fair. I know that the purpose of this website is an encyclopedia. But if it is still being used from time to time, it should still be given a mention while describing these types of films.

I was referring to linking when I mentioned redirecting. While I do agree it is commonplace to mention genres, it is usually considered common sense to add brackets in theWP:FILMLEDE, even if it is just one genre being mentioned at times. I'm assuming that's what you mean by linking.Valddlac (talk)21:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I went down this particular road because of a discussion atJaws (film) with an editor who wanted to redo and add to the genres in the first sentence. I started a discussion about this in general atWT:FILM and got to thinking about guidelines for genres in opening sentences. Like here, for example, Rotten Tomatoes presents genre classifications in a database format, as does IMDb and other similar websites. It does not tell us if the film is more horror or more action, and it's also likely that such database entries are not a result of thoughtful assessments. It's more worthwhile to see how reviews and other significant coverage of the film describe it. (Some films may not even have a majority of reliable sources agreeing on a genre.)

I'm not saying that "action horror" is not a valid term, and I'm sure there are many other kinds of valid mashups. But not all of them warrant their own encyclopedic entry, and not all of them get more commonly used than principal genres. "Action horror" could be used in the article body with citations, but I'm not sure if any film uses that genre classification more often than anything else to passMOS:FILMGENRE for the first sentence.Erik (talk | contrib)21:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I should have clarified myself better when I mentioned that valid mashups lack their own wikipedia entry. I meant to say those mashup terms like the ones I mentioned in my reply tend to be commonly cited and perceived as valid, despite them not having encyclopedic pages or at the very least having a section or sub-section on an encyclopedic page, similar to the "action-horror" mashup term.

After thinking this through, you do make a good point about the term not being commonly used. I guess my reasoning was with certain films that I feel have this fusion genre at the forefront.

At the very least regarding the edits you made, I would like to revert the edits you made on the Resident Evil series for consistency reasons with the main page for theoverall series and thesecond film. If that’s okay with you, of course.Valddlac (talk)22:37, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you don't have to ask my permission. I wasWP:BOLD and made these edits. If you disagree, you can revert me. ForResident Evil, I am seeing that the film series is in part called "biopunk" which I completely doubt is a due-weight classification of it. It's something that could be explored in the article body, but it's too minor to be in the opening sentence. So at minimum, I can't agree with that very specific label.

In general, I would recommend broad research about what reliable sources have called the films. Like obviously if you search"resident evil" "action horror", you will find results agreeing with you, but it won't be clear if it's the most common. Better to do something general like search for"resident evil" films OR "resident evil" movies OR "resident evil" franchise without prejudice and finding the reliable sources and seeing what genre classifications these sources use. It helps to list these on the talk page to set a consensus. I say this because I've seen this done with other films' articles where editors opine what they think the genre should be, and we need to instead follow what sources do, and it helps to see that.Erik (talk | contrib)12:22, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectIt Ends has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 23 § It Ends until a consensus is reached.I am RedoStone (talk)22:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion atTalk:Emily Neves § B-class/GA-class efforts.sjones23 (talk -contributions)04:00, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Erik! Regarding theWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_86#Roger_Ebert_on_YouTube conversation from a few months earlier, have you heard anything back about from the Ebert site?Andrzejbanas (talk)19:51, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I never got a response. I couldn't find an email, so I think I had used the Contact Us pagehere, which may be a dead end if they're not good about responding. You could try yourself!Erik (talk | contrib)23:18, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a shot. Thanks for the follow-up.Andrzejbanas (talk)23:57, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]