User talk:Barry Wom: Difference between revisions

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 5.

Hello I’m wondering why you edited my name change for Meg griffin. People call her Megan but her legal name is Megatron due to Peter changing her certificate at the last second she confirmed it too “Meg is short for something else” it was in an episode I forgot the name. Astrawiki3203 (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Astrawiki3203 Please see the article talk page. Barry Wom (talk) 04:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Barry. Regarding your revert on my edit 1302793028… May I know if there’s any WP rule that allows only the opinions of ‘professional’ critics in film-related articles? MS2P (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:FILMCRITICS: reputable commentators and experts—connected to the film or to topics covered by the film—may also be cited. A professor of “Future of Innovation in Society” wouldn’t appear to fit the bill here. Barry Wom (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While Sucker Punch (2011 film) is often labeled solely as an action fantasy (although, I’ve tried updating it to psychological action fantasy like any other websites, as it fully captures the descriptions of the film but you keep reverting it back to just a reductive “action fantasy“), its narrative structure, unreliable reality, and pervasive themes of trauma and psychological escape firmly situate it within the psychological thriller genre. The film’s central tension derives not merely from stylized combat sequences, but from the protagonist’s mental state, the blurred lines between reality and delusion, and the escalating stakes of her internal struggle. Its layered dream-within-a-dream framework, combined with motifs of institutional abuse, dissociation, and subjective perception, aligns more closely with psychological thrillers than with straightforward fantasy action. This clarification is not intended as “genre creep,” but as a correction to a reductive label, based on identifiable cinematic and thematic markers consistent with psychological thrillers. Such updates aim to improve accuracy and consistency across entries, not to cause contention. Ditto Otw (talk) 11:00, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ditto Otw I have just the tiniest suspicion you didn’t write this yourself. Barry Wom (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that paragraph myself. I’m a writer — but that’s besides the point. I submitted a brief, carefully worded paragraph here because I wanted to keep it formal, not because I copied it from somewhere. Honestly, I was just trying to make sure it sounded neutral and professional so it wouldn’t come off as arrogant or pushy. Your only feedback being “I have just the tiniest suspicion you didn’t write this yourself” feels dismissive and doesn’t address the content at all. If there’s an actual issue with tone, sourcing, or how it fits into the article, I’m more than willing to hear that and work with you on it. But I’d rather we focus on improving the page than making assumptions about who wrote what. Ditto Otw (talk) 06:37, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ditto Otw Fair enough. The primary genre is sufficient for the lede. If you disagree, I’d recommend opening a discussion at the article talk page to seek consensus for your addition. Barry Wom (talk) 09:52, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The series was cancelled by both Syfy and USA networks there will not be a season 5 it’s over so it’s not is it’s was Andyhpf554 (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t “genre creep” anything here — I simply reverted The Neon Demon back to “psychological horror art film,” which is what it originally was for a long time before it got changed to just “horror film.” That’s not me adding a bunch of new genres or pushing my personal taste, it’s me restoring the descriptor that better reflects the film’s style and how critics have described it. I really don’t appreciate being labeled a “genre creep” when my edits have been minimal, reasonable, and often in the spirit of keeping things accurate. Ditto Otw (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve reinstated “arthouse” as a genre. Neither of the supplied references describe the film as a psychological drama. Barry Wom (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s fine, I understand where you’re coming from on the references. I just want to mention that I really don’t appreciate being labeled a “genre creep” — it comes across as dismissive and makes me feel like my edits are being treated as unserious or uninformed, which isn’t my intention at all. I’m here to help keep things accurate, not to cause trouble. But thanks anyway, I really appreciate you reaching back to me. Ditto Otw (talk) 08:42, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. “Rv genre creep” is just shorthand for the creeping of genres, i.e. adding more genres than necessary. Barry Wom (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Am I crazy? Could I be overreacting? (diff) Lead should summarize the key points of the article right? I seriously think the verbose editor who refuses to explain in an edit summary or discuss changes is misunderstanding the purpose of the WP:LEAD section (which happens a lot, if editors never read the guidelines they could totally get the wrong idea from what low quality article do most of the time). Maybe I’m being overly pedantic? Maybe I’m overreacting because the belligerent editor is making no effort to discuss or explain? I think the guidelines are pretty clear about what should be done but maybe I’ve lost perspective on this? — 109.76.128.25 (talk) 109.76.128.25 (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I agree, or I wouldn’t have reverted to your preferred version!

I’ve now trimmed the lede further, and having reviewed the discussion at the talk page I’ve removed “spin-off” from the description. “Serves as a spin-off and a prequel” is fancrufty language, and mention of “spin-off” in the body appears to relate to early announcements on the film, with “prequel” being used on the film’s release. Feel free to revert this; I’m not wedded to it. Barry Wom (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just wanted to let you know, these edits I did were improvements/add ons/better grammar-made ones to the information on the films, and I can see why they should stay and be taken away.

The Bugs Bunny/Road Runner Movie and The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie and Sponge On the Run are the ones I want to notably talk to you about because of what you will notice while watching the beginning of them, in the first two films mentioned above, they give out/say an alternative title, The Chase Movie is shown before the original title comes out in the first said one, and during when they sing the SpongeBob SquarePants theme song in the second said one, they at the same time alternatively call the film simply SpongeBob SquarePants while presenting the original title.

I noticed now that How to Train Your Dragon 2 is actually okay after all. 70.183.230.67 (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any changes or additions require reliable sources, which you have failed to supply. Barry Wom (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They really do say these in the films. Please revert these edits back. They are a fact and not an opinion. I’m not treating this as a fandom wiki. 70.183.230.67 (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Meg, I have a favor for you: can I add “It generally positive reviews from critics who praised the humor and voice performances, while the live-action/CGI segments was said to be unfitting” to The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water? Because I want the people to know why is it bad or good to them information. Benjaminoben (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meg?

Only if you provide a source which synthesises reviews in this manner. You can’t just interpret them yourself. Barry Wom (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought your real name was Meg since it said “Meg is her real name”, but it was a mistake. But i promise to be poilte with the reviews. Benjaminoben (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I remember The Full Monty being a British film, however suprisingly the BFI considers it an American film and I added the US into the countries section and asked someone if it’s really American and the guy told me Variety also says it’s U.S., however you said that Kingsman 2 was American-financed only and that the BFI includes financing countries. the page itself says that it’s notable distributor Fox Searchlight financed the film and Searchlight is an American film studio so does that count. what is stupid is that on more fallible sources such as Letterboxd and other film review sites non-American films aren’t considered American even if a major American studio is listed as a production company but American if an independent American studio is involved. Editoman2 (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out; I’ve amended the article. Barry Wom (talk) 11:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you and I could pool our resources, huh? Maybe collaborate on this one. You add the UK stuff to that page and I’ll put in the American release date for it as well as include a reference to it’s financing countries from BFI. What do you say? WATT TV (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Considering that the earliest release date should be added the country where a film was released earlier than in its country of origin should be included as well as in its country of origin the distributors should be restricted to its country of origin but Fox Searchlight distributed worldwide so that’s not a problem. There are some British films where I prefer the US distributor over the U.K. one such as Fox Searchlight with Slumdog Millionaire Editoman2 (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve reinstated the US release date. The financing is already covered in the Production section and should not be added to the infobox. Barry Wom (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the Damned United is solely a British film? and was Columbia the only American studio involved in financing I like to think that’s a solely British production Editoman2 (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can fix it. WATT TV (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve removed the US release date from the lede. Barry Wom (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What’s a lede? Editoman2 (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Journalistic term for the lead section. Barry Wom (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note: there’s no comma after August. WATT TV (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huge thanks for the punctuation information. Barry Wom (talk) 09:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What’s going on here, Barry? Why do you keep making these changes to my edits without my consent? WATT TV (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate place to discuss changes with which you disagree would be the article talk page. Barry Wom (talk) 09:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Defrenzel9 is the same IP user who vandalized Beast Wars: Transformers. – FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m wondering if Paramount co-produced Blue Story, when I first saw the film’s wiki page it had Paramount listed as a production company I looked at behind the scenes footage and saw their logo on clapperboards which made me think that they co-produced it, I later dove deeper and learnt that they probably didn’t because one article says that they acquired distribution rights while BBC Films financed and DJ and Joi produced, while sources such as the Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Screen Daily and others list Paramount as a production company as well as WrushMedia but I’m at least glad whoever included Paramount as a production company didn’t add them. Editoman2 (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. The best place to discuss this would be at the article talk page. Barry Wom (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barry Wom! I noticed that you recently made an edit and marked it as “minor”, but it may not have been. On Wikipedia, “minor edit” refers only to superficial edits that could never be disputed, such as fixing typos or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. IzzySwag (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand your recent edit[1] I thought we were supposed to use present continuous tense. — 109.79.69.141 (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It “is a film” because the film still exists. It “was directed” because the direction took place in the past. Barry Wom (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barry Wom! I know this may be hard but I have a favor: can you help The Jester (2023) article I worked on? Some of the users put draft on it so mind if you fix it please? A sequel of it is coming tommorrow. Benjaminoben (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, can’t be of any help. Barry Wom (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen you do this to other wiki pages as well, and I’m trying to be as respectful as possible, but I am wondering why you write the gross as $146 million but the budget as $82M. I’m not reverting your edits out of spite, I just personally think that the way numbers are presented in a sentence should be consistent. Is there a precedent for presenting the first number as “$ million” and the second number as “$M”? Noahpeaslee11 (talk) 07:31, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit too quick with those reverts and didn’t notice it the same editor I was reverting each time. Apologies for that and I’ve self-reverted.

I did mention the MOS entry in this edit summary. MOS:MILLION says M (unspaced, capitalized) or bn (unspaced), respectively, may be used for “million” or “billion” after a number, when the word has been spelled out at the first occurrence. Barry Wom (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t vandalize or violate the article without any profitable explanation or evidence. Thank you. Bryangul2020 (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve provided an explanation of my edits here at the talk page. Can you please discuss your concerns there before reverting again? Barry Wom (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barry, what you are doing (trying to edit various articles without any further explanation) is resource violation, which is not allowed. The information has to come from a few reputable sources — one example would be from a book or newspaper article reporting that some movies have their own info about their cast, reception or others. Individual Wikipedia contributors are not necessarily reliable sources. Please stop trying to edit articles without any profitable or further explanation and evidence. Thank you. Bryangul2020 (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of my changes were to the lede, which is supposed to provide a concise summary of the article contents. As far as I can tell, all the information currently in the lede is properly sourced in the body, including the Production and Release sections. There is no requirement for these sources to be repeated in the lede, per WP:LEADCITE.

I’ve also provided explanations for the changes in my edit summary and at the article talk page. Again, I would suggest that if you have any further concerns, you should discuss them at the latter. Barry Wom (talk) 09:49, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that reverting block evasion is one of the exemptions to 3RR, but could you tone it done a bit, please? SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We’re dealing with a LTA here, Jaszen (talk · contribs). While I agree that the removal of the sentence is possibly valid, I’m going by the policy at WP:BMB: “The measure of a ban is that even if the editor were to make good or good-faith edits, permitting them to edit in those areas is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, to the page or to the project, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good.“. Barry Wom (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The changes I made on the Renfield movie and Bounty Hunter game pages aren’t vandalism, but just me saying that the game and movie were really good, at least (despite the former being a box office bomb, of course). Badeauxch (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using “mixed to positive”. It’s one or the other. Barry Wom (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, can you point me to the SPI/LTA you’re referring to with your “block evasion” edit summaries in your recent reverts on the above page? Thanks! A09|(talk) 13:16, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest SPI case is here: [2], although they’ve been traced back as far as this user in 2017. Barry Wom (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SPI case for the oldest known user is here: [3] Barry Wom (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! A09|(talk) 15:08, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Depp, Geoffrey Rush, Bill Nighy, and Ian McShane all lent their performances into theme park attractions. If sources are required, there are plenty. If the sections were unneeded, I recommend updating Daisy Ridley‘s article and removing the “Theme park attractions” section, as that is where I thought it worked. 2601:902:C002:D4D0:9AAC:8611:6C35:2A2B (talk) 08:20, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sources are required. Barry Wom (talk) 08:21, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. And otherwise, the edits are correct? Just making sure beforehand. 2601:902:C002:D4D0:9AAC:8611:6C35:2A2B (talk) 08:33, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fine. Barry Wom (talk) 08:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are Bullshitworthless 118.67.205.247 (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced Barry Wom (talk) 11:23, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my addition to List of films featuring time loops? It’s not unsourced: I mentioned The Tunnel Under the World (film) in the edit summary and in the article, and I linked the plot of the original short story, too. Why not consult the sources there? —Thüringer ☼ (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You didn’t supply a source. Therefore it’s unsourced. Barry Wom (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now you reverted again because you don’t believe that there is an actual time loop in the original story. Do you know that story at all? Please pay attention to the end of the summary. If you are still in doubt, the full text is online. —Thüringer ☼ (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you’ve read the original story, are there any errors in the plot summary in the Wiki article? If not, it would appear that there is no actual time loop involved. The story would appear to take place entirely in linear time, with robots being reprogrammed every day? Barry Wom (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Barry Wom, can I put “widespread critical acclaim” in Wolfwalkers? Benjaminoben (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Wrong Paris. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.134.71 (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upset the article has been protected are we? Barry Wom (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit but the movie was so good that I really want to put it there Benjaminoben (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you remove this information On July 8, 2025, Sony Pictures Worldwide Acquisitions Inc. Acquired new distribution rights to this movie which the document has been executed on July 8, 2025 and it has been recorded on July 10, 2025. They are probably doing this to bring back the movie on digital you know its a violation of Wikipedia policy to remove accurate information you know just review this website and you will see its accurate https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/detailed-record/rmm_voyager_V01503642600000 please no reverting to the previous edit 2605:4A80:7804:2320:587A:1579:1640:9F24 (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Barry Wom If you keep doing this I will report you on Wikipedia 2605:4A80:7804:2320:587A:1579:1640:9F24 (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviations can be confusing.

I noticed someone had abbreviated the word million to M. Looking at the article edit history I was surprised to see that it seemed to have been you.[4][[5]

While it is standard practice for film industry journals to make this abbreviation it seems inappropriate to use unnecessary unexplained abbreviations in this encyclopedia for everyone, and especially not in the lead section.

I read plenty about the film industry and I find this kind of abbreviations confusing and unhelpful, and I expect it is even more confusing for readers not already interested in the film industry or reading Wikipedia with English as a second language, or any other challenges.

If you believe this kind of abbreviation is an improvement then I would suggest you bring it to WP:FILM for discussion, and gain consensus before applying it to any more articles. — 109.79.166.128 (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s nothing to do with “film industry journals”.

Have a read of MOS:MILLION and get back to me. If you can get down from your high horse long enough. Barry Wom (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:MILLION “M (unspaced, capitalized) or bn (unspaced), respectively, may be used for “million” or “billion” after a number, when the word has been spelled out at the first occurrence” added emphasis on the “may”, that is a long way from “should” be used. The example given is a sentence where the word million is repeated 5 times.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations says Always consider whether it is better to write a word or phrase out in full, thus avoiding potential confusion for those not familiar with its abbreviation. Remember that Wikipedia does not have the same space constraints as paper. The lead section is not constrained for space and million is only being repeated twice, clarity is more important than brevity in this encyclopedia, in particular the MOS:LEAD says it should be “It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.”. If you discuss this with WP:FILM I expect there will probably be several people who would want to use the M abbreviation for the box office section where word million is repeated over and over again, ad nauseam. I would be very surprised if the consensus was to encourage the use of this abbreviation, but if you can convince people to do it that way then I will follow the consensus.

Despite the existence of MOS:MILLION allowing you the option to write M instead of million, abbreviations in general should be avoided, and I do not think you should do so in the lead section of film articles. I would still recommend you bring this to WP:FILM for discussion before doing it to any more film articles. — 109.79.70.202 (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming that my changes were in accordance with the Wikipedia manual of style. Barry Wom (talk) 09:49, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn’t see this until I looked at the page history (which is why I’ve dont the same edit again). Why did you revert my edit? –not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 19:51, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SDLIST. Barry Wom (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you –not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 17:52, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page List of 1932 box office number-one films in the United States has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:50, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page List of 1933 box office number-one films in the United States has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

Could you explain to me how the information added on The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is “unsourced”? It’s listed in the credits of the movie that the visual effects companies are there. In plain sight. That, and the digital optical companies, the sound service company, and the editors are there too. Multiplivision (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This bit: “the process of metamorphosis for Brad Pitt’s character” is unsourced. Barry Wom (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn’t that mentioned in the lead secondary paragraph of the article? Multiplivision (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you’ve reinserted the material without the above statement included. If you want to put it back, may I suggest a repeat of the reference from earlier in the article? Barry Wom (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey can’t you see that I’m fixing and adding the List of animated television series of 2024 and this is the right order. And it is sourced so stop removing them and make it “unsourced” please. 2605:A601:A628:5A00:E562:46E9:B0D1:E064 (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply