Talk:Beauty and the Beast (2017 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Mexico is in North America

If people did not notice, Mexico is in North America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.145.36.89 (talk) 07:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh that is really sad can we talk with echother but I don't have Wikipedia so I can't but I can in here I wish I could but I can't Kat strout (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Mbatha-Raw and McDonald

I'd like to make a case for including Gugu Mbatha-Raw and Audra McDonald to the infobox. I know they aren't in the billing block, but they are featured in the cast list st the top of the poster. WP:INFOBOX states that I can seek a consensus to include the two so I shall do so here. Rusted AutoParts 17:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jedi94:, @Saiph121:, @Erik:, @NinjaRobotPirate:, @Favre1fan93: Rusted AutoParts 16:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I think keeping the "starring" list streamlined is a good idea, but I don't see a problem with including a couple other names, as long as they're listed somewhere on the poster. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the same. I looked for other posters to see if it's just this one where Mbatha-Taw and McDonald are included, but there are others, including a newly released IMAX poster. Rusted AutoParts 22:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Can we please have some more input here? I've pinged 5 people and none of them has responded. @Jedi94: you were the reverting editor, what's your take? Rusted AutoParts 17:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Pings generally don't work unless you sign the edit that adds the ping. So, if you ping someone, you need to add a new signature. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Didn't realize this was a debate, my bad for adding them back without participating here. Sock (tock talk) 00:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Well it's been a few weeks since I first started this discussion and seeing as the three who've commented (you, me and Ninja) seem in favour, no problem in jumping the gun at this point I think. Rusted AutoParts 00:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Plot section

Should it be described as "a Beast" as it is currently? I'm pretty sure there's only one beast. EtherealGate (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The plot that was input is completely wrong from what actually happens in this movie, looks like whoever wrote it made it off of the original animated movie and added the actor's names to the characters.

Music

Hi! If music page is already on wiki, then why too much explanation is given here in #Music section? It should be summarized here, am I right? M. Billoo 01:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

add Lyric up リン子 (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The music section here is about the creative process involved in producing the film. As mentioned in the article, the music played a crucial role in the decisions to produce the film. The soundtrack article is mainly about the album, rather than the history of its production. Swoophle (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Too long?

That's a joke, right? It isn't long enough! Where's the ending? Obviously I haven't seen it yet but since it seems to be mostly loyal to the animated film, Belle has to show everyone the Beast in the mirror, Gaston has to get jealous and lead the villagers to kill the Beast, leading to a big fight that - I hope - ends with Gaston falling to his death (though that might be changed and I'm anxious to see if it is), then Belle breaks the spell with her love for the Beast. When is someone gonna add that? 68.150.99.94 (talk) 06:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Plot summaries are to be between 400 to 700 words per WP:FILMPLOT and it has to be written within that word count. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The plot that was input is completely wrong from what actually happens in this movie, looks like whoever wrote it made it off of the original animated movie and added the actor's names to the characters. I've seen the movie and it didn't match up to what was written. While some of it did obviously, there were many parts that didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.135.168 (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Plot section

All right. Just now, I had to revert a large swath of unnecessary detail from the plot section. As you know, film plots should be no more than 700 words. Per WP:BRD, rather than getting involved in an edit war, I'm going to open a discussion on the matter of getting it trimmed down to at least 700 words if the longer summary is readded. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sjones23: I say return the old plot summary. The revert to the "last good" plot is literally just a synopsis. The warning that was in the new plot is there so that way people can trim down the plot summary. Reverting the plot to a 79-word synopsis is not helpful. That synopsis is something you would find on IMDb. Wikipedia's an encyclopedia, articles are supposed to be detailed. At least more so than sites such as IMDb. Also, 79 words is not enough to actually describe the movie in full detail. I think the current plot summary (before you reverted it) was fine. Also, lots of film articles on Wikipedia bypass the 700 word maximum I've found. - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 05:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Now that the longer summary has been restored, I'm going to start trimming it down over the next few days to the point that it's 700 words if there are no objections. As of this revision, I've trimmed it down to 1,024 words. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

External links

Hi! Why External links; like Metacritic; Box Office Mojo, were mentioned as references? If already they are linked in External links section, why they were repeated in article? For now, I have removed as I could. Thanks! M. Billoo 12:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi TropicAces! Thanks for your response! But if the links are already given in the bottom of the page under 'External links' section, then why they are repeated as references? M. Billoo 20:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Billoo in my eyes, it's like this: if someone wanted to check the box office info on Mojo or score on RT and there's no link next to the info in the article, not everyone is going to know to scroll to the very bottom of the article to look for External links. TropicAces (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

@TropicAces: If you allow, I have an idea. Why don't we use Template:Efn for that, and insert Template:Notelist under External links section? Just a thought... M. Billoo 21:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Billoo do you have an example of this on a page? I'm not against the idea (not that I'm even close to the end-all/be-all on here) but just don't know how it would look on the page. I think when things like box office/budget and RT scores don't have links next to them it makes the page look unprofessional and half-completed, like many of the pre-2010 film pages that pre-dated assigned Editors. TropicAces (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

@TropicAces: Hmm... If you again allow me, I would like to show it just once on the page. If you and others like it, then it's OK, otherwise anyone can undo it :) M. Billoo 23:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Like my recent last example edits, if other links too would design like this, will it improve the page's look? M. Billoo 23:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Beauty and the Beast and stockholm syndrome

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Beauty and the Beast and stockholm syndrome. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I added a section under controversies in the 2017 movie page about "The Beast Imprisoning Belle." I think there is enough debate about it to warrant a mention. The issue is broader than just whether Belle has Stockholm syndrome so I framed it that way.Beauxlieux (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

There is an involved discussion going on at the link above about how to handle the situation on this page.Beauxlieux (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Honestly the sentence about the "debate" is ludicrous, and the sources are a Screenjunkies video and a "Bustle" article by someone who calls herself a "Buffy connoisseur." Adopting such sources in a Wikipedia page is exactly why people don't take it seriously. Remove the sentence or I will (again). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.108.221.8 (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

And if you remove the content, you will be reverted (again). You can find the debate silly as much as you want to, but a number of WP:Reliable sources discuss the debate, and we should cover it. The section includes WP:Reliable sources, including one from Entertainment Weekly. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The films budget

I was a bit foolish on the film's budget of 110 million that i put down first — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forrest Lesak (talk • contribs) 20:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Narrator

I have been removing this parameter from the infobox that has been repeatedly added. Per template:infobox film#Parameters Narrator: "...Note: do not include actors with a role in the film; this is not a place for in-character voiceovers". Also according to the film credits there is no narrator credited. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Uneccessary detail in the plot section

I removed unnecessary detail and words from the plot section, and corrected grammar, but this edit has been reverted. Here are some examples:

• "Belle uses it to bring the Beast and herself to an old windmill in Paris" - it's not important to the plot that they go to an old windmill. It has no bearing on anything else that happens. Instead, we should specify that they go to Belle's childhood home, which is important, and explains why they learn about Belle's mother.
• "Gaston convinces the townsfolk to send Maurice to the local insane asylum." - Is it important to specify that it's a local asylum? Would readers otherwise wonder if the asylum was in another country? Does anyone care?
• "Gaston attacks the Beast in his tower, who is initially too depressed to fight back, but regains his will upon seeing Belle return." Considering we immediately explain that he regains his will, do we need to state that he is initially too depressed to fight? This doesn't add information.
• "The servants' human forms and the villagers' memories are also restored, with several villagers recognizing some of the servants as their relatives." Not important to the plot.
• "He shows Belle a gift the enchantress gave him, a book that could take people wherever they wanted." This is the wrong tense; it should be "can take people wherever they want". Better yet, remove the word entirely: "a book that transports readers wherever they want".

See WP:PLOTSUM. Popcornduff (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your points. Also, should the w's in West Wing really be in lower case? Dao1 (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the support!

Well, here "the west wing" refers to the western wing of the building, not the West Wing in the White House. A wing isn't a proper noun, it's just a part of a building, like a hall or a kitchen. As for the "west" part, see MOS:COMPASS. Popcornduff (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. By the way, I have a question: How does Agathe reveal herself as the enchantress near the end of the film? Because if she doesn't then we should remove that she does. Dao1 (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I vaguely remember them being the same person, but I don't remember if that's exactly revealed. I could be wrong... Popcornduff (talk) 09:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Can somebody implement this edit? - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beauty_and_the_Beast_(2017_film)&diff=785428143&oldid=785423333 It doesn't make much sense at the moment, with the gay moment being mentioned and the director then randomly saying he's "sick of this" and its been "overblown". 2.102.186.130 (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Beginning of initial paragraph in the "Belle and the Beast's relationship" section

As seen with this link, ESE150 and I have reverted each other on the following part of the initial paragraph: "Disney has sought to portray Belle as an empowered young woman, but a contention exists that the core proposition of the film—that it is possible to fall in love with someone who is holding you prisoner—is problematic."

ESE150 has changed "that it is possible to fall in love with someone who is holding you prisoner—is problematic." to "that it is possible to fall in love with someone who is holding you prisoner—has been deemed problematic by some commentators." I reverted to the original because "some commentators" is likely to be deemed WP:Weasel wording and it is likely to result in someone adding a Template:Who tag to it. Why would we need to add "some commentators" when we obviously don't mean everyone? The text already states that "a contention exists." Sure, someone could add a Template:By whom tag to that, but the rest of the text goes on to explain that it's "some therapists, Constance Grady of Vox and Anna Menta of Elite Daily who hold the contention. Plus, there's the author of the initial source in the section. Adding "some commentators" will cause readers and editors to want to know right there who the commentators are, which is why Template:Who is likely to be added to the text. I've seen this type of thing happen times before. Furthermore, ESE150 is adding "some commentators" to one source, which can make people think that it's just that author stating this. The section shows that it's not just that author. I disagree with ESE150 that not adding "some commentators" is a WP:Neutral violation. If there are articles arguing the contrary, then it is a WP:Neutral violation if we aren't including the other side.

I've changed the text to "but a debate questioning whether it is possible to fall in love with someone who is holding you prisoner, and whether this is a problematic theme, has resulted." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I also am against ESE's wording. Even the original wording was fine. Starting off with "a contention" already showed it wasn't a "certainty" or an "absolute fact", but merely a viewpoint. ESE's are unnecessary. Sergecross73 msg me 03:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2017

JVPFCI (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 13:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Is 2017 version of Beauty and the Beast a feminist movie?

I find the removal of 2017 version of Beauty and the Beast category as a feminist film is very ironic given the fact that the 1991 version is considered as a feminist film. Saiph121 (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

A female lead does not make it a feminist film. The film is not described that way in any reliable source or in the article itself so WP:NOTDEFINING as a category. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

It's somehow very wrong to state that a female lead does not make it a feminist film. How come the movies such Maleficent, Mulan, Brave, and even the 1991 version of this movie were classified as a feminist film with female characters serving as the main and central characters of the film? I find that analysis of yours, Geraldo Perez very wrong and inaccurate. 112.210.67.192 (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Needs to be a reference, in this article from some reliable source that classifies this film as such. Otherwise WP:NOTDEFINING. Not every film with a female lead is a feminist film and the misclassification of other films does not set a precedent for this one. Feminist films are generally raved about as such, should be easy to find some reliable sources to support that other than some editor's WP:OR opinions. There should be significant content in the article talking to this if is considered that is a major theme here. In my personal opinion this is a long way from being a feminist film based on themes and story. This is just an old-fashioned fairy tale, nothing more. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

It is true that it's just an old-fashioned fairy tale you speak Geraldo Perez but basing on these reliable sources such as The Huffington Post and Time magazine, it truly states that these feminist themes Has Always Been Part of the Story whether the message present is subtle or not. This a big reason that this 2017 live-action HAD to be classified as a feminist film just the 1991 animated version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.210.67.192 (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Overcategorization

@112.210.20.72: I'd contest that a gay minor character makes a film "LGBT-related". This principle would make the category un-navigably large. Likewise, the film is not about classical music, composers, narcissists, or pianists, it doesn't belong in categories like historical romance or films set in the 1770s because it's not set in a historical period in any meaningful sense, the witchcraft is an element of the backstory rather than a significant component of the film, and you need strong consensus from reliable sources as written up in the article to decree that it's a feminist film, not a single commented-out source (that specifically does not single out the film as feminist). I understand if you want to increase the number of eyes on this article from encyclopedia users who are browsing categories, but this is not an appropriate way to go about it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC) @112.210.1.79: ?? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC) @Saiph121:? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Roscelese, you didn't get the clear point here. The presence of a gay minor character (LeFou) expressing that characterization is justifiable enough to categorize it as "LGBT-related". Futhermore, the film about classical music, composers, narcissists, or pianists had its presence showed to the two characters (Gaston and Maestro Cadenza) expressing their character motivations. Another is that it's an historical romance film despite the fact it's an fairy tale romance, the period background is set around 1770s which happened before the real-life French Revolution; the witchcraft might just be an element of the backstory but it has an impact in driving the plot of the story. Lastly would be feminist-related given to the fact that the 1991 animated version is also feminist-related with the main character sharing the same qualities and both the 2017 version and 1991 version sharing the same story with 2017 version just retold in live-action. And more thing, what's the use of the reliable sources being provided to LGBT-related and feminist-related to really prove their categorization? Saiph121 (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Saiph121: Again, no, I would strongly contest the fact that the mere inclusion of a gay character in any capacity makes a film "LGBT-related", any more than for any other group. Ditto for minor characters' professions. The film is not about or related to these things in any meaningful capacity, so the fact that you can source their inclusion does not justify the use of the category. (Is it also "about" time because Cogsworth is a clock? Is it "about" architecture because there are buildings in it? I'm almost reluctant to say these because suggestions that are obviously ludicrous might just give you ideas.) Likewise, 1770s just seems like your own speculation, and the single source for "feminist" specifically does not single out this film as feminist. If reliable sources generally agree that the 1991 film is feminist, the category belongs on that article, not on this one simply because it's a remake.

I'm looking at your edit list now and I see that you have a history of these kinds of pointless edits that make the encyclopedia harder to navigate, and I would kindly ask you to stop. The way to include this content is in the prose of the article with wikilinks (eg. "the cameo role of Maestro Cadenza is a composer"), not in a laundry list of categories that are incomprehensible to users of the encyclopedia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Speaking on the feminism topic, you're not really getting a clear point on this. What you say that the the 1991 film is feminist which is in fact that the category belongs on that article, as you state on this simply because the 2017 version is a remake is something that i am strongly disputing that notion for the aspect of the feminism between the 1991 version and the 2017 version is one and truly the same. Saiph121 (talk) 09:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I understand your point, I just don't agree that the two films are the same. If they were the same, we wouldn't have two articles. Anything to say about the rest? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Check the upper category which at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beauty_and_the_Beast_(2017_film)#Is_2017_version_of_Beauty_and_the_Beast_a_feminist_movie.3F and look at the TIME magazine reference, you'll know what I'm talking about. Saiph121 (talk) 04:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

All that this tells me is that you're trying to force this category through against the opinions of multiple editors, not just me. I saw the reference. The reference specifically does not single out this film as feminist, as I've already pointed out. Given that you appear to be the only user advocating this, while multiple users have disagreed, I advise you to undo your edit. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Still, you're not getting a clear point on this? It's not all about force this category through, it what really what the reference says in which it states at the TIME magazine that "The Feminist Message of the New Beauty and the Beast Has Always Been Part of the Story" which means that trend within that plot of this movie translates as feminist and that reference really proves it. That is really the big truth about it and yet you're disputing the fact that this movie is not feminist, meaning those references added with in the category are completely useless. Saiph121 (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I've requested input from Wikiproject Film, since there are too many variables for an RFC and since you are disregarding what would otherwise be considered a third opinion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

If you're here from Wikiproject Film, here's the list of categories being discussed:

• Category:2010s LGBT-related films
• Category:American LGBT-related films
• Category:Feminist films
• Category:Films about classical music and musicians
• Category:Films about composers
• Category:Films about pianos and pianists
• Category:Films about narcissism
• Category:Films set in the 1770s
• Category:Historical romance films
• Category:LGBT-related musical films
• Category:Witchcraft in film

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Is everyone familiar with WP:NON-DEFINING? If not then it would be a good idea to read it. On balance I would say the LGBT categories are relevant because the article has a whole section devoted to a gay character, so it is reasonable that a reader interested in LGBT issues in film may be interested in this article. On the other hand I see absolutely nothing in the article that justifies the inclusion of the feminism category. The "Films about XXXX" categories may or may not be applicable, but at the moment there is nothing in the article to support their inclusion. Per WP:CATDEF "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." There is probably enough plot content to support "Category:Witchcraft in film" but it is not clear what the basis is for "Category:Films set in the 1770s". If a date is explicitly given in the film then this should be at least mentioned in the plot, but if editors are arriving at the date through WP:Original research then the category needs to be replaced by a more non-specific one. "Category:Historical romance films" also needs to be removed because it is not a "historical" film. AllMovie defines historical films as a "genre of film that deals with a major historical event and the actual historical figures involved in it", and this clearly isn't the case for Beauty and the Beast. Betty Logan (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The things that everyone needs to understand all these very issues in this article that needs to be tackled with is that first of all about the feminism that all over again which i have to say that basing on the TIME magazine reference is that "The Feminist Message of the New Beauty and the Beast Has Always Been Part of the Story" which has been mentioned above the category with a big reason to its inclusion, second would that all LGBT-related categories are connected to the inclusion on the gay character along with the presence in its characterization, third would be the categories on about classical music and musicians, composers, pianos and pianists is related to the characterization on the new character (Cadenza) and on the narcissism for the main villain (Gaston) in which it is being expressed with. Third regarding the time period, definitely there's no proof that the film is set in 1770s but rather it's set in the 18th century which considers this film as historical romance despite it's just a fantasy fairy tale though it all emphasizes on background of that period and lastly, regarding the witchcraft which has to explained that even though it's just a part on the backstory/introduction, this aspect is the point in driving the plot of the film. It makes no sense for everyone in removing these categories to this film in disputing the very real truth about it. Saiph121 (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

You are not paying attention. We don't add categories on the basis of some editor's interpretation, we add categories on the basis of verifiable content in the article and how defining they are. As I pointed out in my previous comment it should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories, and that simply isn't true in the case of many of the disputed categories. Betty Logan (talk) 03:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Saiph121 didn't you just have exactly this same problem at Talk:Wonder_Woman_(2017_film)#Wonder_Woman_a_feminist_movie.3F? Given some of your other edits ([1], [2], etc.), I'm not sure if you do not understand WP:DEFINING or if you have simply chosen to ignore it.

Do you understand why this film is not in Category:Films about death, Category:Films about bridges and Category:Films about chickens even though the film includes death, bridges and chickens? - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Saiph121: That's a direct question to you. Please answer. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Let me point to the fact that this doesn't cover with these kind of simple categories that I'm not going to categorize with such as Category:Films about death, Category:Films about bridges and Category:Films about chickens for these are ridiculous to added with and furthermore, I only added a category based on any specific quality that this film had show with importance for example Category:Witchcraft in film which in fact that type of category only happens in backstory but has the impact in which it drives the plot of story. Saiph121 (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

It is quite clear you simply do not understand WP:DEFINING. You should probably not add categories to articles any more. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Still you're ignoring these kind of categories that you've removed with had all these very kind of qualities that are qualified to be categorize which I'm mentioning with:

• Category:2010s LGBT-related films
• Category:American LGBT-related films
• Category:Feminist films
• Category:Films about bibliophilia
• Category:Films about narcissism
• Category:Historical romance films
• Category:LGBT-related musical films
• Category:Witchcraft in film

Now you're stating that these aforementioned categories that you've removed are considered WP:NON-DEFINING in which I am disputing with. Furthermore, it's not all about the just opinion of an editor's opinion/interpretation and even not the intention to overcategorize but it's all what this categories that represents the film that sees to itself and by removing these categories, it takes away the qualities it represents with. Even the sources that I've provided with such as categories on LGBT-related and feminist-related that are meant to proven it, you've also chosen to remove these under those reasons which you stated WP:NON-DEFINING which I am proving these are considered as WP:DEFINING. Saiph121 (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

For several of the categories, you provided one source. As several editors have tried to explain to you one source is NOT "commonly and consistently", as required by WP:DEFINING. Let's try a new approach. Try the new topic below starting with that last one and let's see where this goes. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

That's not just one source you're stating with but there are six of them. They all are considered as WP:DEFINING. Definitely I'm in favor that creating separate topics to each categories being mentioned would just cool down this chaotic ruckus in this talk. Saiph121 (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Clarification: There are several categories for which you have provided one source each. One source is not "commonly". "Commonly" would be the majority of sources defining the film as being about witchcraft. That simply is not the case for any of the categories you have added and repeatedly restored here and elsewhere. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Betty Logan: "so it is reasonable that a reader interested in LGBT issues in film may be interested in this article" - I think this might be a case for applying a broader parent category, if there's a relevant one, but I think that regardless of the reception-related to-do around the gay character in the film, it's still not an LGBT-related film, in the same way that Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, for example, is not a play about race and ethnicity. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

  If Harry Potter and the Cursed Child had a sub-section about race and ethnicity then I would consider it a candidate for such a category. Categorization should be based on sourced commentary within the article, and if a theme is relevant enough to warrant a sub-section, then I think there is a credible argument for adding it to the category. The purpose of categorization is to enable readers to find content that may interest them; I don't see why someone interested in feminism in film would want to read this article because it says nothing on the subject of feminism, but someone interested in LGBT issues may find the article of interest so it is reasonable to provide a mechanism from that perspective to locate the article. Betty Logan (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

  Okay, but there's probably enough material to mention the controversy re: Cursed Child if someone wanted to write it. It was just the first example that came to mind, but I could also have referenced, say, The_Last_Airbender#Casting_controversy re: the same category. I'm not contesting that someone interested in LGBT issues might be interested in the article on the basis of the reception controversy, I'm contesting the idea that a film with no significant LGBT content is an "LGBT-related film", which is what the category is called, on the basis of the reception controversy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:Historical romance films

It makes no sense in removing this category within the main article's category even with a proven fact that despite being a fairy tale romance, much of its time period background is set in the 18th century. Furthermore, its removal also raises the question to a fact why the other 2015 Disney live-action version of Cinderella is being considered as Historical romance with its time period background set in the 19th century while the 2017 version of Beauty and the Beast is not considered as such. Saiph121 (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:Films about bibliophilia

Yes, Belle loves books. However, is this film about her love of books? Do reliable sources commonly and consistently define the film as being about the love of books? Is this film about: composers, inventors, inventions, pianos, candelabras, coat racks, flowers, mob violence, etc.? Yes, but none of those things are WP:DEFINING.

Is bibliophila something which every reasonably brief summary of the film would mention? - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Such of these things are WP:DEFINING as these was seen in film between Belle and the Beast, even providing a source to prove it and yet you continue to dispute it and even not calling it as "not defining" which has been repeatedly been challenging it. Saiph121 (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you have added it several times (both while logged in and while logged out). You have been reverted several times by several editors but rather than discussing the issue, you repeatedly restored it. It is time to establish a consensus. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTDEFINING as that is not what the film is about, it is just a attribute of one of the characters. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

It may be just an attribute of one of the characters but it's still have a role in the plot so it's considered WP:DEFINING. Saiph121 (talk) 02:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC),s

Yes, it has a role in the plot. No, that is not what WP:DEFINING says. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The source being provided in relation to the Bibliophilia to the plot of the film states in a WP:DEFINING sense. It's ridiculous to remove that category in a plot that was necessary. Saiph121 (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The source does not say that reliable sources commonly and consistently say the film is about bibliophiilia. The source (singular) says it is "minutiae" (a trivial detail). - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Category:Films about narcissism

While waiting for this question to work its way through dispute resolution, I'm hard pressed to think of a reason to add one of the disputed categories back to the article. But here we are.

Of the first 25 sources in the article, zero mention "narcissism". Try to imagine 25 sources discussing Rocky that don't mention "boxing".

Yes, there is a character in the film who might be described as narcissistic (or egocentric/vain/whatever). We also have characters who might be described as scholarly, farmers, booksellers, composers, bakers, charming, forgiving, vengeful or thousands of other things which don't show up in most sources about this movie because they are not defining characteristics of the movie. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Remove, obviously, the film is not about this. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
• Remove per WP:CATDEF. There is no sourced commentary about narcissism at all in the article. Betty Logan (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep the film from 1991 version had been listed with a category of narcissism. In the case of 2017 version, same thing applies in this movie. It makes no sense in removing that category that was present in the film. Saiph121 (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
• Remove per WP:CATDEF. Sources do not commonly and consistently say the film is about narcissism. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
• Remove. Keep it removed. Especially agree with Betty Logan. Shearonink (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Category:Feminist films

Do reliable sources commonly and consistently define this as a "feminist film"?

• Remove - No, they do not. This is WP:NON-DEFINING. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - I disagree with this notion, all sources define beauty and the beast as a feminist film even from Time magazine source stated that "feminism within beauty and the beast has been a part of the story". Saiph121 (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Wait: "all sources define it as a feminist film"? I find a minority of sources saying anything about feminism and none defining it as a "feminist film". One says Watson is a feminist, another says having Belle not wearing a corset is "a bit of a feminist twist". Others don't mention feminism or feminists in any way. I can't fathom where you got "all" from, let alone that they are defining it as a feminist film because one actress is a feminist or a character isn't wearing a corset. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Come now, every sources mentioned feminism within this film, even comparing its feminist aspect to the 1991 original. Again, I've been saying that the Time Magazine reference in its message above states that there is feminism in the film which is defining and yet you're disputing that notion. The "all" that has been referred relates to the presence of defined feminism in this film. Saiph121 (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

If by "every sources" you mean "every source", you are simply wrong. Of the first 50 sources we use, 43 of them do not use the word "feminist(s)", "feminism" or similar in any context.[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][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] Of the remaining 7, 2 used the word in links to unrelated stories, 2 had comments from random readers using the word, one mentions the supposedly "feminist twist" of Belle not wearing a corset[46], one has Watson Tweeeting about an unrelated statue of a feminist[47] and one said the 1991 film (not this one) "had a feminist streak".[48] Your results may vary, but from where I stand 0% of sources is not "all sources" or "every source". - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Of all the sources that you've mentioned, that's not i'm referring with the film's feminism. These 50 sources that we use has nothing to do this category's dispute except on some of the sources being mentioning "feminist". In fact, I'm emphasizing more on the outside sources (sources that were not present in the main article) that defined this film as a feminist film, again the references such as the Time magazine, The Huffington Post, Vogue magazine, Mary Sue, Moviepilot, The Telegraph, Vanity Fair and other outside sources that defined this film as feminist. Besides, in the google search; the outside sources does stated and defined feminism in this film. Perhaps you've misunderstood and misinterpreted what I've been stating on the film's aspect on feminism that has been defined with. Saiph121 (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Twice you directly claimed that all of the sources said it is a feminist film. That clearly is the exact opposite of what the sources in the article actually say. Now you are talking about "outside sources", by which you mean articles that are not sources.

Those non-source "sources" are problematical in various ways.

• The Time article does say the film has a "feminist message" -- actually the headline says that. The article explains that it is merely that a woman dares to choose her own spouse, a far cry from anything most people would consider "feminism".
• Huffington Post discusses how Disney made the film "Subtly ... More Feminist" -- subtly more? A spoiler on a Cadillac would make it subtly sportier, but not a sports car.
• The Vogue article (did you read it?) argues that Belle is not a feminist, as even the URL makes clear: https://www.vogue.com/article/belle-beauty-and-the-beast-not-a-feminist-princess.
• The "Mary Sue" source (whatever that is) says virtually nothing about feminism: "...that usher a somewhat problematic story into this modern era of social justice—where feminism and diversity are essential rather than 'nice to haves.'" Are you now going to argue this is a "diversity film"?
• Next we have "Movie Plot" (again: whatever that is...). Again: Did you read it? It argues that Belle is not a feminist and neither is the film.
• Telegraph -- again: did you read it? -- interviewed Watson before the film was made and decided that Belle would be more feminist because the feminist Watson decided Belle should -- brace yourself! -- have a job (as part of her backstory, I'm not sure it's actually in the film). What a radical concept, that.
• Vanity Fair says -- before the release of the movie -- that Watson says Belle's backstory says she's an "inventor", calling it "a feminist twist".

These are the results of searching specifically for sources to support a thesis. In general, it's a better idea to find reliable sources and report what they say, rather than starting with what you want to say and trying to find sources to support your opinion. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, these are reliable sources that consistently defined feminism and not a merely an opinion of mine but a proven evidence that the film represents. These "outside sources" may seem problematic to your view but that is how they've proven and supported the film and not basing on my opinion. Saiph121 (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The actual sources, consistently do not so much as mention feminism, contrary to your repeated claims. The unused articles you added mention feminism, but do not say this is a feminist film, with several of them -- sources you provided -- saying the exact opposite. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Regardless on how the sources that interpreted with, sources that mentioned the presence of feminism in its aspect/message should be definite enough to classify it as a "defined" feminism. Saiph121 (talk) 08:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

No. Reliable sources do not "commonly and consistently" define this as a feminist film, as shown. This is WP:NOTDEFINING. That you do not understand what the words mean is immaterial. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Must I repeat this all over again that these source mentioned the aspects or presence of feminism in film? These sources being provided in which you called the reliable sources that do not "commonly and consistently" define this as a feminist film and WP:NOTDEFINING is that statement that I'm disputing with. It's very ironic that despite the fact that the 2017 version is a live-action remake of the 1991 animated film, the presence of feminism between the two is very the same with the sources to back the evidences. Saiph121 (talk) 08:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

My best guess remains that you simply do not understand what WP:DEFINING says. You raised this issue several times in several places and no one has agreed with you yet. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I've already repeated that notion that "this film is a feminist film" is a WP:DEFINING statement and all of you keep disputing it and as a matter of fact, it's not based on my opinion but to the quality to the film. Saiph121 (talk) 07:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Remove unless sourcing is provided. The cited source says the original fairy tale is feminist, not that this film is feminist. If the topics were one and the same, we wouldn't have separate articles. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

There's a source already being provided such as the reference from Time magazine that the 2017 version is being cited as feminist and are one and the same along with the original fairy tale. Now it makes no sense in removing that category despite a source being provided with an accurate fact. Saiph121 (talk) 09:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

References

One source that does not say this is a feminist film is not evidence that reliable source "commonly and consistently" define this as a feminist film. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources that were mentioned above defines the film as feminist and not only one but a lot of the sources being present. Saiph121 (talk) 08:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

As detailed, several of the sources you added say it is not a feminist film. The others do not say it is a feminist film. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The others may said that it's not a feminist film in fact it's message on feminism is reflected in the film. Saiph121 (talk) 07:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The apparent WP:CONSENSUS is that this is not defining. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

This WP:CONSENSUS is completely disputed and biased. Even sources that i've provided is not making sense that this film should be classified as a feminist film. Saiph121 (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

You disagreeing with the consensus does not change the fact that it is a consensus. Further, you have added the category several times over the past few months and had it removed by several different editors. Feel free to file a request at the dispute resolution noticeboard, a request for comment or anything else you feel might work for you. The consensus here is clear. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I know that @Saiph121:'s personal reasons why this is a feminist film are ultimately immaterial in garnering that category here, but I would like to hear them nonetheless. What is it about this film — written, produced, and directed by men — that's feminist? Is it feminist because Belle's romance is portrayed as the result of Stockholm Syndrome? Is it feminist because Belle invents a washing machine — a device placing her creative thoughts and energies in service of domesticity? Is it feminist when Belle decides to remain imprisoned so that a man, her father, can be freed? Is it feminist when the only friends Belle makes — anthropomorphized household objects — place the burden for freeing themselves from their curse on Belle? Is it feminist when her captor uses the fact that he rescued her from wolves while trying to escape as an excuse to free himself of blame for keeping her captive in the first place? Is it feminist when Belle, after being freed, is then imprisoned once again for defending — yes you guessed it — another man? Is it feminist when she's rewarded for all her loyalty to men with a castle, a princely husband and servants? You said "It's message on feminism is reflected in the film" I would like to know what message on feminism a film like this delivers — a film based on a story originally written 277 years ago by a woman whose own husband stole all of her money leaving her to spend the rest of her life in service to another man — and how that message is even remotely considered feminist.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  07:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Within the category about feminism, would that be possible that the strong presence of the main female protagonist which was called by the critics as the Strong female character and a feminist character be justifiable enough to classify it as a Feminist film? Saiph121 (talk) 06:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

As stated repeatedly: Reliable sources do not commonly and consistently define this as a "feminist film" therefore Wikipedia does not categorize it as a feminist film. There is an LGBT character, but this is not an LGBT-related film. There is a bibliophile character, but this is not a film about bibliophilia. There is a character who is a veteran, this is not a film about veterans. There bridges, books, flowers, clocks, pianos, composers, feather dusters, birds and thousands of other things in this movie that reliable sources do not commonly and consistently define this film as being about.

Reviewing your talk page, you will see numerous warnings about your insistence on editing against the established consensus on various issues. You will also see questions about your habit of logging out to make some edits against established consensus. That you have done so again with this issue would probably be sufficient to have you blocked. This is your last chance to hear the consensus: When you are reverted, discuss the issue before continuing. When the consensus is clearly against you, drop the issue. Do not edit while logged out to hide that you are the editor making the change. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Category:Witchcraft in film

WP:DEFINING says that categories for this article should be limited to defining characteristics, those which "reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having".

The question is: Do reliable sources "commonly and consistently" say witchcraft is a defining characteristic of this film? - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Not defining, remove - While witchcraft is part of the backstory of this film and a small minority of sources might mention it, reliable sources neither commonly nor consistently define the film as being about witchcraft. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• Defining, retain - Witchcraft may have been a part of the backstory of this film but the point is that it's been a cause that drives the plot of the story particularly the witchcraft that had an impact on the Beast who had been cursed as the result and a small minority of sources would say it otherwise to prove it. Saiph121 (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

A small minority of sources is not "commonly". "Commonly" would be the majority of sources. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that the majority of sources are "Commonly" and the small minority of sources that are not "commonly". Overall, it justifies everything that it's the category of witchcraft which stated its reasons in the upper portion considered as DEFINING. Saiph121 (talk) 05:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• No, of course not, remove. Saiph's contention is that witchcraft is "defining" because the plot would not happen without it, but that's a unique personal standard, not Wikipedia's. (Just about no film plots would happen without reproduction/sex, either.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• Strongly retainDo not vote more than once. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC) - My contention is that witchcraft is "defining" because the plot would not happen without it which is the main point. By stating it as a unique personal standard, not Wikipedia's is very ridiculous for it makes no sense by removing that type of category in which the plot would not exist without that category to make impact with. Saiph121 (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Striking duplicate !vote. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Remove I commented above that there is "probably enough plot content to support 'Category:Witchcraft in film'" but on reflection I think this would be really stretching the interpretation of WP:CATDEF. Witchcraft is clearly present as an aspect of the plot, but CATDEF is precise about what "defining" means in this capacity: "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having". I can't honestly say that is the case here. Betty Logan (talk) 05:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
• Retain It may be true to the fact that Witchcraft is is clearly present as an aspect of the plot in terms of CATDEF, it has an defining characteristic being present in film plus there a source being provided in the category of witchcraft to prove its reason not to be removed with. 112.210.7.228 (talk) 11:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

For the third time, Saiph121, you have one !vote here. Please see discussion on your logged-in talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 11:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Remove as not defining. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep I have not seen the movie (I will check it out, if possible next trip to the library) but in reading the plot summary here it seems to me that the "enchantress" who sets the table for the plot is close enough to a witch for me and that the second main character presumably walks around like a beast for most of the rest of the movie is pretty defining. Carptrash (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

If a main character is born in the first scene of a movie, is that movie about childbirth and motherhood? After all, the character walks around like a human for the rest of the movie. IMO, no. Yes, the plot would not have happened were it not for the character being born/turned into a beast by an enchantress/that train derailment/the mentally ill burglar/whatever. However, the film is only ever-so-briefly about the mother/the enchantress/the train/the burglar/whatever that it would be rather absurd to say The Sixth Sense is "about" a burglary. We could change how the character dies in Sixth.. (or how the Beast becomes a beast in this film) without changing the rest of the film. The overwhelming majority of sources do not mention witchcraft. If it is still a "defining" characteristic it would be like most sources discussing Rocky without mentioning boxing. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Carptrash: I think the "shapeshifting" or "curse" category might arguably cover that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I find the "birthed" argument about as compelling as all the other "birther" arguments I've heard but feel that "shapeshifter" & "curse" categories take care of what I think is needed. Carptrash (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• No. Not defining etc. (As an aside, within the world of the movie Agathe/the enchantress (played by actress Hattie Morahan) is never specifically referred to as a witch.)Shearonink (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes Somehow you failed to realize that witchcraft in the film is associated with magic and should makes sense that it is defined. Saiph121 (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

This is an old discussion. Further discussion on the same is at alk:Beauty_and_the_Beast_(2017_film)#Current_edit_war. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Current edit war

Saiph121 and Tajotep should have discussed their disputes by now. It would probably be a good idea to discuss the issues now, rather than waiting for WP:3RR warnings and blocks, but that's for you to decide.

I'm staying out of it until Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Saiph121 is resolved. (You're both welcome to comment there as well, of course.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

While the discussion here has been stimulating non-existant, with both Saiph121 and Tajotep making good points and providing solid arguments for their viewpoints completely ignoring the discussion, I figure it's about time to weigh in.

Despite Saiph's argument that nearly 50 categories somehow isn't category overload, I am of the opinion that there is absolutely no benefit to including parent and daughter categories on the same article. In fact, it is our policy not to. Extensive, redundant lists of categories, genres and adjectives are not helpful

If, however, you feel that we should, or example, categorize a film as being set in Paris and set in France, I await your explanation. Failing that, I will remove them. Again. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

This film should be categorized as being set in Paris and set in France as removing these two categories makes no sense that these are important things in the plot and the narrative of the film. Saiph121 (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

"Films set in France" is a parent category of the daughter category "Films set in Paris". Per WP:SUBCAT, "an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it." This is the case of several other categories you have edit warred to keep in the article. Unless you have a good reason why we should override the editing guideline here, I will be removing those. Now is your chance to explain.

What difference on the parent category "Films set in France" and the daughter category "Films set in Paris" does it make? Once again, i'm stating that these two categories are overall important in the plot and the narrative. Removing these categories makes the film derived of a place and setting. Futhermore, these two categories are no duplication. Saiph121 (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The guideline is linked above. EVERY film set in Paris is set in France. We do not include both. Do you understand what parent and daughter categories are, as explained in the guideline? Do you understand that the guideline says not to include the parent category? - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Clearly, you failed to realize that between the parent and daughter category, this film that is set in Paris is set in France are both had its contribution to the plot, setting and narrative. It's pointless to have them removed that took place in the film. Saiph121 (talk) 05:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Clearly, you do not understand the guideline. The project-wide consensus is that we do not include both the daughter and parent category. The category "Films set in Paris" is itself in the category "Films set in France". By putting the film in both categories, you are putting it in "Films set in France" twice. Why should this film be in that category twice, against the clear editing guideline? - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, you're the one who started to mess up the categories particularly "Films set in Paris" and "Films set in France" as these two categories were never touched until you interfere with and attempted to remove them with such "alternative facts" in which you stated that "you are putting it in "Films set in France" twice" and the "we do not include both the daughter and parent category". With that kind of action, you are clearly stripping the film out its place and setting in which the two aforementioned categories are precisely important to the plot and its narrative. Saiph121 (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

In your opinion, then, what does the editing guideline mean when it says "...an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it. In other words, a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category"? To me, it sounds like it is saying to generally not put articles in both the parent and daughter categories. (You can answer when you return from your edit warring vacation.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

As you have restored the witchcraft category yet again -- against the very clear consensus[49][50][51][52][53][54] -- I have given you a final warning on your talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

All i'm trying to explain on the witchcraft category that it focuses on not just on a witch's action (justified that witchcraft is associated with magic) but the impact within the plot. Saiph121 (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

You did not "(try) to explain" anything. You repeatedly restored a category against a repeatedly established consensus. You may try to establish a new consensus (though I doubt you will succeed). You may not repeatedly restore a category against the clear consensus. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

That established and clear consensus against the witchcraft category was clearly "biased and alternative facts" in which you're trying to distort the truth from that witchcraft category's importance to the film. Saiph121 (talk) 05:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

It is the clear WP:CONSENSUS, repeatedly established and supported by Dispute Resolution twice. You are not allowed to go against the consensus simply because you don't like it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Simply the point that going against the consensus in which I don't like it is that this very consensus which offers nothing but "pure fake information and alternative facts" really prevents the categorization of witchcraft to this film which i stated it all over again that the witchcraft is part of the film and narrative. Saiph121 (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Editing against the consensus is disruptive and often ends in sanctions. The current consensus is clearly against including that category. I will be removing it later tonight, if no one else gives a solid reason to doubt that the current consensus is the current consensus. If you restore it without a consensus to do so, I will ask to have you blocked again. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment It is clear from the discussion above there is no consensus to include the "witchcraft in film" category. If Saiph121 wishes to persist in restoring it then I advise they begin a RFC and get a formal community ruling to support them. Repeatedly adding it after failing to establish a consensus is destined to end with editing sanctions. As for the "films set in Paris/France" categories SummerPhd is generally correct that we don't include both parent and child categories if membership of the parent category is via membership of the child category. There is one exception though, and that is if the "films set in France" category applies in its own right i.e. if a significant portion of the film takes place in France outside of Paris. Betty Logan (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm unsure here whether there is a significant part of this film that is actually in Paris or if this is "set in Paris" the same way Wonder Woman is set in 2017 Paris. In any case, we have other parent-daughter categories (e.g., Films shot at Shepperton Studios/shot in Surry; based on Beauty and the Beast/based on fairy tales, etc.). While we're at it, do we need to categorize this in over a dozen genre categories? - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the plot summary we currently have, it seems that a brief flashback occurs in Paris. I guess we need some opinions as to whether this constitutes the film being "set in Paris" in a defining way or if this is similar to the brief scene in Wonder Woman that takes place in Paris. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Films based on fairy tales category

Can we settle an explanation on why the category on Films based on fairy tales was being removed as the film itself is based on eighteenth-century fairy tale? It's removal doesn't make sense. Saiph121 (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Films based on fairy tales is the parent category of Films based on Beauty and the Beast. As previously explained, ""...an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it. In other words, a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category". This article should not be placed in the parent category unless it is somehow a member of that category independent of being in the daughter cagtegory. It isn't. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)