Talk:Dune (2021 film)

Allegations of cultural appropriation and white savior narrative

This section seems very large / UNDUE in the context this article. It could be mentioned in a brief paragraph under casting, but it wasn't a notable element of the wider reception that the film received around the world? Aszx5000 (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree.— TAnthony^Talk 15:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I copyedited it a bit, and kept it where it is, but as a paragraph rather than a subsection of its own.— TAnthony^Talk 15:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that works better. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I didn't want to do more without further discussion.— TAnthony^Talk 17:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I have taken out the content on the white savior which is really about the book and not the film (it was not Villenuve that wrote it). Perhaps it should be added to the WP book article. However, the comments about the casting are directly relevant to the film. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Aszx5000 @TAnthony A bit late here, but I'm also glad that the issue was fixed as I also thought it didn't warrant a whole paragraph. However, I was wondering if we think this article is ready for a GAN. I think that this article is almost ready but could there be maybe some CE or any other big things left to do? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The way the subsection has been merged has unfortunately mixed cultural commentary from non-film critics with the reviews from actual professional film critics. That is a significant disimprovement.

I disagree with the claim that this was WP:UNDUE emphasis. There was substantial discourse at the time about the alleged "white savior narrative" (I would argue it was always a silly and superficial argument that badly misunderstands that the story eventually subverts that narrative, but the commentators wouldn't know that unless they had read the books) and editors used a selection of the many many available sources. Maybe it can be summarized and shortened but I do think the sub-heading remains necessary and should be restored. -- 109.79.64.252 (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Not every silly comment needs to be incorporated in the article and certainly not s a sub-heading (per UNDUE). Also, if it is not considered a critique of the book, than it is an even more obscure aspect to include in the film. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

You have failed to address the problem of mixing opinion pieces from non-film critics in with actual reviews, that makes this encyclopedia article less clear. -- 109.79.166.31 (talk) 05:18, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: @109.79.166.31 it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't making a semi protected edit request, I was reiterating my point that attempt at merging of two sections and the removal of the subheading (diff of edit by Aszx5000) created other problems that haven't been properly addressed. The old subheading or some other subheading should be restored to separate from political commentators or generalized opinion pieces from actual professional film critics. The Critical response section isn't the ideal place for comments from one of the films writers, a casting agent, another casting agent and some academic from Princeton. -- 109.79.164.19 (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@109.79.164.19 My apologies for the misattribution, but nothing in MOS:FILMCRITICS actually precludes this from my understanding, in fact I believe the following permits this: Professional film critics are regarded as reliable sources, although reputable commentators and experts—connected to the film or to topics covered by the film—may also be cited.. The people's qualifications are clearly identified so that readers can tell the difference between the critics and academics, so I don't see the issue there. I think removing the subheading is fine, as it's still linked to the Critical Reception of the film as they directly criticize the film for doing so. I do agree that the sections should not be merged though and believe that keeping it as a standalone paragraph is fine. I think a case be made for simply being WP:BOLD and going ahead to improve the content there, because I do believe the Spaihts quote is an instance of WP:OVERQUOTE. I think I'll plan on CEing the paragraph as I do plan on promoting this to a GA in the near future, so feel free to put any additional input here. Either way, I'd also like to commend you for putting the invisible comment rather than trying to force your edits through. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I just want to pre-emptively say I do not think this was a case of WP:OVERSECTION and I think the merge was a mistake. MOS:FILMCRITICS isn't to preclude anything but opinion pieces from non-film critics should not be misrepresented "reviews" or "critics" and removing the subsection headed made things more ambiguous. (Also after this merge I fully expect someone will now complain about the Critical response section being too long). If you want to keep the sections merged I think a different approach might be better, I will explain...

It is easy for editors to forget that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and frame things in the same context as when they first encountered it, that of criticism and response. What actually came first, before the film was even made, were the decisions made by the writer Spaihts and the filmmakers as they adapted the books, so as an encyclopedia this background information could be better presented as part of the Production/Writing/Development (there shouldn't really be any need to mention Spaihts in the Critical response section at all if it is properly explained above already). The opinion pieces from self promoting casting agents about a missed opportunity to cast their clients seem obviously biased to me, but it is probably not undue and the acceptable sort of bias and should probably stay. I'd like to seem more and better sources to better show that this section is a fair generalization not just a few fringe opinions. The inclusion of the opinion of one Princeton PhD student and misrepresentation it as "some critics"[1] is misleading at best, one is not some. Perhaps the fact that the Washington Post published it makes it noteworthy but I remain skeptical he should be included at all. -- 109.79.165.74 (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@109.79.165.74 While I disagree that the merge was a mistake, I do agree that the ways in which details are juxtaposed is incongruous. I would agree that the Spaihts comment should of course be relocated in the Writing or Casting. And no, I think the CR section has an alright length as other GA have things floating around this length. CE and all should be able to appropriately truncate it's length.

I like the case you pose for a better approach. I think the op pieces are fine and I feel like the way you put it is a bit critical haha, as I do think it is but perhaps a bit of rewording could be necessary, as some may deem that the complaints are valid and may have merits. It does have some bias within it, but I think that's of course implicit and doesn't construe as a NPOV violation. I looked at the section again and noticed that one additional source was nixed when CEd, and that was the Slate magazine [2] source which I think also has some good commentary to add. Either way, I would highly recommend you make an edit request or provide mock edits below so that way you can properly articulate your vision for the article. I would like to have a consensus prior to editing. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to highlight problems, and hoping they will be addressed at the discretion of the editor in the manner they see best. Attempts to improve things, broke other things in the process. If problems can be solved and the encyclopedia improved that is enough. Thanks for moving Spaihts to the Production section. I prefer to suggest and not to prescribe a specific edit unless absolutely necessary (for example an edit request with a specific minimal change can be needed to avoid an argument, or when a small mistake needs to be fixed when an article is already locked). If you're aiming for GA review I expect there will soon be criticism far more rigorous than mine, but the article seems to be headed in the right direction. -- 109.79.167.231 (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Understandably so for sure. I respect the approach as that will avoid conflicts but yea, I'll of course get to copyediting the thing later as I have other stuff going on right now. And that would make sense, a GAR would be far more meticulous and exhaustive in terms of ensuring quality content, but I frankly think this article is quite close to a GA which is a good thing, there's a lot of information here. Once the Critical Response and Marketing is taken care of however, I believe this should be ready for a GAN. Probably what's best and what I will do is more closely look at the sources, reword things, and clearly identify that para as being something along the lines of "academic" or "scholarly" criticism or the like, based on the scenario. This is definitely a very valid issue that you brought up. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Post artificial intelligence

Book readers will know that Dune is set in a very distant future where artificial intelligence has been outlawed. The film does include the mentat characters and shows their eyes turning white as they do computing tasks in trance like state but does not overtly mention the history or reason for these strange characters. The article body does not mention artificial intelligence at all. WP:LEAD "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article"

Twice, an editor has added to the lead section that the film is set in a post artificial intelligence universe.[3][4] I do not believe this trivial detail needs to be emphasized in the lead section. If it should be included it at all it should first be at least mentioned somewhere in the article body, and preferably its significance properly explained. After that then maybe editors can consider if this minor background information really does merit being highlighted or given this extra emphasis in the lead section. -- 109.79.165.74 (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm on the same page as you here - it's simply not needed for an article about the film, and Villeneuve has indeed even managed to make a film that doesn't bring attention to it (I'm not sure it's even mentioned?). Readers know where to go if they want to know more about the Dune universe. EditorInTheRye (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I also agree that this is a trivial detail, and should it need to be mentioned, it could perhaps be clarified in the Production section as a minor thing if really necessary, but it should be ok. With that being said, I'm not sure what the concern is here. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The change should have been better explained. The change shouldn't have been made a second time without a meaningful edit summary. Instead of waiting for it to happen a third time I preemptively started a discussion, because I'm a little paranoid as I have been false accused of being disruptive for changes that seemed simple and obvious to me, but other editors frequently don't read the edit summaries or seemingly don't understand WP:LEAD or WP:DUE. I hope we wont have to revisit this or discuss it any further. -- 109.79.167.231 (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

BoxOfficeMojo gross

The figure given for the UK re-release at BoxOfficeMojo[5] is $28,322,437. The figure for the original UK release is $28,804,796.

Clearly it is impossible for the film to have grossed almost the same amount as the original release on a limited re-release. Hopefully this will be corrected on the site at some point. Barry Wom (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I see a ref for the gross data from TheNumbers has been added. I've commented out the BoxOfficeMojo ref for now, as the figures given there are confusing. Barry Wom (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Barry Wom: Box Office Mojo has a pattern of double counting grosses with rereleases. For more info on why and how, see Talk:List of highest-grossing films/Archive 19#Double Counting. In this case, it looks like the UK box office was counted twice. They have corrected the gross for Dune, which is correctly listed as $406 million. I have corrected the gross in the article and commented out The Numbers for now. ~ Rajan51 (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 21 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Closing as SNOW with clear consensus for not moving. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Dune (2021 film) → Dune: Part One – Not only is this the film's WP:COMMONNAME, it is also the WP:OFFICIAL on-screen title from its initial theatrical release. The only argument against not using the 'Part One' subtitle would be that it was not used on the film's poster. Part One and Part Two are both connected to the same book, Dune. ScottSullivan01 (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Don't move the page without a consensous to do so. The requested move hasn't even been done properly. The instructions can be found here. Oppose per Rusted AutoParts -- ZooBlazer 21:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Objectively just called Dune. Official WB page for the film. Rusted AutoParts 21:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Additionally discussion was had not a year ago about this and consensus was to not move it. Rusted AutoParts 21:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment A movie is not its marketing. Objectively, the movie calls itself Dune: Part One in the movie's title card from its original theatrical release. ScottSullivan01 (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  It was primarily promoted as just Dune, nominated for accolades as just Dune. As highlighted in the previous discussion Star Wars is still just called Star Wars despite the retroactive addition of Episode IV: A New Hope. Rusted AutoParts 21:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Again, this wasn't a retroactive change. ScottSullivan01 (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  This doesn’t change anything. The only place you see Dune: Part One was in the film, as a means to signify there would be more. All my points of naming still apply. Rusted AutoParts 22:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  "The only place you see Dune: Part One was in the film"

  Well, that's the only place that matters. The onscreen infilm title is Dune Part One, hence that's the title of the film. 95.93.76.177 (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  It’s still just Dune. Rusted AutoParts 19:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  IP, do you realize that many, many films have a different title onscreen than the actual title reflected everywhere else? InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

It's perhaps counterintuitive, but Wikipedia guidelines necessarily rely on third party reliable sources rather than the primary source, which in this case is the film itself. And certainly when determining the common name, the film is just not commonly referred to as Dune: Part One.— TAnthony^Talk 18:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose the common name for the first film is still Dune.. that is how it is listed on the streaming services, how it was marketed and is still how people refer to the picture. Spanneraol (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose the first film was announced and promoted as Dune, no subtitle. Now this was obviously for promotional reasons because more people would be driven away if they realized it was a two-parted, but still, we aren’t going back and changing It to It: Chapter 1, the same rule applies to this film. Zvig47 (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per above comments, especially the Star Wars comparison. We have discussed this before.— TAnthony^Talk 05:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose This can be SNOW closed to avoid wasting the time. The official title of the film is Dune, not Dune: Part One (I think we've been over this before, or for another film in a similar situation?). It is very, very common for films to display an alternate title onscreen, but we can verify the actual title in the billing block, MPA certificate, copyright office, etc. As for COMMONNAME, it is most definitely "Dune" and not "Dune: Part One". "Part One" can at best be considered a retroactive title, which we don't use on Wikipedia. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Normally I would give links to lots of examples, sources, and policies, but this is such a clear-cut case and the consensus is so overwhelmingly clear, I am not going to bother unless this discussion goes in the wrong direction later on. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Much like It (2017), the filmmakers and credits may identify it as Part One, and the sequel may outright have “Part Two” in the title, but the initial and official title of the first film is simply, Dune.

TropicAces (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes absolutely. I inadvertently commented the same thing below, but I support this as well. CNC33 (. . .talk) 04:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Film has been notified of this discussion. -- ZooBlazer 22:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per all above. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - Similarly to how It (2017 film) was produced as possibly just one movie before the second was greenlit, it should remain Dune (2021 film). With both movies we somewhat knew a second part was coming, but they were produced as single films just case we didn't. CNC33 (. . .talk) 04:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above. Pretty clear it is not Commonname and on screen titles or even what the production company call a film are not gospel per above examples. Yeoutie (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: Just like The Irishman isn't I Heard You Paint Houses. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  needed to hear that today. lol! ToNeverFindTheMets (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Principal photography

The principal photography location list, at the start of the article, lists countries with the exception of Budapest, the capital of Hungary. Perhaps, for consistency, consider replacing Budapest with Hungary. Andreas Toth (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Release date

The start of the article claims the second part "was released in March 2024," when this is only fractionally true when, in fact, it isn't even true, since, as it turns out the March date in question hasn't even occurred yet, and only applies to a tiny part of the world, the US, whilst the rest of the world had the release on February 1, 2024!

This statement needs much more work. I suggest simply stating both release dates. Andreas Toth (talk) 10:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Andreas Toth, it is the official release date of the sequel film and also per WP:FILMRELEASE. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 16:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

"Dune (2020 film" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Dune (2020 film has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 3 § Dune (2020 film until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Related move requests

An editor has requested that Dune (Dune album) be moved to Dune (1995 album), which may be of interest to editors of this page. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 06:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

An editor has requested that Dune (soundtrack) be moved to Dune (Original Soundtrack Recording), which may be of interest to editors of this page. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 06:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Atreides#RfC on the infobox image has an RfC

Talk:Paul Atreides#RfC on the infobox image has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dune (2021 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Dcdiehardfan (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 03:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• Note: Although someone could conceivably make the claim that this nomination should be quick-failed for not meeting the stability criterion, I took a look at the last 18 days of edits in case this claim might arise. Based on that limited time frame, I believe the article is stable. While there have been a lot of edits recently, the majority were extremely minor. With that said, unless anything else crops up, I will go ahead and start the review.Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  Note to my note: I am aware of the recent requested move discussion. Reviewing that discussion does not change my mind regarding stability. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas Thanks a lot for the review, much appreciated, and I'm glad to see you again. I went ahead and addressed all the concerns below to the best of my abilities. Feel free to let me know if there are any outstanding issues. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Infobox

Resolved

• No problems found on first read. Viriditas (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• Lead could be considered too short, although this is subjective. A brief glance tells me the lead is somewhat thin, with the second paragraph missing some information that is instead mentioned in the third paragraph in reference to awards instead (such as costume design, etc.) This may be perfectly fine, but I will come back to this later in case I notice something else after a second read-through. Viriditas (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: I was wondering what you think should be added. I summarized the core of the Production Process in the second para, as I think that was the norm I tend to see on film articles. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I haven't got there just yet, but I did notice that both times I read this "ambition" I felt something was off. It was well received by critics and audiences with praise for Villeneuve's direction, screenplay, the visual effects, ambition, costume design, Hans Zimmer's musical score, cinematography, and faithfulness to the source material. I understand that critics might have said it was ambitious, but there's no category or award for that, so it feels out of place to see it here. Am I just off base with this? I wonder if the same could be said for "faithfulness to the source material", as it's my understanding that there's no such thing as a faithful adaptation in the film industry, it's a myth of sorts. For a book to work on screen, many things must be changed. Several screenwriters are famous for talking about how a faithful adaptation is impossible, as they are entirely different mediums. Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand "ambition" and removed it as it's too nebulous and instead chose the word "scope" to convey how large-scale the adaptation is; I felt "ambition" was a good word as it accurately paraphrased contents from the review. However I think you might misunderstand the "faithfulness" part. The faithfulness wasn't intended to mean that it was 100% faithful, but that it was praised for the amount of elements it managed to retain. That was the big takeaway, that critics were impressed by how faithful it managed to be. I'll go ahead and reword it right now so it better conveys that. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

That works for me. I will be a bit slow with this review, as I'm dealing with major arthritis and can barely type now, but I will do as much as I can do when I can. Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas I'm very sorry to hear that and I hope you're feeling well. Feel free to take your time and don't feel pressured to rush. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• Dune was a box office success, grossing $406 million on a $165 million budget, making it the tenth-highest-grossing film of 2021

• This statement is not stable and was just changed by another editor. I don't understand why box office stats from 2021 would still be in flux or why it wasn't accurate. I'm also wondering why this is only in the lead and not the rest of the article. Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas I looked, and I think the reason why the figure has been changed is because the original is because BOM and The Numbers reported diff figures, with BOM reporting $406M here [6] and The Numbers reporting $431M here (theatrical only) [7]. I'm frankly unsure of what to do. I'll do some further research to see if I can explain this discrepancy, perhaps it could be due to the subsequent theatrical releases. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

No big deal. Just plant a flag and come back to it when we can. I have another issue in post that I'm adding now. Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. I went ahead and am doing in-depth analysis. I'm looking at the two sources and I'm seeing like trite discrepancies across domestic figs by like a buck or so. However, the sources were in agreement that the Domestic BO as of Apr 7, 2022 was exactly $108,327,830: [8] [9]. The Numbers then logged BO totals from Feb 9 - 11, 2024, which increased the total to $109,987,830. Will definitely later follow up to address the discrepancy between the $297.1M international BO fig from BOM and $321.1M fig from The Numbers. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas Responding to this, I'm going ahead and looking at the discrepancies between the international BOs: [10] and [11]. Just as a side note, the editor already added as a comment that the Numbers fig was inaccurate, hence the sudden pivot to BOM, which I honestly think is beneficial since this is playing it safe by taking the lower of the estimates. I'm looking through a diffs, the big things are they include data not in the other (ie TN has no data for Iceland while BOM does, Brazil not being on BOM, Serbia & Montenegro not being on BOM, etc), they report various totals based on different daily intake (ig substantial based on a week-to-week data compilation and also because TN logged data of re-releases internationally more than BOM did. Either way, I'm going to look to other sources like Variety, THR, Deadline etc to see if they peg a neat BO figure for Dune 1. It's also a bit weird since Collider and Forbes used $431-2M fig here: [12], [13], [14], while THR and Variety used $402M: [15], [16], [17]. Even another Collider and Forbes article uses $402M: [18], [19]. So weird...and I'll reiterate that I believe it's best to take the lower figure. I'm not sure how best to proceed, is there a WP for resolving these types of situations? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The principle of good enough should suffice. When I run into problems like this, I just add the most relevant and accurate information I can find with an accompanying explanatory footnote. If the sources and data conflict, I also note that problem in the footnote. Viriditas (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I see. I was initially thinking about changing the range to $403-432M and putting two sources, but that makes reporting the Dune BO in other articles weird, so I just went the lower one. I would definitely try to note that in a footnote if possible, so I will try to find a source that says that Dune BO reporting is in conflict so that way it's not WP:OR and let you know what I find. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Do what you think is best. This same issue came up a while ago on another film article. The editor found that some sources weren’t taking into account the same box office numbers. Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Plot

Resolved

• No problems found on first read. Summary is well written and concise. Viriditas (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Cast

Resolved

• No problems found on first read, although it did take me a moment to realize what was meant by "filmbooks". I wonder if this should be clarified for the general reader not familiar with the Dune-verse. Viriditas (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: Provided clarification -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Production

Background

• Following the publication of Frank Herbert's novel Dune in 1965, it was identified for potential film prospects and the rights to adapt the novel to film have been held by several producers since 1971. Attempts to make an adaptation based on the book were considered to be "unfilmable" due to its breadth of content.

  The wording here is a bit choppy. The first sentence reads like two mushed together. "Following the publication of Frank Herbert's novel Dune in 1965, it was identified for potential film prospects. Since 1971, several producers have held the rights to adapt the novel to film." I still don't like the wording of "identified for potential film prospects" as it sounds like a bad paraphrase. Viriditas (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done I tried to reword that paraphrase too as I also agree it's a bit poorly worded, let me know your thoughts. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• David Lynch's Dune, produced by Raffaella De Laurentiis in 1984, was intended as a three-hour film but was cut to 137 minutes; it was poorly received and Lynch himself ended up disowning it.[10][12][13][14]

  Do you need four citations here? If you truly do, use the bullet method, such that citation 10 appears, but 12, 13, and 14 are bulleted within the link to 10. Viriditas (talk) 06:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

   Comment: Reduced the middle two ones as they simply were just two individual reviews about the film, I think the other sources better corroborate Lynch's disowning and poor reception Dcdiehardfan (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  (Viriditas' suggestion sounds like a good one to me, but we should be clear to any lurkers or others unfamiliar with the GA process that reference formatting is explicitly outside the bounds of the Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Format them however you want, so long as the reviewer can figure out which source is being cited for which material in the article.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing Thanks for letting me know. I'll still definitely try to address the claims to the best of my ability because it's for the betterment of the article and I think is just good editor practices in general. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• A live-action miniseries produced by Rubinstein and directed by John Harrison, Frank Herbert's Dune, aired on the Sci Fi Channel in 2000

• That's fine, but I think it reads slightly better to write instead: "Frank Herbert's Dune, a live-action miniseries produced by Rubinstein and directed by John Harrison, aired on the Sci Fi Channel in 2000". Viriditas (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Dcdiehardfan (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• Some reviewers criticized the miniseries for lacking the spectacle afforded to a feature film production, as well as for staying too faithful to the book and being dragged down by exposition

• Is "dragged down" the right wording here? Do you mean bogged down? Viriditas (talk) 06:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done I think "bogged down" reads better Dcdiehardfan (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Development

• I made some copyedits.[20] Please review as necessary. Viriditas (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

   Comment: I think they're great, I provided additional clarification on "to the table" and left most of the other parts intact. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Writing

• I made a few copyedits,[21] but this section still needs work. Please give it another look. Viriditas (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'm still unclear what is meant by "the current draft covered the first half of Dune". Does that refer to Dune: Part One or something else? A lot of the prose here is clunky and reads like there were too many cooks in the kitchen. If you could go through this entire section and rewrite it as necessary, that would be great. Viriditas (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

   Fixed It just simply meant that the film's script covered the first half of the events in the novel, I made that clarification. I also went ahead and edited some of the prose to make it more clear and added a bit more content regarding Roth's involvement, feel free to check it out. I tried to make the writing style more consistent, but definitely let me know if there are places where it is not so. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Spaihts stated the team reduced the depiction of Arab influences used in the novel for the film as "Today the Arab world is with us … If you were to build a kind of Arab future on Arrakis in a novel starting today, you would need to invent more and borrow less".

• I would recommend revisiting this source and trying to paraphrase instead of partially quoting, if possible. It's an important point that the reader needs a bit more clarity on to get it. I'm fully aware of this subject and even I didn't get what was trying to be said here. Viriditas (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: I went ahead and trimmed it and rephrased it, feel free if it makes sense. The thesis of that quote was, from my understanding, the idea that Spaihts thinks the Arab world is essentially properly integrated into the world culture, and creating Dune in a modern, globalized society would essentially mean creating more things in order to highlight the Arab elements rather than simply just organically adapt it. Definitely give me feedback if I need more clarity. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• In adapting the book for a contemporary audience, Villeneuve wanted to reflect on realities that have happened since that time related to contemporary over-exploitation of the Earth

• I would go back to the source on this. This reads like a bad paraphrase. Viriditas (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed Tried to improve the clarity here and clarify those components came from the book's themes Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• The inclusion of film books was adapted from the book, with Villeneuve wanting it to convey Paul's "appetite for learning" and his desire to learn about the Arrakis and Fremen culture

• As I said previously when this was brought up, please very briefly explain to the reader what "film books" are. In the film, they appear as educational holographic videos coming from a portable projector, but you might be able to find a better description. Viriditas (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• He wanted to depict the Baron as a complex antagonist rather than as a caricature, feeling the novel presented him as being the latter, and took inspiration from Colonel Kurtz.

• No idea who "He" refers to here. Viriditas (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Meant to refer to Villeneuve, clarified Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Casting

• According to Duncan-Brewster, Villeneuve felt it was necessary to capture the essence of the character from the book, but was not necessary to remain consistent with all other facets, and thus opted for this change.

• Although Earwig highlights the term "capture the essence" as an issue here, looking at the sources, it doesn't actually come from the cited source exactly, but from another source (possibly a coincidence). I would just revisit this entire sentence and rephrase it. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• I made some copyedits to the casting section.[22] Please review. Viriditas (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  Y Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Design

• The team's early mood boards for the visual language of the film consisted of a variety of images, including ziggurat architecture from Mesopotamia, Egyptian references, bunkers from World War II, brutalist architecture from Brazil and the Soviet Union

• Earwig notes that this is taken in whole and in part from this source. Please rewrite it. Also please note the unusual use of multiple sources when it only refers to one source. Viriditas (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: Apologies, my intention was for all the refs to substantiate that entire para, I tried to better allocate the refs. I also revised the wording as I initially wasn't sure how to do so when curating the content. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Post-production

• The sand ripples created by the worms were inspired by Jaws (1975).

• While this makes perfect sense to me, we want to write for a general audience, as well as people in the future. This means writing in such a way that describes an idea or concept, very briefly, for people who may not be familiar with it. You and I are both familiar with what it means when you write the sand ripples were inspired by Jaws, but I'm concerned others might not be, so in that regard, simply briefly explain what the connection between the sand ripples and the movement of sharks entails. For me, it's all about anticipation, excitement, and fear. One of the scariest things about Jaws is not seeing the shark, for example. So go back to the sources and see if it sheds more light on the connection between the depiction of the worms and the sharks in the two films. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed Agreed, clarified by stating that they specifically took inspiration by using visual cues to implicitly indicate presence Dcdiehardfan (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Lambert created the visual effects for the shields by combining past and future frames after experimenting with a clip from Seven Samurai (1954)

• Same thing as above with Jaws. Try to explain the direct connection with Seven Samurai, as I didn't get it from the text. Viriditas (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed The main thing was that they were experimenting with action clips from Seven Samurai, this is clarified Dcdiehardfan (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Animation supervisor Robyn Luckham helped create the scene as the team didn't know much about mo-cap.

  Avoid MOS:CONTRACTIONS. Viriditas (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• See MOS:PARA. Consider breaking up the third paragraph into two for readability. It's quite large at about 373 words, or 2262 characters. Viriditas (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

   Done I broke it up into two paras, the first ab the action stuff and the second ab the other miscellaneous elements, in addition to doing a CE trim. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Marketing

• Vanity Fair published a two-part extensive first-look report on Dune by April 14, 2020.

• I don't think we need an exact date here. Just say, "In April 2020, Vanity Fair published a two-part, extensive first-look report on Dune." Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• Empire's October 2020 issue's cover story included an in-depth look at the film and interviews with cast and crew, providing additional first looks ahead of the film's trailer release

• "Empire provided additional first looks in October ahead of the film's trailer release." We are already talking about 2020 in the previous sentence. Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• A teaser trailer was released on September 9, 2020, featuring a remix of the Pink Floyd song "Eclipse" (1973) combined with Zimmer's score.

• Again, we are already talking about 2020, so no need to keep repeating that. "A teaser trailer was released on September 9 featuring a remix of the Pink Floyd song "Eclipse" (1973) combined with Zimmer's score." Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Release

Theatrical and screening

• Dune was originally scheduled to be released on November 20, 2020, but was pushed back to December 18, 2020.

• I don't see why this requires three cites when the first cite supports it. Please take a look at the use of multiple citations in this article and either remove them or bundle them. It just doesn't make sense to me and looks like older citations from older versions. Viriditas (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed I removed the duplicate Deadline ref, the THR ref corroborates its OG release date of Nov 2020 while the other Deadline ref corroborates the release, so there's 2 refs. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• It also screened at the Toronto International Film Festival with an IMAX premiere screening at the Ontario Place Cinesphere on September 11, 2021.

• @Dcdiehardfan: Looking at the use of multiple sources here, I don't see a need for 158.[23] It already duplicates material in 157. Viriditas (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

 Removed Not usually a fan of Twitter refs, so I removed it. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• Jason Momoa tested positive for COVID-19 after attending the film's London premiere on October 15, 2021.

• Again, there doesn't seem to be a reason this needs two separate citations. Pick one. Viriditas (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed Choose People mag ref -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• In addition, it was the most rented title from Redbox kiosks for three weeks as well.

• You could bundle this so that only one cite appears. Viriditas (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed Picked the Ghostbusters one since it directly states top disc rental the previous three weeks, Warner Bros. Home Entertainment’s Dune ... -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• Over a month before the domestic North American release date, the film had a staggered theatrical release schedule in most international markets that do not have HBO Max, beginning on September 15, including France, Italy, Sweden and Switzerland.[146][147][148]

• Does this need three sources, two of which aren't exactly reliable? The first source (146) has a list of release dates. Not sure if any of these sources support the idea of "in most international markets that do not have HBO Max". See if you can improve the source-text integrity here. Viriditas (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done I revised the prose, and replaced the sources with much better quality ones, removed the HBO Max. Feel free to make any other suggestions as necessary. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Reception

Critical response

• Meanwhile, Ali Karjoo-Ravary, an Assistant Professor of Islamic Studies at Bucknell University, was concerned with unintentional reinforcements of negative stereotypes and mishandling of cultural elements, going on to scrutinize flaws in Herbert's novel.[218][219]

  I have a few things to say about this, namely that we should stick with Karjoo-Ravary's criticisms about the film, which are many, instead of just the novel. But, I do wonder why you have citation 219 here.[24] Perhaps this was a mistake or a misplaced ref? Viriditas (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: Removed Ref 219, I think mistakenly placed by another editor, and I revised the content to more specifically address the MENA casting thing rather than it being vague. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Analysis

• @Dcdiehardfan: Please address the problems in this section. Viriditas (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Viriditas I resolved the tags by citing specific parts of the film, definitely feel free to suggest feedback as I think the prose is a bit raw. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  One way to start is to review the context and framing of film analysis. It might open some doors for you. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  I find this section (which was only recently added) a bit confusing. It is mainly about the differences between the film and the book (both in script and visual portrayal), and if so, should the title be amended to clarify that? Aszx5000 (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  No, because it is still part of film analysis, if you read the article I linked to above. Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  Film analysis feels like a very generic term. Shouldn't the title be something more like The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King#Comparison to the source material, which might clarify to the reader what type of film analysis is being discussed? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  "Analysis" refers to all the subtopics in film analysis. One reason to keep it generic is if there are multiple types of analyses. If you think the current section only focuses on one type, then changing it to reflect that type might be acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Viriditas I looked at the article. I think some of the stuff definitely escaped my head, but I'll go ahead and address this later if I can. For now, I'll focus on the other issues and get to this later. @Aszx5000 I'm also a bit confused about the abruptness of the section, but believe it does do analysis as it really moreso comments on the depiction of Fremen in the film independently, with occasional comparisons to the source material. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  For me, the important questions to keep in mind are the following: Does the prose flow? Is the material accessible to a general audience who might not be familiar with the topic? Does it maintain interest? Is there a logical, linear, narrative continuity from the first paragraph to the last in such a way that it tells a story and keeps the reader wanting to know more? Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Future

• Using "future" as a heading is time-sensitive and will quickly go out of date. Please choose a different heading that can stand the test of time. The easiest way forward is something like "Sequels", but there other options available, such as "Sequels and spin-offs", etc. Given the overall length of this article, I don't think sub-sections are needed, as without them, it would amount to four paragraphs. I will make the changes just to give you an idea what it looks like and you can make the necessary edits or reverts in response. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• Edits for review.[25] Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
• Please check to see if the excessive use of multiple citations is needed or if it is a relic of older versions. If they are needed, consider using the bullet method. Viriditas (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

   Comment: I agree with the rename as "Future" tends to be the designation for future franchise instalments before the film's release, but hasn't been updated since release. I went ahead and trimmed some citations, but I'm not sure what you mean by excessive use of multiple citations as there are only 7 instances of sentences having 2 citations. For some cases, 2 are needed to corroborate 2 separate facts in the sentence, but I'll go ahead and use the bullet format for the Reprising Role, although do you think the bullet method is worth it for all the 2 citation ones? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  Having worked with you before, I trust your judgment on this. My main concern was whether we were dealing with vestiges of earlier versions that used old citations that were no longer needed. My secondary concern was whether we needed three or more in the first place. Stylistically, if citations can be bundled, great, if not, no big deal. The takeaway is that the presence of multiple citations is sometimes a red flag for other problems, but not always. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, I am a bit confused by what you mean by vestiges of earlier versions, are you referring to sources that restate information from another source or something along those lines? I'll definitely be on the lookout for those, and I'll look for places where I can bundle citations together. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  "Vestiges of earlier versions" refers to issues that you previously noticed, such as when you wrote "removed Ref 219, I think mistakenly placed by another editor". Viriditas (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Lead to body ratio is out of sync per MOS:LEADLENGTH (see next point)

   The lead is 339 words, and ProseSize claims 9,499 words for the whole article at the moment. In case it's useful, I gathered some of the numbers for the recent discussions about MOS:LEADLENGTH (we have decided that word/sentence counts make more sense than paragraph counts), and this does not seem completely unreasonable. It's 3.5%, which is short percentage-wise, but the percentages generally decline as article length increases (the range is approximately 10% to less than 5%). I'd estimate that a Featured Article of similar length would probably have 300–550 words in the lead (NB: based on a small sample size, as few FAs seem to exceed about 8,000 words). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

   @WhatamIdoing I see. So do you recommend I leave the Lede as is for now until Viriditas provides additional feedback or try to trim its size now to make future editing easier? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

   The lead is well within the normal size for FAs. If you were trying to make the lead:body ratio more average, then I think that shortening the body of the article would be more effective.

   That said, sometimes "average" doesn't serve a given article very well. If you have achieved this length and nothing important has been left out the lead, then you've done the right thing! Don't go adding in minor points or re-writing sentences to be needlessly wordy just to make it "average". The part of MOS:LEADLENGTH I'd particularly encourage you to pay attention to is this:

   "Most featured articles have a lead length of about three paragraphs, containing 10 to 18 sentences, or 250 to 400 words."

   This lead is almost dead center in those ranges: three paragraphs, 14 sentences, and 339 words. There's nothing broken about that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

   Article is currently 9,711 words, which raises red flags about Wikipedia:Article size, however, this is subjective per WP:TOOBIG

   Background prose may need some work. See review up above.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Earwig is very unhappy, returning a 49.7% hit rate. Looking over the report, I see several issues. I will note them up above in the relevant sections.

 Comment: Attempted to pre-empt this by rephrasing stuff. Current score now at 37.5%. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   No issues at the moment.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No neutrality issues at present.

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   See my extended note about stability in my pre-review comments at the top of this page.

   Apparently, the stability did not last long.

   Returning to stable.

   I am one step away from failing this review due to the stability criterion. If active editors cannot maintain a stable version, then I cannot proceed with the review.

4. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images look good, although I notice that of the eight stars featured in the poster, only six have images in the article. Just something that stood out to me.

5. Overall: I'm putting this article on hold in the hopes that stability returns due to recent edits. I will continue to finish the review during that time. Update: Looks like my intuition was correct. I think I've given enough chances for this article to stabilize and it has not happened. Recent rewrites to the plot section and the addition of an analysis section out of the blue by two different editors who rarely edit has forced me to fail this. Highly trafficked articles that change day to day are not good candidates for good article nominations. Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

   Pass/Fail:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Plot section rewrite

@Dcdiehardfan: I reverted this drive-by rewrite of the plot section.[26] I am trying to finish up a GA review and I cannot review an article that changes drastically day to day. Further, the hidden text says not to do this and the user removed that text. Please review their changes and update if necessary. Viriditas (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I've failed the GAN. I don't think this should have been nominated since there's no way to review an article that hasn't stabilized to a single version. Viriditas (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I am the editor responsible. Apologies for complicating a frustrating, time-consuming GA review process. This reversion seems to be a careless byproduct of that process, and I hope it will be undone with due review of my edit (not by myself); it comes across as an undue effort to preserve stability which stands somewhat at odds with WP:BOLD, not taking into account whether or not the edit genuinely improves the article, and I have never seen such a thing following previous edits of a similar nature. It is not an actual content dispute that can be resolved as a content dispute.

I did not inappropriately remove an invisible comment, as claimed with "the hidden text says not to do [a rewrite of the plot section] and the user removed that text". I found that two copies of the invisible comment ("This wording was agreed upon on the talk page. Please do not change without consensus.") were enclosing as if brackets two words, "distant future", and took this to refer to those two words in conjunction with the AI discussion on the talk page. Perhaps wrongly, I thought this interpretation of the ambiguously worded invisible comment was so intuitive that the second copy of it was superfluous, and so I removed only that copy. It is false to suggest that my edit either deleted the invisible comment or defied it, given its ambiguity. After that, I improved the quality of the plot summary's writing (minor edits), which did need doing, and also remedied a couple of glaring omissions while avoiding bloat. I worked non-destructively and with due reference to (lack of well-defined) consensus and disputes on the talk page. There has been no "drive-by" recklessness or disruptive activity here, and minimal bold ("drastically" done) editing.

This talk page thread fails to assume good faith and is disrespectful, especially given its supplementation with sarcastic comments left on my user talk page, and it flouts WP:OWN with the overly literal, unintuitive interpretation that the invisible comment applies to the entire plot summary, given no evidence that I can see. I am very sorry if there is a convention here that I am unaware of, and, again, I hope my contribution can be vetted seriously, with the insignificant hidden metric that is the article's stability no longer a point of contention. I will engage constructively with or disengage from any real content disputes. PurpleQuaver (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)