Talk:Escape Room: Tournament of Champions

Genre

There's no citation for the film's genre. The current article claims that it's 'psychological horror', but I read it as horror camp / comedy (roughly like 'Zombeavers'). It's unclear whether this aspect is intentional ... or it's just a terrible film.

To me, I think it's more of a survival thriller film. It doesn't really have elements of horror – It's not like 1408. Definitely should reconsider changing the genre.Trqalobaid (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Percent versus %

I noticed some back and forth about this, so I'm opening discussion now, before it gets out of hand. MOS:PERCENT advises the use of the word "percent" in non-scientific, non-technical articles. That said, the vast majority of film articles use "%" in the reception section. I personally find "%" to be preferable - it's shorter and matches what's used on Rotten Tomatoes - but I'm not sure if there's a clear guideline for films specifically? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 17:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Local consensus is not a thing. So whatever other film articles are doing is irrelevant if what they are doing is counter to guidelines. I see this argument used repeatedly on Wikipedia: "Well x, y, and z article does it this way!" Yeah, and if the pre-existence of any article doing things one way was sufficient to never change any other article, all of Wikipedia would collapse because you could always find some article where someone was doing things in the same wrong way and *poof* you could, by the logic, never change anything to better follow guidelines. And it's 100% (heh) irrelevant what styles are being used by any 3rd party websites. We have a house style for a reason. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was mostly curious if there was a set of style guidelines for film articles specifically that recommends the use of "%", since that seems to be standard for every other film article that I checked. The Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose also uses "%" instead of "percent".

I'm not trying to be tendentious here (you'll note I haven't engaged in any of the percent/% reverting), and thank you for your link about levels of consensus - I hadn't read that before, and it's deepened my understanding, I think. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 01:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that template... that is problematic. And sorry I was defensive... I just find that line of argument very tedious specifically because it can nearly always be invoked, and it nearly always is invoked, to resist edits that move things more into alignment with guidelines in areas where there is widespread divergence from the guidelines.

This situation is a perfect example: I think basically the bulk of people editing film and TV articles have just never encountered MOS:PERCENT before or have definitely not widely incorporated it before. So of course there are ample examples of other articles (and apparently templates) that don't follow it. The proper response then is to be like "ah ok, let's start fixing that" not "no, this way that is clearly counter guidelines is what we'll stick with!" Especially when the person making the edits makes clear reference to why they are making them and that it's not just a case of them liking it better the way they've edited it.

To the best of my knowledge, there's nothing in MOS:FILM or MOS:TV that says "use % not percent" or even "use %", although I suspect that, like with that template, there may be examples that use "%" instead of "percent" in article prose and people probably just copy what they commonly see. And that's fine... and even desirable in the absence of any kind of conflicting guidance. But if someone comes along and says, "Oh hey, we should apply this long-standing guideline", it would be awfully nice if just once people were like, "Hmmn... oh I didn't realize that; sure, let's start making those changes" instead of reverting while claiming "we've always done it this way!" / "it's like this in X other articles!"

Or at the very least, if people have an issue with certain guidelines, they don't have to actively enact them but they should, at least, accept them when others follow them. For instance, I hate (really really hate) MOS:POSS. I think putting "'s" after every possessive is terrible and ugly and just bad bad bad... but this is Wikipedia and whatever I like or don't like is ultimately irrelevant. I personally deal with that by not actively changing cases where someone has written, for example, "The girls' wishes" to "The girls's wishes." But if I see that someone has come along and made that edit, I sigh and move on. Because even though I really disagree with that particular guideline, Wikipedia doesn't work if we just all try to get our way. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Adam Robitel at NY20 FF11.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Are there two versions of this movie?

The plot summary of this matches what I watched, up until the "Child's Room". The last two paragraphs do not match up what-so-ever to the movie I just watched. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the streaming version and the theatrical versions have some fairly major differences. They're covered in more detail here. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

This variation need to be clarified better. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

If you look at the page history, it used to be; I'm not entirely sure why that was changed. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)