Talk:Inside Out 2/Archive 1

Archive 1

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://thenerdsofcolor.org/2024/04/16/inside-out-2-footage-reaction-pixar-gets-in-touch-with-new-emotions/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 23:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Most watch

It is the second most watched animated trailer to the lion king remake

Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Source doesn't mention the remake of The Lion King because according to Disney, the film was not an anіmated fіlm but a live-action reboot. LancedSoul (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Fun 2603:8081:2300:5F90:39FB:272C:1232:C9E4 (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The Hollywood Reporter confirmed it was eligible for the animation category at the Oscars for that year. That is in addition to the substantial coverage of its animated credentials at The Lion King (2019 film). How Disney chose to market the film is their business, but Wikipedia's business is to document facts. Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Production company credit

The billing block on the poster states "Disney presents a Pixar Studios Animation film". No mention is made of any other Disney entity other than its subsidiary Pixar Animation Studios. Specifically "Walt Disney Pictures" another subsidiary, isn't mentioned in the billing block. "Walt Disney Pictures" has been added to the infobox as a production company based on the assumption that "Disney" in the billing block means "Walt Disney Pictures" but even then a "presents" credits isn't a production credit, it is a distribution credit - they didn't make the film. Argument for including "Walt Disney Pictures" as production studio is that is how it is done on other Pixar film articles. I don't consider what other articles do as sufficient reason. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Walt Disney Pictures has been credited succinctly as "Disney" for well over a decade now in their films; it is simply how the studio has gone by name-wise since 2012. Countless of films feature studios that encompass both production and distribution duties. Your assertion that "a "presents" credits isn't a production credit, it is a distribution credit" lacks any verifiability. This is according to whom? Yourself? Your interpretation of a movie poster is original research. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 06:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The other animated film articles getting it wrong doesn't mean this one must follow them, if anything they should be changed to remove Walt Disney Pictures as a production company. If Disney were a production credit it would say that, it doesn't, it says "presents". Walt Disney Pictures, per its article, produces live-action films, and the animated films produced by Walt Disney Animation Studios and Pixar Animation Studios are released under its banner thus the presents credit. They had nothing to do with producing the film, just releasing it. Look at the actual credits in the film for Inside Out. Copyright is held by Disney Enterprises Inc./Pixar. The actual end credits say "distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" followed by "created and produced at Pixar Animation Studios". Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

To add see Opening credits § Common opening credits order. Pretty clear that industry practice is the studio with the presents credit and listed first is the distributor. Walt Disney Pictures is listed as commonly getting the distributor's presents credit. The second company listed is the actual production company. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

You know you're a legit moron who causes the entire insanity? I don't care about your stupidity, I don't cause about you knowledge, At least nobody gives a crap about Disney being credited and also in opening credits and logo in Pixar and WDAS were all featured Walt Disney Pictures logo in it, even credited as they're involved of the film, they're all also credited as co-production with, so it's not like you're doing anything against it, I begged you and begged you to stop and you just didn't

Listen, Walt Disney Pictures produced most of Pixar and WDAS movies you idiot! What do you think who produced it? A24? IFC FILMS? PARAMOUNT PICTURES? WARNER BROS. PICTURES? STOP IT AND RESET IT BACK TO NORMAL OR ELSE I'M GOING TO BLOCK YOU!! 105.158.93.224 (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

No Walt Disney Pictures just releases the films produced by Disney's animation studios under their banner. Basically slap on the flagship Disney film logos and claim presents. That is the limit of their involvement. They are not involved in producing the films just releasing them as stated in the articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez Then Put Walt Disney Pictures credit, you IDIOT! it's not Universal Pictures and DreamWorks Animation! Of course, DreamWorks made their films and Universal released them, despite Universal didn't get their credit, but at least they marketed it and advertised it and promoted it worldwide, and do you forget about Columbia Pictures and Sony Pictures Animation? Yeah Columbia released Sony Animation films (execpt The Star, Hotel Transylvania 3, and The Angry Birds Movie 2) but most of SPA films do have a disturbution credit "Columbia Pictures" presents on, and also it's not about your stupid Disney's Limit of their involvement, it's about what the film's studio is and their producing in the film, you always hated things the way they were, you think Disney has nothing to do with Pixar and WDAS! well you're wrong! if it it wasn't for Disney in their Animatied films Category, then Who The Hell produced a lot of Pixar and WDAS films? you think that Disney only releases it? no! they produced it! if I heard another word of negative thoughts, I sentence you to be Blocked! 41.141.206.116 (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Pixar and WDAS are Disney studios who produce animated films. That is shown in the credits. Disney Pictures produces live-action films and releases films produced by the animation studios under its banner, that is the limit of their involvement. It isn't the animated film's production company. The three are peer studios owned by Disney Studios. Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures does the marketing, promotion and distribution for all of them. I think some of the confusion is conflating Disney Pictures with its owner Disney Studios. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez No It is the animated film's production company, just because it is shown in the credits, doesn't mean that is the limit of their involvement, you said Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures does the marketing, promotion and distribution for all of them, and it drives me CRAZY AND MAD! because What are you talking about? Are you a Scam? I thought I told you to bring Walt Disney Pictures credit back on all Animated films, but you weren't listening, and here you are, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures has nothing to do with this, Walt Disney Pictures does the marketing, promotion, and producing for all of them? Stop this! and do as I Say! 41.141.206.116 (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand Disney's film production organization at all. Suggest you go to the articles and read them for the detail of what role each part plays. You seem to be confusing Walt Disney Pictures with The Walt Disney Studios, its parent. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Jedi94 Help Me! 41.141.206.116 (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

After taking a step back and reevaluating, I think it would be best to keep Walt Disney Pictures out of the production company parameter unless there are some verifiable sources (like Variety, Hollywood Reporter or AFI) that explicitly name it as a production company. This is just to uphold Wikipedia's policies for consistency. After careful consideration, I think the best alternative would be leaving a footnote in the distribution field denoting that the film is released under the Walt Disney Pictures banner, as that is still a fact. I have gone ahead and adjusted the majority of Disney Animation and Pixar film articles to this effect. I think this method should satisfy both sides of the argument! ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 23:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Riley Make the Team?

How Long are we gonna keep the Notes as the End Scene left ambiguous and determinant that Riley did accepted by Firehawk? I'd say 90% on her proud smile at the end, She might be accepted. Happiness is Simple (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I also thought Riley was accepted. But it's not explicitly stated, so it's right to say that it's ambiguous. There's no, like, set amount of time that we're "gonna keep" it. It stays unless and until more information from within the film's universe, or from the film's creative team, becomes available, or a different consensus is built. DavidK93 (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with that. Pete Docter or any Pixar staff would definitely reveals later of Riley joining the Firehawks later. I can tell that more remain asked question if she is became part of the team by the time Pixar plan Inside Out 3. Happiness is Simple (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Explanation grammars

Seinfield429, why did you revert "Like it's predecessor" and how is it irrelevant? Both movies have similar reception, so that means I'm allowed to compare them, don't you think? Sometimes you guys don't make a lot sense at all when it comes to editing pages. SuperSuperSonic208 (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Making comparison to another film is WP:SYNTHESIS. Also, in this case something that does not belong in the lead for this film. How this film was reviewed is reasonable to have in the lead. How another film performed is covered in its article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Both films have similar reception no matter what, and the guideline does not say do not compare. Sometimes you and others are not making any sense when it comes to grammers. It's just that you guys don't get it. Sometimes, i get frustrated with your excuses when it comes to Wikipedia articles. Just stop with that. And you should know that i am allowed to compare reviews the first film especially if there similar. SuperSuperSonic208 (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a grammar issue, it is a content issue about what should be in the lead section of this article. Wiki is a collaborative project and works via consensus. If you add something and other editors don't think it belongs and remove it, the next step is discussion and work to consensus. What you want to add is unnecessary, talks to some other film, and is a personal observation that counts as WP:no original research. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, how is it no original research and unnecessary?. Its not unnecessary SuperSuperSonic208 (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, how the heck doesn't belong? It should. Both reviews are similar, that's why i am allowed to compare reviews. Both Garfield movies have similar negative reviews and yet the Garfield 2 article has the "Like it's predecessor" line. How come that come that could he allowed, but not the Inside Out 2 article? It just doesn't make sense. Sometimes you just make hypocritical statements when it comes to Wikipedia's articles. And I just hate that. SuperSuperSonic208 (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It adds no value to the article is why it doesn't belong. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I know, but both movies have similar reception. That's all im trying to explain. And your still not making any sense sometimes. SuperSuperSonic208 (talk) 04:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It is obvious what you want in the article. Other editors, myself included, don't think it adds anything of value to add that comparison to the lead section particularly when it isn't mentioned or sourced anywhere else in the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Your still not giving me the actual reason how is it not value. Clearly it's considered value because both films have similar reception. But no, your just like it's not supposed the same. Clearly it is. Just stop. SuperSuperSonic208 (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

And clearly the guideline does not say that you also can't compare movies from the same franchise with similar reception. SuperSuperSonic208 (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, on that topic, why are you always so strict many times when it comes to Wikipedia articles? Your acting like there not supposed to be the same. Cleary they can. SuperSuperSonic208 (talk) 05:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2024

Robertd789 (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC) I can't edit the article of Inside Out 2, but he is a protected article, another articles are protected or semi-protected,

You really can't edit a protected page if you don't have a user access level like Autoconfirmed. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 22:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Box office records

Can someone include that the filme because the highest grossing of all time in Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Chile, and Uruguay? Source: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2024-07-17/inside-out-2-box-office-records 177.25.197.247 (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

What's going on with the plot?

Whoever entered the plot of the film into Wikipedia needs to fix it. Why does the last sentence mention characters from the Transformers franchise and Riley being eaten by a monster? Zircon 72 (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)  Fixed (vandalism). Thanks.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

More reviews from critics

Hello, I am here because I see that the Critical response section, although this one, I see that it is missing some reviews from professional critics such as The Guardian, BBC, Empire, CBR, Los Angeles Times, Deadline and etc. If the section is not there, nothing could be expanded further, so I ask the users @Nyxaros: and @Mushy Yank: to please update that section to comply with this type of article as it should. 2801:1CA:E:1411:62C:D6C:9D57:C071 (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I don't mind adding more reviews to the section. But can you select or determine what you wish to extract from them or the way you want to group them (mixed: BBC and LAT and positive: the rest; or: theme; focus; approach?). If it's to add reviews with the idea of adding all existing reviews, I am not sure it's necessary nor recommended; the film has received plenty of reviews all over the world, and even in English only, there are reviews from South African, Irish, Australian or NZ media, and so on, so it won't be possible to add them all. If other users want to add all of those you listed and kindly linked, I am really not opposed, though, and feel free. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mushy Yank: I was just saying that about the reviews to further complete the section, as it seems a bit weak in my opinion. Take for example the articles The Super Mario Bros. Movie, Barbie and Oppenheimer and you will see that their "Reception" sections are much more complete and have the sources to mention as a reference. And regarding how I want to integrate it into the article, I suggest that you review the sources and see what information you can include to make the article much more complex. What do you think? 2801:1CA:E:1411:35BD:515F:D133:85CB (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I might not have time to review and decide what to include from them. I'll group them in 2 sets, positive and mixed. Cheers, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

(and 1 negative, of course) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done if anyone wants to make things finer and more complex or differently, feel free, thanks.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mushy Yank: Thank you for your pornelas but I would like to see you delve deeper into the references to see if there is a positive or negative review. You can also add a little more from sources such as IGN, EW, Forbes, Total Film to complement the No More section a little, I'm just asking you for that and I won't bother you again. 2801:1CA:E:1411:D004:A56A:6C66:229A (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done but not the Forbes article, that cites sources already quoted in the article. And EW in Production section, not reception. I don't know what Pornelas are, nor what you refer to as the No More section but I did my best. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: FYI, I reverted a revision which included a duplicate source + a source citing this Wikipedia article. ภץאคгöร 17:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, the IGN citing WP was a bad copy-paste but the IGN article might be added. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Is this a sports film?

The plot centers around an ice hockey camp according to the Plot section, but the lead sentence solely describes IO2 as a coming-of-age film. Both 2024 in film and List of highest-grossing sports films currently call Inside Out 2 a sports movie, but I personally haven't found a RS that describes it like this. So do we consider Inside Out 2 to be one?

It's also 2AM where I'm at, so if this is a silly question and there's a definitive answer then I shall see some fish in my future. MooseMike (talk) 09:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I would say it can be considered a sports film, yes. It is not a silly question at all, I find. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC) (Here's a source: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5562404/2024/06/14/kendall-coyne-schofield-inside-out-2-womens-hockey/)

The highest-grossing animated movie of all time

‘Inside Out 2’ becomes highest-grossing animated movie of all time. https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/24/business/inside-out-2-highest-grossing-animated-movie/index.html#:~:text=That's%20after%20movie%20sequel%20%E2%80%9CInside,according%20to%20Disney%20on%20Wednesday. , https://variety.com/2024/film/box-office/inside-out-2-highest-grossing-animated-film-history-1236079442/, I would add this information myself, but this page is semi-protected. Please include this information in the page. Wffmiysa (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

It's already mentioned. Just read the intro.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC): Clarification: mentioned as 2nd highest-grossing (above Frozen but not Lion King 2019 considered an animated film (see note d; that could be clearer in the intro though).

Thhis information wasn't in the box office section. I checked the history, this information was added after my comment, not before. Wffmiysa (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome.... You added your request today (25 July) at 1:04 AM (GMT), the information was there on and off (either 3d/2nd or top) yesterday (24 July). I call this before, not after..... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Resolved

Only the US version is about hockey

This article describes a film about a teenager going to hockey camp. That is only true in the US. Elsewhere the movie is about football / soccer. I suggest it should be amended to conform to the experience of most people in the world, and reference how the movie has a hockey theme in the US version.

Here's one of a million references one could cite.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/assiletoufaily/2024/06/07/disneys-upcoming-movie-inside-out-2-joins-uefas-playmakers-programme/ Echoswamp (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

No the movie is about ice hockey not footfall that article says they are using the film to promote girls football in Europe

I saw it in the europe and it is ice hockey.

You probably think of the first film when Bill is daydreaming about Ice Hockey in the us release but football in Europe Fanoflionking3 (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I just saw a few European trailers, and it is indeed Hockey.CRBoyer 19:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2024

What is the point of the last paragraph talking about the post-credits scene where the Deep Dark Secret reveals Riley's secret to joy? It doesn't tell a part of the main story and was merely put in for laughs. I say we should take it out. 2603:6010:8B00:44FF:C167:1105:A40F:366F (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done But not by me...GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Inside out 2 dvd release home entertainment name mistake

It’s supposed to be Sony Pictures Home Entertainment from now on as the new home media dvd distributor instead of Disney 2A04:4A43:862F:F6E5:75B7:9963:9F5F:3660 (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Say something 2A04:4A43:862F:F6E5:6D7A:5038:B04A:5F9E (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

New article

Does anybody want to help out with Draft:List of box office records set by Inside Out 2 P+T

Fanoflionking3 (talk) 07:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey can someone edit this?

On the page, it mentions Riley having a panic attack. This isn't true, it is an Anxiety attack (I put capital A in Anxiety because Anxiety (character) causes this). Can someone please fix this? Sleepyfellow03 (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm asking because I can't find the edit button, dispite my account having existed for over a month now Sleepyfellow03 (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The edit button is at the top right corner, next to the appearence menu (if enabled) 2405:201:402E:6800:1D22:4401:62E1:EB1B (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Create your own article for Anxiety

Hello, I came here to ask if I could write an article about the character of Anxiety. Since she is an important character in the movie and a lot of media has talked about her, it would be good to create her own article for the character. What do you say 2801:1CA:E:1411:62C:D6C:9D57:C071 (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

General reply

Read Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Or ask at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fictional_characters. Or read examples about particular characters, and why some users think they are notable and others don't, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements.

About Anxiety in Inside Out;

There is (a LOT) of coverage about anxiety in the film (the topic): https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/14/well/mind/inside-out-2-anxiety.html https://www.npr.org/2024/06/19/1198910281/inside-out-2-pixar-anxiety-puberty-psychologyIs https://variety.com/2024/artisans/news/inside-out-2-riley-anxiety-attack-1236047028/ https://theconversation.com/inside-out-2-this-fresh-sequel-shows-teenage-anxiety-is-not-always-a-bad-thing-232409 https://www.deseret.com/entertainment/2024/06/13/inside-out-2-review-anxiety/ and so on....

Is there coverage about Anxiety, the character? yes but less: https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/14/opinions/inside-out-2-anxiety-pixar-berlatksy/index.html https://www.indiewire.com/features/animation/inside-out-2-anxiety-panic-attack-pixar-1235016558/

Are both the same thing? Tricky. The character is a depiction of the emotion. So, can you start Anxiety (Inside Out 2)? Maybe. I am not completely sure.

At the moment, the franchise has only 1 page for a character Joy (Inside Out). Not even Riley has one. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mushy Yank: I think that he has enough notoriety for a fictional character, since it is known that he was originally going to be a dinosaur and this article explains how Maya Hawke got the role. So if you want to create the article I would greatly appreciate it. 152.200.176.43 (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey, you can create the article yourself. New editors are welcome. JSYK, CBR is not a reliable source. ภץאคгöร 19:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Why is CBR not a reliable source? Well, I don't see it that way since their articles are written by professionals in the sector. Please explain your reasons. 2801:1CA:E:1411:62C:D6C:9D57:C071 (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Replying to 152.200.176.43: No, I don't want to create the article and will not. 2801:1CA:E:1411:62C:D6C:9D57:C071 said they were considering doing so. Not I.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mushy Yank: I'll probably do it, but if someone else wants to do it, I have no problem. 152.200.176.43 (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I would create the article but unfortunately I don't have the time to do it so I call the users @EJS524:, @Nyxaros:, @Ben76266: and @Buh6173: to see if they would be interested in creating the article. 2801:1CA:E:1411:62C:D6C:9D57:C071 (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It's been a while and nobody has deigned to create the article. I ask users @EJS524:, @Nyxaros:, @Ben76266:, @Buh6173:, @98Tigerius: and @Filmgoer: to please create the page. I'm not saying this to be hasty, but I wanted to know if you're going to do it. 2801:1CA:E:1411:2802:A432:78CA:9EE4 (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

It's been two weeks and nobody has created the article about the character, and the truth is a shame since he already has too much information and sources to be notable here on Wikipedia. So that's why I call on users @EJS524:, @Nyxaros:, @Ben76266:, @Buh6173:, @98Tigerius:, @Filmgoer: and @Fanoflionking3:, to please create the article. 2801:1CA:E:1411:62C:D6C:9D57:C071 (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

As I be ping I am having my say

Before we give anxiety a page I would look at sadness and Riley Andersen as possible character pages

Fanoflionking3 (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Fanoflionking3: I came to ask if you are interested in creating the anxiety article, because I see that with the sources that are on these same pages it meets the parameters of notoriety for a fictional character. So what do you think of the idea? 2801:1CA:E:1411:7571:318:9173:BD64 (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I am busy with the box office records by inside out 2 draft once that is done i see what i am working in next i would appreciate help on it just to get done then i can move on to something else. Fanoflionking3 (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Fanoflionking3: So if you can't do it I'll tell another user to do it, like the following @And1987:, @Filmgoer: and @ThomasO1989:, to create the article. 2801:1CA:E:1411:BC4E:11BE:D31:294B (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. It's been over a month since you opened this topic. It's better at this point to do the work yourself if you want it so badly. ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

What is your obsession with anxiety, and what have we done to you? All I said I making another inside out article and i once i finished i see what i want to next and as ThomasO1989 said if you want it done that badly do it yourself looking at your edit history you seam to only use it to demand other users with actual accounts to do what you want done and when they do not do it you get angry.

I would of had looked at her but as you keep demanding I do not fell like it now. i will still try to finish the box office records by Inside Out 2 and once that done I will move on to do something else Fanoflionking3 (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

If you really want to do it I started a draft for you see Draft:Anxiety (Inside Out) you can edit it as much as you want than submit it when you feel happy about itFanoflionking3 (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Fanoflionking3: First, an apology for my two previous messages (which I deleted by the way) is that I felt a little frustrated that no one did it, but I promise I won't be persistent again. Now I've reviewed the Draft and put some sources that were here. I'll probably do it or who knows, in any case I've already put the sources for how to start with this article. For the rest, I think that would be all. 2801:1CA:E:1411:62C:D6C:9D57:C071 (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)