Talk:John Wick

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Wick article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find video game sources: "John Wick" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

Archives: 1: 12 months

Media franchises Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Media franchisesWikipedia:WikiProject Media franchisesTemplate:WikiProject Media franchisesmedia franchise articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Cinema / Television Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force.

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Television: American Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American television task force.

Comics Low‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Gilman Louie (1 participant)
Yoshimitsu (1 participant)
Dr. Wily (2 participants)
First Internet Backgammon Server (2 participants)
Emote (2 participants)
Stardew Valley Guidebook (2 participants)
Train simulator (disambiguation) (8 participants)
Preston Arsement (4 participants)
Jackpot World (3 participants; relisted)
Melee (game terminology) (6 participants; relisted)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (7 participants; relisted)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (7 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Requested move 24 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.

It was proposed in this section that John Wick be renamed and moved to John Wick (franchise).

result:
Procedural close. This request conflicted with the request at Talk:John Wick (film) and will be integrated into that request. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 02:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move logs: source title · target title

This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

John Wick → John Wick (franchise) — The name of the franchise should require a parenthetical, not the first film. — ScottSullivan01 (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support that the franchise needs a parenthetical only. John Wick should lead to the disambiguation page for John Wick Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Film has been notified of this discussion. -- ZooBlazer 00:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Media franchises has been notified of this discussion. -- ZooBlazer 00:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is something I've been meaning to bring up for a while, so I'm glad someone finally did. -- ZooBlazer 00:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close. There's a related RM currently ongoing at Talk:John Wick (film)#Requested move 24 February 2024. But also strong oppose, per my comments there. This would be highly unconventional and unnecessary. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, speedy-close this and merge this proposal into the existing RM. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:John Wick (film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Blonde cross-over

At various times I have adjusted the sentences listed in this section of the article. Despite this, they continue to be reverted stating that the source doesn't say what I have adjusted the sentences to include. Here is why I am bringing this to the talk-page.

In 2017, ScreenRant asked David Leitch if the female assassin would ever cross-over with John Wick (as he has previously co-directed John Wick). Leitch's response is: "It would be great! I get this question once in a while, and I think it’s just more their time period lines. I would absolutely do it. Maybe there’s a time we see versions, or there’s uh, you know, the other real fantasy is that maybe there’s a project with both, that a new idea. You know, that Charlize and Keanu could..., a story that we could have with the same action space and we can see them either partner up or go toe to toe." -- I have many times paraphrased this entire paragraph acknowledging that 1) Leitch likes the idea, 2) It's something that's been considered, and 3) He'd like to see the pair of characters meet in a cross-over.
In November 2024, MovieWeb conducted an interview with Leitch, where they asked for updates on Atomic Blonde and the potential cross-over. This discussion begins at 10:30 and lasts until 11:51. MovieWeb asks about a sequel to Atomic Blonde as well as the cross-over. Leitch responds with: "I would love to. I think there's been a lot of roadblocks with Atomic Blonde when it comes to the rights issues and I can't speak to all of it, but: who controls it and at some point it got really top-heavy with producers and its been hard to figure out a way to unwind all that and make a sequel at a place that wants to make it happen. But again it's a world I'm so proud of, and a character that I'm so proud to have created with Kelly, and with Charlize. I love that film, and I love the '80s. So would I love to go back? 1000%! Crossover, again because of all the producers involved, it just became a gnarled mess when we started to think about it. But, it's fun to think about." MovieWeb responded with stating there were too many cooks to make it happen, and Leitch responded with "yeah". -- as I have added this source, I acknowledged again that Leitch stated: 1) Yes they tried to figure it out, 2) The situation with producers that was the same issue with the sequel is what has prevented it, and 3) Leitch still likes the idea.

Recently, one editor made an accusation that my edits were "unsourced or poorly sourced" by including these facts^. This discussion is intended to determine what details should be included in this portion of the current article. I don't believe at all that I have misrepresented the details. As-is, the form it keeps getting reverted back to is a non-detailed sentence as "Leitch said that it was "fun to think about" -- without any of the context that he gives us in this interview. I'd like to know the understanding of other editors.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeatedly included the line The filmmaker expressed interest in such a project, stating that it would require a noteworthy script. ScreenRant says nothing about a script, much less Leitch stating that a particular type of script was required. Beyond that clear misuse of the source, you continue to write--in wikivoice--that Leitch expressed interest in a crossover instead of more accurately representing the source that when asked about a crossover, he responded with a reaction that the idea was great. At least that is slightly better than your previous verbiage of everyone involved had discussed the possibility, and that they would do so once a good enough story had been developed, which had no basis in reality.
None of the text you included here from MovieWeb is relevant (since it's not about a crossover), and Leitch makes explicitly clear when he is talking about an Atomic Blonde sequel and when he's talking about a crossover. Leitch makes only two statements about a crossover at 11:33: "because of all the producers involved, it became a gnarled mess when we started to think about it. But it's fun to think about" (emphasis mine). You have included text stating that discussions...have occurred despite a complete lack of source support, and that internal situations...had delayed any movement despite the best the source states being that they never got past "start[ing] to think about it", without any clear indication of who the "we" thinking about it in this case even includes.
Your editing to this page reveals numerous other instances of source misrepresentation. This edit is particularly damning in terms of the sheer amount of problematic text added, in which you falsely claimed the source stated there were ongoing discussions about an Atomic Blonde crossover, falsely claimed about a Nobody crossover that the source stated Ilya Naishuller pointed out that 87North Productions is involved in both franchises, and falsely claimed about a Sofia film that the source stated Berry confirmed that there are ongoing discussions for her to reprise the role. These statements attributed to the sources are all entirely made up.
There is no talkpage discussion to be had about whether it's okay to claim sources state things they don't state. This is the sort of thing that gets editors indeffed from Wikipedia. I've been reverting to text that actually is supported by the provided sources and have withheld raising this at ANI, but continually edit warring this back in is disruptive. This is not a content issue; this is a conduct issue. Grandpallama (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm going to ping NinjaRobotPirate to this discussion, because I just realized you've been repeatedly warned about sourcing in the past, and I also just learned this has been going on at articles beyond just the John Wick-related ones. Grandpallama (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]