Jump to content

Talk:Man of Steel (film)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Reader feedback: This page needs a picture of...

98.234.36.223 posted this comment on June 6, 2013 (view all feedback).

This page needs a picture of the cover to the soundtrack of the film in the "Music" section.

The soundtrack for Man of Steel is a separate article where the cover of the album is available.

tausif(talk) 07:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be more relevant for this article to have File:Man of Steel Soundtrack Cover.jpg instead of File:Hans Zimmer 2010.jpg. Both pictures are in Man of Steel (soundtrack). Thoughts? GoingBatty (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
One is free, and the other is not. In addition, we already have a poster image, which serves the "for visual representation" criteria for the article. We cannot justify an image of the album cover.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

World engine

The plot currently includes: "a terraforming "world engine" to transform Earth into a new Krypton". This isn't "terraforming", it's actually the opposite. (Anti-terraform? Kryptoform? Ugh.) I suggest just delete the word and link, it adds nothing except an incorrect buzzword. 202.81.243.184 (talk) 07:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that the word is used incorrectly, Professor Hamilton uses the word "terraforming" when the dumb broad Captain asks "what's that?"129.139.1.75 (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Good God. Since it is wrong by definition, if included at all it should be as a quote, not in editorial text as it is now. Which would be more attention than it needs; it's still better to just delete it and avoid a tedious explanation of why it's wrong. But I can anticipate some will cite the script as a redefinition of the word. 202.81.243.184 (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. I would think that deleting the word would be ok, since "world engine" in quotes implies it's lifted from the dialogue, and the rest of the sentence gives a reader an idea of what a "world engine" in the film does. Would removing the word but creating a wikilink to "terraforming" through "world engine" work? I know technically it would be linking a page describing the opposite of what is described in the film/article but might help readers understand the concept. SoSaysChappy (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

In the context of science fiction, Terraforming is the process to make a planet more hospitable for a different species/lifeform. In this case, the use of terraforming is correct as the device in the film is mentioned that the device is terraforming earth and earlier in the film Jor El mentions the purpose of the World-Engine - which I believe was to make the worlds more hospitable. - Or words to that effect. So the use of terraforming is correct. -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

"Terraforming is the process to make a planet more hospitable for a different species/lifeform." No, it is not. Where is your source for this redefinition? There is no vague "lifeforms" in the WP definition, it's about making a planet more suitable for humans -- "Terra" == Earth. The terraforming article defines it as the process of making a planet "similar to the biosphere of Earth" and "habitable by humans". To describe a process that makes the Earth uninhabitable to humans as "terraforming" is the exact opposite. If you really want to link to an article about the concept more general terms like planetary engineering could be used correctly. But these buzzwords, correct or not, are unnecessary in the plot description anyway, the rest of the sentence explains just what is happening, which is not terraforming. 202.81.243.184 (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
If we keep the link to terraforming, people who click on it will see the second paragraph in the lead of that article says "The term is sometimes used more generally as a synonym for planetary engineering, although some consider this more general usage an error." Therefore, I say keep it in. GoingBatty (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
So you think we should validate the incorrect usage rather that use a link to say planetary engineering? (If we must have a link at all, I don't think it helps.) Also I have yet to see any citations to this "more general" usage. Just an unsourced assertion by some WP editor. Surely an encylopedia should aim to use the most correct and exact words rather than looking for excuses to allow incorrect usage. 202.81.243.184 (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
If you ask a general citizen what a terraforming device is, it fits the definition in which it is used currently. Whilst it might be technically incorrect, it is widely accepted as usable (just as IC code is used despite being a tautology).  drewmunn  talk  14:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
It's not a tautology. That is repetition, this is using a word to mean its opposite. Being redundant is inelegant, this is just wrong. Let's just define "inflammable" as "unable to be burnt" as there are some people who believe that. Why worry about correct use of language in an encyclopaedia? Let's just take a vote on what the man in the street thinks to decide matters of fact. 202.81.243.184 (talk) 06:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
This seems like a lot of debate about something insignificant. Dr. Hamilton said it was like terraforming to provide an image for the person asking the question, he wasn't using it as the actual definition of what was happening...probably because there isn't an equivalent hypothetical name for turning Earth into Krypton. At the end of the day, the theory behind terraforming is exactly what Zod did, except he was doing it TO Earth and not in the image of Earth. Thus, it's correct to use it this way, because we are not identifying it as the name of what he did, but providing an illustration of what he did.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
There IS a name for the process in the film: planetary engineering. Use that if you must have a link to an article about the concept. The word teraforming is not "correct", it's opposite in meaning to what is happening. And of course it's insignificant. 99% of arguments here are. 202.81.243.184 (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • As people seem so emotionally attached to ensuring the correct use of "terraforming" is its only use, may I suggest this alternative:
Zod reveals that he intends to use the world engine, a planetary engineering device he recovered from a Kryptonian outpost, to transform Earth into a new Krypton...
Zod reveals that he intends to use the world engine, a planetary engineering device, to transform Earth into a new Krypton and use the codex to replace humanity with genetically-engineered Kryptonians.
I'm fairly happy with that, as it also shows where he got it.  drewmunn  talk  06:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
PS: Just done a minor cleanup to the summary and added my proposal in there (commented out) so it can be altered quickly if no concerns are raised.  drewmunn  talk  06:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I should have stated in my initial post that I believe it's important to clarify what a "world engine" is. I support drewmunn's suggestion as being better than using "terraforming". Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
First off, in the film the scientist clearly says Terraforming. Secondly to me, a non scientist, when it comes down to it, they are both one and the same thing to the average reader. Regardless if one floating editor disagrees with the definition. Especially when it is the job of the plot summery in line with MOS:FILM, to put things as simply as possible. -- MisterShiney ✉ 17:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
So, Mr Shiney insists on using "terraforming" despite the clear consensus above. Let's be "simple" and completely wrong. It's only an encylopedia. Why worry about using the correct word? Just use the one that sounds coolest. Anyway, I restored the text to the consensus as above. "Terraforming" is a real word and has a real meaning that does not apply to what is seen in the film. 202.81.242.22 (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
That's a very PA-ey comment. Shiney's making his views clear, and he's perfectly entitled to do that. He's also correct in that a change should not be made until it has been agreed to. The process for editing without consensus (WP:BRD) has been followed, so we're in discussion currently, and it's not suitable for individual editors to make changes to the article before an outcome has been reached here.  drewmunn  talk  16:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Personal attack? How about "Regardless if one floating editor disagrees", and which is also untrue since at least two others disagreed? The discussion ended here on 21 June, with the consensus, supported by at least you, me, GoingBatty to change the word to "planetary engineering". A week later, I saw the debate had concluded and I made the edit accordingly. Do we need 100% unanimity before any change can be made? 202.81.242.22 (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you view the correct word to be. The point is, they are one and the same by definition. It is DIRECTLY referenced in the film as terraforming (it doesn't matter that it's what it's called when humans do it as opposed to aliens) it is exactly the same as planetary engineering and quite frankly that is what most readers will see it as and understand it as. Especially when that is what the characters in the film call it. You do not yet have the consensus for the change so please do not revert it until you either do or new information comes to light. But I can tell you now, as the film directly references/explains it as terraforming, as well as the definitions/explanation being practically the same, I do not see the consensus changing. At the end of the day it is the simplest way of explaining what happened in the film and per Manual of Style, that is what is to be included. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

They are NOT "one and the same by definition." . Terraforming is one specific type of planetary engineering, but not the one that is used here. While people may understand what is meant, it is despite this abuse of the word. The word is at best unnecessary, at worst confusing. This is equivalent to, say, describing a helicopter as an airplane rather than the more inclusive aircraft, because the word "airplane" seems simpler. Wikipedia should strive to be "simple". But not wrong. 202.81.242.22 (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
So... Curiosity (rover) uses the word "terrain" 5 times, which is similarly derived from "terra". Interestingly enough, I asked a friend who studied Latin what "terra" meant, and their reply was "land". On research, it has dual meanings, only one of which is spefic to our planet, and the primary being "land" over "Earth".  drewmunn  talk  07:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
So... what? The word "terraform" wasn't made up for the movie, and there is need to speculate about what it might mean as if it was a nonce word. It's been a word for 60 years, with a clear definition and origin. Is some random friend's definition more relevant than the Oxford Dictionary?

terraform (especially in science fiction) transform (a planet) so as to resemble the earth, especially so that it can support human life. Origin: 1940s: from Latin terra 'earth' + the verb form.

Oxford Dictionary

At the risk of being boring, the "world engine" is doing the EXACT OPPOSITE to this. It is incorrect to use it in descriptive prose. 202.81.242.22 (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
It is the one that is directly quoted in the film. It is clearly the one used here. -- MisterShiney ✉ 17:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I see no direct quotes in the text we are discussing. I see text including some words from the film without any attribution or quotemarks. The text has no authority as a "direct quote". 202.81.242.22 (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it should stay on merit that it was mentioned in the film, I'm trying to provide a rationale for the "it means Earth" collective.  drewmunn  talk  17:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Having read through this, and the relevant section, I'm also coming down on the "keep" side. As the writers of the film may have incorrectly defined the term, it's not up to us as reporters of the sources to try and re-write their efforts, especially as we're talking about science fiction here. Perhaps a piped link to a more accurate definition would suffice? - SchroCat (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
If it was a quote from the script, and presented as such, it would of course be appropriate to use the word. But it isn't, it's in Wikipedia's editorial voice. Anyway, the term made up by the film is "world engine" and the sentence here is trying to explain this, and is made up by Wikipedia editors. The plot description It is supposed to explain what is happening, not find excuses to work in buzzwords from the script. 202.81.242.22 (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I had a look at the film. This is the dialogue in the relevant scene:

'"They're terraforming."
"What's that?"
"Planetary engineering: modifying earth's atmosphere and topography."
"And turning Earth into Krypton."

Man of Steel, at approx 1:44

So, the argument that we should -- must -- use the word "terraforming" rather than "planetary engineering" regardless of logic because the former "was mentioned in the film" is bogus. Both terms are mentioned. What we have is a "world engine" -- name made up for the movie, "terraforming" -- real word used incorrectly in the movie, and "planetary engineering" -- real term used correctly in the movie. So why are we choosing the incorrect term to explain "world engine" rather than the correct one? I think we don't need either term, but if we have to choose one, it must be planetary engineering, which is (executive summary:) 1) correct and 2) used in the script. 202.81.242.22 (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

WP: COMMONNAME, a pomme de terre isn't an apple of the Earth either, people understand that terraforming is modifying a planet, the information is conveyed succinctly and broadly which is what we want, that it should be caleld Kryptoforming or some other ridiculous argument is not an excuse for how long this discussion has rolled on. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
No one is saying it should be "Kryptoforming". The correct term is "planetary engineering". Which is simple, succinct, correct, was used in the film, and has a Wikipedia article. 202.81.242.22 (talk) 00:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Because Terraforming is the common name for what is going on in the film that a majority of readers will understand so per WP:COMMONNAME that is what is used. Especially when that is how it is described in the film. I also believe that your quote is mixed up. I am 95% sure that Terraforming is mentioned AFTER they mention engineering. -- MisterShiney ✉ 18:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not a "common" word in any sense; but more importantly not in the backward sense you want to use it. As for the dialogue, that is a quote. It's verbatim. I thought using the quote template made it crystal clear. You think I just made it up? Did I also just make up the Oxford Dictionary definition of "terraforming" you ignore also? I verified the dialogue against the primary source. Google can find it in a second if you doubt. Secondary sources such as the transcribed subtitles found e.g. at Opensubtitles agree. In any case, it is a fact that planetary engineering is in the script. Yet you insist on using the incorrect term terraforming in preference and deleted the correct term. Why? 202.81.248.184 (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Please read the policy. You will see that we refer to the "Common Name" of what is happening. It may well be Planetary Engineering, but the "Common Name" for the process, that the average reader will understand, is Terraforming. You appear to be breaking down the basic definition of the word and ignoring what it actually means, which, by definition, is the same as Planetary Engineering. Or, if you look at the Wiki Article, a process of Planetary Engineering (still going to be the same thing).
Please re read my comment. You will note that I did not say you made it up, just that you may have been incorrect in your order of the conversation/quote. Oh and when my Anti Virus comes up with a warning about visiting the site, I will not be visiting it. Especially when I do not think that it is reliable enough. -- MisterShiney ✉ 17:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Guys, I have to point out that WP:COMMONNAME is about titling articles...not about what term we use in articles. Flyer22 (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Re this "common name" argument: as Flyer22 points out, it is irrelevant here. "Common names" are about using words that people might search for to find articles. Not excuses to use the wrong words in articles. And you have simply asserted this is the "common name" for this extremely uncommon process without any proof. I've cited the definition of the word. I've cited the script, verbatim. I excerpted the scene from from the subtitles and verified them against the actual film. The dialogue is exactly as I have said. Anyone can download a low quality copy of the film and verify this. (Of course, this can't be formally cited, but it is proof nonetheless.) You, on the other hand, find excuses not to look at any facts, dictionaries, online subtitles, and bring no citations of your own, just disparaging the facts I carefully cited as "unreliable" because ... someone told you it was dangerous. Thus proving to you that whatever I say must be "unreliable".
As for any "viruses" at Opensubtitles, what does Norton safeweb say : "Total threats on this site: 0". Or Trend Micro: "The latest tests indicate that this URL contains no malicious software and shows no signs of phishing." But you can find another reason to ignore that, I'm sure.
Back on the real topic: You still insist that Wikipedia must use the wrong word, "terraforming" while a correct term, "planetary engineering", also used in the script is deleted. The word "terraforming" was coined by science fiction writer Jack Williamson in his story "Collision Orbit". He used the word to describe making asteroids more earthlike and thus habitable for humans. That is still what the word means. Not the opposite.
But no one cares about facts, definitions or sources. I'm tired of beating my head against a brick wall. Congratulations, you win, Wikipedia is that much dumber. 202.81.248.184 (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Just as a word of advice, Norton (nor any other anti-virus) is never 100% accurate, and many threats can easily slip though their scans. Such data must always be used in combination with other information as well as common sense.  drewmunn  talk  16:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I used and cited two AV site checkers to find why Mr Shiney's mysterious generically named "Anti Virus" told him it was evil. It's a false positive or nanny software on a paranoid setting. Even if that one site was virus ridden, Google for "man of steel" subtitles and you'll find 15 million hits, several relevant ones on the first page. Subtitles are just plain text files. I extracted the relevant lines above and confirmed them against the soundtrack. But obviously it's a waste of time checking and confirming facts and providing sources here, all I get are odious remarks implying I made it all up. 202.81.248.184 (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The word "deposed" in plot

I immediately thought of lawyer talk when I read the line "The ruling council is deposed by the rebel military leader, General Zod, and his followers. I haven't seen the film yet. Can't someone clarify it, by adding something like, "In a surprise attack, the . . ." 5Q5 (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not too happy with the word myself, but for slightly different reasons; his deposition doesn't work, so it's only "attempted". He kills a few people, goes after Jor-El, and is captured again.  drewmunn  talk  15:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 June 2013

Under "Plot" section, the line '..., Clark takes a job as a reporter at the Daily Planet.' is not correct. Dialogue in the film clearly had Perry White introduce him as their new stringer and requesting the group (of Steve, Lois) to 'show him the ropes'. He was hired as a stringer, not a reporter. There is a difference between those two words.

Helkel (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

 Partly done I've kept it as "reporter", but linked it to Stringer (journalism). As per our setup, "reporter" redirects to "journalist", and "stringer" is a type of journalist/reporter. The manner of his employment is not important to the plot, but for the sake of clarity, the link directs to the specifics.  drewmunn  talk  08:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • A reporter is someone who writes for a newspaper. Stringers do this, they just get paid differently and are easier to get rid of. Most people would be default call the writer of any article in the paper a reporter, and not care if they are a stronger or not. Stringers do the same thing, just get paid differently.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request on 2 July 2013-- Box Office

Request to update the Box Office Gross,I have seen many articles stating that Man of Steel has already passed 520,000,000 dollars to reach 567,000,000 dollar box office, meaning it has been outdated. May need further evidence but still needs to be managed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OnlyOptional (talk • contribs) 04:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Our total is correct according to the source provided, Box Office Mojo. That's the source we use, and sometimes other sources differ, but they are usually not as reliable as the BOM value. Thanks.  drewmunn  talk  06:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
We have to remember this is an encyclopedia not a news service or trivia page. Sometimes data that his rapidly changing will be outdated from time to time. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


Superman's motives

I propose replacing this line: "Superman continues to try to earn the U.S. government's trust, though evading their efforts to uncover his secret identity."

with this line:

"Superman downs a US military drone that was tracking him, and tells the government that, while he wants to help the world, it must be on his own terms."

I think the latter line is more precise, and only a few extra words. I don't want an edit war.Kurzon (talk) 04:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

What does the drone matter? It's an unnecessary detail, and your wording is really just a restating of the dialogue in the film. The original sentence encompasses the same meaning, without the detail.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
It is not an excessive detail. And it feels a little less vague than the original line. Perhaps it has too many words for you? Shall I reword my line into something shorter?

"Superman downs a Predator drone that was tracking him, and tells the government that, while he wants to help, it must be on his own terms."Kurzon (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, who cares about the drone, it's not relevant to the overall plot. The point is that the government is trying to spy on him. We're summarizing a film, not just retelling events, which is what you want to do.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
You know, at one point he breaks some handcuffs; I think that needs to be mentioned. ;-)  drewmunn  talk  18:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

56% "Rotten" rating

I've been reverted twice on my attempts to include this. The fact is that the film has a lower rating than Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. That article refers to its 57% rating as "Rotten" and has GA status. Star Trek: The Motion Picture has 44% (admittedly somewhat lower) and that article is FA. Can someone explain to me how blocking out the RT consensus assessment where nearly all Wikipedia articles on mainstream Hollywood films do not is not a violation of NPOV?? 猿丸太夫 10:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what another article has to do with this page. But it refers to the 56% of audiences that liked the film. Being neutral is the precise reason that "Rotten" is not included and should also be removed from any page - GA/FA or not, that mentions it because it is a Peacock word. -- MisterShiney ✉ 11:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Concur with Shiney. Saying it is viewed as "rotten" serves no real meaning. It's RT's personal descriptor, not something universally used, and it is also not a neutral way of presenting the data.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll accept your arguments, but it's not a peacock word. Somewhat the opposite. 猿丸太夫 12:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I think what Sarumaru is trying to say is that Rotten and Fresh are keywords that are used by Rotten Tomatoes. They list every film they aggregate reviews for as one or the other. Man of Steel has a 56% rating on the site, which is under 60%, so they label it as rotten.
From the Rotten Tomatoes wiki page: "If the positive reviews make up 60% or more, the film is considered "fresh" in that a supermajority of the reviewers approve of the film. If the positive reviews are less than 60%, then the film is considered "rotten"."
Of course, I loved the movie, and I think it's absurd that it doesn't have higher ratings. However, the original point was that it is common to include the Rotten Tomatoes' label when citing their rating. On a personal note, I think that the critics that didn't like the film simply didn't have a firm grasp on the Character of Superman. He's been so dumbed down in different media that when you show the complexities of his story, it confuses the critics who simply expected what they already knew. I personally feel that we could leave the "rotten" phrase out, but it would beg the question: Why do so many other movie articles that cite Rotten Tomatoes use the "rotten" or "fresh" phrase.
Not to ramble on, but the way RT gets their rating percentage is skewed too. Using a school grade style for simplicity, if a dozen critics give a movie a C+, essentially a positive review, but eight others give the same film the worst review possible, say an F-, the ratio comes out to 12/8. That means that 60% would have given it a favorable review so it would get a "certified fresh" from Rotten Tomatoes. Now, if you have another film that 11 critics have given an A+ to, and, like Man of Steel, some didn't get it, so they gave it a C- (generally negative), and then a couple didn't like it, you could end up with 11 positive reviews, and 9 not so much giving it a 55% according to RT, and even a 59.9 is considered rotten.184.156.23.123 (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

GA nominee

Why is this article already a GA nominee? It's still running in theatres. Can't we wait a month more till its box office collections are stable? Kailash29792 (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Man of Steel (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jionpedia (talk · contribs) 12:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Will review it over the following days. Regards, ----Jionpedia ✉ 12:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Although the GA review would be eligible only after the film's home video release, (that is when the box office collections become stable) two things that can be added to the article are the controversies surrounding Clark Kent's decision to kill Zod, and the immense destruction caused by them both in the film. (source [1]) ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, there's no harm starting the review now, as the film has ended its run on 19 September (a mere 98 days / 14 weeks). Here are the comments:
  • Every section is perfect. Also made some changes in the text myself.

Final analysis

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
Great job, guys. I have to say, this article has great FA potential! Don't get it delisted. Thanks, ----Jionpedia ✉ 15:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
And especially thanks to Bignole for significantly doing most of the work with regard to building/editing this article, including a steady watch over it to keep unconstructive edits at bay. Flyer22 (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Country of Origin

Are we trying to list the country of origin or simply the countries that helped produce the film? If it's the former, then the UK needs to be removed. If it's the latter, then I guess Canada needs to be added.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at Template:Infobox film/doc which gives the instruction on what to put here and states that "preference is given to reliable databases like BFI, AFI, or Variety". We're not determining anything here, just following the sources. The Lumiere project seems to be addressing the issue with a complicated agenda. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally, we have regular "discussions" about this at the film project. Here's a recent one. As you can see, it's a contentious issue, so following the sources seems to be the best way to go. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I've seen the discussions, they never decide one way or the other what the definition is that we're trying to answer. AFI doesn't list the film at all, and I'm not sure about Variety. Again, the question is what are we listing? If it's who owns the film, then it's American. If it's simply just who helped produce the film, then Canada needs to be listed as well. There is a reliable source that lists Canada. The infobox document doesn't restrict it simply to AFI, BFI, or Variety; they are merely examples of reliable sources.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
We shouldn't be trying to make a definition, we should just follow the sources. I couldn't find it on AFI or Variety either. But even if we do accept the Lumiere source, per the documentation: "If there is a conflict of information in various reliable sources, then list only the common published nations". As the BFI doesn't list Canada, the common published nations in this case are US and UK. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's not a fair argument, because the only place I've seen it ever list the UK is on the BFI source and the Lumiere source. I don't think you can argue that somehow makes it the "commonly published nation". It's largely one place that is listing it. If there were multiple sources listing it, then that would be the case, but we cannot say "it appears in this source, so it's common", and then say "that one appears in that source, but it's not so common". It's cherry picking. One source shouldn't govern what we include when we're supposed to include "most common".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
These sources have been determined as the most reliable. The BFI source is, of the three, the only one available to us at this time. We either follow the sources, or we remove it from the infobox altogether. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Again, those are 3 sources that are used as an example. The project never intended for them to be the only sources to use. The BFI source is the only one listing the UK, and it's one of the only sources I've ever seen list the UK as the country. From our own external links: All Rovi - Only US, MetaCritis - US, GB, CA - The only "common" one is the US, as people cannot decide if they want to include the UK and/or Canada. Maybe it is just better to remove it, but we certainly cannot cherry pick based on 1 source.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
How reliable do we take All Rovi or Metacritic to be for this kind of information? Metacritic takes its information from IMDB, so this isn't reliable. As per the guideline, "preference is given to reliable databases like BFI, AFI, or Variety". If the discussion was about differences between BFI, AFI, and Variety, then we should consider this more seriously, but for now we should follow what the only one of our preferred sources says. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You keep reading the guide as if it says "only these three", when in fact it says "like these". That means these are examples of reliable sources, not the only sources to use. I still think you're placing undue weight on a single source, that so far is the only one saying the UK.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

These three have been used as an example of reliable sources, most likely because they do not include user generated content and as national film institutes (in the case of two of them) can be considered a "gold standard". I'm not sure why you want to dismiss the BFI, but as you yourself have demonstrated, it isn't the only source that you can find that mentions the UK, but the only one that does not mention the UK without also mentioning Canada. I've just checked the databases of the Swedish and Danish film institutes. I'm not sure how reliable their data is, or where/how they obtain it, but they also mention Canada. Say we do use these, if we take the instruction from the infobox to the letter, we should still only use UK and US, as these are the common ones in the sources. However, Canada does seem to feature quite a bit in the sources across the web, so it would seem reasonable to add Canada to the infobox also. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
It plays into how you define "Country". If it's "country of production companies", then you have to include Canada (as we have a reliable source). If it's country of ownership, then it's just the US, because Warner Bros. owns everything. The guideline doesn't make it clear which is the way to define it in the infobox, but if we're choosing the former then we have to acknowledge the sources that include Canada if they are reliable; and it seems that other film institutes recognize Canada is a country of production.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
And this is the ongoing issue. To apply our own criteria is WP:OR - to follow sources is not. --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Which production company that worked on this film is in Canada? || Tako (bother me) || 18:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Third Act Productions is a Canada based production company....which we, for whatever reason, do not have listed in the infobox.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Smallville and Metropolis

The section Plot of the article references Smallville and Metropolis, however none of these are ever mentioned in the movie.

I suggest removal of both terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.113.69 (talk • contribs)

There's a water tower with Smallville written on it, there's a Sears store with Smallville-Kansas written on it, and the military displays show the World Engine landing in Metropolis. DonQuixote (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Oops...

I added, "with the help of a Kryptonian "flash-drive" from the ship that brought him to Earth." I didn't realize I wasn't signed-in.

albabe - The Writer/Artist Formally Known as Al Gordon 20:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Superhero film

Hi. I have a concern about the lead section. As of now, it is mentioned as a "2013 American superhero film" but is listed as being produced in the US and the UK in the info box. Should we change it to a "2013 American-British superhero film"? If there are any objections, please discuss them here. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not an American-British film, it's an American film, but since there were some UK studios involved they were listed. There were other studios involved, in other countries, but for some reason they are not in the infobox. If it's that much of an issue, then American should be removed from the lead.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I see. As I don't think that this is an issue here, I think we should keep "American" for now. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Rotten Tomatoes score

This template was added to this article on 28 July 2013.

Since then, there have been zero updates to this article with relation to this template and its associated bot.

Therefore, I recommend removal of this template from this article.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Now that it's been released on DVD, it's unlikely that the RT stats are likely to change. GoingBatty (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Citation #72 actually links to one of these earn money sites, which surely is against wiki's rules on proper external links? I just can't find my login to contribute properly! lol 88.106.65.127 (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I have removed this link. Thanks. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 23:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
For talk page documentation, this is the link/edit in question. Flyer22 (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Superman's costume

The "Design" section contains sparse information on Superman's costume. Because I have had little to do with the article and do not wish to mess it up, I kindly request someone to expand it with this and this. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

At least a reply would do. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Be bold. Other editors will help proofread/copyedit/fact check/etc. DonQuixote (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Sequel Article

Should the sequel be given its own article now, since filming has begun? Alphius (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Given that it doesn't have a title, and little more is known that what is shown here, I don't think there's a necessity for a breakout article just yet. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Can we have an incubation article for the sequel? This would suffice for the time being. Npabebangin (talk) 07:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm assuming that's a "no". 71.188.16.34 (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Renewed: The sequel section is over six paragraphs long, one of which even states that filming has already started. I think we can reasonably justify a full article at this point.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Except there is not source saying that principle filming has started. They did some quick films of a football time for time reasons. The film was pushed back another year, and isn't even expected until 2016. Given the history of both of these characters having film sequels that start and then stop, I would say no. The fact that there are "6" paragraphs is really more because people are including very minimal announcements, like basic castings. It isn't more than "This actor is going to play this character", or "Zack Snyder is returning". The section is treated more like a news house than an encyclopedia, and contains information that would ultimately be deleted once a film article is actually full functioning. So, it's not really a lot of information. The 'pages' that I've seen created include information unrelated to this sequel.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Grae Drake, editor of Rotten Tomatoes

Earlier the previous hour, I checked back in on this article (except for temporarily with regard to this matter, it's usually no longer on my WP:Watchlist) and saw that the Grae Drake commentary has been removed. So I decided to look in the edit history and see why. It wasn't long before I saw that Norgizfox5041 removed the material on November 8th because it "gives a false notion." I looked further into the edit history and I saw that Norgizfox5041 had previously removed the material, on October 6th, as "too biased." It was restored on October 21st by Kailash29792 because it "was accepted in the GA review."

I don't care much if this content stays or goes, but, Norgizfox5041, do you mind explaining what you mean by "too biased" and "false notion" in this regard? Do you mean that the content makes it seem as though Man of Steel was mostly panned by critics? If so, I don't see how the content is a problem in that regard, considering the review information in the Critical reception before that point. And does anyone else, such as Kailash29792, have anything to state on this matter? Note that this material was originally added by Xfpisher (talk · contribs) in June (as seen here, here and here) and that I tweaked it in July (as seen here). Flyer22 (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Since Drake appears like a notable person and gave his "review" of Man of Steel, the statement may be added back. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Note: Xfpisher re-added material on Grae Drake earlier this hour; I traded that out for the previous version of that material. Flyer22 (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Which is fine. TBH, I couldn't figure out which edit I had to undo, and overall, I felt the new version was an improvement. But no problems with your edit.Xfpisher (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I see the appeal of including this commentary. It almost seems like fandom's attempted counterweight to the critics' lukewarm reception. Not to mention that having it in its own paragraph is a bit too much undue weight. At the very least, could we not shorten it and merge it with the RT information earlier? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I didn't add it as a counterweight, just to be clear--I felt that the editor of Rotten Tomatoes (who was a big booster of the movie, and therefore hardly unbiased) being so upset by the mainly lukewarm critical reception that he made what I believe was an unprecedented move of publicly dissenting from that consensus was worth mentioning. The article still doesn't say that the movie was 'rotten' on RT. But this serves the same general purpose. I think it does merit its own paragraph, simply because it's so unusual for an RT editor to speak out like this.Xfpisher (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
It may be unusual for an RT editor to speak out like that, but it's perfectly normal for a film to recieve this kind of mixed reception. It seems as though that paragraph was meant to serve as an buffer and explanation for the lukewarm reception, as Erik had said, but no explanation is really needed. Some people liked it, others didn't. We can add a hundred other quotes like this to other films with mixed reviews, and those quotes will put the film in either a positive or a negative light, but no middle, because that is what the fans what. Thats just my opinion on the matter, but I'm not going to change it back. I'll let the pros decide.--Norgizfox5041 (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
For the record, I was never trying to say there was anything unusual about a movie getting mixed to negative reviews--certainly not a movie made by Zack Snyder. This is actually one of his better-reviewed efforts. :)Xfpisher (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I removed it too as the title of the article is "critical reception" and the guy is not a critic of any reknown whatsoever. If he's been published somewhere someone correct me. I mean its nice that he has an opinion but its not relevant especially not as the capper or final word in the section. Also his words are practically the opposite of profound as well. AaronY (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
To be perfectly clear on this I wasn't aware of this section or discussion at all and just happened upon this page and it stuck out like a sore thumb to me as well. Its a little jarring in its amateurishness tbh. AaronY (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I directed AaronY to this discussion after I reverted him here. AaronY, we sometimes include non-critics in the Critical reception section, because, really, critics are not the only ones who can be critical of a film (you know the saying "Everyone's a critic"?). For example, see that CinemaScore is included? That stated, looking at the discussion in this section, there is likely WP:Consensus to remove the Grae Drake text. Everyone, keep in mind that WP:Consensus is supposed to be based on the weight of the arguments, not simply headcount. Xfpisher, if WP:Consensus is against you on this, you should go with that sentiment. In the meantime, you could seek some form of WP:Dispute resolution. Flyer22 (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's an objective observation from an editor who just stumbled across this discussion. Well first and foremost, it's only a single sentence, which disqualifies it by most standards as being able to exist as a paragraph. Of course, that's a minor issue. In regards to content, the Drake commentary seems relevant, especially since the comments have been mentioned in at least three sources: Fox Business Channel, ComicBook.com, and The Huffington Post (which is a good read by the way). However, despite being somewhat relevant, the commentary does seem out of place. The previous two paragraphs already illustrate the widespread mixed reaction from notable critics. Drake's comments don't really add any value here in terms of critical analysis. It's one person's opinion that doesn't carry any more weight than the professional critics already mentioned. In fact, it seems to throw the section out of balance, particularly with the position it's been given as the closing sentence. So on that basis I tend to agree with Norgizfox5041. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: The text is currently removed. Flyer22 (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This IP added the content back. Xfpisher, if that IP is you (I don't see who else it could be), then sign in. Flyer22 (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
And BilCat removed it soon after. Flyer22 (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
And here we are again. Flyer22 (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Reverted again. Flyer22 (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

"Mixed reviews"

Okay, I need to debate here. I didn't want to, but since there has been an editing conflict I need to address this. This film in reality (outside Wikipedia), has had people saying that this is the BEST Superman movie and the WORST Superman movie. I feel that the word to describe this film should be "polarizing" due to one half giving the film acclaim and another being strongly negative towards it. Cowik (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Editors can't say that. You would need a secondary source saying that it's "polarizing" (much like "critically acclaimed", "worst movie ever", etc.). DonQuixote (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Man of Steel (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Man of Steel (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Man of Steel (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 10 July 2019

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: no consensus (non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 13:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Man of Steel (film) → Man of Steel (2013 film) – To differentiate from The Man of Steel (1922). Kailash29792 (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Yeah okay but to be honest I don't think that WP:SMALLDETAILS has to work equally in both ways between a tiny obscure article (where it must be applied), and a big article (where WP:SMALLDETAILS can be ignored). 10:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC) In ictu oculi (talk • contribs) or as below:
  • Oppose doubly. There's no indication that the 1922 film is actually called "The Man of Steel" in English, merely that this is the literal translation of the title; the sole reference in the article certainly doesn't, it merely notes the translation. Finally, even if that is the English title, there's a SMALLDETAILS difference to use, which is more compelling when there's a vast gulf in notability. Not even worth a hatnote on this article. In fact, we should probably move the 1922 film to Der Mann aus Stahl, since that's what the sole reference uses for it - I can open a new RM at that article if it'd help. SnowFire (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per SnowFire and In ictu oculi. WP:SMALLDETAILS does apply here, and the difference is enough. Even if it wasn't, this is clearly the primary topic and will be for years to come. Yeah, ignoring those small details, it's a WP:PDAB. So what? Plenty of PDABs have primary topics. Nothing wrong with that. --В²C ☎ 21:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Because readers should not be expected to be familiar with WP:THE, a leading definite article is too small a WP:SMALLDETAIL. Also, there being so many superman films, they are all somewhat ambiguous even to people who think they know the history of them, and the year of a film is tremendously helpful in title recognition. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
This small helpful change will also mean the removal of the hatnotes from both articles. These hatnotes are a curse to readers of screen readers. Precise titling is what benefits readers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • SmokeyJoe, you can be such a drama queen at times! ;-) Reader familiarization with WP:THE is not necessary. In this case almost no one knows of the alternative (1922 film) much less is likely to be looking for it. The rare exception will be guided appropriately by the hatnote. In practice, there is no opportunity for confusion by the ambiguity. --В²C ☎ 20:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I disagree with the last comment that implies the level of precision in an article title is what benefits readers the most. It can be important, but the real benefit readers are looking for, is being directed to the most relevant page. Adding the year doesn't change the fact that there's little to no chance a reader is searching for the 1922 German silent film. A hatnote, whether you like them or not, catches the extremely small percentage that might be. And I couldn't agree with В²C more. This is a perfect example of WP:PDAB, very similar to Alabama (band) vs Alabama (Canadian band). --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Where is the logic there? More information in the title never causes a reader "being sent" to the wrong page. Less information can cause a reader mistakenly choosing the wrong link. I think you are only valuing the most common readers, ignoring the annoyance to a few. Putting in the year is WP:CONSISTENCY, helps the few avoid a mistake, and hinders the majority not in any way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
First of all, we are talking about the search criteria "Man of Steel", which currently leads to a disambiguation page. Both films have clear descriptions there. Alternatively, if someone lands on a search page like this one, they'll see a clear description next to each search result indicating which film is which. It's reasonable to assume that readers will not select the wrong film in either scenario. Secondly, article titles shouldn't be overly precise just for the sake of being so (per WP:PRECISE). It's not good practice to disambiguate more than what's required. I'm also not buying the claim this is a problem or has the potential of being one. The 1922 film barely averages 1 page view per day since its creation. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
First of all? Titles are not about search criteria. Are you confusing "search" with the Go box? I am talking about recognition of links, wikilinks, and downstream links including but not restricted to urls. I'm challenging you on your logic that the better longer title may result in someone going to the wrong page. I don't buy the logic that barely view pages can be ignored, and that if that did fly, then remove the hate note now. The hatnote on the popular page is more of a problem (eg for screen reading) than is the year in the title line. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
The real-world examples I gave were in response to your assertion that a reader might "choose" the wrong link. I don't see evidence in support of that being a problem. I also don't feel compelled to demonstrate how a longer title is problematic. The burden to gain consensus and explain the reasoning behind the move is on the editor(s) supporting the proposal, not the other way around. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Having a hard time understanding how this is any different than what editors typically face across Wikipedia. Let's say an editor wants to link to Apple Inc., the company. How many "casual" editors are going to know they need "Inc." in the link name until they've clicked it and realized their mistake? Not many, and this kind of trial and error is essentially unavoidable. Here, it's hundreds of times less likely to occur, since we're talking about an obscure page with very few page links and views. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. That’s Uneccesary, Listen...Why? Readers Won’t Confuse An Unknown Article (The Man Of Steel (1922)) With A Famous Article (Man Of Steel (Film)), You Know. --Sanhok (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Unlikely to ever have confusion. The 1922 film probably shouldn't even exist. It clearly fails the GNG. This film is so obscure that not even IMDB has plot summary for it. A basic google search of "The Man of Steel 1922 film" still yields results for Superman, or our stub article of a page. As such, it's lack of existence on Wikipedia would solve the naming worry immediately. All that aside, SMALLDETAILS would be appropriate here. Not to mention if you just type "Man of Steel" you get a disambiguous page that lists the 1922 film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Man_of_Steel_(film)/Archive_2&oldid=1023228638"