Talk:Pete's Dragon

Page Moved

After the move of Pete's Dragon to Pete's Dragon (1977 film) by @Sheldon.andre:, the resulting redirect was then converted into a dab page by this anonymous user. Unfortunately, he/she didn't bother to fix all the links that assumed Pete's Dragon linked- or redirected- to the 1977 film article.

The page move without the disambiguation was (IMHO) a little half-baked and pointless, but didn't break anything, thanks to the redirect. Unfortunately, the conversion into a dab page *did*, even if it probably seemed like an improvement to the anonymous editor who carried it out.

Personally, I'd rather it had been left until the process had been carried out completely, but I'll not bother reverting it now. Unfortunately, I don't have the time or the inclination at this point to bulk-fix these links myself.

Thanks in advance for anyone who wants to do this!

Ubcule (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion to full article undone

I notice that an anonymous user tried converting the disambiguation page to a fully-fledged article. Unfortunately, this is completely unnecessary and overlaps the subject matter already covered by the Pete's Dragon (1977 film) and Pete's Dragon (2016 film) articles.

If someone wants to make the case that both films should be covered by a single article- rather than having them separate- they could raise the issue here, but I suspect most people would disagree. Having *both* combined and separate articles is overkill, and generally not how we'd do things in comparable cases.

(If there were numerous films and other media incarnations, there might be a case for an overarching summary article, but I don't feel that's the case here).

Perhaps @2001:1388:1445:187b:4126:5172:13dd:a19a: and @2001:1388:1444:cf9:a9a1:55:cda9:9dea:- assumed to be the same person, who created the combined article- would like to voice their opinion on the matter?

Ubcule (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional; the joint/summary article appears to consist primarily (exclusively?) of selected material taken from the child articles, so I haven't bothered attempting to recombine any of it. Ubcule (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of original "short story" as "primary topic"

@Knowledgekid87:; I've reverted the changes made here. These give undue prominence to an (originally unpublished) short story which doesn't have its own article, and primarily owes its notability- if any- to being the basis of the film.

I'd question whether it even warrants the redirect-to-section entry I've added here, as I'm not entirely convinced it's notable separate from the film it became any more than countless other stories or ideas that formed the basis of films without having any prior fame or identity in their own right.

Ubcule (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]