Talk:Winchester (film)

	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 Australian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Horror Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Could use poster

Posters for the film have been released. I think somebody should put one up. Im in no hurry to myself. TheMovieGuy (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception section

TropicAces, why are you choosing to revert rather than discuss the content? (1) You're now edit warring. (2) I asked in the edit summary for you to go to the talk page of the article - did you? (No, you did not - you reverted instead). (3) If you want to argue WP:UNDUE, why are there three negative reviews in the critical reception section with great detail and only a snippet of a fairly good review with many other positive things to say as a result of your edits? You've got some 'splainin' to do, Lucy. Thanks,-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi I guess I’ll address these in order, seems like best route. (1) I don’t think edit warring constitutes one revert, the actual figure is three in 24 hours if I’m remembering correctly. (2) if I wasn’t tagged, I don’t always look at previous edits to see if I was subtweeted (so to speak haha) (3) there’s not 3 negative reviews in the section, there’s only the one from Variety, which I added after the Ebert post. So to have all the review aggregators say it got poor reviews from critics, only to have one of two reviews be an elongated positive one would be counter-productive. It’s like if the lone review in Dunkirk's article was a negative one. Hope this clears up some of the confusion, not trying to cause an edit war or be passive aggressive or anything. Cheers! TropicAces (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)tropicAces[reply]

Sorry, I don't buy your explanation. Reverting twice without any attempt at discussion after discussion has been suggested is edit warring. You are insisting on keeping the critical reception section unbalanced and heavily weighted toward negative criticism, limiting the positive review points. That's WP:UNDUE. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]