Talk:Wes Anderson

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

Constant Vandalism, "Mortimer"[edit]

This page is being vandalized with someone constantly adding "Mortimer" as a middle name. This is absolutely not factual information. The user never uses the same IP address but all of the changes are coming from the same area of Illinois. I am a very new user and don't have the knowledge or skills to properly stop this, instead, I find myself reverting the info back all the time.

Can we lock-down that bit on info and make the name unalterable? This has been going on for over a year, there is no way to block or warn the user as they never use the same IP (Sockpuppetry). Can someone please help?--81.64.38.94 (talk) 11:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been semiprotected until January. This means that anonymous editors won't be able to change the article. I hope this addresses your concern. EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This just happened again. While one instance obviously doesn't constitute a pattern, something we should keep an eye on. If it continues an WP:RFPP may be in order. DonIago (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborators/Recurring Collaborators[edit]

If there's a hard-and-fast rule for this that I'm unaware of, I apologize, but is it really necessary to include people who have worked with Wes Anderson only twice on the list of Recurring Collaborators? Yes, they worked together twice, and that makes them recurring, sure. But does that make it significant enough for inclusion?

Unrelated: Again, I'm not familiar with the stylistic conventions here, but should there be a section on Collaborators AND a grid of Recurring Collaborators? It seems redundant.

Viralhyena (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Milena Canonero has worked with Wes Anderson twice, but she's a very significant costume designer. The costume designer before her worked with Wes Anderson on his first three films.--70.178.226.227 (talk) 07:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the "Recurring collaborators" table isn't really necessary. His most important collaborations are mentioned in the prose. The table seems to be mostly trivia rather than encyclopedic information. I'll go ahead and remove it. Kaldari (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone wants to keep the table, please explain why. It's been up for discussion for 3 years, and no one has bothered defending it. Also since this is a BLP, the entries in the table should probably be cited. Kaldari (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that the current version of this chart has been removed. I am not sure what kind of trivia people were complaining about ten years ago, but the chart as it was yesterday was very informative, and reflected a specific trait of the director's modus operandi. I would bring it back.--Megustalastrufas (talk) 10:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All in favour of putting the list back in the article say aye Kirbopher2004 (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose reinserting unless there's a better argument than WP:INTERESTING. I might be persuaded to change my mind if there's sources that have commented on these collaborations. DonIago (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support the reinsertion, that's my vote. Sources would be nice for sure. SweetTaylorJames (talk) 09:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support the reinsertion, on the basis of e.g. this source Los Angeles Times--Megustalastrufas (talk) 10:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support came here expecting the table to still be here and was sad to not see it, having recently watched his latest movie and recognizing cast from his previous. theAfroDuckMann (talk) 3 November 2021 — Preceding undated comment added 06:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so I will now undo the reversion that removed the table and hopefully it will last longer Kirbopher2004 (talk) 07:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is now back Kirbopher2004 (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why we are listing folks that Anderson's only worked with once? I understand two-time collaborators, especially recent ones, but I don't think they can count as "recurring" if it's only happened once. Claytonllibrar (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right. Megustalastrufas (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. DonIago (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I, an anonymous contributor, had the same thought you did at virtually the same time and just barged in and made the change, BEFORE checking the talk page. My apologies if I acted out of order and/or stepped on any toes. 23.24.8.241 (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Section on his style and techniques[edit]

I added a new section on Anderson's style and techniques. The section is fully cited to a number of high quality outside sources. I think it is a good start to a much needed addition to this article. I previously added this section back in the spring but some tyrant editor deleted it immediately for no good reason. I am asking that editors not to delete this section but make changes or suggestions for how it could be improved instead. A great way to stifle the improvement of Wikipedia is to speedily delete worthwhile additions for being imperfect. Mbroderick271 (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Wes Anderson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on the Page[edit]

The facts presented in this aricle have appropriate references. Most of the references are from media cites such as Entertainment Weekly, others from BBC or the WSJ. Most everything that needs to be cited is properly notated, with relevance and no real distrations outside of the large charts, which I find necessary. As far as I'm aware, there are no realclaims or biases, no statements out of reach that would make Anderson seem a certain way. The information is from different sources, no one source overused. I have no real ground to critique the article on Anderson: the references are good, there are no viewpoints that are out of bounds, and there is no real plagarism. Without reading too much into it, I have hardly any suggestions as to how to change the page. The only minor suggestion I would have is to perhaps find a way to condense the charts or find more sources outside of entertainment sites (though it makes sense why those are used).

Fescandon (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wes Anderson. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subject's full name.[edit]

I have removed the "Mortimer" from the subject's name. This appears to be a totally unsubstantiated (maybe vandal) edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wes_Anderson&type=revision&diff=314421752&oldid=313996464. It then seems that two years later it appear in the reference "Browning, Mark (2 February 2011). Wes Anderson: Why His Movies Matter (Modern Filmmakers). Praeger. p. 190. ISBN 9781598843538.", since there is no other reference for this name, it's prudent to assume that the book's author got the name from Wikipedia. One should also note that the name is refuted by the subject's team at OTRS Ticket:2018120310011079 Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. I'd been going back and forth on it, as there appeared to be a source to back it up, but if the source has been refuted, that's good to know. Can an inline note be inserted if not already present? DonIago (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Doniago: I've done the inline note already. Also the subject has been kind enough to send a copy of his proper birth certificate into OTRS - obviously that's not a reliable source (as you cannot see it), but it's better than nothing. Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cool cool. Thanks for your diligence on this! DonIago (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was his family surname originally Andersson at some point?[edit]

He is of Scandinavian ancestry. Most Scandinavian Andersons/Anderssons spell their names with two S’s. Was his family surname originally spelled Andersson at some point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8BF9:45F0:2999:DD7:7B36:125E (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-archving?[edit]

Any objection to turning on auto-archiving for any thread on this page that's older than 10 years or so? I know the thread at the top has seen some recent activity (which means it won't be auto-archived anytime soon now), but many of the others appear to have run their course. DonIago (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enabled, as there didn't appear to be any objection. DonIago (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laundry list of influences[edit]

Someone from Lansing, Michigan, has been using multiple IPs to insert names of famous film directors who have notionally influenced Anderson.[1][2][3][4] Doniago reverted the mess and said "this is becoming a laundry list". None of the names have been referenced. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, let's continue to keep this stuff out. Binksternet (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Revolori Listed Twice[edit]

He's listed twice in the recurring collaborators table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfryer99 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, second Tony has been removed, thank you.--Megustalastrufas (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daggers in collaborators section[edit]

Should we put a dagger next to deceased actors in the collaborators section? I say no: a) it just creates more maintenance; b) Some of the individuals listed do not even have articles, and it's entirely possible that no public information will be released upon their deaths, leaving the list incomplete; c) the death is not necessarily relevant to the list - Pallana was not in three Wes Anderson movies while alive - it's possible that he would not have been in any others, and we are just speculating that there would have been further collaborations; and d) users who are interested in the actors can go to the individual pages. This is a page about Wes Anderson, and the only point of the chart is to show that he often works with the same actors. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 12:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see two actors with the daggers (and no explanation of what the daggers mean, or sources to support their placement), neither of whom had been in many of Anderson's more recent films. As such, this seems to be borderline trivia. People die. Unless there are sources that discuss the actors no longer appearing in Anderson's films due to their passing ("Anderson had hoped to have X in film Y, but the actor passed away before the film began production..."), I'm not really seeing why it's necessary to include this here. If anything, it seems as though it might be better handled as well-sourced prose below the table (similar to how we handle the Cast sections of film articles). DonIago (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No daggers, please. They distract from the point, which is that Anderson often returns to the same people. If a particular collaborator is called out in reliable sources for their death preventing them from further collaboration, then we can tell the reader in prose why that might be so. To make that statement ourselves is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Binksternet (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Polanski petition revisited[edit]

4 February 2023:
Regarding the inclusion of information about Wes Anderson's signing of the Roman Polanski (and the removal of the information by user Doniago).
Doniago has been editing this page for over 10 years - I appreciate all your time and hard work. They report an apparent 'consensus' on the non-inclusion of information on Wes's signing of the petition. Sorry, I can find no evidence of this consensus - the information posted on the Talk page above has been here for over 10 years with no discussion obvious. Regardless of whether or not such a consensus existed previously, I'm not sure it is presently tenable. Having just looked at the pages of other signatories of the petition, every single one I've looked at makes mention of it. I looked up Michael Mann, Pedro Almodovar, Guillermo del Toro, David Lynch, Tilda Swinton, Jonathan Demme, Natalie Portman, Penelope Cruz. The history pages reveal this information has been on these pages for a significant length of time (often years). As these are all well-scrutinised pages I can not see any reason to question the judgments made elsewhere about this information..? Nor can I see any (admissable) reason why this information should be on all these pages but not for Wes Anderson..? Doniago, I trust you acted in the best intention but would appreciate it if you could please make any such case here before removing the information again.

As far as I can see, the questions that remain relate to where the information should be included and with what wording. I have no strong feelings about this. I originally copied the wording from the Michael Mann article (which I note is also used for Pedro Almodovar and Guillermo del Toro), where it is included in his career chronology. However from what I've seen elsewhere it is more often included in the Personal Life sections, so for the time being I've included it there. I also note differences in wordings between the articles. The most obviously 'softer' wording (in that it does not mention 'rape' or the age of the child) can be found on the David Lynch and Tilda Swinton articles. On the assumption that this wording may have had the most reworking, and in the interest of avoiding repeating the same discussions here, I have used this softer wording. 2A00:23C2:BA80:201:F05B:1606:1D17:C8AF (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Polanski petition signature is important to a biography if and only if WP:SECONDARY sources discuss the particular signature, saying something about why the person signed the petition. Without some prose discussion of Anderson signing in WP:Reliable sources, we have only the primary source and brief mentions in passing as one of the signatories. What you need for inclusion is some writer talking about Anderson's position or stance on the issue, some context for the signature. Binksternet (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Binksternet. I'm not clear where if anywhere you are drawing your judgement from, but I disagree.
The Polanski petition is obviously a significant, newsworthy event, as evidenced by the very widespread coverage at the time and opinion pieces continuing up to the present (last mention I saw via Google News was 4 days ago). If anything, post #MeToo the significance of the event has increased. (Btw apparently despite happening in 2009 it continues to be reported more or less as news right up to the present).
The BLP page notes: "If an ... incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."
It seems to me we have a significant, newsworthy (and noteworthy, relevant, and well documented) event. (As it happens Wes Anderson's was not merely involved in the event, his involvement - along with others - was the event!)
I don't follow why we would need to know "about Anderson's position or stance on the issue"? If Wes Anderson had been involved in the Jan 6 Capital riots, or had signed the Declaration of Independence, I hope we agree these other events should be noted on his page regardless of whether or not he had stated his position or stance on the events. (I wouldn't vouch for this source, but if you're interested)
You say "brief mentions in passing as one of the signatories" as though that is incidental - once again, that is the noteworthy event! There are articles where Wes Anderson's involvement is foregrounded more: e.g. here, here and here - I could find more but in any case I don't agree with the argument... If Wes Anderson had participated in the Jan 6 Capitol riots alongside a selection of Hollywood's elite (a fun image), that would still be noteworthy and merit inclusion on his page regardless of how prominently his name was featured in the news coverage (assuming that his involvement was not in question).
Once again: "if an ... incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Wes Anderson's signing of the petition (with others) seems to me to be quite obviously noteworthy, relevant and well documented. 2A00:23C2:BA80:201:C1C9:2B0B:D990:9B33 (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anderson's signature has not been singled out by reliable sources as significant. His opinion on the issue has not been discussed. His signature has not positively or negatively affected his filmmaking work or his place in society. Therefore, the signature on the petition is peripheral to his career, not important enough for us to mention here. You would need to show that his signature resulted in personal consequences. Binksternet (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant guideline is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Just because something is true about a topic does not mean it is important enough to mention. Binksternet (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think those criteria you suggest work as a description of how biography pages actually work on Wikipedia, nor do I think they hold up as general principles. Specifically:
i) That Anderson's signature would need to be 'singled out'. On this basis you deny the entire possibility of collective action. If someone wins the Superbowl but their role in the team is not 'singled out' by journalists does that mean we shouldn't mention it on their page?
ii) To be included events need to have "affected his filmmaking work or his place in society"/have to be more than "peripheral to his career"... I'd just point out that almost every celebrity's page on Wikipedia includes facts/events which have not directly affect the subject's careers but which may be of interest to readers. e.g. from the Wes Anderson page:
"In September 2006, Steely Dan's Walter Becker and Donald Fagen released a tongue-in-cheek "letter of intervention" for Anderson's artistic "malaise" following the disappointing commercial and critical reception of The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, proclaiming themselves to be fans of World Cinema and of Anderson in particular."
Also I'm not sure whether the relevant guideline is WP:INDISCRIMINATE as to me that reads as being more in the context of data - more obviously relevant is WP:NOTDIARY, which notes "Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are ... Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest." I trust we don't disagree that readers are likely to have an interest in Wes Anderson signing the petition - to me the article is clearly improved by including this information.
Re WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I do agree with you that "Just because something is true about a topic does not mean it is important enough to mention." Rather than applying criteria of being 'singled out' or 'the impacts on his career' (which don't I think hold up as general principles for Wikipedia biographies) I'd suggest we are primarily disagreeing about whether the event is important enough to merit inclusion? 2A00:23C2:BA80:201:1565:EEED:48F7:6CD2 (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please also consider the fact that the Polanski petition is mentioned on the pages for every other signatory I've looked at (about 15). I know that's not an argument from principle but it might give you pause for thought before we extend this discussion further..! 2A00:23C2:BA80:201:1565:EEED:48F7:6CD2 (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than merely saying "every other signatory I've looked at", it would be more helpful if you linked to the relevant articles so other editors could review for themselves. DonIago (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! As there has been no response to my substantive points, I will leave it a week or so and then add the information into the article. 2A00:23C2:BA80:201:14F4:C959:BEB:EE3 (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. The proper action is to go around to other biographies and remove the petition bit if it isn't supported by WP:SECONDARY sources discussing its connection to the subject of the biography. Binksternet (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how you could claim you agreed with me but then not address my request for examples. That your points are substantive doesn't mean they're persuasive, and I agree with Binksternet on this. DonIago (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Rice Burroughs is his grandfather[edit]

Edgar Rice Burroughs is listed as his grandfather on IMDb as well as ancestry sites and Scottish Wikipedia. I don't know how to edit it to make that a second line in his relatives 2603:8000:3400:6A7:9DCD:1D6F:8770:F85A (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Needs better sourcing. IMDb and Wiki host user generated content, and so wouldn't be suitable for this. I don't know which ancestry sites you're looking at, but user generated content is a common problem with those too. I searched online for a bit and couldn't find any sources for this that looked usable. Squeakachu (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Sugar[edit]

As well-meaning editors keep adding Henry Sugar under the "Directed features" filmography here, can we just get it on the record that HS is not a feature film (it is a short), and as such, it should not be added to that section? Or, if editors feel otherwise, let's get that consensus established. Thank you! DonIago (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful “World” of Henry Sugar[edit]

when talking about the nomination for best live action short film it says wonderful world of henry sugar instead of the proper title 'The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar'. i cant tell why this is and i think if theres no reason for this it should be changed Avoidkennethlamarnoid (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wes_Anderson&oldid=1218570384"