Talk:Enola Holmes (film)

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

Genre[edit]

The article intro lists the genre of this film as "mystery". That is clearly one of the genres if not the most important and primary genre. I think it is best to stick to the primary genre as recommended by WP:FILMLEAD.

Netflix lists many genres: Family Features, Period Pieces, Films Based on Books, Action & Adventure, Adventures, Crime Action & Adventure, Children & Family Films, Crime Films, Crime Dramas, Mysteries, Dramas.[1]

Comedy is not on that list, but some edits have tried to add other genres, such as comedy without any explanation,[2][3] and without providing sources. Please discuss before adding genres. If you must add a sub-genre please follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and at least explain your changes with an edit summary, but also please discuss here and provide references and explain clearly why more than one genre is necessary. Again see WP:FILMLEAD. -- 109.76.139.116 (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to genres and Categories please note WP:CATDEF and that excessively categories have previously been removed from the article.[4] -- 109.77.196.143 (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tewkesbury[edit]

Enola Holmes	MILLE BOBBY BROWN
Sherlock Holmes 	HENTRY CAVILL
Mycroft Holmes	SAM CLAFLIN
Eudoria Holmes	HELENA BONHAM CARTER
Tewkesbury 	LOUIS PARTRIDGE
Linthorn	BURN GORMAN
Lestrade	ADEEL AKHTAR
Edith		SUSAN WOKOMA
Lady Tewkesbury 	HATTIE MORAHAN
Sir Whimbrel 	DAVID BAMBER
The Dowager 	FRANCES DE LA TOUR
Mrs. Lane 	CLAIRE RUSHBROOK
Miss Harrison	FIONA SHAW

Please note the spelling Tewkesbury which was previously incorrect.[5] (Incidentally there is a town by the same name Tewkesbury.) It seems simplest to follow what the end credits do (and the guidelines WP:FILMCAST recommend) and list him only as Tewkesbury without including any of his titles. If editors want to list something other than what is in the credits please explain which version of his name and titles should be included and why. -- 109.77.196.143 (talk) 05:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again if editors think he should be listed as anything other than Tewkesbury then please clearly explain which version of his name and titles should be included and why.[6] Lord Tewkesbury? Viscount Tewkesbury? Tewkesbury, Marquess of Basilwether? If the article is going to use anything other than what is shown in the end credits it needs to be clear what that should be and so that it wont need to be changed again. -- 109.79.89.22 (talk) 08:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Viscount?[7] Lord? If we should include any title at all which one should it be and why? Reverting to "Tewkesbury" as appears in the end credits. -- 109.79.81.27 (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if we are going to include anything other than what was listed in the credits[8] we should have at least some discussion first to establish what the most correct version of his title would be. -- 109.78.195.140 (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plot[edit]

Please note WP:FILMPLOT which recommends that plot sections be 400-700 words. With that in mind the plot section cannot mention every detail, and must try to focus on the essentials. If you want to add something you will need to remove something to keep the plot section below the recommended length. -- 109.77.214.109 (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An "American" film?[edit]

I'm not sure by what measure this film is "American". Its director, cast (save one), and writer are all British and the film was shot in Britain. Aside from an American studio simply paying for it there is nothing American about the film – and this debate has gone on many other articles concerning whether a production is American or not just because it has been paid for by an American studio; a good example is The Grand Tour where an edit war went on for some time because some argued that Amazon Studios is American and, therefore, so is anything they produce, whereas others asserted it is a British production because everything about it is British except for the currency which funds it. The general consensus on Wikipedia regarding this topic and common sense would lead us to the conclusion that Enola Holmes is a British film. It is even listed as a British film by IMDb! – Dyolf87 (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"American studio simply paying" that's the crux of it. It was my understanding that the general consensus was very much based on the funding decides the nationality of the film, and that Wikipedia is not based on common sense at all but based on what the avaible source say. WP:NOTTRUTH
I'd prefer not to dwell on nationality at all and I'd happily leave it out of the intro but others interpret the guidelines Wikipedia:FILMLEAD to mean they must include it (or maybe they enjoy annoying British people, hard to say).
In your example, in the case of Grand Tour it can be called a British show because of the British production company "W. Chump and Sons", who are making it for Amazon studios. I did look before and I did look again to see if there were sources that might allow this film to at least be listed as both British and American but it seems the production company PCMA (the Brown family production company[9] named after Paige Charlie Millie and Ava [10]) is American based too. (Also IMDB is not a reliable source, it is user edited.) It is still possible that a yet another shell company was created for the film, and maybe that company was British, but unless you can find sources detailing any tax incentives the film received something like that would be difficult to prove. I did look to see if I could find if maybe Legendary Pictures had a European or UK subsidiary, maybe it does but I didn't find it. Legendary Pictures itself is American, or Chinese depending on how you look at it (Wanda Group own Legendary, AMC, etc) and might be easier to argue this film is Chinese than British, but again, Wikipedia is not based on common sense.
Unless you can find better sources this film will have to remain American. -- 109.79.182.19 (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a British according to IMDb M*tesh (talk) 06:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

M*tesh IMDB is not a acceptable source as it can be edited by anyone. Melcous (talk) 07:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you think this is a British film you cannot ignore the American production companies, which at the very least makes it a British-American film. (IMDB is not a reliable, and WP:RSP expressly warns against using it.)
The closest I was able to find was Variety saying "While the project may be British," ... [11] but realistically that still doesn't make it a British film, the financing makes it American. It is also on the List of British films of 2020 although that seems to be based more on filming location. -- 109.78.198.182 (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its a British film M*tesh (talk) 07:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a according to IMDb and many more website M*tesh (talk) 07:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you've already been told IMDB is not a reliable source. Don't just assert "many more website" show your sources. Also as I said in my previous edit, it is not a solely British film, it is at best a both a British and American co-production. I recommend you see a neutral WP:3RD opinion (or ask for an entirely not neutral opinion from Project Film). -- 109.78.200.129 (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the nationality of this film should be in the first sentence anyway. Please note WP:FILMLEAD: "If the film's nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), it should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section." -- 109.78.200.129 (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Many films these days are multi-national productions, so Wikipedia's obsession with identifying nationality in the lead (which goes well beyond films) is simply not supported by reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

I'm reluctant to use video sources as references and I'm holding out better sources, such as for an article with plenty of text but Neflix film club has a few of good videos so far:

The videos suggest details that might improve the article. The VFX behind the scenes are interesting but will take a bit of effort to turn it into relevant prose. The stunts video is full of praise for Millie, very promotional, but a bit light on details that would be useful to include in an encyclopedia article about making the film (still looking for facts about the stunt people/trainers, or facts about the jujitsu). The breakdown of the East End fight scene mention the stunt coordinator "Jo" but I had to look elsewhere to find that it was Jo McLaren[12]. The last one contains ten facts and one lie, the location facts which have already been covered, the other facts are a bit on the trivial side. -- 109.79.160.210 (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of articles that do little more than repost the promotional videos, with minimal introduction[13][14], and VFX video repost with a little bit of text.[15] I was able to find one that quotes heavily from the stunts video,[16] so that might be useful (although unfortunately it doesn't include the bit in the video where Millie says the fight training was like learning a dance routine, which is an easily understood comparison I'd like to use in the article). In the fight scene breakdown video she calls her look to camera and "come hither" hand gesture her favorite scene.

Other bits and pieces found along the way:

  • According to the Radio Times audience response on social media was "almost universally positive"[17] (interesting but I'd be hesitant to add audience response to the article even with sources)
  • Costume design by Consolata Boyle.[18][19] Interesting how costumes are used as another layer of the storytelling. TaC interview with Boyle [20][21][22]
    • Below The Line News article about the costumes.[23] Other articles have mentioned the use of denim in the costumes, but I think this is only source to mention the use of Lycra.
    • Cavill commented on the difficulty of fitting into his costume,[24] but it's a video, which as I've already mentioned makes for a terrible reference (Collider sometimes provides articles based on their videos but they don't seem to have done so yet). Cinemablend plagiarizes quotes the video and spins their own article out of it [25] but the gist is that Cavill explains how difficult it must have been for Boyle to fit a man of build into a Victorian costume.[26] -- 109.79.166.89 (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and integrate some of these into the article eventually, but if anyone else wants to do it please do go ahead. -- 109.79.160.210 (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't really be surprising because films usually take years to get made but somehow it still is a bit surprising when Brown says she had to keep quiet about the film for 3 or 4 years.[27] Also her father suggested she take on the role of producer.[28] -- 109.79.83.56 (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Millie Bobby Brown link under actors[edit]

Hey folks, I know that rules are rules and we don't link to the same person in the info box. But in this case I very much doubt people will be able to find Millie Bobby Brown's article by just looking for "who played the leading role" which is what I came here for. I just assumed Wikipedia had no article on her. Can we *please* fix this? Hobit (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this so hard? Are you completely unable to click on her link in the Produced by section? There's no point in putting another link. Rusted AutoParts 21:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hobit I do appreciate that people do things differently and that Infoboxes provide a nice (almost) consistent way to present information in a structured way. The lead actor not being linked in the starring section of the Infobox can come across as an annoying inconsistency and I understand that. (Clearly it has annoyed you enough to start a talk page discussion about it.) If a person is linked twice in the Infobox it isn't something I'd normally worry about and I wouldn't be in hurry to unlink it, but a once upon a time a small group of people sometime somewhere decided it was a bad thing and so I'm not going to argue to include it either. (Some people have some very weird opinions about Infoboxes, so trying to change policies in that area doesn't seem like a good idea.)
Millie Bobby Brown is linked in the Cast section of the article, I think that's the most important place to look for the lead character. She's linked in a few other places too and I'm find with having extra wiki links. This is hypertext and we should expect that readers will sometimes to jump directly into sections of an article without having read the whole thing. I'm sympathetic but if an editor objected to her being linked twice in the same section I would accept that as a reasonable point, difficult to argue against.
If you still want to try and get a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to ignore the rule and link her twice in the Infobox anyway I'd say okay to that but I think others might object. -- 109.78.213.7 (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal[edit]

Proposing to wiki-link Millie Bobby Brown's entry in the infobox under starring to her article. Justification is that someone could easily expect that her name not being wikilinked in the first place they would expect to find it (Infobox under "staring") might make them think that she doesn't have an article. At least one person did that (me). I wanted to know who the lead was and how old she was. I didn't know her name (that's why I was here) and didn't think to look elsewhere for a link because, I mean, A) why wouldn't it be linked and B) even if I knew that Wikipedia has a thing about having two links to the same person in an infobox, I'd never have guessed that someone so young was also a producer. I did a Google search and found her article *that* way. That's silly. Hobit (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nominator. Hobit (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose literally makes no sense. Readers ability to be linked to MBB's page aren't hampered by only being linked once. Rusted AutoParts 05:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I was, so that's wrong for at least one person. Again, I saw the non-linked name under "starring" and took that to mean the lead actress didn't have an article here. Maybe I'm slow, but I think others would be likely to do the same thing. Hobit (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The unlinked name is literally within view of the unlinked name. The only way to miss it would be to do this and then proceed to refuse to look around the infobox to see if there’s a link. Just do the extra leg work and look/scroll up, you don’t need another link for what can be seen as laziness. Rusted AutoParts 14:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think insulting me is exactly the best way to make your case. I made this mistake and I've been editing Wikipedia for more than a decade. I just wouldn't think to ask myself "is this person, who I've never heard of before, linked somewhere else in this infobox?". I imagine most people wouldn't think to do that either. Hobit (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How am I insulting you? I said it can come off as laziness, I didn’t say you specifically were lazy. The point still remains what would stop you from just looking around the infobox to see if they are linked already? Rusted AutoParts 19:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support repeating a wikilink is fairly harmless. In theory the policy does have some logic to it, but in practice the result is not user friendly, which ultimately makes it a bad policy. It would be better to just always link the starring cast names in the Infobox even if that occasionally means a few extra links. (Google search has good layout which reduces the need to actually visit Wikipedia for simple questions. It only surprises me they and others like them don't exploit Wikipedia even more than they already do.) -- 109.78.213.7 (talk) 06:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Her unlinked name is within view of the unlinked name. There is still no logical reason to include a second link to her article when the reader just has to scroll up once. Rusted AutoParts 14:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I fully expect people will disagree but if you can't understand why he is even suggesting this I'd be very disappointed. See Inattentional blindness if you want to go deep on the subject. If people aren't looking for the gorilla they will not see the gorilla.[29] Put simply readers (including myself) don't normally care about producers, and will skip to the cast listed in the Infobox, so having a cast member that is not linked is surprising and unhelpful even if it is already linked very nearby. As I mentioned before this is hypertext, readers will jump around. In any article where a cast member is delinked (because already linked as something else) I have frequently seen good faith edits that have added added missing wiki links back in. (It would be interesting to see some hard data on it, but I don't think anyone actually does that kind of deep research into the usability of Wikipedia.) There's also the design idea of the Principle of least astonishment, the design should match user expectations, not just abstract rules. Sure after a while readers learn that if is a cast member isn't linked in the Infobox to move on and look elsewhere but other readers expect a link and find the absence of a link surprising and unhelpful. Again the policy against double linking in the Infobox seems logical in theory but in practice it is mildly annoying and not user friendly. Sometimes the the rules are bad and we can discuss and make smaller exceptions without having get stuck into higher level policy discussions, that's what WP:LOCALCONSENSUS allows. (I still expect people from Project Film will pile-on-in at some point and this request to make a minor exception will be quashed but I don't think there's much harm in at least considering a request to add [[ ]] 4 extra characters.) -- 109.78.213.7 (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I find you’re overdramatizing/Over-romanticizing this. There’s zero reason first off to think MBB doesn’t have a Wikipedia page like the proposer first thought. She’s pretty famous, of course she has one. Secondly, my thought when seeing this famous actress not be linked in the cast section, I immediately figured “must already be linked” and sure enough there is a link to her name in Produced by. It’s just a matter of looking. I don’t feel Inattentional blindness applies here, even if it did I don’t believe Wikipedia would make an exception to the guideline WP:OVERLINK because the editor happened to miss the link. They’ve been pointed to where it is now, so there’s absolutely no necessary point to include a second link. The hidden message “already wikilinked in "producer" parameter, do NOT link again” very succinctly explains this should anyone go to include one. Rusted AutoParts 16:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Linked already look elsewhere, I know that, you know that, but we edit Wikipedia regularly, were not normal. I think the fact that this reader was annoyed about it enough to comment on the talk page about it, is evidence that the seemingly logical policy against double linking is annoying to casual readers and does not improve the article. (I view OVERLINK as a rule of thumb to link the keywords but WP:OVERLINK specifically MOS:DUPLINK does actually say "but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, [...]" so this would be within the exceptions they predicted when writing the guidelines.) -- 109.78.213.7 (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well then go to WP:OVERLINK and propose an overhaul or change to it. As it stands there’s no other reason to add another link to the same person in the same infobox than just “I couldn’t see it at first”. If that’s the case I and others just point to where the link is. Not that complicated and not a prudent case to make an exception for. It would be definite OVERLINKing, considering there’s already four links to her wiki page on the article already. Rusted AutoParts 19:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my comment again, the text I quoted from MOS:DL is already part of WP:OVERLINK and it is clear that this kind of exception is specifically allowed already, there's no need to overhaul OVERLINK. In any case the beauty* of WP:IAR and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is not having to overhaul the higher level guidelines if there is local agreement (* the downsize is that Wikipedia is crazy full of exceptions and inconsistencies). -- 109.78.213.7 (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DUPLINK allows for additional linkings throughout an article, not just in a given area, like the infobox, hence the "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article". There are four. That is succinct for an article of this size. Rusted AutoParts 22:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:OVERLINK. MBB is linked as a producer - but also found linked in the second sentence in the prose, first name in the cast section, and in the first sentence of production. It is not hard to find a link to the article about her, adding a FIFTH link is not going to improve a reader's access to the article. BOVINEBOY2008 08:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would normally oppose because it is precedent to link once in the infobox, but MOS:REPEATLINK does say, "Duplicate linking in stand-alone and embedded lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader. This is most often the case when the list is presenting information that could just as aptly be formatted in a table, and is expected to be parsed for particular bits of data, not read from top to bottom." The infobox parameters seem to fit this. I would suggest starting a discussion at Template talk:Infobox film to see if this is worth revisiting as a whole. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the time being. If you'd like to shoot for a sitewide consensus to comprehensively overturn the existing practice on all films, that would be one thing — but this isn't the venue for that, and there's no reason why either Millie Bobby Brown or this film need unique treatment different from how this is currently handled anywhere else. If you want to start an RFC on whether the rule should be overturned across the board, then go to the template's talk page and fill your boots — but if you think this particular film needs to be handled differently than any of thousands of other films where a person's name appears in the infobox more than once because they had more than one different role in its production, just because the person in this case is Millie Bobby Brown, it really doesn't. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe the policy as a whole needs to be overhauled too but please don't let that be your primary reason for rejecting this suggestion, because I think the point of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is to allow exceptions to be made and to allow editors to get things done and not force them to become wiki-lawyers or expect them to become a wiki-policy maker. Maybe Hobit would be interested in pursuing it further later, but please consider the suggestion first. -- 109.79.166.89 (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm simply arguing that, in this case, it is reasonable to believe that when the name under "starring" isn't linked for her but it is for everyone else, it's reasonable to assume that, as a very young actress, she doesn't have an article yet. And it isn't likely that such a young star would be a producer and thus found above. So yes, I am saying that this case is different than most and so, per WP:IAR, would be wise to handle differently. Hobit (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What does the age have to do with it? There's actors in their 70s without Wiki pages. It's really just a matter of a name. And whether or not it's been previously linked. Look up the infobox a bit, oh yes there's a link I see it now. Rusted AutoParts 21:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, one thing at a time. A) You are continuing to be insulting. B) yes, but most 16-year old actors don't. And very few indeed are producers. Hobit (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay seriously, point to where I'm insulting you. You keep saying this and I am confused as to what you're getting at. Constantly accusing me of insulting you isn’t going to help me understand your point. As for the second point that doesn’t negate what I said. It’s not about how long you’ve lived, it’s about whether that person is notability. At this point MBB is a world famous actress and readers to assume she wouldn’t have a link in the infobox would be next to none. Rusted AutoParts 22:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are managing to miss every single point I've made. I'll try again: Is it reasonable for one to suspect that a 16-year old actress would only appear in the infobox under "starring"? And thus, if she's not linked there, she's not linked anywhere else? Hobit (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And you’re managing to miss MY point. It isn’t a matter of age. It’s notability. Your line of thinking also still removes the act of simply looking through the infobox to see if she was linked prior. We can’t make content changes based off theoretical mindsets of whether or not they think she would only have the one link in the one part. Rusted AutoParts 16:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see what both of you are saying. I see the existing system has an internal logic to it but I think the result is not so user friendly (a small annoyance but still an annoyance) the benefit of a little consistency is outweighed by the very small cost of having an extra wikilink. While I don't particularly agree with the specific reasons Hobit has presented, I have seen this enough times already to know that readers expect cast member names to be linked and people will often add the link even when there is a comment asking them not to.[30]
On a more general note, I wonder why things are listed in the Infobox in the order they are listed. If Cast were listed before producers and directors, I don't think people would mind so much that the director or producer were not linked the second time. -- 109.76.214.107 (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
109, LOCALCONSENSUS does not mean that every rule is free to just ignore at will. For a LOCALCONSENSUS to override the established rule, it would be necessary to demonstrate a compelling reason why Millie Bobby Brown somehow has special grounds for needing variance from the rule than everybody else whose name ever appeared twice in a film infobox because they had more than one role in its production. "We should because we can" is not a reason: "Millie Bobbie Brown needs special personal consideration here because X, Y or Z" is the kind of reason you would need to show. Bearcat (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OVERLINK, specifically WP:DUPLINK already seems to have allowed for just this kind of extra linking in the Infobox. (I don't want a WP:SEAOFBLUE or indiscriminate linking either but I don't see the downside in a few extra few for important proper nouns and keywords.) But since Hobit asked for and hasn't gotten consensus I guess we will have to leave it without a link. -- 109.79.89.22 (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another anonymous ipv6 editor ignored the warning and added a wikilink anyway.[31] It wasn't the first and it wont be the last. For the record it has absolutely nothing to do with me, but I'm definitely not going to revert it either. As I previously mentioned I've seen many of these kinds of edits and I try to take them in WP:GOODFAITH, to try to understand their intentions, which is part of why I'm so skeptical of the policy against double linking in the Infobox, readers expect a link and will add it. To be clear if I was going to do anything about it I would do the same as I did last time, add a warning/explanatory comment in favor of keeping it.[32] -- 109.76.203.83 (talk) 03:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but when an ip or an editor see a hidden note stating to not link her name and proceed to do so anyway, that's not acting in good faith, that's ignoring a set decree. To be perfectly honest, I suspect ips are seeing it's disputed and are adding links to it because they think they're irritating editors taking the link out. Rusted AutoParts 04:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pfft. Those hidden decrees get added all the time without any discussion at all. I'm not so sure the guidelines they are based on are even the opinion of more than a handful of obsessive opinionated editors.
I'm honoring the fact there was discussion, people showed up and gave their time and consideration here directly and and made their opinions known, and I accept that there was a consensus against adding a wikilink. That I have some respect for.
I'd be surprised if IP were deliberately trolling because they know it is disputed (it's possible I guess) not because I'm an optimist but because my cynicism thinks superior trolls take it to the next level by subverting reasonable rules and following to them to excessive unreasonable and illogical conclusions.
It's reverted now anyway and I accept that, so I'll keep on trying to improve the article. -- 109.76.203.83 (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The hidden decree is to support the guideline WP:OVERLINK, which was repeatedly being ignored. And to address your third point, specifically the utilization of "deletionism", is this to imply those removing MBB's second infobox link are being trolls by taking it out? It's been demonstrated it's not a necessary link, how exactly would that be trolling? Rusted AutoParts 04:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the things I've said were generalizations but people have taken as specific to this discussion. I probably shouldn't make so many sides comments, or respond to asides like the suggesting that anons might have been trolling. What I was trying to say as a generalization was that the most insidious destructive trolling is so sneaky that it doesn't even look like it is breaking the rules, that's what makes it so devious. Anyway, I'm getting increasingly offtopic for this discussion and entirely off the topic of things that might improve the article. -- 109.76.203.83 (talk) 05:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle[edit]

The plot section mentions Miss Harrisons vehicle, an automobile, a motorized carriage, a motor car if you will. An anonymous editor added that it was a Benz Patent-Motorwagen [33] and I took this in good faith at the time, and kept it in the plot section because including a wikilink seemed like a helpful to show readers who haven't seen the film that it was a very early type of three wheeled motor carriage. But now I'm not so sure. They certainly look similar but how do we know that it was this specific vehicle?

The story seems to be set in 1884 based on the Reform Bill, which was another name for the Representation of the People Act 1884. The Benz Patent-Motorwagen was built in Germany in 1885, mass production in 1886, so it seems unlikely. If we can verify that the vehicle used in the film was in a fact a Benz Patent-Motorwagen then I've no problem with a little anachronism and wouldn't let that get in they way of a good story, but I'd rather not include a link to the wrong vehicle. Can anyone verify the motor car used in the film? -- 109.76.214.107 (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally this was all prompted by an edit to the plot section that attempted to change the words "motor car" to "motorwagon".[34] I checked the film, at the start Mycroft compliments Miss Harrison on her "motor car" and when Enola steals it MH exclaims "my automobile". Arguably the plot section doesn't even need to mention the motor car at all, but I wanted to keep that detail of how they escaped, not just that they escaped. -- 109.76.214.107 (talk) 05:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to remove the wikilink to Benz Patent-Motorwagen from the plot section. We cannot be sure that is the correct vehicle. -- 109.76.198.1 (talk) 10:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Differences from the book[edit]

As the article expands it might be useful to mention some differences from the book.*[35] **[36] (If you plan on reading the books you might not want to read those links.) Ideally I would expand the production section with sources about Jack Thorne and his writing process would be the best way to naturally include details about the differences and why he changed things so substantially, but there may be other ways to acknowledge the differences without needing to create a separate section for it.

Some key differences
  • characters aged up: Enola and Tewkesbury were 14 and 12 respectively, in the film Enola is 16 and Tewkesbury is around the same age*
  • characters omitted: Madame Leilia a spiritualist or clairvoyant also looking into the disappearance of Tewkesbury*
  • characters omitted: thugs Cutter and Squeaky** (in the film Bowler hat (aka Linthorne) shares some similarities with Cutter)
  • story expanded: The Reform Bill is not mentioned, the book focuses on Eudoria's disappearance and Tewkesbury, no train jump, no explosives.
  • Eudoria's role is expanded in the film, but the book has a bit more about Sherlock looking for her
  • characterization:
    • Enola is more solitary, and Eudoria is more concerned with other pursuits
    • Enola is more burdened by being a later born child
    • Mycroft and Sherlock are more stereo-typically Victorian, and dismissive of women
    • Mycroft more overbearing, as heir to the estate he feels entitled to dictate what should be done (this is in the film but clearly explained in the book, particularly Eudoria's estrangement from her sons explaining why they had not visited)
  • characters added: Miss Harrison, the Dowager
  • other disguises: in the epilogue of the book Enola disguises herself as a nun (known The Sister) and as Ivy Meshle, a secretary

There are other differences too, but sometimes less is more. I will try to mention a few if there are natural opportunities to include them as the article expands, but again I don't plan to add whole separate section for the Differences. -- 109.76.203.83 (talk) 02:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finances[edit]

It seems that since this film was bought by Netflix and didn't get a theatrical release anywhere that very little financial information has been released. Box Office Mojo has nothing[37] The Numbers has nothing.[38] Various searches haven't turned up anything,[39] with one exception which I'll get to. (Since this started as a Warner Bros film destined for theatrical release I'd expect it to have a decent budget. Legendary Entertainment films get budgets from small to huge, (unlike other studios where the budget brackets are much more predictable) but from the production values the budget I imagine it has to be $30 million at the very least and it could significantly be higher but I'd still be surprised if it was anything over $50 million, but really who knows. We might eventually find out more when subsidies and tax credits for filming in the UK have to be declared.) There doesn't even seem to be any information about how much Netlfix paid for distribution rights.

One of the few sources of financial details so far is a 2019 article from TMZ who say they saw Millie Bobby Brown's contract, the main detail is that she was reportedly paid $6.1 million for her leading role (and other fees, and potential bonuses).[40] According to WP:RSPS TMZ can be used as a source if used with caution. This could potentially be included somewhere in the Production section. -- 109.79.180.28 (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warner Bros. is not involved with Enola Holmes[edit]

Closing discussion due to repeated complaints judged by consensus to be invalid and not warranting any improvements to the article. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why Warner Bros. Pictures is not involved with Enola Holmes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.222.83.87 (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but the article already says that Warner Bros planned to release the film but due to Covid19 it was sold to Neflix instead. -- 109.76.215.174 (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the film was really removed from the Warner Bros. catalog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moviemagic2 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HBO Max original film?[edit]

Why this film is not released by HBO Max — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moviemagic2 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a not a forum. Please try to keep your questions relevant to improving the Wikipedia article for the film "Enola Holmes". Things that did not happen are rarely notable. If you want answers you will need to ask better questions. -- 109.76.137.231 (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warner Bros[edit]

The producers were supposed to put the Warner Bros logo. Pictures at the opening and closing of Enola Holmes! But the Warner Bros. logo. did not appear because it was omitted and was not credited in the film! I'm reclaim because they didn't use the Warner logo! According to IMDb: "Despite being co-produced by Warner Brothers, there is no Warner Shield logo in either the opening or closing credits. Just only the Legendary logo in the opening film. Unfortunately, the co-production by Warner Brothers remains uncredited." The film was supposed to go with the Warner Bros. logo. And it wasn't supposed to start the movie without the Warner Bros. logo! That's why I'm reclaim!

Stop with the edit warring. IMDb is a poor source because anybody can edit it and add false information (WP:CITINGIMDB). Warner Bros was initially the distributor (not the producer) for Enola Holmes, but Netflix picked up distribution rights because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Mason 39 (talk) 07:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it has been the same anonymous editor all these months or if there really are several people who don't understand how this film was made. Mason 39 has explained it already but I'll try to explain it again in another way so maybe the message will finally sink in:
Legendary Pictures has an agreement with Warner Bros which gave Warners the first option to distribute films made by Legendary. In most cases they buy the films made by Legendary and distribute them. In this case they chose not to buy the film. In some cases Warner Bros may also be involved in co-production of films but it seems for the most part they let Legendary Pictures make the film without getting involved.
As far as we can tell from reliable sources Warner Bros were not involved with this film in any way. They had the option to buy it but they passed. That's it. Warner Bros were not involved with this film. -- 109.76.203.249 (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warner Bros was/were not involved with this film, and if anyone wants to claim otherwise[41] they will need to show reliable sources. -- 109.77.198.234 (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTLISTENING. Anon editor seems to entirely misunderstand how this works and keeps adding Warner Bros. (and this time also replacing mentions of Netflix with HBO Max[42] which is only adding more inaccuracies). -- 109.79.66.165 (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still no.[43] -- 109.79.175.24 (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was tiresome a year ago. At this point it is pathological.[44] There are no reliable sources to even suggest Warner Bros was involved with this film. -- 109.79.78.48 (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh.[45] It continues. -- 109.77.206.47 (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was to be using the Warner Bros. Pictures logo in the opening and closing film. The producers were supposed to put the Warner Bros. Pictures logo in the film’s opening and closing credits. That’s why I’m having a bigger conflict between Netflix and Warner Bros. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:214:81B6:182F:940D:231E:185:5A6 (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was the original intent, but that was not the final outcome. If a film changed distributors from Universal to Disney, for example, we would not list Universal in the infobox. The original intent of Warner Bros. being involved is already in the article body. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested page protection as seen here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The IP adds false information to Enola Holmes (soundtrack)‎ and Enola Holmes 2 (soundtrack)‎ as well. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is unfortunate that one person can cause articles to be locked by their disruption but without any apparent action against the offending IP range. This person has been at it for years now, a temporary article lock is likely to only delay the problem. -- 109.78.203.91 (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The film Enola Holmes is confirmed to be released by Warner Bros. Pictures, but it was replaced by Netflix due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it was released on September 23, 2020. The film received generally positive reviews from critics, who praised Brown's performance. Because of this, Warner Bros. Pictures had no involvement with this film for unknown reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:214:81BC:6939:EC04:BB1E:7B2A:2C15 (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s really scrapped from the Warner Bros. production for unknown reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:214:8210:BEDC:80A8:49BD:1CF3:2865 (talk) 13:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't people put the Warner Bros. in the opening of the film?! It was supposed to have the Warner Bros logo. in the opening of the film, but no! They prefer the Netflix and Legendary logo in the opening of the film! The opening looks like this: Netflix; Warner Bros. Pictures; Legendary. And the closing: "Distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures A WarnerMedia Company". It was for the producers to put the Warner Bros. in opening and not to reject! 2804:214:8210:BEDC:AD34:CBB0:7C6B:E9D4 (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Production company: Warner Bros. Pictures
Legendary Entertainment
Distributor: Netflix
2804:214:8210:BEDC:AD34:CBB0:7C6B:E9D4 (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section[edit]

I like for an encyclopedia to be consistent as much as the next reader but I think the anon ipv6 editor is being overzealous in applying a pattern[46] The writer and the director do not seem like the most important details to highlight in the first sentence, I think we can do better.

WP:FILMLEAD talks about the minimum At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the following elements: the title of the film, the year of its earliest public release (including film festival screenings), and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified. but it does not go into any detail about best practices and writing an intro sentence of maximum relevance. -- 109.76.135.144 (talk) 12:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. The director and writer are not names that are noteworthy context for the film. To claim that every Wikipedia film article that adapts a novel is required to follow "top billing" is a violation of Wikipedia's principles of being independent from primary sources and following what secondary sources say about the film. For this film and its sequel, WP:LEAD needs to be followed in establishing the noteworthy context upfront, which is the starring actress and the Sherlock Holmes connection, as reflected in reliable sources writing about the film. To put Harry Bradbeer and Jack Thorne ahead of these far more noteworthy elements is a WP:POV violation of prominently placing much lesser-known elements upfront. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anon repeated the changes[47] saying things were "always" done in that order. Erik reverted, giving WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV as reasons (I would have thought WP:DUE emphasis was more applicable than POV).
There are many films where it makes sense to prioritize the director, but I think Erik's changes, the wording emphasizing the star in the first sentence, works best for this film. Any other editors care to comment? -- 109.76.132.168 (talk) 02:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor persistently continues to prominently place the no-name director and writer ahead of the starring actor and the Sherlock Holmes context, claiming that it is impossible to determine the proper due weight, even though WP:DUE exists and instructs on how. A simple search engine test shows enola holmes intitle:brown with 213K results while enola holmes intitle:bradbeer shows 1.8K results. Brown is far more the focus of this film as covered by reliable sources than Bradbeer. It's impossible to claim the opposite. EDIT: enola holmes intitle:sherlock has 48.6K results, indicating that the subject matter is also more noteworthy than the director. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no-name director *cough* Harry Bradbeer well regarded television director and producer *cough*. Still seems best to highlight Brown first. -- 109.79.75.129 (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"No-name" simply means to "lack a recognizable name, identity, or reputation", and I mean this in the context of nonspecialist readers (per MOS:FIRST). In other words, not a household name like Steven Spielberg would be. Bradbeer is notable as a biographical topic, but in the scope of this topic, his noteworthiness (different from notability) is outweighed by Brown. If Bradbeer directed a film with no-name actors, then that would be a film-specific exercise to see how to order that presentation. In addition, the IP editor claims that this is how it's always been done. That's not a compelling reason -- a widespread practice does not mean it is a good practice. We used to have trivia sections all over the place for years with defenders using the presence of these sections elsewhere to justify the latest inclusions. Some films are star vehicles, some films have world-famous source material adapted by relatively no-name cast and crew, etc. It will depend every time on the film and how reliable sources cover it. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 19:50, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take this one, expect it to be done in the next few days. --MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Spelling/grammar correct, and the prose is well laid out.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Good lead, well laid out, words to watch are in quotations and cited correctly, list of cast/characters is correctly formatted, and the synopsis is proper size.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Auto-generated references section placed correctly; external links section below has the IMDb page and other movie-related websites. Citations are correctly cited, most having the authors and archive urls listed.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Citations are reliable; most come from film-related magazines like Variety, Deadline, or The Hollywood Reporter. One citation is to a YouTube video, but that citation is from Netflix's verified channel. Citations, most notably quotations, contain the claims/quotes stated.
2c. it contains no original research. No original research, all claims are correctly cited.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Copyvio checker shows no violations in the text, and all quotes are correctly cited.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Covers plot, cast, production, release, reception, the lawsuit against it, and a bit about the sequel. The section about the sequel links to the main article here and briefly summarizes it.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Each section is decently sized, the longest being production; all stay focused on the topic. Sequel section summarizes the second film well.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. The only potentially controversial section is the lawsuit section, and that is neutral, only using quotations when stating the sides of the argument.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. There seemed to be a minor edit war on the 6th of December between 2804:214:81b1:15b0:4c90:6723:527b:e3e and User:Erik, but it has since been resolved by User:ThaddeusSholto.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. All images tagged with copyright status; the official release poster is correctly registered under fair use.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Images beyond the poster are in the production section: one of Millie Bobby Brown (the lead actor and producer) and of Benthall Hall (the filming location for the family's home), both of which are relevant to the production section and have fitting captions.
7. Overall assessment. Overall well-written, correctly cited, well-illustrated, and stable/neutral. Thanks to User:Rusted AutoParts and 109.76.139.116 for a majority of the edits. Very nice!

Missed it. I was keeping an eye on this and was willing make changes (or discuss if the article was still locked) and help get this to {{Good Article}} status. I'm pleased to see it passed without needing much modification. I've made many edits over the years but as far as I can recall this is the only article I've been substantially involved with that has gone to GA status. (I had thought maybe Stardust (2007 film) would be my first.) Thanks to all those who helped knock the rough edges off the article. Thanks to the reviewer for this little Christmas gift. -- 109.78.206.28 (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Henry Cavill, who played Sherlock in Enola Holmes
Henry Cavill, who played Sherlock in Enola Holmes

Improved to Good Article status by MyCatIsAChonk (talk) and Rusted AutoParts (talk). Nominated by MyCatIsAChonk (talk) at 01:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.

Overall: @MyCatIsAChonk: Good article. Though, I do have concerns about copyright as Earwig reports a pretty heavy copyright infrigement with a Fcuscoyotejournalism article. Not sure if it's a WP:MIRROR so i'll need some confirmation.

@Onegreatjoke:Just ran it through Earwig and I'm not sure what article you're referring to; the top result for possible infringement is an [MRXFX] article, and the only infringement is a short sentence that I've since fixed. Is it good now? -MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC) Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MyCatIsAChonk: I'm talking about this https://fcuscoyotejournalism.com/2351/ae/reviews/sluos-tsol-fo-rednif-dna-evitceted-wen-a/
@Onegreatjoke: I don't see that article linked anywhere in the article section; am I just missing it? -MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Onegreatjoke Looking at the article edit history and the publication date of that reference, the webpage has material copied from the article. SL93 (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Onegreatjoke has not returned so I'm approving this. SL93 (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


characters by A Conan Doyle[edit]

credit should be given to a conan doyle who did create sherlock holmes and is used in this derivative book since to omit would be plagiarism Slinkyw (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The film is based on the book and that book was written by Nancy Springer and Springer alone. It doesn't matter who originally created characters if that person had no hand at all in writing the source material for the film. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Enola_Holmes_(film)&oldid=1201768949"