User talk:Barry Wom

In regards to having Nickelodeon Movies be a co-distributor with Paramount Pictures on some of their earlier movies, I was wondering if the distribution paramater would look like this: Paramount Pictures (through Nickelodeon Movies)

and not like this:

Just out of curiosity to hear what your thoughts are on this. Multiplivision (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Definitely the latter. The credits for the Rugrats films, for example, have "Paramount Pictures and Nicekodeon Movies present", so there's no indication that Paramount released "though" Nickelodeon. Barry Wom (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Alright. Just making sure. Multiplivision (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I figured I'd give an update in regards to the whole "studio distributor" equation: for pages like Oppenheimer and The Odyssey, is Universal Pictures a production company despite them only providing distribution rights to the films? Multiplivision (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Barry Wom,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I noticed a sock had returned to restore the same edit at Yuri Andropov. Who is the sockmaster? Thanks. Mellk (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

It's JeanCastì. Barry Wom (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Look at my comment at Talk:Poor Things (film). Frogger-Leap (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Fixed the link Frogger-Leap (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I found a new source. Frogger-Leap (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pacific Rim Uprising, a link pointing to the disambiguation page was Hollywoodadded.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for doing some great trimming of the lead of Avatar. However, next time you make an edit that completely removes sources from the page, please save them somewhere in case they are needed in the future. In this case, I added them to Further Reading. Thanks, and have a great day! ☺️ OrdinaryOtter (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks.

I'm not sure I agree with the retention of the sources I removed, although I guess they're not doing much harm buried away in a "Further reading" section.

The first two were box-office reports from shortly after the film's release. I did briefly check the "Box office" section, and all the financial information appeared to be well enough sourced already. Unless I missed something, neither of these references contained any significant further information.

The third was a report from several years later discussing the demise of 3-D televisions. This was only tangentially related to the film in any case, but it also contradicted the claim in the lede that the film "led to [...] electronics manufacturers releasing 3D televisions". ("Avatar's claim to have kickstart the 3D revolution is applicable to the big screen theaters and cinemas, but not so much for television").

I can't envisage a scenario where any of these refs will be needed in the future. Barry Wom (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I'm glad you went through the sources to ascertain their usefulness. Not everyone does that. Maybe next time you could put in the edit summary that you fully vetted the sources you removed?

Should we take out the sentence in the lead about the film influencing 3D TV? OrdinaryOtter (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I found a better source, and you're just going to have to trust me on the vetting front. Barry Wom (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I trust you. 😀 OrdinaryOtter (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Please note that MOS:TVPLOT applies to TV episodes and does NOT apply to films, which have a 700-word limit guideline. The edits that include that STEVEN told Newhouse about Bunny being the name of Ann's imaginary playmate and Newhouse asking Steven about the ship's name are important plot points that point to Steven's subverting Ann's credibility. Also explicitly stating how Steven would have been able to kidnap Bunny (she was left in a waiting room with only one other child and parent who were not explicitly charged with caring for her and Steven was able to take her without detection) and how Ann used hide and seek to attempt to escape are also important plot points. Additionally, I made edits to the flow and fixed a few grammatical points. Please consider that edits made within the limit guidelines by an experienced editor have merit.

Here are some of the issues:

"The child has mysteriously disappeared. An administrator recalls meeting Ann but claims never to have seen the missing child." How did the child "disappear" undetected?

"Ann's landlord, an aging actor, attempts to seduce her." Not relevant enough for inclusion unless you get into why this fits into the plot.

"Believing that Ann loves Bunny more than him, the child threatens Steven's dream of a future with his sister." Awkward grammatical structure.

"Ann, realising her brother is insane, begins playing childhood games with Steven, in order to distract him from killing Bunny." “in order to” is wordy and adds nothing to the sentence. Also, Ann is doing more than "distracting" Steven; she unsuccessfully uses the hide and seek game to try to escape.

Ariadne000 (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it's 700 words. Apologies. Barry Wom (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

No problem. We both want a good summary. Thanks for your cooperation. Ariadne000 (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Wallace & Gromit & Shaun the Sheep Movie are: The Almost Naked Animals Movie And The Almost Naked Animals? & And The Almost Naked Animals ValePalomoGil2012 (talk) 12:35, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry if I am disturbing you but can you please stop removing the minor edit I made in this page regarding how fans now appreciate the movie, I have used reliable sources to cite my evidence. SlayerRoyce (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

You would need to find better sources. Barry Wom (talk) 10:11, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I added another source for my evidence. SlayerRoyce (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

This encyclopedia has always prioritized clarity over brevity.

Your preference to abbreviate Millions to M was not supported by the discussion. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_89#M_for_Millions

I only recently had time to follow up on the earlier discussion and do some cleanup but you have reverted several of my edits. Continuing to push for your own person preference goes against that earlier discussion and seems to also go against MOS:STYLEVAR.

There is nothing to suggest that the guidelines that allow you to sometimes occasionally use abbreviations in specific circumstances (such as when spaces is limited) would take priority over the guidelines that discourage the use of abbreviations. If you want to convince WP:FILM to use your approach then reopen the discussion but please stop using unnecessary abbreviations. (If you did convince them I reckon it would be necessary to use <nowkik>M</nowkik> so that assistive technology could properly read the abbreviations.)

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. It is supposed to be clear and easy to read, even for readers using English as a second language or readers using assistive technology to read the page. -- ~2025-43070-44 (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you mentioned this before. The changes are in line with both the guidelines and style guides. Barry Wom (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the style guide is that it is allowed in certain circumstances, but the guidelines did not actively encourage you to use it. (Other project guidelines are much more clear about when they mean something CAN be used, or SHOULD be used, or MUST be used. Wikipedia guidelines rarely have this level of clarity.) The discussion at WP:FILM discourage you from using this. If you disagree with Project Film or you believe the lower level guideline MOS:MILLION somehow takes priority over guidelines link MOS:ABBR and the more general principles of clear and simple writing then you need to explain more clearly how you came to that conclusion.

I do not see how your personal preference and interpretation of the guidelines takes priority over the past discussion, or trumps MOS:STYLEVAR but I'd be interested to read your explanation. -- ~2025-43070-44 (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

And I'd be interested in your claim that this abbreviation could cause problems for "readers using English as a second language or readers using assistive technology", which is clearly not true. Barry Wom (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Do you believe that text to speech software is going to correctly interpret $18M as "eighteen million dollars"? Based on my past experience of text to speech software I don't expect it to be that clever. Maybe text to speech software has gotten a whole lot better in recent years but most software is still not even as clever as a below average intelligence reader (the wikipedia accessibility guidelines were certainly written based on the old assumptions that screenreaders are not very good). Wikipedia is for all kinds of readers.

You keep pointing to MOS:MILLION but right at the top of that page it says "Where this manual gives options, maintain consistency within an article unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. ".

Even if you disagree on all other points, it still does not explain why you think it is reasonable to disregard the past discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_89#M_for_Millions. -- ~2025-43070-44 (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Do you believe that text to speech software is going to correctly interpret $18M as "$18 million"?

Of course it is. Do you really believe that it wouldn't?

"Where this manual gives options, maintain consistency within an article unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. "

My bolding, which is exactly the case with using "M". Barry Wom (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

You are writing the same word two different ways in the same sentence, that is not maintaining consistency.

Some editors in the past discussion said it would be fine if it was in a table or similar section with limited space, and that would be a good reason to do otherwise and use the abbreviations, but the discussion discouraged you from abbreviation million to M in the lead section of film articles. The guidelines might allowed it in theory as an option but in practice and by discussion it was not encouraged in the lead section of film articles. -- ~2025-43070-44 (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

You are writing the same word two different ways in the same sentence, that is not maintaining consistency.

It is entirely consistent with MOS:MILLION, which you still don't appear to have read.

I have patiently explained why my edits are valid and why your objections are invalid. In case you hadn't noticed, I have deemed this too unimportant to be bothering with further. I will not be responding to any further messages. Barry Wom (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I just want to know this because I’m curious. WATT TV (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Any particular article in mind? Barry Wom (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

A lot, actually. Like The Full Monty and Snatch and Sunshine and Kingsman: The Golden Circle and The King’s Man. The former, along with Sunshine are the articles that I edited. WATT TV (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I checked each of these and they seem to be accurate. In each case, all of the production companies are British. Barry Wom (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

The Kingsman movies were all made in association with TSG Entertainment, which is an American production company. And you might want to check the sources on BFI and rethink your edits. It will tell you for certain whether they are solely British films or co-productions with America. WATT TV (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

How do you figure TSG is a production company? They only finance films. Only. Mike Allen 05:42, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, how am I supposed to know the difference? WATT TV (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Not every British film is solely British just because no American production companies were involved, so how about you just revert everything back to the way they were before you fiddled with them? WATT TV (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:ANI notice requirements, I am notifying you that I opened a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the repeated LLM-authorship allegations and warning-style posts. Please see the ANI section titled “Repeated unsubstantiated accusations of LLM use (User:Barry Wom)” for the diffs and context. Thank you. Tech Bytez (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I am confused with something-what are sources? Are they links to other articles or something else? AnythangStudios (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I did ask this before however, please forgive me AnythangStudios (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

See WP:REFBEGIN Barry Wom (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey Barry Wom. How ya doin? I wanna ask you a question. Why did you kept removing that sentence "The sequel to something"? It is very unnecessary. Just sayin. And besides, there's no rule saying it can't be allowed in the lead. ~2026-64171-4 (talk) 05:56, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Iron Giant § Edit War. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)