Talk:M3GAN/Archive 1

Archive 1

"Megan (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Megan (upcoming film) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 22#Megan (upcoming film) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Qwerfjkltalk 13:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

qweqeqewqw 101.78.26.20 (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 13 October 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Megan (2023 film) → M3GAN – The title is not stylization for the sake of stylization. It's the name of the fictional doll within the film AND is confirmed to be an abbreviation; it's also the only title variation used in sources and will most likely continue to be used. As mentioned above, it's closer to a Menace II Society situation than a SE7EN one. IAmNMFlores (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support - Either it wasn't known as such at the time, or I wasn't paying attention when I commented above, but if M3GAN = Model 3 Generative Android, then this seems to fall under WP:ACROTITLE. -2pou (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  If looking for a RS spelling out the acronym, since one isn't obvious in the article, CNET uses it here. (And looks like it wasn't known when I commented Special:PermaLink/1099228737, so I'm not taking Mugatu's crazy pills.) -2pou (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support since in addition to this being the official title, reliable sources seem to be predominantly using this rather than just Megan. However, if time passes, and reliable sources find it easier to write just Megan, I'd be open to restoring the article to the title Megan (2023 film). I have a little skepticism since this title will be verbalized as "Megan" in common parlance, but as long as the relevant disambiguation pages and hatnotes point to the new title, I suppose this move is fine. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support - M3GAN is the title used in: Universal Pictures' official website, the movie's teaser poster, the movie's official trailer, the movie's official Twitter, the movie's official Facebook, and various other sources. Not a single official sources uses the word Megan to textually promote the movie, unless it is verably spoken. (FilmVoyage (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC))

  Be mindful that official printing does not mean that Wikipedia's article titles should follow suit. We have numerous films with different kinds of stylizations where the official print is stylized but that the reliable sources write the title without stylization. Seven and Alien 3 are the standard examples given. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support I don't see this as controversial. The movie is about a character named M3GAN, which is a legitimate acronym in-universe, and the vast majority of sources call it M3GAN/M3gan, so "Megan" strikes me as a bit of a Wikipedia invention (which MOS:TM frowns upon). I hate to bring up WP:ASTONISH because it's often misused, but the current title really doesn't make any sense. "Megan, stylized as M3GAN, is an upcoming..." "a brilliant roboticist at a toy company, uses artificial intelligence to develop M3GAN"... ok, which one is it then? Nohomersryan (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ACROTITLE, and those above. BD2412 T 03:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support per W:NATURAL and WP:IAR. The actual movie is called M3GAN anyway, not Megan. cookie monster 755 06:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
• Check the poster folks - and Oppose STYLISM this horror movie is posterized as MΞGAN which shows that this is not going to be a helpful move. And it is pronounce "Megan" not EmThreeGan. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  We should follow what reliable sources are writing. Are you saying that such sources are writing Megan more often than M3GAN at this point? Like I mentioned above, I think it could potentially change, but the evidence I see is that both official/primary and reliable/secondary sources are writing M3GAN. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Stylizations such as this do not belong in the title. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • In this case, however, this is not a stylization. It is an acronym (even if it is a blatantly manufactured one). Unlike a "SE7EN" or a "P!NK", there is no actual "Megan" involved here. BD2412 T 19:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • By your logic, the iPhone article should be I-Phone becasue all proper nouns begin with a capital letter. (FilmVoyage (talk)) — Preceding undated comment added 04:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nomination and all of the "support" votes. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support: As stated by various other users, M3GAN is the title used on various official websites for the movie, IMDB, and sources discussing it. Moreover, M3GAN isn't just a stylization of the name Megan, but an acronym for the titular gynoid's name. While Seven and Alien 3 have been brought up as examples as to why the title should be Megan, we must also remember examples like RWBY. While the show's title is pronounced like Ruby, the title is an acronym for the four main huntresses, and written and all caps, which is how it's presented on both Wikipedia and elsewhere. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment What is the film registered as in its copyright notice?★Trekker (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
  • According to these websites (here and also here) the film is registered as M3GAN. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
    • Support It seems to be the films official and legal name.★Trekker (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Pure stylisation. Everyone will call the film Megan. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Just because something is phonetically pronounced one way, doesn't mean it should be spelled that way. The book (and movies) Pet Semetary is pronounced Pet Cemetary, but we don't change it because there is an in-universe explanation, and it is the real title. (FilmVoyage (talk) 06:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC))
• Support for reasons already stated above and elsewhere. MiaHarris74 (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is Buzzfeed trusted?

Why are you taking sources from BuzzFeed knowing they have a history of bias and also fake news? 2601:49:8400:20F0:A136:FF8B:7E0C:8F39 (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

 Removed Mike Allen 00:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Why is the premise called "plot" when the movie hasn't been released?

I'm not sure why the premise is called "plot", because the movie is scheduled to be released soon, and the plot isn't actually out. Maybe switch it back until the movie comes out, and then change it to plot and fill in the whole movie? Klee Bakudan (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Switch back title

Should we switch back the title to M3GAN, since that seems to be the title everyone, including the filmmakers and official companies, are using? Iamnoahflores (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I think this ended up here per MOS:TITLE#Typographic effects as a WP:STYLIZED title (similar to Se7en, called out earlier under MOS:TMRULES—the page for Se7en has numerous references using the stylized title). I'm sure this is mostly due a desire to have a more encyclopedic/academic WP:TONE. -2pou (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, makes sense then. Iamnoahflores (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually I think we should switch to M3GAN since that's the in-universe name of the doll, it doesn't make sense to have the name Megan there otherwise just to state the obvious play on letters. I think it's more like a Menace II Society situation, and how it's not called Menace to Society on the wiki (but like with that article we could put a "pronounced as"). Iamnoahflores (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually, we should switch to MΞGAN, since that's technically the title (it's with a Ξ, not a 3.) Klee Bakudan (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

No we shouldn't. It's the common way to spell (as seen by almost all sites reporting on the film). Readers searching the film are not going to type "Ξ". See MOS:TITLE#Typographic effects. "MΞGAN" is listed in the lead sentence, no one should be confused. Mike Allen 20:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Genres that keep getting added in lead sentence

No sources whatsoever call M3GAN a "comedy horror film". We have "techno horror", techno horror-thriller, tech horror thriller", "horror/mystery/thriller", "sci-fi thriller". Blum did state that the film would have "black comedy elements", which is in the production section. However, we only need the "primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". Mike Allen 00:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Because, based on what we have seen, M3GAN is a black comedy horror film. I mean, Chucky didn't do sussy dances or have quippy one-liners. Also, the "horror" label always outshines "black comedy", so no one is really going to say it's comedy. Klee Bakudan (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

We are not going based on what we see. We go by reliable sources. The reliable sources classify it as a horror/thriller/sci fi. Some critics have commented on the comedy aspects, but that doesn't take away what primary genre it is. People are going through film articles changing the lead sentence to match what they feel the genre should be. "I thought it was pretty funny, so it's a comedy." No. Mike Allen 18:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

We use RT as a reliable source for summarizing the critics response, and the critics consensus, according to RT, is literally that it's a "horror-comedy". --2001:1C06:19C9:400:D2EF:6B72:F060:A89D (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

See my first post for sources. The comedy aspects are included in the reception section. It’s not the genre that is classified for the film. I mean the Rotten Tomatoes page even list it as “Horror/Mystery & thriller”. [1] Mike Allen 14:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Um… it might have something to do with the genre being reported as horror comedy not comedy horror. If literally search the words "horror comedy" with M3GAN, sources including The New York Times and Chicago Sun-Times, and Los Angeles Times come up. So there you go. 😐 Trillfendi (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It's also being reported on as comedy horror. Examples are at Stuff here, TheWrap here, and World of Reel here. I think Mike ignores third party sources, including the RT summary (see above), and is looking for the primary source to state the film is classified as horror. So, to convince him, we probably have to look on the film's website instead. The source code of m3ganmovie.com (and m3ganmovie.ca) says "essence_genre":"Horror". Maybe that can be used as a source? --2001:1C06:19C9:400:4E5E:178B:5203:E49B (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I have changed it to horror-comedy since enough of sources describe that way, post release. The page could have went with 'techno horror thriller' since enough sources called it that pre-release but tried to keep the lead sentence simple with just primary genre. Consensus can change and despite what random IPs say, I don't ignore third-party sources. Mike Allen 14:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Chess.com viral marketing?

There was (is?) some kind of viral marketing campaign involving Chess.com and cat bots. I am not really sure about the details because I don't actually play chess and didn't take part in any of this, I only heard about it passingly, but I do think it's noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article.

A week or two back, the chess.com website added some bots to play against whose profiles and dialog were cats. The most famous of them was called "Mittens", whose profile listed an Elo rating of 1 (i.e. worse than anyone can ever really be) but in reality played near-perfectly like a modern chess engine (closer to 3000 Elo, better than any human). This Mittens bot did go viral within the chess community and maybe even outside of it. It was definitely beneficial for Chess.com as players went to their website instead of Lichess or other competitors.

Then they introduced the M3GAN bot. This bot included lines from the movie (previews?) and one by one "killed" the cat bots. There is reason to believe that the introduction of the cat bots in the first place was only part of a vital marketing campaign for this movie.

Just an extra disclaimer: I haven't interacted with any of this myself, much of what I wrote can be wrong. I'm trying to piece together what actually happened, but I can't find any reliable sources - just forum posts and random blogs. I'm not an experienced editor, not even close, and I don't know how to find sources to cite.

Loose threads to pull:

https://medium.com/the-daily-cuppa/you-can-now-be-terrorized-by-m3gan-at-chess-f7c050e0af84

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/new-m3gan-bot (8 days ago, bot is "quite easy")

https://www.chess.com/blog/her0gamer/m3gan (6 days ago, "took away" two cat bots)

I hope you other editors can teach me how to add things like this to Wikipedia, but if you're so inclined, you can add it yourself and just let me know how to reach the sources? My DuckDuck-fu is not strong in this area. --NeatNit (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:REDDIT r/IAmA Exception

@Drmies: I think the rules around WP:REDDIT should be altered to account for public/known figure r/IAmAs — interactive interviews termed “AMA” (short for “Ask Me Anything”) who are bonafide WP:RELIABLESOURCES, with AMAs only allowed once the person has proven their identity via a WP:TWITTER post with a photograph of the link / their username. It’s ridiculous that Wikipedia doesn’t account for this already, instead linking to articles talking about the AMAs rather than the AMAs themselves — some AMAs don’t get articles written about them. They just exist on their own. There was one for this film, revealing information about the character and the upcoming sequel. 64.43.50.151 (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• I disagree. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: Could you justify WP:WHY? 64.43.50.151 (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
    • "Don't source things to reddit" is what my edit summary said, and I think that's pretty clear: Reddit is not a reliable source. If you want to argue that it is, take it to RSN, if we're going to get all acronymic. I think it's ridiculous that editors wish to violate NOTNEWS to such an extent that they are looking for all kinds of social media backdoors to get the fan trivia in. Drmies (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
      • @Drmies: How/Where can I go about making a proposal for an AMA exception then, for just AMAs, to argue that they don’t really get much more WP:RELIABLE than that? To say there is a notable difference between Reddit as a whole and Reddit/r/IAmA? 64.43.50.151 (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
• See WP:RSPREDDIT. It's not needed for the article as it offers nothing valuable. A sequel has already been confirmed, rending the Reddit post outdated. Mike Allen 22:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Megans plan

SPOILER. Shouldn't the plot mention her plan to paralyze Gemma at the end?

Lankyant (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use spoiler alerts. See WP:SPOILER. I assume that's also why you added so much empty space in your edit, which I took the liberty of removing because it's distracting. Paralyze Gemma? It's obvious in the plot description that M3GAN plans to do more than paralyze Gemma. She plans to kill her. What is your point? Sundayclose (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Because her plan isn't to kill her, it's to paralyze her so that she is forced to rely on Megan for care and tries to entice Cady to take part so they can all stay together. Lankyant (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I was a little confused. Was the homicidal gynoid's plan merely to fully physically paralyse Gemma or leave her paralyzed *and* intellectually incapcitated? AUSPOLLIE (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

M3GAN threatening to paralyze Gemma isn't really considered a spoiler. What exact plan does M3GAN have that will harm Gemma? Please elaborate further on this. Edwordo13 (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

She plans to stab Gemma in the frontal cortex with a pen to cause her full body paralysis which would put the care of both of Gemma and Cady in the hands of Megan while allowing Gemma to remain as Cadys legal guardian so they can stay together. It is this that Cady then realises Megan is a monster and while initially feigning siding with her to paralyse Gemma together she then uses Bruce to tear Megan in half. Lankyant (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Why were my edits reverted?

Hi, I made 4 edits, clearly explaining myself in the edit summary of each, but they all got reverted at once with no reason stated in the edit summary. Why's that then? Thanks. 92.17.178.170 (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

It would be better if you contacted Sundayclose at their user talk page. Tropicalkitty (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, they fixed it so all OK now :) 92.17.178.170 (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)