Talk:Monsters University

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleMonsters University has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 24, 2013Good article nomineeListed

Prequel?[edit]

There are rumors all over the place, on reliable sources, that the movie will be more a prequel than a sequel about when Mike and Sulley met. Should this be included in the article anywhere? --Glimmer721 talk 03:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Repetitive[edit]

Shouldn't we shorten the use of the word "release" in some way? It'll help avoid conflict, I guess. Mgangku (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up the Article[edit]

The article looks empty now because I cleaned up the article as there were many points that digressed from the topic of the film.

The reason I deleted the mention about James Coburn is because it is too early (there have been no reports about the cast of the film yet) to mention just one cast member.

There was a sentence saying that the release date of the film had been changed so as to avoid competition with The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, but not a single reference even mentioned Breaking Dawn. Therefore, I deleted that point.

The interview with Brad Bird was completely irrelevant to the topic, so I deleted it.

If you have any reservations about my edits, please do visit my talk page and leave a message there. I would gladly have a healthy argument if it makes Wikipedia better ; ) Halemane (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine, that information can be added back if sources are found. Just make sure you use proper ref templates, like {{cite web}} (I'll take care of it). --Glimmer721 talk 23:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Much Appreciated! Halemane (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome Glimmer721 talk 00:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the plot and it seems incomplete. Is there anything missing from the plot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.31.12.244 (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poster[edit]

If you look carefully at the provided poster, you can see it was obviously fan made. If not, it wouldn't say "A disney presentation of a Pixar film" This puts into question the validity of this page as a whole. --Dann135 (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark the article as a stub?[edit]

The article is small enough to be marked as a stub. I want some opinions before marking it. Halemane (talk) 10:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be start; stubs usually have no sources and might be only a few sentences long. This article has all the information avalible on the subject so far. Glimmer721 talk 02:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to redirect as fails WP:NFF[edit]

I have changed this to a redirect as it clearly fails WP:NFF which states: "In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced". Don't worry though, I've preserved the text at the redirect location. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Rob Sinden, at this time the article should be redirected here until such time that it meets WP:NFF or a plethora of additional reliable sources becomes available. In either case consensus should be established here before the article is recreated to determine whether or not these conditions have been meet. And to editors who wish to continue work on the article until its ready to be included in article space, I suggest that they use the article incubator.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the article, as I do believe WP:NFF has been met - there's plenty of reliable sourcing out there on this, and just because Pixar hasn't released a lot of information about the film yet does not mean that the film is not yet "clearly out of the pre-production process" - these films take, on average, three years to make, so with a release date for next year, this would be the case here. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How can WP:NFF have been met, when it states "reliable sources must confirm..." - where are these reliable sources? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pixar does not announce films unless they are clearly out of the pre-production process. As for reliable sources, does yesterday's announcement in the Hollywood Reporter somehow fail your standard for reliable sources? Same with Entertainment Weekly? Face it, the sources are there, and there will be plenty more in the days to come - I don't see what your problem with this is... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFF has a specific line about animated films, and the sources do not confirm anything that meet these requirements - i.e. that the film is "clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced". All they confirm are a brief synopsis, a couple of actors and a title. Your claim that "Pixar does not announce films unless they are clearly out of the pre-production process" might be sufficient if you could find a source to verify that. Meantime, this should be reverted to a redirect until WP:NFF is met, and any "information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material", ie Monsters, Inc., as per this guideline. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If they've announced cast members, that means they've moved past the temp tracks and are actively working towards the final product. As with the Superman AFD, I thin you're being a little too strict here, as this page clearly meets all the WP:V, WPN, or GNG concerns - I believe those combined trump *one* critera at WP:NFF... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. You can't "power up" notability guidelines against each other. As this is a film article, it needs to follow the guidelines in place for film notability. This does not meet them. Whilst you may be right regarding the status of production, until reliable sources can be provided that this is the case, we need to defer to the guidelines laid down at WP:NFF, which is specifically in place for articles exactly like this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect - Per WP:NFF, it says that filming must be started, and that the production itself must be notable as seen by significant coverage by reliable third party sources. That is not the case here in any context. No source saying that filming has started. No significant coverage whatsoever. Fenn, if you're going to compare this to the Superman AfD, then I'll at least point out that if you took all of the information in the article (I'll even let you have the repeated info from the lead) that wouldn't be equal to 1 paragraph of the Superman information in size. So how could argue that there is so much information that it could not possibly be housed at Monsters, Inc.? NFF is clear on this, even the GNG is clear on this. There is no significant coverage. Significant coverage is even defined at the GNG as more than trivia mentionings. Casting information is trivial mentionings. Announcing it will be a prequel is trivial mentionings. I'm not saying it shouldn't be stated, but that's not really significant coverage.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slight correction to Bignole's statement. Cast announcements or any other announcements are not always trivial. Coverage as defined WP:GNG is when the subject is a primary large topic of the source. If the announcement is buried in a source on a different topic then it would be trivial.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, TheRealFennShysa seems adamant that this conforms to WP:NFF despite it not meeting any of the criteria specified for animated films therein and keeps reverting the redirect, going against WP:NFF and consensus here. Any comments to add on this? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the article were more comprehensive, I might tend to agree with him. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Several givens (that for clarity I would love to see incorporated into WP:NFF):
    1. Guideline indicates a topic may be determined as being "worthy of notice" by it meeting general notability through it having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"
    2. Policy allows that it "is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced."
    3. Very rare exceptions to guideline WP:NFF are allowed IF the coverage of the future film is enduring and persistant over an extended period (thus avoiding WP:NOTNEWS), AND if there is too much verifiable information in an article, whose topic is a future film, to reasonably be placed anywhere else.
That said, and as we look at these on a case-by-case basis, I would
Support a merge and redirect to Monsters, Inc.#Prequel at this point in time, as this particular article is quite small and would not overburden the redirect target. However, I would also urge that someone (Fenn?) userfy a copy of this current short article and contine work on it out of mainspace, as there does seem to be potential [1][2][3][4] for it to become a rather decent independent article, and I would support a return of an improved version as principle filming becomes more imminent. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a merge and redirect at this time, per MQS's excellent comments. - BilCat (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect FOR NOW the info could all easily fit on the other page. Until more plot details are known, it doesn't need it's own page. JDDJS (talk) 00:42, March 31, 2011

Redirecting again[edit]

I see that this page has been recreated, despite very little further development. I'll contact all the contributors who participated in the above discussion, and see how we all feel about it now. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to gauge when a computer-animated film actually "starts" production, but after a search engine test, there does not seem to be any evidence that production is underway. I think merging is still the right approach. Comic-Con is later this month, though, so maybe we will find out about the film's status. My guess is that it's likely underway now, but of course, we should verify my guess... :) Erik (talk | contribs) 10:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support the redirect back to Monsters, Inc.#Prequel. The little information that is available can fit on that page easily. What's the point, no new information has been added anyway. There's no need to rush. —Mike Allen 11:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - The film isn't supposed to come out for 2 more years? The level of coverage on this page is not "significant", as defined by WP:GNG. This should be redirected back to the parent article. It probably won't be ready for independence until sometime in 2012.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate - the film is obviously in production, based on the coverage from reliable sources - it meets the film requirements, IMHO. It's not like this won't be an unreleased film - you all know that this will be a full article eventually. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please could you illustrate how it complies to the WP:NFF guideline that states "reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced." --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We do not "know that this will be a full article eventually". As the film is delayed until 2013, and WP:NFF is written specificaly because nothing is "for sure" about a film in pre-production except that it is IN pre-production. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    MikeWazowski, exactly where do these source shows that the film is "obviously in production". I see sources discussing what the plot may be and that Crystal and Goodman will reprise their roles. Nothing says that it's actually in the process of being made.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is just not yet ready for a separate article.[edit]

I still support a redirect, as the article itself is still not comprehensive enough and lacks showing the persistant coverage to merit being one of those rare but allowable exceptions to WP:NFF. And the SPA IP that had been attempting to resurrect the article for the last two days,[5] despite an assumed good faith in his efforts, has not in my opinion shown the topic as having enough continued and persistant coverage to merit it being a seperate article. Yes, coverage is continuing, but we do not have so much new information that the redirect target would be overwhelmed.[6][7] And as available sources state that the film has been until June 2013,[8][9][10][11] a redirect still serves... and this latter information can be used to expand the section in Monsters, Inc.#Prequel until such time as we do have enough sourced content whereby a reasonable case might be made for a decent seperate article. I encourage any interested editor to work on and expand a version of a new article in a userspace... but it simply is not ready for a mainspace stand-alone. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss...[edit]

Did anyone who made there be a consensus to merge this article to a re-direct to Monsters, Inc. use the following argument:

I say to merge and re-direct for the same reason a user already posted.

I think that if there are arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, there should be arguments to avoid in discussions on whether to merge as well. Georgia guy (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, per the next user's comments that diagree with you. - BilCat (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where in the above section of this talk page are the comments you're talking about?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They haven't been written yet, but I agree with them. - BilCat (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you write them?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, because someone else is going to, and then I'll agree with them. - BilCat (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who is this someone else?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I won't know who it is until they write them, but s long as they disagree with your view here, I'll agree with them. - BilCat (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that someone will write these comments if you don't know who this user is?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know for certain, but if they do, I'll agree with them. - BilCat (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, how do you know about these comments?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, that's what i just told you - I'm just hoping that someone does. - BilCat (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you only told me that you don't know who'll make these comments; you didn't tell me you don't know about the comments. Georgia guy (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you asked me "How do you know that someone will write these comments if you don't know who this user is??" That's what I answered to. But if they do write them, I will agree with them. - BilCat (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what comments are you expecting?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments that disagree with your point at the beginning of this thread. - BilCat (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand! --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just illustrating absurdity by being more absurd. - BilCat (talk) 08:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the former users comments on the former comments that have already been stated and may be stated in the future.--JOJ Hutton 10:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please explain what is going on here? Are editors really complaining that other editors just agree with someone else's reasoning instead of adding a reason that will be almost identical to someone else's? Please explain --JDDJS (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what GG is complaining about. What is difficult is to agree with another user's comments before they post them - it's much easier to agree with comments after they've been posted. :) On AFDs, I do offten post agreement with other users comments, but I add some comments of my own to make it unique. As the merge discussion is not an AFD, I didn't think it necessary to add extra comments in this case - MQS covered the issue quite well, and I would have just been "treading water" to attempt to add my own comments. - BilCat (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As per the previous poster, I too agree with the next poster who makes a post disagreeing with GG's original post in this thread. - Nick Thorne talk 13:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pixar chronology template[edit]

I have a big concern that people will think that this is the last Pixar film that will ever be made. I would like to know how to make the template mention the "Inside the Mind" film without having to link to it or assume it has an article. I say it's not time for that film to have an article until an official title is revealed from a news source. Any way to do this?? Georgia guy (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that this will be a problem. I see your concern, but its hardly probable that someone will look at that template and come to that conclusion.--JOJ Hutton 13:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right now, but a year from now you will definitely be wrong. Georgia guy (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A year from now, there should be more information about this upcoming film and the problem will fix itself. Unless of course, when the article is created, an editor continues to redirect the page over and over again.--JOJ Hutton 13:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That happened a lot with this article, but unlike Monsters University, the Inside the Mind film isn't related to a previous Pixar film, making the storyline of someone wanting to re-direct the page over and over again (as this article often ends up as a re-direct to Monsters, Inc.) less likely. Georgia guy (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid we may not have officially crossed the threshold on the editor redirecting this page based on a year old consensus of an old version of this article. This is clearly a new version, a better version, and a version that has addressed many of the concerns of that old and somewhat outdated consensus. I would advise keeping a regular eye on this page this week, to keep this page from being redirected yet again.--JOJ Hutton 14:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it is not linked, nobody will assume that it has a page. I have added "The Untitled Pixar Movie That Takes You Inside The Mind" without a link and italics since that is the official working title.--Carniolus (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Tilly[edit]

The article seems to go out of its way to avoid mention of Jennifer Tilly and Celia. I've seen sources that say she's reprising the role, but she's conspicuously absent from this article's list of returning characters. Anyone know something I don't? Powers T 14:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source where it is said she is returning ? I never saw any where she was mentioned.--174.89.88.23 (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"She'll reprise her role of Celia in next year's sequel to 'Monsters, Inc.,' 'Monsters University.'" Powers T 13:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monsters, Inc. franchise[edit]

Any thoughts on when to create a Monsters, Inc. (franchise) article?? My suggested time is when this movie is in theatres, meaning that we have 8 months to go. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unnecessary for a "franchise" that includes just two feature films and two shorts. Powers T 13:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That totals 4 films altogether. What's the minimum number of media for a franchise to have for it to get its own Wikipedia article?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Three features, I'd say, or a handful of shorts. I don't know that we can set an exact number, but it can usually be determined by the presence of reliable third-party sources that discuss the franchise as a whole rather than individual films. Powers T 22:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there might be enough information for franchise article, but "Monsters" isn't the right name for it.Caringtype1 (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What would the right name be?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, Monsters is too general, something like Monsters, Inc. would be better.Caringtype1 (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New poster[edit]

http://www.fandango.com/movieblog/exclusive-monsters-university-poster-premiere-727435.html Is it appropriate to replace the teaser poster with this one? dogman15 (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded the new one. I think it is ok - it is official, has American release date, and it actually shows something else beside the logo.--Carniolus (talk) 09:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

question[edit]

Does anyone have any idea if George Sanderson might reappear? I can just see him on the current poster, if you look carefully. Visokor (talk) 09:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, George Sanderson is confirmed to reappear as a member of one of the fraternities: http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/monsters-university/photos/monsters-university-stills-slideshow/monsters-university-stills-photo-241485054.html --Gray Catbird (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
what I also want to know is, does Sam Black reprise George's voice? also, if the Abominable Snowman might reappear? I mean, John Ratzenberger has been in every Pixar film to date and he voiced the Abominable Snowman in Monsters, Inc. Visokor (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UK release date[edit]

Is it worth putting up the UK release date, which by the way is July 12th, on this article? Visokor (talk) 11:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILMRELEASE and WP:MOSFILM#Release say that only the earliest release date and the release date in the country that produced the film should be included.--Carniolus (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the UK release date is notable for some reason, then it should be included in the article. The infobox is reserved for the earliest release and the release in the country of origin. BOVINEBOY2008 21:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity Error[edit]

There has been some discussion about how there is a continuity error about how long Mike and Sully have known each other. They meet for the first time in this film, but in the first film Mike said that Sully's been jealous of his looks since the 4th grade. A video on Youtube about this problem has over 700,000 views.[12] The error has been mentioned by the director. [13] [14] Should we talk about it in this article? And1987 (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't they just re-dub and re-animate the scene from the first film ("...ever since I can remember."), and retcon it? dogman15 (talk) 05:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since this has been covered by independent sources and has elicited a response from the film's producers, I'd agree this needs to be mentioned in the article. As to if/how they fix it, that's a post for another site. --McDoobAU93 15:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like the new addition. It's very well described and sourced. However, I don't think it belongs as a separate subheading in the "Plot" section. I've moved it to the "Production" section with no subhead, since the section describes how the film's director dealt with the problem and got the blessing of both John Lasseter and Pete Docter to make the change. It's very detailed, and I don't believe it merits a subhead of its own, but I'm flexible based on what other editors thing. Based on what's been added, it looks like the first meeting in college is indeed the retcon. --McDoobAU93 17:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plot question[edit]

In trying to downsize the plot, I'm struck by an item in the summary that is introduced and left hanging, and that's the debut of Randy Boggs. Outside of his introduction, there's very little that Randy does to advance the plot, unlike his appearance in Monsters, Inc. As such, I'm wondering if we should delete the entire sentence where Randy is introduced. Opinions? --McDoobAU93 02:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep it. He was important enough in both movies to warrant a mention. Czolgolz (talk) 04:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 6 October 2013[edit]

I Got BAD news: I Think Monsters University didn't got made into a video game. NO VIDEO GAME., it the first time Pixar didn't made a video game.

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. I don't see any mention of a video game in the article. RudolfRed (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He's making it up. Freshh (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Monsters University/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 13:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • Move "Monsters University tells the story of Mike and Sulley studying at college. They first started off as rivals, but slowly became best friends." further up lead nearer top.
 Done: Also, Fru1tbat tweaked the lead a bit
  • Should probably mention something about production and the soundtrack
 Done
Plot
  • What is a "scarer"? place in brackets for anybody not familiar with the series of films
 Done by Fru1tbat
Production
  • "On April 5, 2011, it was announced that the film's release date would be June 21, 2013. It was the studio's fourteenth feature film." merge and reword as "The studio's fourteenth feature film, on April 5, 2011 it was announced that the film would be released on June 21, 2013.
 Done: Again, tweaked by Fru1tbat
Release
  • Move section to below Soundtrack.
 Done
Reviews

A lot of reviews, some of them are a bit too generic and redundant, when I write a review section I try to pick quotes which add further information about themes and split rather than simply "I liked it" sort of thing. It should be OK for GA though but bear it in mind.

 Done: Splited positive reviews and negative reviews. Also, deleted few reviews. There were way too many.
Refs
  • Ensure that all date formatting is consistent no 2013-06, ideally write as 24 June 2013. Sources in the 30s and 56 in particular.
 Done
  • Fix ref 71, broken.
 Done

All points done, thank you.--Jionpedia ✉ 15:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Looks OK to me now. Thanks and all the best!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A very big thank you!--Jionpedia ✉ 15:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Crystal receiving top billing more than John Goodman[edit]

Why did Billy Crystal receive more top billing than John Goodman? It appears to me that after young Mike's school scene, the story slowly starts to focus a bit more on Sulley afterwards. --70.190.229.44 (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "focus" is debatable, I think, as both are central characters. Top billing is not something we decide arbitrarily depending on our perception of the film, anyway - standard practice is to use the poster, or another official source. In this case, the official site lists Crystal first, and I couldn't find a poster that listed the voice cast, so the official site would seem to be the source to go with. --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response in lead[edit]

I notice that the lead paragraph states that the film had "positive reviews," but the lower section suggests that the responses were much more mixed. Even the rotten tomato rating seems to suggest a C+ reaction by audiences. Would it thus be in order to change this to "mixed reviews"? OttselSpy25 (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut them both. The aggregators are already summaries. Why we need to summarize summaries is beyond me. Also, RT has a pass/fail system, not a nuanced system like Metacritic. At some point we're interpreting content, which we shouldn't be doing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monsters University. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monsters University. 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) 22:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Monsters University. 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) 15:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monsters University. 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) 17:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Monsters, Inc. 0" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Monsters, Inc. 0 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 4#Monsters, Inc. 0 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 17:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monsters_University&oldid=1208979369"