Talk:Last Night in Soho

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Horror Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

How Edgar Wright's Parents and Quentin Tarantino Inspired Last Night in Soho

Genre

Per WP:SUBJECTIVE, "Wikipedia articles about art and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have a tendency to become effusive [...] it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public [...] Articles should provide an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work [...] preferably with citations to experts holding that interpretation". Basically, we should not assume genre of a film based on promotional material from the creators, we need a third-party source discussing it and interpreting it. As no one has seen it yet, we should not push a genre like that. I'm okay with having it in the production section, but we shouldn't put it in the lead until it comes out. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand this logic. The articles put out when first announcing the film have specifically identified it as a psychological horror. How does it prevent it from being able to be described as such in the lead section when it’s being maintained in the production section? I don’t feel needing people to see the movie first is required when the film has been specifically identified as a certain genre. Rusted AutoParts 19:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Rusted AutoParts. WP:V is the policy here. Reliable sources are calling it a psychological horror film. Doubt is being cast on this genre-labeling for absolutely no reason. It is completely unnecessary to wait until the film comes out before we provide the genre. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is because this is just promotional material and not an interpretation, which is what genres are. As we have no promotional material, not even a plot, it would be wrong to label a film without knowing what it is. Has happened with several films in the past. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But that still doesn’t counteract the articles that have explicitly identified it as a set genre. It’s a reliably sourced genre so I just don’t see the doubt in it. Rusted AutoParts 21:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its not about WP:RS, its about WP:SUBJECTIVE, which is about intepretations of a genre. Nobody has seen it, there isn't even a plot synopses, so its interpreting something we know nothing about. I'd be less pokey if it was a less specific genre as a whole, but i feel like getting into nitty-gritty here is a bit too much per the rules mentioned above Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What’s the basis for this doubt? Aside from SUBJECTIVE? It’s still a case of not needing to have seen something. Those involved with the production have referred to it a certain way, psychological horror to be specific. If no genre was said by anyone and I started saying it was psychological horror, then it’s not good to have it there because it can’t be backed up. It can be backed up with the sources. Rusted AutoParts 22:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SUBJECTIVE is not applicable. It is about how Wikipedia should appropriately "note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public". That means something like, "the best psychological horror film ever made". Here, we are providing a straightforward description of the film. Would we question an actor being cast as a doctor in this film, asking, "Are they really a doctor?" Reliable sources are sharing this "psychological horror" label, and there is zero reason to question the sources. If something for some reason changes, Wikipedia can change with that, but honestly, that is exceedingly rare and not a fair assumption to make for all films. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we can leave it for now. I figured once more reviews and opinions on how the film is viewed can let the genre be changed as the film is made/released. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The trailer on the official Focus Features youtube channel, as well as their website describe it as a "psychological thriller", if that matters. QueerFilmNerd^talk 18:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British or not?

There seems to have been some edit warring over the inclusion of the description “British” in a couple of places. Rather than continuing the reverts, can we discuss and clarify here instead? I see from the list of production companies that this only includes British companies. Are there others (US ones, perhaps) that should also be included? As it stands it should remain as British, but that’s only going by what the article says: if there are other counties involved, the article (especially the IB), needs to be updated. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:DCF:AA8B:C576:8A2F (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect World Pictures listed in the Production Companies is labeled as a Chinese company—no idea what their involvement really was. Focus Films is labeled under distribution, but they are also a production company. I don't know if they operated in that capacity or not—I think that one is the source of more back and forth. Template:Infobox_film#Country is an interesting explanation, and as the industry moves more and more to international production cooperation (whether the involvement of different companies, production companies that have multiple international offices, filming locations, etc.) it will just continue to get harder to define... (I personally try to omit it unless it's a small indie production, and it's clear as day that a single nationality can be defined.) Good luck. -2pou (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Film is of entirely British origin, no US company/director/producer were involved in its making. Channel 4 films is British, we proud Britons should claim our films as rightfully ours! 86.147.167.50 (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's worth re-opening this can of worms, but it seems worth noting that the British Film Institute itself says this film is of both US and UK origin on the BFI entry for the film. -2pou (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cast section

MrKolchak, could you explain why you think we should ignore the MoS for the article and capitalise words even when not formal nouns? Thanks - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:14E7:2553:7724:F016 (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should not capitalize the descriptive roles. "Male" and "Female" should also be lowercase. Not having seen the film, "Sage" before barmaid, I'm not sure. Is sage an adjective describing that the barmaid is wise, or is Sage her name, and barmaid is her job? If the latter, an article "a" or "the" should be inserted, but I'm guessing it's the former, and "sage barmaid" should be lowercase. -2pou (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UK & US

AbsolutelyFiring, why are you making up guidelines that do not exist? Please explain what wording in MOS:ACRO1STUSE would say that we should not follow the guideline that "For these commonly-referred-to entities, the full name does not need to be written out in full on first use, nor provided on first use in parentheses after the full name if written out". 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9532:D5BE:D54E:B8B1 (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me spell it out to you what it clearly says in exceptions: "Using United States instead of an acronym is often better formal writing style, and is an opportunity for commonality. USA, U.S.A. and U.S. of A. are generally not used except in quoted material."

Also as to why as abbreviations are used: "To save space in small spaces (see Use sourceable abbreviations), acronyms do not need to be written out in full. When not written out in full on the first use on a page, an acronym should be linked."

You clearly aren't reading the policy. Also when your proposed change is reverted you should use the article talk page instead of reverting. See WP:BRD, this is a common knowledge I'm sure you are aware of. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 09:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will repeat: "For these commonly-referred-to entities, the full name does not need to be written out in full on first use, nor provided on first use in parentheses after the full name if written out." A little higher up it also says "Unless specified in the "Exceptions" section below, an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page" (my emphasis). There is no need to write out these very common terms in full and having them as initials is entirely in line with the MoS. While it says you can write United States instead of US, it doesn't day you have to; it also doesn't say anything about the UK: this can stay as UK without any full term. How ridiculous would it be to have "UK and United States" just because you don't want to have such commonly used terms (easily understandable by the entire world except you, it seems). - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9532:D5BE:D54E:B8B1 (talk) 10:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ignore the part where it clearly says why there are exceptions. Let me repeat: "To save space". Also it says clearly that using the longer form in case of the United States at least is more formal. Yes it's easily understandable, but did you notice we have been avoiding these abbreviations on a lot pf articles. I am reporting you for edit-warring since you keep reverting instead of only discussing like you should after your proposed change is reverted. WP:BRD here applies to you. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 10:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand this: the exceptions are where the guidelines above do not need to be taken into account: that's what exceptions means for crying out loud! The space saving is a straw man when it comes to this argument. Please don't try and threaten me with reporting: you are equally culpable and you don't seem to understand the basic rules here. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9532:D5BE:D54E:B8B1 (talk) 10:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The exceptions are not exceptions for all the guidelines, just when short forms can be used the first time in an article: "Unless specified in the "Exceptions" section below, an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses, e.g. maximum transmission unit (MTU) if it is used later in the article." Read the policy clearly. And the same exceptions talk about formality which you willy-nilly ignore. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Do you understand what the words "Unless specified in the "Exceptions" section below" mean? It means all acronyms EXCEPT THE LIST OF SEVEN TERMS BELOW need to follow those rules. The list of seven acronyms are so common they do not need to be written in full. This is, I think, clear to pretty much everyone and is summed up by the line introducing the exemptions "For these commonly-referred-to entities, the full name does not need to be written out in full on first use, nor provided on first use in parentheses after the full name if written out.". I am not ignoring the formal language, but as the rest of the article isn't written in properly formal British English, this is the least of the worries. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9532:D5BE:D54E:B8B1 (talk) 10:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere does it say the exception applies everywhere. "Unless specified in the "Exceptions" section below, an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page." Which you removed.

Secondly, while you keep citing For these commonly-referred-to entities, the full name does not need to be written out in full on first use, nor provided on first use in parentheses after the full name if written out, the same section says Using United States instead of an acronym is often better formal writing style, and is an opportunity for commonality. Exactly what I told you earlier about formality. Need not doesn't mean you should avoid full names everywhere.

And no one's threatening you. I only reported you because you chose to keep reverting despite being told to stop. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 11:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to argue that point is ridiculous. It's extremely clear what "For these commonly-referred-to entities, the full name does not need to be written out in full on first use, nor provided on first use in parentheses after the full name if written out." means. Wikilawyering around what you may or may not think it means is timewasting.

The whole article is only written in semi-formal English. If I rewrote it in formal English you'd be up in arms about having the definite article added, the position of commas and the fact it should have "As at" rather than "As of".

Not a great move. You are equally culpable, as we have both reverted three times. It's not great from either of us, but it doesn't get to the limit of four reverts that are needed to trigger an automatic block (although an admin can still punish at three or just lock the page). 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9532:D5BE:D54E:B8B1 (talk) 11:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You know well need not doesn't mean use acronyms everywhere. That's basic English easy for anyone to understand.

And secondly there's a part about formality in that same section: Using United States instead of an acronym is often better formal writing style, and is an opportunity for commonality.

So simply put what you're doing is adding what you prefer. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 11:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"You know well need not doesn't mean use acronyms everywhere." No, that's not basic English: it's not any English! Can you clarify what you're trying to say please?

As I've already said, the whole article is not in formal English. It is, at best, in semi-formal English.

No. I'm following the guideline.

I think waiting for third-party input may be better than going round in circles. I am obviously not going to persuade you what the word "exemptions" means, and I do not agree with your interpretation of the section, so others may like to chip in and see what they think the Exemptions section of MOS:ACRO1STUSE means. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9532:D5BE:D54E:B8B1 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're only following what you desire since Wikipedia doesn't mandate acronyms in such circumstances, and reverting with abandon even when told to only discuss and not revert again. Partially quoting guidelines and exceptions isn't going to help with that. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can say exactly the same thing about your position, which is exactly why I think this is best left for now and to wait for others to come and comment on their views. You and I will not agree on this, so let a consensus develop with third-party input. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9532:D5BE:D54E:B8B1 (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No because I'm just adding back what was already there and what is a usual practice here. A consensus can develop with or without you even if you're blocked, and I'll follow it. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we even so obsessed with adding mention of the US? It's not an American film, and it was released elsewhere before the US. US is not significant to this topic. Canterbury Tail talk 14:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point. I seem to remember the MoS says to focus on the 'home' countries only, rather than all other nations. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9532:D5BE:D54E:B8B1 (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Canterbury Tail talk 14:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I checked WP:MOSFILM and there's no such statement. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There may not be any such statement, but there's also no reason to include the US and not the other countries that it released in before the US. The US has no connection to the movie, and therefore to included it alongside the UK in mentioning is WP:UNDUE. Canterbury Tail talk 15:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There most certainly is. The United States has the film's biggest box office share and has the biggest share of the box office in general. I don't see how it is irrelevant or undue. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Such US-centrism isn't really helpful in ensuring a balanced encyclopaedia. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9532:D5BE:D54E:B8B1 (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to talk about data, the film has earned more money in the US than its entire international release, unless Canada had a very big share in the "domestic gross" which I highly doubt it will. It's not US-centrism to represent a film's biggest market and that of film industry in general. Its release in US is definitely relevant to a balanced encyclopaedia. It will be irresponsible to omit its biggest market. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) As it's not known how much has been earned in the US, there is no way you can make the claim. As Canterbury Tail has pointed out, WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT are being ignored. Either way, there is still no need to have the name "United Kingdom" written in full in the lead. It is an exempted term under MOS:ACRO1STUSE. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9532:D5BE:D54E:B8B1 (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United States and Canada figures are usually never released separately. Regardless I'll leave it up to the consensus. But as for acronyms for UK and US, that's your own opinion. Using UK and US doesn't look formal to me and we should go by what's formal. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we should go by what the guidelines say. And as I've already pointed out, this article isn't in formal English: it is semi-formal at best. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9532:D5BE:D54E:B8B1 (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we did that you would have at least never bothered to use "US". Also it doesn't matter if someone wrote this article poorly. An article should always be formal. If its semi-formal then improve it. See MOS:TIES. An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole UK and US thing. If other country names are used, such as Canada etc, then I think UK and US should be fully qualified otherwise they're too informal. Canterbury Tail talk 16:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand. Please expand. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:US for details. Canterbury Tail talk 17:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now, but the US is still not a formal term nor it states that. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just stating my opinion that we should use United Kingdom and United States, not UK and US, and if other countries are mentioned it should absolutely be spelt out. Canterbury Tail talk 17:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting confused sorry. This is going nowhere, probably might be my fault. I should just ask this more simply. Do you support the IP's edit or my edit? AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Rigg character name

Shouldn't Diana Rigg be listed in the cast as "Ms. Collins"? That's how she's credited in the movie itself. It's also a major plot point that the audience doesn't know her full name and backstory until the climax of the movie. Plug-In Monkey (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. The "plot point" is a non-issue (see WP:SPOILERS if that's what you're concerned about). - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:24BB:9FE5:EE96:7C05 (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"All names should be referred to as credited" see WP:FILMCAST. Plot belongs in the plot section not the cast section. WP:SPOILERS is still not the excuse for trolling that some editors seem to think it is, and it does not trump all other rules. Content should not be deleted but that is not an excuse and it should try to be well written and in the best place possible. At the very least the Credited name should be listed first, then after that and preferably in a separate sentence, the extra details and further context could also be explained. -- 109.76.137.229 (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SubSeven, perhaps you could discuss the matter here, rather than edit war? At the moment (with Rigg listed as “Ms Collins, the older Sandie”), we are in line with FILMCAST, so I don’t know what your problem is with the entry unless you explain here. Perhaps you could do that without edit warring, bearing in mind STATUSQUO and BRD? 213.205.194.4 (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you're throwing around WP:STATUSQUO when I can look at the article history and plainly see that it's been under constant dispute. The character is credited as 'Ms. Collins'. --SubSeven (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And we have “Ms. Collins”, plus a small description, entirely in line with FILMCAST. - 213.205.194.4 (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Critical summary in the lead

I don't see critics praising the production design, cinematography, costume design and the performances... explicitly in the reception section. All I see regarding this sentence is "stylish", "visually sumptuous" and "gorgeously acted" (performances), which are not enough to generalize. The section needs expansion. ภץאคгöร 15:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm expanding - please don't revert the lead again while this is in progress. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:24BB:9FE5:EE96:7C05 (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it is done. You have to create your own page for work in progress or use sandbox. We can't keep your unsupported, unsourced claim just because you are going to add references for it sometime later. Suspicious IP activity. ภץאคгöร 16:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What rot. Of course that's how article development can be done. I've already added two additions to section that cover what the lead says, and I'm still looking at others. As to "Suspicious IP activity", please comment on the content, not the editor - such low-level incivility is too common and always unwelcome. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:24BB:9FE5:EE96:7C05 (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Reception section now supports everything said in the lead, and all from reliable sources. I will look at adding further reviews or extra information over the next day or so. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:24BB:9FE5:EE96:7C05 (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nyxaros, Could you please explain what gaps in sourcing you still see in the lead. Discussion and editing is more preferable to edit warring, so I hope you can add your comments here. Thank you. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 08:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And could you please discuss why you've continued to edit war on other parts, against WP:BRD and WP:STATUS QUO? It's quite frustrating to keep asking you to post here and for you to keep ignoring this thread but continuing to edit war. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:45B7:DA9E:F1BB:44EB (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nyxaros, again, please can you use the talk page to DISCUSS, rather than continuing a slow-burn edit war. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:55D6:37C5:2B4C:9C54 (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You also don't know what edit warring is it seems. Maybe learn what that is first before continuing to accuse someone for it for the 5978th (!) time. Ms Collins' full name is revealed at the end of the film, not the beginning. The plot is carelessly written; the viewer doesn't know the full name of the landlady until the third act and only Sandie mentions that her real name is Alexandra. No one is obliged to discuss with you (and no one wants to) on the talk page to make changes to this page. But alas, no one bothers to warn/block you for your incivility, 3RR violation and owning the page (and not to mention your attitude towards unsourced information) either, as evident by the recent ANI conversation. Your phrasing in the reception section is baseless, unexplained and terrible. The page already had Template: RT data|prose and was perfectly fine before you changed it to your preferred (and bad) version without an explanation. That's not STATUSQUO, by the way, maybe stop saying that before another editor cares to bring that up. Shocker! ภץאคгöร 06:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finally coming to this page to explain some of your concerns.

1. The plot. We don’t have to hide details from readers, and we don’t have to do ‘reveals’ when the film does. We write for the readers here, not for the film’s audience. See WP:FILMPLOT: “Events in the film do not have to be written in the order in which they appear on screen. If necessary, reorder the film's events to improve understanding of the plot.”

2. No, it didn’t already have the RT template. Can you point to the diff where that template was added please?

3. Could you please give examples of where the phrasing in the reception section is “baseless, unexplained and terrible”? 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:55D6:37C5:2B4C:9C54 (talk) 06:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning Alexandra one time in the whole plot makes it pointless and unnecessary. It has nothing to do with reveal or hiding details. Watch the film or try to write better before making unreasonable comments. ภץאคгöร 16:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the film, thanks. Could you please address the questions 2 and 3? Thank you. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9816:1424:7638:C8AE (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RT template

I see no reason why the RT-data prose should be removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. However, "the reasons" may be that it is not a necessity and the editor just doesn't like it. ภץאคгöร 16:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why it should be included: please provide a rationale for changing it. There was no consensus at the RfC on it that it should be included in all articles, and lots of very good arguments against it. I'll be happy to regurgitate them again if you'd like. And Nyxaros, please don't assume you know what my objections are: please comment on the use of the template, not on other editors, thank you. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9816:1424:7638:C8AE (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My main reason is to maintain a consistent wording for RT throughout film articles. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was a point of some concern for many editors at the TfD where the "cookie-cutter approach" was deemed a backwards step. I have to agree with that, particularly with the current wording, which doesn't reflect that RT undertake a process of "translating" (or dumbing down) the reviews into their positive/negative positions. (The template is also in breach of Wikipedia:Template_namespace#Guidelines ("Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content"). 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9816:1424:7638:C8AE (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British English

Contrary to the inaccurate views of certain American editors, the film is of entirely British origins and simply distributed in the US by a US company, not making it one bit American. British English does not use full stops after titles of address, such as "Mr" or "Ms", and British topics are supposed to be written with British English, a far superior and accurate version of English if you ask me or any other proud Briton. Ms Collins should therefore be written in UK English and not American. Don't see why this is hard to understand, since no American film distributed by a British company would be written with UK English. US English should not dominate everything it wants to, British English is valid and important. 86.147.167.50 (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]