Talk:Shaun the Sheep Movie

	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 Animated films task force.

Animation: Films Low‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Animated films work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Comedy

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Could someone add the US release date?

Here are some sources for the US release date. Could someone add it's release date? Google also has the release date at April 24th 2015 when I searched up it's release date.[1]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Greshthegreat (talk • contribs) 21:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not accorded to the site [2]

Ed the Head?

The Head waiter of "Le Chou Brulé" the restaurant the sheep find themselves in, looks like he was modeled on Ed Milliband.(84.236.152.71 (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Links:

plot expansion

could someone plz expand the plot to its full version? Visokor (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun in the city

Can some help with listing the Shaun's in Draft:Shaun in the city

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Release dates

This edit seems to misinterpret WP:FilmRelease. That guideline is only for infoboxes, not leads. Same editor's earlier revert states Only the domestic release date is notable, yet I can find no guideline to support that. It's supported in the article. The editor seems to have a thing against the release date in this market

and the US distributor https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Shaun_the_Sheep_Movie&diff=674725730&oldid=674724136 . However, other editors disagree: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Shaun_the_Sheep_Movie&diff=671710647&oldid=671710507 Who is right here, specifically for the lead. What guidelines apply? 208.81.212.222 (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the editor (me) does not misinterpret WP:FILMRELEASE. This rule prohibits release dates other than domestic and the earliest with a good reason: "The film infobox is too small to reproduce the long lists of release dates." While WP:FILMLEAD does not say exactly that, ("At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the title of the film, the year of its public release...") - the same logic can be applied to the lead section. We don't want there dozens of subjectively chosen release dates. Anyway, why do you want to add the North American release date? Why not the Indian, which is the largest English-speaking country?--Carniolus (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are misinterpreting the guideline because you're reverting it from places that are not the infobox. I have no problems not including it in the infobox, but I do have a problem using a guideline—not a policy, just a guideline—for one area applied to a different area. The guideline for infobox is clear, there is no guideline for the lead that I can see. Don't conflate the two and don't use one guideline to apply to the other.

I agree, why not add referenced release dates for every market in the world? The lead, and certainly the release section, would not suffer from displaying that information for this film or any other. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. MOS:FILM#Release explicitly says: "Do not include information on the film's release in every territory", and at the end cites WP:FILMRELEASE. So, WP:FILMRELEASE is also valid for the release section and not only for infobox. Since the lead section is only a summary of the article, it should contain even less dates. Therefore, the North American date is not notable for the release section, and it is even less notable for the lead section.--Carniolus (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thanks for pointing me to the film MoS. However you'rr misreading it. I see "editors can structure the content in a way that serves readers best" and I would argue that it does serve the readers best to show when it's released in major English-language markets. It also states "details about a film's release can include noteworthy screenings at film festivals and elsewhere, theatrical distribution' and related business" and the US release is a specific theatrical distribution date as it was not released prior to this date. WP:FILMRELEASE is stil only about the infobox. You can stop trying to distract me by pointing me to that tangential piece of information. Why is the US release date not relevant to this film? Why should it be excluded from the lead? 208.81.212.222 (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can it ignore it as much as you want, but WP:MOSFILM#Release clearly cites WP:FILMRELEASE, so it applies also to the release section.--Carniolus (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you are ignoring one word: "Do not include information on the film's release in every territory" (emphasis mine). We are not adding every territory, simply major English-language release locations. Time to start doing things right rather than "the way it's been done". We want to put a summary of key information in the infobox, but the lead should recap the article. That's standard practice. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Carniolus that the US release date certainly does not belong in the infobox or in the lead. I would include it under "Release" since it's certainly standard practice at WikiProject Film to include the US release date of a foreign film, be it La Strada or Goldfinger. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree that it does not belong in the infobox, but you're mistaken that it does not belong in the lead. You have at least given a plausible reason for it to be excluded but it's weak at best (WP:IGNORE vs WP:OSE). 208.81.212.222 (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Two reliable sources give different box-office figures. Box Office Mojo gives a precise figure, and Variety gives an approximate figure. The precise figure comes from studio reports. The approximate figure's origin is unattributed. Should we use Box Office Mojo, Variety, or both?

Box Office Mojo -- This is the standard in virtually all other modern-film articles in Wikipedia, so that we're comparing apples to apples. The Box Office Mojo figure ($83.5 million) also coincides closely with that of The Numbers [3] ($82.6 million). The Variety figure is vague and imprecise and disagrees with these other two sources. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it appears the vague "over $100 million" figure comes from Lionsgate / Studiocanal and not a third-party cite. I find it highly suspect that a studio press release boasts a much higher figure than the official industry figures that studio reports to the trade. If the higher figure is honest, why didn't the studio report that to the industry databases? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Variety/press release -- BoxOffice.com is another box office tracker (with much longer tradition), which states that the film has grossed almost $90 million. Box Office Mojo and The Numbers estimate it at $82-$83 million. There is usually even bigger discrepancy between Box Office Mojo and The Numbers. For example The Little Prince: Box Office Mojo reports $45 million, while The Numbers reports $67 million. So, it is obvious that these trackers do not just report official industry figures but they have their own sources and make their own estimates. Because of this, I would always choose a Variety article or official press release over any box office trackers/databases.--Carniolus (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, this problem of two grosses was already addressed in the Box office section which clearly explains both numbers. We only need to decide if we also want them both in the infobox.--Carniolus (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Interesting case here! Considering that Box Office Mojo, The Numbers, and Boxoffice.com all report lower than $100 million, I would stick with the range based on these sources. (A range has been done elsewhere, though for budgets.) Maybe such a sentence can have a footnote that goes to a "Notes" section where it says, "StudioCanal reported that it crossed the $100 million milestone, though the box office websites do not reflect this"? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BO Mojo per Tenebrae and Erik's comments. A note would be useful, also.Lapadite (talk) 02:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Range. I would use a range ($82–100 million) in the infobox if there's that much disagreement ($82M, $90M, $100M). Explain it in the article body. If the Variety number is coming from a press release, I trust it less than a secondary source, but I'm not sure this is the case. There is no consensus that I know of to remove reliable sources in favor of Box Office Mojo's figures, and I usually revert this when I see it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: are we discussing infobox figures or the box office subsection? Given the discrepancy, we would probably benefit from mentioning a range as suggested above. We'd have to weigh those sources, however. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:The BOM figure should actually be $94.4 million - the foreign total is incorrect - they stopped adding up the totals in September, while it was still in cinemas. The actual total, according to their own data, is $75,011,266, making the worldwide total $94,387,248. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.137.14 (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign total is $77,285,990 as of 10 January 2016

Box Office Mojo -- More accurate and the default choice for other modern films here on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt14451 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring anon IP

After discussing it at [4] but before it could be discussed here, because he was edit-warring so quickly, 74.91.2.167 has surpassed 3RR with a repeated violation of WP:FILM guidelines stating that only the distributor for the country of origin is listed. I will now report this to the 3RR noticeboard. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenebrae: that's Nate Speed. He's not going to stop or engage in discussion. You're best off reporting him to me, and I'll do range blocks. You can recognize him by the all-caps edit summaries, obsession with production companies and distributors, and edit warring. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thanks, Ninje. Hey, I didn't know you were admin — congrats! Was I imagining things, or had you blocked him for a month and then another editor blocked him for just 31 hours? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did a month-long range block on the ISP, which was temporarily hidden by a 31 hour block on this specific IP address. Once the 31 hour block times out, the range block I did will still stand. It's complicated, but the bottom line is everything is fine. But, yeah, I passed an RFA back in early January. My hands are a kind of tied due to WP:INVOLVED on a lot of film-related articles, but I block a lot of film-related LTAs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: Well, congrats. As I enjoy saying, it's always nice to have a ninja, a robot and a pirate around! : ) --Tenebrae (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American Release

Can anybody please add sources for the film's American release (theatrical and home media)? — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sheepquel

Dose anyone want to help with the draft for the upcoming sqeuel User:Fanoflionking Fanoflionking 18:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Trumper, Shaun the Sheep Movie, SFFS 2015-1.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Shaun the Sheep Movie

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Shaun the Sheep Movie's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "bfi":

From Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit: "The Curse of the Were-Rabbit (2005)". British Film Institute. Retrieved 19 June 2021.
From Shaun the Sheep: "Shaun the Sheep (TV series) (2007)". British Film Institute. Archived from the original on 17 November 2015. Retrieved 24 October 2015.
From Chicken Run: "Chicken Run (2000)". British Film Institute. Archived from the original on 10 March 2017. Retrieved 4 May 2016.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]