Talk:Planes: Fire & Rescue

Semi-protection

I think that this page should be semi-protected (or stronger) due to recent repeated vandalism in which cast/credits have been changed. (Including repeatedly adding a cast member without a source that supports the claim) with no explanation.Wikicontributor12 (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, i requested it. Koala15 (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Wikicontributor12 (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2014

Peggy holmes did not contribute to the story. Jeremy Milton did not edit the movie in any way. Dan Molina is the film's editor. 72.129.96.197 (talk) 02:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sam Sailor ^Sing 06:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

2 deletions restored at 04:44, 19 August 2014

• "it is out of production and a replacement cannot be had" :: even if no more are being made now, there may be old spares about in old stores.
• [[Teeing ground|teed this up]] :: Many readers may not know that this is a metaphor derived from golf.
  • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Disagreement

User Koala15 and I disagree on the presentation of the gross box office totals in this article. Aesthetically, I prefer condensed, rounded values ($94 million vs $94,213,585) because they're easier to read and process and they are consistent with the way the budget estimate is presented ($50 million, not $50,000,000). And because per MOS:LARGENUM, unless the numbers are stable (which they aren't since the movie is still bringing in revenue), and unless the sources indicate their margins of error and such accuracy is important, (which it isn't) or unless there is something special about the accuracy (like if they beat out another film by $1 or something), then the long-form numbers are unnecessary. Also, per this discussion at WikiProject Film, consensus was established in May to use condensed and rounded values. Contrarily, Koala prefers the expanded totals as presented by BoxOfficeMojo. Koala has described the May consensus as the preference of a small number of editors, and has argued for the inclusion of the long form values since, in his estimation, the majority of film articles still use it. An expanded discussion can be found here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Per this more recent discussion Template talk: Infobox film#Box office and Gross values, on top of the one in May pointed out by Cyphoidbomb and MOS:LARGENUM they should be rounded. Lets remember that other stuff exists, just because other articles have not be adjusted per the consensus yet, does not mean this one should not. STATic message me! 07:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that since we have an existing style at MOS:LARGENUM that we should default to that style for consistency. If there are justifications that the style does not apply, then it can be argued to ignore the style. But that should be case-by-case and after gaining a consensus that the style does not apply for that case. In this particular case, it seems relatively clear that the Foreign box office is approximate since it is only give to the nearest $100,000 [the source indicates the rounded $37,500,000 for foreign sales], so the total can not be precisely given to anything more than this level (ie $94.7 million)AbramTerger (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

In this case the precision is dictated by the precision of the original number anyway (which is up to one decimal point of a million for the foreign gross and by extension the worldwide gross), so I support shortening the amount to $94.2 million in this instance. I generally prefer to keep one decimal place so our rounding doesn't "tamper" with any significant digits. Betty Logan (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The foreign number is not a precise number. So in my eyes it would be faulty to not round the whole number. The discussion having taken place only makes it easier . NathanWubs 17:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Another argument against using precise values, is that while BoxOfficeMojo is considered a reliable source, it is not the only source out there, and their values don't always jibe with sources like BoxOffice.com, for instance. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The character name "Concierge"

• In the line "René Auberjonois as Concierge" in the cast list, I changed "Concierge" to "concierge", and someone reverted it. This depends on: was the character named Concierge, or was the character a concierge? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I have not seen this pixar movie. But when thinking of pixar movies.My guess is that the name of the character is Concierge while maybe also being a concierge. So keep it unless someone that watched the movie can correct me? NathanWubs (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I have seen the film and agree the character has the same name as the job. Though it is not a Pixar movie--TimothyJacobson (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Oops I meant disney of course. NathanWubs (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Soundtrack

The soundtrack description seems deficient, as there's little doubt that what I hear coming out of my toddler's computer is Thunderstruck (song) from AC/DC of which there is no mention in the article - which seems to be mostly talking about an stand-alone album rather than the soundtrack of the movie! Nfitz (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I though that too 21C117 (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2015

Please add to the STARRING list of Actors Danny Pardo who gave his voice to one of the important characters of the movie as Blackout and add the [[]] to his name on the Cast list please as well. Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2980706/combined Anotherplanb (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Because IMDb is user-generated, it is not considered by Wikipedia to be a reliable source for content. Please see WP:RS/IMDB. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

query

Does anyone know if Windlifter's folkloric speech has any story relevance to the film itself? Visokor (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request April 11th, 2019

All instances of CHoPs should be changed to CHiPs :— Preceding unsigned comment added by Menchin (talk • contribs)

 Not done: Correct as written. Within this fictional universe, the title of the show is CHoPs, which is a parody of CHiPs. See [1]. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2020

This is an important edit for plot summary. 174.255.67.191 (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Not done for now It is unclear what changes are proposed. Bingobro (Chat) 05:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2022

I noticed that the section about planes 3 is called canceled spin off sequel, when nothing says planes 3 was a spin off, can you change it to canceled sequel. 2001:8003:1D84:B00:B92B:57D5:EA5A:2E5D (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Aoidh (talk) 03:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

beginning

maybe include the mention at the beginning of the film that says quota "Dedicated to the courageous firefighters throughout the world who risk their lives to save the lives of others" Rryyttoorr (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)