Talk:The Conjuring Universe/Archive 1

Archive 1

Requested move 4 April 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

---

The Conjuring (franchise) → The Conjuring Universe – The poster for Annabelle: Creation referred to this series as "The Next Chapter in The Conjuring Universe", as did its trailer. A single piece of marketing for Kong Skull Island referring to the film as being set in the "MonsterVerse" warranted the page's name being changed from Godzilla-Kong Cinematic Universe, so there is no reason the same doesn't apply here. The trailer for Annabelle: Creation also featured a logo for "The Conjuring Universe", and the Annabelle film has spawned a film series of its own. I would have kept this page as "The Conjuring (franchise)" if the studio hadn't given the series a name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotExsisting (talk • contribs) 16:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – I would argue strongly against such a move: this page should be kept at The Conjuring (franchise). In the MonsterVerse case, the studio has applied for a trademark on "MonsterVerse", which is a far stronger justification for the move than simply one poster referring to a particular name. Even given that, I don't think an article name should be changed based on marketing (certainly not the first piece or two of it as we are not on a deadline)... it should be if related sources (in this case, the entertainment press) start referring to it by a WP:COMMONNAME on a regular basis (such as with the Marvel Cinematic Universe), not simply because one other (possibly bad) example exists.

As for the case for keeping it as "(franchise)", you have the following fairly large franchise examples: Alien (franchise), Saw (franchise), The Matrix (franchise), Friday the 13th (franchise), etc. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - per the reasoning laid out by Joey above. Franchise is consistent with other properties. Spanneraol (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - It should remain franchise as it is not commonly referred to by the proposed name as of yet. Whether it will or won't be referred to this way remains to be seen but  Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Dane ^talk 21:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for now per Dane. We need to see "The Conjuring Universe" explicitly used. This recent article does not do that, just saying "the Conjuring universe". When they start doing this, I would probably support such a move. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Inclusion of "Cast and characters" section to the article

Someone please include "Cast and characters" section to the article. Taniya94 (talk) 04:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

A franchise page does not include that as it would be duplication: the information is already available at the articles for the individual movies that make up the franchise. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it is quite acceptable to have a table showing recurring cast/characters in a film series, and it is in fact very common in this type of article. However, in this case there do not seem to be many recurring characters, so it is probably fairly pointless. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 25 April 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 📞 contribs 02:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

---

The Conjuring (franchise) → The Conjuring (film series) – Per WP:NCF we should use "film series" as a disambiguator, unless the series is a multimedia franchise. This is not the case here, as this only relates to films. Rob Sinden (talk) 07:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support A no-brainer since the property hasn't been licensed across other mediums. Betty Logan (talk) 08:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support – As in the proposal, not a multimedia franschise; just a series of films. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support per others. It is essentially a film series and has not gone beyond that in any real way at this point. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Conjuring Universe

I am talking about this topic down here since the discussion/proposal above was closed in April. Though the franchise is known as a franchise of a couple film series therein, continued marketing for Annabelle: Creation continues to state varied versions of "The next story in The Conjuring Universe" as though this is the film series official title. Though we cannot WP:CRYSTAL and whatnot, what is to be made of this? The phrase has also been used in the marketing for the first Annabelle film as was previously stated. Perhaps The Conjuring Universe is the name of the franchise while the separate movie series therein are "the Annabelle series", "the Valak series" (The Nun/The Crooked Man), and "The Case File of Ed and Lorraine Warren" (see The Conjuring 2 poster) aka "The Conjuring series"? Anyway, I guess this is something that the studio is hoping will take hold and spread. Otherwise, why even use such a wording? <- rhetorical question.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Page move

Main page: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films) § Franchise vs. Film series

I just noticed that this page seems to have a history of people moving it around. Before anyone tries moving back to The Conjuring Universe (which isn't simply isn't acceptable) or The Conjuring (film series), I would recommend reading and/or responding to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)#Franchise vs. Film series. DarkKnight2149 23:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

As you can see there is an existing consensus for the move to The Conjuring (film series), and per WP:RM#CM you should not have reversed the move. If you feel the conclusion was wrong then you should re-start the formal move process and explain why. Betty Logan (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

See my response at the discussion I linked above. By continuing to hammer the nail, you are inadvertently beating a dead horse. DarkKnight2149 01:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

If there is a stronger argument for moving it back then that should be done through the proper process. That not only achieves the aim of restoring it to your favored title but it also gives you legitimate recourse against subsequent unilateral moves. I certainly don't think it is "beating a dead horse" for other editors to be able to view the viewpoints and decision process that results in the naming of an article. Betty Logan (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, the "dead horse" I was refer to was telling me the same thing once, again, again, and again. Plus, we should wait to see where the naming convention discussion goes, before starting a separate one here. DarkKnight2149 02:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry if you think people are getting at you. For my part I only raised the point once (at NCF where the discussion is taking place) and I thought I better repeat my comment here for the benefit of editors who watch this page. Betty Logan (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Understandable. DarkKnight2149 02:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 12 July 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. The discussion over at WP:NCF is interesting, although a little unfocused. If the decision is to ultimately to move everything to "franchise", then this can be revisited along with everything else. For now, though, there is a clear consensus not to move this one.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

---

The Conjuring (film series) → The Conjuring (franchise) – Per User:Darkknight2149 in a recent edit summary: A series is a straight-foward film and its sequels/prequels. A franchise has spin-offs, reboots, ETC. I figured an RM would be best. 67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The disambiguator (film series) is correct per WP:NCF#Film series. No evidence has been put forward that a series is limited to "a straight-foward film and its sequels/prequels"; this seems to be the nominator's own opinion. According to my own POV a spin-off film is essentially just another type of sequel, often one that focuses on one of the minor characters. Does Rogue One belong any less in the Star Wars series than the prequels do? Is Finding Dory not part of the same series as Finding Nemo? Are the Daniel Craig James Bond films not a part of the long-running James Bond series? If a film's existence is primarily defined by its relationship to a previous film then it's part of a series; the particulars of the plot do not really matter to an encyclopedic treatment of the topic because we should not be adopting an WP:INUNIVERSE perspective anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 05:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Technically, Rogue One actually is separate from the main saga films. It's part of a Star Wars Anthologies series, that is distinct from the main Star Wars films. Also, the Daniel Craig films are a reboot of James Bond, and are therefore not the same series as the previous films. As far as I'm aware, Finding Dory is the sequel to Finding Nemo. Annabelle has splintered off into a series of its own, despite still being in The Conjuring franchise. And, lastly, WP:INUNIVERSE does not apply here for the same reason it didn't apply at Draft:Dark Universe (film series). INUNIVERSE only refers to when we treat something from a work of fiction as existing in real life. It has no bearing on this discussion. DarkKnight2149 01:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Betty Logan's reasoning above. Without a significant change to WP:NCF, this is a non-starter. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

  Naming guidelines can change as a result of naming discussions. I expect a significant change to NCF would follow any consensus here, if necessary. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Whether or not this page will be moved will probably be determined by the consensus at WP:NCF. I don't see any reason to have two discussions on the same topic. DarkKnight2149 20:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• My own rationale, after thinking a bit on it: A film series can constitute a franchise all on its own. This article appears to be about a franchise. Unless there are parts of the Conjuring franchise that this article does not touch on, the word fits, and there’s no need to use anything more specific per WP:PRECISE. If there are aspects not covered in this article because they don’t belong here, someone should make a franchise article.
  Support, but not for the originally stated reasons. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Betty Logan. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @IJBall: Could you share your own take on the matter, so it’s not just a WP:PERX vote? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
    • That's an essay, and it holds no weight. "Oppose as per X" is common accepted practice at AfD and elsewhere. I am not going to rehash an argument made by another editor when it perfectly encapsulates my feelings on the matter. Meanwhile, please stop badgering the !voters. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Discussion Elsewhere: I'm just going to reiterate one final time (in case people may have missed it) that the result of this discussion will most likely depend on the fate of the proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(films)#Franchise_vs._Film_series. I'm pointing this out because it's nearly impossible for said proposal not to heavily impact this move (or, potentially, a lack of a move). I won't be paying much attention to this discussion from here on out (though I will be at the NCF discussion), so you'll have to ping me if you have anything to say specifically to me. Cheers. DarkKnight2149 01:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Betty Logan and for the reason that, as I've pointed out on the NCF talk page, there is no clear line between reboots, remakes, spinoffs and sequels. Almost all sequels, and more so the cheaper and less SF/fantasy-focused ones, contain a generous amount of retconning, and it's really up to the studio to decide what they'll call it. E.g. consider The Fly II. Is it a sequel or a remake? Suppose it was made today, 30-odd years after the preceding film. It would only need a new title and a promise of another sequel to be branded a spinoff. Daß Wölf 20:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Daß Wölf: None of the fuzziness you speak of applies to this particular case. We draw the “spinoff” line in this very article. We have the main Conjuring series, and we have a number of spinoffs. This article covers multiple films and film series in equal depth, not just the main one named in the current title. That’s why the current title seems insufficient to me. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Leaning oppose. I agree that this is something that should be resolved at a higher level, for uniformity throughout the project. However, I tend to believe that a group of films stemming from a common origin film should be described as a film series. bd2412 T 18:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

3 Unnamed Recurring Characters

The three people from the opening scene of The Conjuring reappear in the opening scene of Annabelle. I ask my fellow Wikipedians to find out said characters names and the names of the actors they were credited as. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.60.192.241 (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Talitha Bateman as Annabelle Higgins

Why was Talitha Bateman removed from the Recurring Characters list? She played young Annabelle Higgins in Creation. Also, the Annabelle demon's name was given as "The Ram", which is who Joseph Bishara played. Samara Lee played Annabelle Mullins, though I suppose she, with Talitha Bateman, also played "The Ram" in the form of both Annabelles (not a word, sorry).

Pintendo (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Definitive evidence of title of franchise

https://www.warnerbros.com/blogs/2017/07/11/my-annabelle-creation-contest

All you budding filmmakers out there, especially those with a hair-raising bent, can now show off your cinematic skills by creating your own short horror film (two minutes only, so we do mean “short”!) and submitting it to the My Annabelle Creation contest, which officially launched this past Friday.

That’s right, James Wan himself and the other creators of The Conjuring Universe are looking for fans to share their creation of evil inspired by the series of films that began four years ago this month with the release of the blockbuster hit The Conjuring. Since then this incredibly popular theatrical franchise has seen the release of 2014’s Annabelle, 2016’s The Conjuring 2, and the upcoming Annabelle: Creation which begins haunting theaters on August 11.

The winning auteur will receive a trip to Los Angeles to meet with the director of Annabelle: Creation, David F. Sandberg, or an executive from New Line Cinema. The entry deadline is July 27, so time to start yelling, “Action!” Be sure to read all the rules and guidelines here: https://www.myannabellecreation.com

An official Warner Bros. source referring to the series as both a "theatrical franchise" and The Conjuring Universe, which is what Annabelle: Creation was marketed as being a part of. Can we change the title now? 92.60.192.241 (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You know what, I'm changing it. The Annabelle: Creation Twitter page refers to the series as The Conjuring Universe.
https://mobile.twitter.com/annabellemovie/status/897495916612997121?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
92.60.192.241 (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The user Nurseline247 tried making this same argument. Posting from Ireland, that user was largely unsuccessful in this regard. Now here you are, presenting an identical argument, and doing so while using an IP from Ireland. Don't you think it's about time to give up on this idea of the Conjuring as a Universe? A Universe is something which is all of space and time — something which the Conjuring is not. The term itself is an auxilliary one, meant as a bit of hyperbole on the part of the producers and other monied interests who created it, all to describe something they wish to increase the marketability of: films produced and released sequentially under an original tentpole called The Conjuring.

Does the Conjuring universe include restaurants, libraries, and swimming pools? If those things are already included in the known universe, and aren't any different in the Conjuring universe, why then does the Conjuring need to be something universal by including them in theirs? You would say that swimming pools don't count as part of the Conjuring universe. I would say, if a universe is everything, then they would. You would say, "Well it's only the things in that universe related to the film series, not swimming pools." Then I would say, "Exactly." So then why don't we just call it a film series then?

If anything, it is a universe of films, or a serial. The term 'Universe' by itself can never replace the gold-standard of descriptions for these sorts of things: film series – because no other description fits what they are, as succinctly and concisely. — Spintendo^Talk 03:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Dude, chill, what's your deal? I just discovered this series. I saw Annabelle: Creation in cinemas and binged the rest when I got home. I entered a couple of competitions to do with the film also. They called the series "The Conjuring Universe" in the official announcement so I figured I'd give it this name. Stop getting so het up about this. It's only a movie. I'm sure you have better things to do with your life. I mean, nobody has the time to be on Wikipedia everyday, right

FYI, not all Irish people are the same. Don't be racist.

92.60.192.241 (talk) 11:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Ireland is a wonderful country with a richly enduring history and culture. That your location exists concomitant to that of a past editor is no doubt a coincidence — that I mention it as such should only be taken as evidence that the editors of this page and community are no longer remiss to the operation of duplicate accounts. I hope we may rely on your support of this important endeavor. As far as the term is concerned, I believe that the media's use of "universe" as a common noun and not as a proper noun (i.e., universe as opposed to Universe, particularly in the example provided here) demonstrates the appropriateness of it being referred to as a film series. — Spintendo^Talk 12:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Just saying here, the Official Twitter Page for Annabelle: Creation (see above link) does say Uinverse with a capital U. Furthermore, this isn't "the media", but the makers of the film itself; hence why it's noteworthy (at least in my opinion.

On a separate matter, do you know who won that My Annabelle Creation contest so it can be mentioned on this page?, or do you know if the winner has been announced yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.60.192.241 (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Content creators have no input on articles covering that which they've created, per: WP:COI; And, I'm unaware of that contest's outcome. — Spintendo^Talk 03:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Does the Conjuring universe include restaurants, libraries, and swimming pools? If they are depicted or otherwise referenced in the films or supplemental material, yes, of course it does. But these fictional swimming pools are not noteworthy; such information would better fit a dedicated Conjuring wiki. One could make the same argument about the Marvel Cinematic Universe as you did here, but that is what the fictional universe is called. Also, I think you’re misapplying WP:COI; content creators absolutely have a say in what their content is named. (Of course, it helps if WP:ISes also use that name. I have not investigated whether this is the case here.) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@67.14.236.50: I agree with you wholeheartedly on WP:IS. I think that there may be what I like to call a mirage of nomenclatural correctness going on here. When it comes to names, however great the level of control studios obtain through advertising and a large diffusion of doctrine amongst their fans, there always seem to be some nonstandard naming practices left "sticking out". People add to and distort the film companies attempts at nomenclatural doctrine — a doctrine which informs people of the right way of referring to their cinematic releases — the right way according to the studios, of course. You mention that content creators "absolutely have a say in what their content is named." I often believe that say can be an illusion. The studios understand very well that the process of addition, re-creation and modification of film titles is constant and in all liklihood destined to go on as long as there are organized groups of content creators and content consumers — all with their own different ideas on what the best title should be. Unfortunately, consumers are never quite as nomenclaturally correct as the creators would like them to be. — spintendo^talk 08:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I often believe that say can be an illusion. I disagree as a matter of fact, but I think this may just be a matter of semantics (i.e., you’re using words wrong ). The creators, studios, publishers, etc. indisputably have a say over what a product is called. They have absolute control over the official name, which is distinct from what a thing is called by the media or the public. But the fact that people are free to ignore the creators’ influence doesn’t negate the existence of that influence; that is, it’s not an “illusion.” That influence is no more an illusion than it is absolute control. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

What the franchise is marketed as is irrelevant. If a DVD says "The Batman Anthology" on a box set, we don't suddenly rename the article Batman Anthology (film series). Also, this article is about the franchise itself, not the fictional universe that the franchise is set in (Warner Brothers can refer to "The Conjuring Universe" in their marketing all they want). And, as it stands, this isn't a shared cinematic universe composed of multiple distinct franchises, like the Marvel Cinematic Universe or the DC Extended Universe. It's just a single series, and its spin-offs. So no, I don't see any reason to move the article to The Conjuring Universe. DarkKnight2149 22:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Newly added "Nurse" section

By consensus, I mean a simple consensus, not a lengthy, drawn out discuss and vote session. I'm open to it being deleted anytime — I just rewrote it now because it was appallingly written and cited. I wonder if any of it is even germane to the article, or if it's just WP:SPAM—spintendo^Talk 04:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Material has been present in the article for >3 weeks without objections.  Works for me —spintendo^talk 06:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 5 May 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page as proposed at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 17:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The Conjuring (film series) → The Conjuring Universe – Warner Bros. and New Line Cinema have officially titled this movie series as The Conjuring Universe, being marketed as so since the release of Annabelle: Creation, and will continue to do so in future installments. James Wan, one of the creators of this franchise has often stated this franchise as it's own shared cinematic universe. Angelwazza (talk) 05:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose not en.wp style or format. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose While there is a decent trend towards this, it doesn't seem to have gained enough mainstream use to make a change right now. The current name is "safer" in that regard, in that it provides a clear description of the topic. Maybe after a couple more films this might be worth revisiting. -- Netoholic @ 08:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Just saw this now, but will add my 2cents here. While you may not want The Conjuring Universe, for whatever reasons, the current title - The Conjuring (film series) should be for an article that deals with the The Conjuring film series. This article, however, deals with the whole franchise. So at the very least the title should be changed to reflect that - The Conjuring (franchise). On on a side note, if Marvel Cinematic Universe, DC Extended Universe and Arrowverse are ok on Wikipedia, I fail to see how the "not en.wp style or format" argument is a valid one. --Gonnym (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I just saw this now as well, having caught up on the movies over the past week. In reply to you, the article does indeed deal with the whole franchise - the whole franchise being films. A short film is still a film. At the moment, there is no other related media. -- Alex^TW 14:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian:, I meant that the The Conjuring (film series) would logically talk about The Conjuring, The Conjuring 2 and The Conjuring 3, while Annabelle (film series) would do the same for Annabelle, Annabelle: Creation and the Untitled Annabelle film. Calling this article The Conjuring (film series) is wrong in the sense that it talks about both film series and related films The Nun, The Crooked Man and the short, while it uses a title more fitting for the 3 actual Conjuring films. See this header as a representation of what I meant - The Conjuring (film series)#The Conjuring series. The Conjuring Universe would have been the best choice, seeing as that is the official name. --Gonnym (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

If they were completely different movies and unrelated, I would agree with you. However, The Conjuring came out first, which paved the way for spin-offs and prequels, and thus all the movies are related and based off of the first movie The Conjuring. Therefore, this is a film series about The Conjuring. A film series, film franchise, movie series, or movie franchise is a collection of related films in succession that share the same fictional universe, or are marketed as a series. Not just those that share the same name. Consensus has disagreed upon "The Conjuring Universe", and thus, we use what we have. -- Alex^TW 01:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with you that the moves need be different or unrelated. Wizarding World includes the Harry Potter series and the Fantastic Beasts series. Fantastic Beasts isn't unrelated, its actually a prequel to the events of Harry Potter. Anyways, just wanted to add that RS do actually call it The Conjuring Universe like IGN, Digital Spy, MSN/Digital Spy, Looper, Indie Wire. Can't really find a real justification in the previous discussions as to why this name wasn't valid. Gonnym (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. Nevertheless, a film series is still a collection of related films in succession that share the same fictional universe, and after several RMs, they have all disagreed upon the usage, and thus we have WP:CONSENSUS. -- Alex^TW 02:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 26 August 2018

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. bd2412 T 18:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The Conjuring (film series) → The Conjuring Universe – There has been some debate about whether or not the studios involved really seriously referred the the films as The Conjuring Universe or not. Yesterday the studio released a featurette for their newest film The Nun. The video has each of the individuals involved in the films referring to it as such, along with the video being titled as such, as well as an official logo that was also a part of the video. James Wan discusses the franchise as being a horror film comparitive to the superhero shared universe franchises. They layout a timeline for the films, and also elaborate on why they decided to make "The Conjuring Universe" as a whole. I have attempted moving this page several times, but it will not allow it seeing as The Conjuring Universe article page already exists. We simply need to have an admin move this page, so as to keep the editing history. The studio refers to the films as such, the video displays the reality of it, and has an official logo. If you would Like to see the additional work I did on the page view the edit history on The Conjuring Universe page. Also the video I am referring to can be viewed here. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support given the reasons and reference provided.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support I agree with this change.--OWSLAjosh666 (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support - As I've stated previously, the current title in my opinion is mispresenting the scope of the article, as it isn't just about The Conjuring film series, but also Annabelle film series and other films. This can be evidenced by the article headings. Currently we have an H1 header (article title) called "The Conjuring (film series)" and an H3 header called "The Conjuring series" - this is a bad article structure. As noted by DisneyMetalhead, the series creators and also RS are calling this franchise as a whole "The Conjuring Universe". This name also solves the previous problem with the article scope and structure. --Gonnym (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support - the official logo for the universe is the kicker for this one I think. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – per the many "opposes" above, mainly WP:NCF#Film series. This is an obvious case of over-enthusiasm around adopting how marketers/creators talk about a creation, which is not what we do as that would be WP:PROMO. It's far too early to argue this is the WP:COMMONNAME for the series. The structure of the article is fine: "The Conjuring (film series)" is not the same as "The Conjuring series" and even if the structure were problematic, we would resolve that by fixing the structure, not changing the title of the article. You could easily call the headings: The Conjuring films, Annabelle films, other films, etc. This is a repeat of the misinterpretation that "series" is only narrowly capable of describing a group of films with the same base name, and if that is one's issue, that's an argument to make at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films), not here. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:NCF#Film series might not support it, but if you look one line below at WP:NCF#Media franchise, you'll see it does. Also, I see no "opposes" above, or did you mean in previous discussions, where arguments which might have been true for that time, are no longer so, such as that from 6 months ago which was: While there is a decent trend towards this, it doesn't seem to have gained enough mainstream use to make a change right now or arguments which are just not true such as not en.wp style or format (see Marvel Cinematic Universe, Arrowverse), or are you referring to to the discussion which was over a year ago which has even less relevant arguments. While many like to throw WP:RECENT around, that article is not a policy nor even a guideline but an essay (which would still pass its WP:10YT), while WP:NCF#Media franchise is a guideline and holds much more weight. Regarding your comment to my argument, the structure is not fine. Saying there is difference in meaning between "film series" and "series" is just not true and even if it were somewhat true, thinking that READERS which do not edit Wikipedia film articles and are familiar with its terminology, will see that difference is just laughable; changing the header to "The Conjuring films" does not solve it, as that still means the same thing - a series of films which is part of the The Conjuring series. This argument does not need to be made at the WP:NCF as that guideline section is fine, it's the misuse people make of it - Star Wars (film series) is fine, as that does not mean the Star Wars franchise as a whole, just the film series and as I've stated in the beginning of my comment, you're citing the wrong guideline, which is why you think there is a problem. --Gonnym (talk) 07:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
    • User:Joeyconnick: Just as User:Gonnym points out, just because an argument was accurate months ago, doesn't mean that it is still correct. The studio has officially named the 'film series' and are free to name it whatever they like. As of late, the common name used in articles is The Conjuring Universe. Read some articles and you will see as much.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support - I also agree with this change. The creators, the studio and media outlets have adopted "The Conjuring Universe" as the official name for the series of horror films that include: The Nun, two Conjuring films and two Annabelle films with a third film on the way.--Filmmlif (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The following has been brought to my attention/remembrance and further supports the suggested title change of this article -- Warner Bros. refers to the franchise title in their rules for the "My Annabelle Creation" at [1]. This was done a year ago, and appears to be copyrighted. On their page they state, "The Video may include positive, non-disparaging, verbal/textual references to the The Conjuring Universe, [Annabell: Creation], and characters appearing therein (collectively the “Warner Bros. Content”), but not any trailer, film clip, image, music, or advertising material from or for [Annabelle: Creation] or any film in The Conjuring Universe or any talent appearing therein. Warner Bros. Content may only be used by an Entrant for entry into the Competition and in accordance with these Rules, and for no other purpose." The studio declaratively has referred to the franchise as-such for over a year. The films have collectively been referred to as such, within articles and their headlines for just as long. The studio, has also copyrighted franchise title. This all further supports the move argument in discussion.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Consensus

The general discussion seems to indicate that concerns and disagreements have been addressed and resolved. The editors who have supported the move also seem to agree that based on the studio's official marketing, in-house references, logo, and copyright statements - the film franchise as a whole is indeed named The Conjuring Universe. Additionally, the studio's progression towards naming it as such has been years in the making. The original doubts of whether the title would remain official or not have been resolved. The unbiased discussion points raised by each editor point these things out. Should this general conclusion persist, a closing for the requested move will be placed followed by the page being moved once again. This will be done in the proper order, by the correct process.--65.130.184.219 (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC) <---NOTE: This was me. I didn't realize that I wasn't logged in.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recurring cast and characters Blockquotes "table"

To prevent an edit war, as it seems 2 different editors changing the same thing got reverted by DisneyMetalhead, let's start a discussion. The use of the Blockquotes tag as a pseudo-table is incorrect usage and adds really no value that either a real table or no table can offer. I've reached out on this issue over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Blockquotes as tables where two other editors informed that the usage of Blockquotes also has WP:Accessibility concerns. That is so far 4 different editors telling you that the usage of Blockquotes as tables is incorrect. Can we please now fix this? --Gonnym (talk) 08:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree blockquote should not be used as the material it is being used for is clearly not a quotation, so its use is semantically incorrect. —Joeyconnick (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

According to the W3C, the blockquote element represents content that is quoted from another source. This does not seem to be the case here: it is semantic misuse, and therefore an accessibility concern. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead: You've obviously have seen this as you've been editing this article. Care to respond? --Gonnym (talk) 08:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I gave up waiting, so I removed the <blockquote>...</blockquote> and, for the same reason, the {{quotation}} because it contains an embedded <blockquote>...</blockquote>. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Users: @Gonnym:, and @Redrose64: -- I have not 'obviously' seen anything til just now. Otherwise I would have replied. Secondly formatting based off of the above statements, I agree with. If blockquote format is incorrect then edit away.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The Curse of La Llorona

There seems to be a lot of debate about the film The Curse of La Llorona and if it's part of the franchise or not and it's seemed to start an editing war. An article (https://variety.com/2018/film/news/conjuring-3-curse-of-la-llorona-director-1202967746/) keeps being linked whenever the film is added to the page, however the article doesn't say the director stated it's not part of the universe, it just has a random line at the bottom saying it's not with no source as being from anyone involved in the film. Tony Amendola is set to reprise his role as Father Perez from Annabelle, so even if it's not considered an official part of the franchise, it still deserves a mention on the page. Now that being said, there's a two options I'd like to suggest. We could either:

1. Put it back where it was under the Other films section with The Nun and The Crooked Man.
2. Make another section titled Related films and include it under that.

--2605:E000:180F:BC:284B:2789:1949:6FC0 (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

We follow the sources. A reliable source does not need to provide a direct quotation from a film's director to be credible—any statement they make is deemed valid. Variety is about as reliable a source you can get in the entertainment world and they have no reason to lie. It would have been simple not to include the direct confirmation that La Llorona is not part of the franchise, so the fact they did is telling.

Second, do you have a source that Amendola is reprising his role from Annabelle?

Finally, the biggest clue/hint/100% confirmation is that there is no way the producers and studio WOULDN'T advertise it as part of the franchise if it actually were—there's no upside to not tapping that extra marketing oomph. The fact the posters declare it's from the producers of The Conjuring Universe franchise rather than "the next film in..." would be enough to not add it even if we did add total assumptions and ignore sourced statements to the contrary. The notion the film is part of the franchise is purely fan speculation and, barring new information to the contrary, statements implying it is are completely inadmissible to articles here at Wikipedia. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Recurring cast and characters section

The cast and characters section looks messy like it is now. I made an attempt to fix it as well as format it similar to other Wikipedia pages, but it was reverted back to the mess it is now, so I would like to suggest a few methods that would make it look more organized and less messy:

Methods 1: Most franchises will place films in the order they released, not in the order by series. Additionally, I don't think I've ever seen another page sort the characters by name instead of by when they debuted in the series. It makes the table look like a disorganized mess.

Characters	Film
	The Conjuring	Annabelle	The Conjuring 2	Annabelle: Creation	The Nun	The Curse of La Llorona	Annabelle Comes Home	The Conjuring 3	Untitled The Nun film	The Crooked Man
	2013	2014	2016	2017	2018	2019		2020	TBA
Annabelle	Doll only	Joseph Bishara Fred TatascioreV	Joseph Bishara			Doll only
Camilla	Amy Tipton
Debbie	Morganna Bridgers
Demon	Joseph Bishara	Joseph Bishara Fred TatascioreV		Joseph Bishara
Father Gordon	Steve Coulter		Steve Coulter				Steve Coulter
Carolyn Perrin	Lili Taylor				Lili TaylorA
Rick	Zach Pappas
Maurice "Frenchie" Theriault	Christof Veillon				Jonas Bloquet Christof VeillonOA
Drew Thomas	Shannon Kook		Shannon Kook
Ed Warren	Patrick Wilson	Patrick WilsonA	Patrick Wilson		Patrick WilsonA		Patrick Wilson
Judy Warren	Sterling Jerins		Sterling Jerins		Sterling JerinsA		Mckenna Grace	TBA
Lorraine Warren	Vera Farmiga		Vera Farmiga		Vera FarmigaA		Vera Farmiga
Mia Form		Annabelle Wallis		Annabelle WallisA
John Form		Ward Horton		Ward HortonA
Janice "Annabelle" Higgins		Tree O'Toole Keira DanielsY		Talitha Bateman Tree O'TooleOA
Pete Higgins		Brian Howe		Brian Howe
Sharon Higgins		Kerry O'Malley		Kerry O'Malley
Father Perez		Tony Amendola				Tony Amendola
Valak Demon Nun The Crooked Man			Joseph Bishara Robin Atkin DownesV Bonnie Aarons Javier Botet	Bonnie AaronsC	Bonnie Aarons				Bonnie Aarons	TBA
Sister Charlotte				Stephanie Sigman	Stephanie SigmanA
Annabelle "Bee" Mullins				Samara Lee			Samara Lee

Method 2: The MCU way of doing things, rather than breaking it up by movie, break it up by series.

Characters	Series
	The Conjuring films	Annabelle films	The Nun films	The Curse of La Llorona	The Crooked Man
	2013–	2014–	2018–	2019	TBA
Annabelle	Joseph Bishara	Joseph Bishara Fred TatascioreV		Doll only
Camilla	Amy Tipton
Debbie	Morganna Bridgers
Demon	Joseph Bishara	Joseph Bishara Fred TatascioreV
Father Gordon	Steve Coulter
Carolyn Perrin	Lili Taylor		Lili TaylorA
Rick	Zach Pappas
Maurice "Frenchie" Theriault	Christof Veillon		Jonas Bloquet Christof VeillonOA
Ed Warren	Patrick Wilson		Patrick WilsonA
Judy Warren	Sterling Jerins	Mckenna Grace	Sterling JerinsA
Lorraine Warren	Vera Farmiga		Vera FarmigaA
Valak Demon Nun The Crooked Man	Joseph Bishara Robin Atkin DownesV Bonnie Aarons (Nun) Javier Botet (Crooked Man)	Bonnie Aarons			TBA
Father Perez		Tony Amendola		Tony Amendola
Sister Charlotte		Stephanie Sigman	Stephanie SigmanA

Method 3: If people are absolutely insistent on keeping the table sorted by series with every individual movie shown, the the very least we should organize the characters by how they appear according to the table.

Characters	The Conjuring series			Annabelle series			The Nun series		Other films
	The Conjuring	The Conjuring 2	The Conjuring 3	Annabelle	Annabelle: Creation	Annabelle Comes Home	The Nun	Untitled The Nun film	The Curse of La Llorona	The Crooked Man
	2013	2016	2020	2014	2017	2019	2018	TBA	2019	TBA
Annabelle	Doll only	Joseph Bishara		Joseph Bishara Fred TatascioreV	Joseph Bishara	Doll only			Doll only
Camilla	Amy Tipton			Amy Tipton
Debbie	Morganna Bridgers			Morganna Bridgers
Father Gordon	Steve Coulter					Steve Coulter
Carolyn Perron	Lili Taylor						Lili TaylorA
Rick	Zach Pappas			Zach Pappas
Maurice "Frenchie" Theriault	Christof Veillon						Jonas Bloquet Christof VeillonOA
Drew Thomas	Shannon Kook
Ed Warren	Patrick Wilson			Patrick WilsonA		Patrick Wilson	Patrick WilsonA
Judy Warren	Sterling Jerins		TBA			Mckenna Grace	Sterling JerinsA
Lorraine Warren	Vera Farmiga					Vera Farmiga	Vera FarmigaA
Valak Demon Nun The Crooked Man		Joseph Bishara Robin Atkin DownesV Bonnie Aarons (Nun) Javier Botet (Crooked Man)			Bonnie AaronsC		Bonnie Aarons			TBA
Mia Form				Annabelle Wallis	Annabelle WallisA
John Form				Ward Horton	Ward HortonA
Janice "Annabelle" Higgins				Tree O'Toole Keira DanielsY	Talitha Bateman Tree O'TooleOA
Pete Higgins				Brian Howe
Sharon Higgins				Kerry O'Malley
Father Perez				Tony Amendola					Tony Amendola
Sister Charlotte					Stephanie Sigman		Stephanie SigmanA
Annabelle "Bee" Mullins					Samara Lee

I honestly feel any one of these would be a marked improvement over the table there now. 72.82.29.156 (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

New drafts for upcoming films

Two new drafts have been created for the upcoming Untitled The Nun Film and The Crooked Man. These should be changed to articles once either one of the projects release dates have been confirmed or when principal photography has begun. Please see my talk page to access these drafts. Thank you! Kaito Nakamura (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Short Films Section

Can whoever completely removed ALL information regarding the Annabelle: Creation short films contest put it back?? There was no need to remove the section as it belongs in this page. It appears that the section was removed due to the fact that these short films are not canon to the conjuring universe, stating that they were only made for a contest. Although they are made for a contest, the films are set within the conjuring universe, as stated by the director of Annabelle: Creation and the creator of the contest, David F. Sandberg himself. Please put it back in its place Kaito Nakamura (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I have a question. On Blu ray of The Conjuring:The Devil Made Me Do It as one of special features will be The Conjuring:The Lover #1 as a motion comic. And I wanted to ask if this counts as a shirt film? Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Wolves at the Door

I wanted to ask if it is worth mentioning that Eric Lapin who played Detective Clarkin in Annabelle reappears in Wolves at the Door? It makes it connected and in a way set in The Conjuring Universe although it isn't officially part of the franchise (like The Curse of La Llorona with the difference La Llorona had more connections)... Just asking 😅 Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

From memory someone added this to the article a few years back but got removed since no source could confirm that it was an official entry into the franchise nor was it of much notability. I personally haven't seen the film but it seemed to be a small cameo appearance since the director and writer also worked on Annabelle. KaitoNkmra23 (talk!) 01:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen the film myself yet. But am going to do it today, so I'll let you know if it was just a cameo. And I totally understand. Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 08:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah watched it, and forgot to say it. It was just a pretty small cameo. But the connection is there Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, as I saw few days ago here was a "edit war" about this film. Can we discuss it or you think that the topic is closed? In my honest opinion the movie should be mentioned. But that's just my opinion Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, this movie should be counted. It's exactly how universes works. A character from previous movie appears in it. And Annabelle is refrenced. The same was with La Llorona but there was also a flashback. Still, this is how universes works. Also people who did work on previous films worked on this. So yeah. It should be counted. If it was a theatrical release it would already be counted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD6:8B77:0:8432:A51D:329C:B203 (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

This isn't something like with Caged (2020) where an actor who plays a character in conjiverse appears in another movie and has the same last name as the character in conjiverse. Yup Tony Amendola plays a character with last name Perez in Caged (2020) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD6:8B77:0:8432:A51D:329C:B203 (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

There's not enough coverage with reliable sources for it. La Llorona had plenty at the time of and even following release. You can't add your own information per WP:ORIGINAL. Unless you want to keep this discussion going I'd close this discussion. KaitoNkmra23 (talk!) 22:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

well I mean La Llorona was a theatrical release. And Wolves was released with no echo. Almost no one knows the movie exists. That's the difference between the two films. La Llorona was a theatrical release with some marketing, Wolves was a theatrical movie like in 3 countries with just one trailer released once and that's it. No one talked about it. And it has just 7 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. And yeah. Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it's linked. If not necessarily part of the Conjuring franchise, it is certainly part of the universe since it was the exact same character from Annabelle and it had the same creatives work on it. It should at least be mentioned on the page if it's not going to be added as an instalment of the series, considering it's the same world. ProBot1227 (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. The same creatives, the same character played by the same actor. It's literally the same case as it was with The Curse of La Llorona Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't say its the same. Again, barely any media coverage and reliable sources to satisfy notability. KaitoNkmra23 (talk!) 07:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

it's hard to have any sources when no one knows this movie exists. It was released as quietly as possible because of controversies. La Llorona was in theaters its why you have sources on that. Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

And that's great... but we go by the sources. If it hasn't been clearly "claimed" by producers, then we don't include it. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

So by that delete La Llorona it wasn't also called by the producers part of it. In fact the director said it isn't. But wait you keep fighting on that if someone removes it. Oh well. The movie needs to speak for itself. I bet if there was an article by screenrant or other news site about it, you would just let it in. But that there's just one source on the internet by small horror site, you're ignoring it. The film is evidence enough. Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if you're getting the point here. The film itself can't be constituted as evidence. Multiple, reliable third-party sources are needed. KaitoNkmra23 (talk!) 21:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Are they really needed? Why? I don't understand why the film itself can't be considered as evince? Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced information tends to be considered as original research, which is not allowed per WP:ORIGINAL. Reliable sources are required per WP:RELIABILITY and WP:VERIFIABILITY. KaitoNkmra23 (talk!) 01:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

It should be noted that the Polish wikipedia considered it reasonable enough to add.

I'm not asking for much. Just a small reference to it on the page to denote the connection. It's clear that this appearance is more than an easter egg because of serveral things, like the timeline setting, the shared character, the shared creatives, and how Annabelle references the Sharon Tate murder.

It's pretty hard to argue it's not connected when you take into the facts. I do understand the hesitation to add it as part of the series, but a small reference like "additionally, Eric Laden reprised his role as Detective Clarkin in Wolves at the Door" couldn't hurt. ProBot1227 (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, at least in this way. Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Timeline

I changed the timeline listing in regards to Annabelle Comes Home. As stated in the film itself, The main events of the movie take place one year after the Warrens take ownership of the doll. They received the doll in 1968 so that means it takes place in 1969 (and it slotted between that Annabelle prologue scene in The Conjuring and the rest of that movie, matching up with interviews that says it takes place "during" that movie, as there's a three year time jump that isn't explicitly acknowledged as it is in the new film). -Fireheart14 (talk) 04:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

This doesn’t make sense as the music box from the original Conjuring is placed in the artifice room already. Meaning that Annabelle Comes Home must be set after The Conjuring. -Kaito Nakamura (talk) 05:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Could IP Address users stop changing the Timeline? The timeline is correct as it is. Annabelle: Creation starts off in 1943, then the main story takes place in 1955, then connects to Annabelle, which takes place in 1967. The section should be protected -Kaito Nakamura (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The IP Address user who informed of everybody that the timeline is incorrect on the main page instead of the talk page has clearly not seen the other films in the Conjuring Universe. It is told to us from the beginning in Annabelle: Creation is set in 1943 then 12 years later in 1955 (main story). And the Annabelle case which is described in the first Conjuring film (and also the same as Annabelle Comes Home) tells us that it is in 1968, with the first Annabelle film set a year prior in 1967, which is 12 years after Annabelle: Creation. Please do research and watch the films instead of editing a whole franchise timeline based off of watching one film -Kaito Nakamura (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I think I've figured out the source of confusion on the timeline—and it's an error (or just a change) the filmmakers made between The Conjuring and Annabelle.

• In The Conjuring, the scene with the nurses who have ended up with the Annabelle doll is clearly labelled as "1968 Case Files". In that scene, it is also clearly established the events that were later depicted in Annabelle (i.e. the first Annabelle movie but the second one in the Conjuring franchise), happened a year before, which would place those events in 1967.
• However, in an early scene in Annabelle, the Forms are watching TV news coverage on the Manson Family Tate murders with commentary about Manson awaiting trial. The murders happened in 1969, and a newspaper shown on-screen covering the in-movie murder of the Higgins lists the date as 1970.

So it seems like the filmmakers, between The Conjuring and Annabelle, decided the Annabelle events happened in 1970, not 1967. This still places them before the events of The Conjuring, which were in 1971 (although I guess it means the scene with the nurses happened the same year as the events in The Conjuring... which is still plausible and actually makes the "one year later" in Annabelle Comes Home fit better, I think). And because our dates for Annabelle: Creation are based off "12 years before" and "24 years before" the events of the Annabelle, this would put Annabelle: Creation's main story in 1958 and the prelude in 1946. Given The Conjuring was first out of the gate before there was any series or spin-offs planned or mapped out, I personally would go with the dates given in the later films when no doubt they'd started to put together a coherent timeline.

This partially jives with The Nun featurette discussing the timeline, which shows Annabelle happening in 1970. Unfortunately, they list Annabelle: Creation as taking place in 1955, not 1958. So as for the two time periods depicted in Creation, it's still a little murky. However, whether 1955 or 1958, it still (generally) fits. What seems clear from the Annabelle movie and subsequent sources, though, is that Annabelle takes place in 1970. —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I say keep the timeline the same. This whole issue arose in the Annabelle Comes Home article. On that article, the year of the plot should not be mentioned. On this article however, we should keep the timeline years the same to avoid confusion, and so that the timeline actually works. Kaito Nakamura (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Except the timeline doesn't work and is directly contradicted by later films, which is why it's often the subject of debate. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand and agree with your point. However, the media/internet has publicised so many timelines that is coherent with the current timeline that changing the timeline only now doesn’t seem right. I say keep it the same for now until we get a clear answer. @Cardei012597:, may I get your opinion on this please? — Kaito Nakamura (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think we'll ever get a defined clear answer on the timeline. Its obvious that paid screenwriters f*cked up the time line, not as bad as the "X-Men" or "Star Trek" time lines, but I do see the glaring mistakes. I don't truly know which to agree with, yours or Joey's, because the Conjuring timeline is kind of broken. So, to sum up, I kind of don't side with even trying to explain this franchise's timeline because it won't ever feel correct or consistent. Thats probably why there isn't a specific section within the "X-Men" franchise that tries to explain its time line, nothing makes any sense or can be agreed upon. Similar for the Conjuring franchise, maybe consider having events within films described as "before The Conjuring" or "after The Nun", something like that, instead of trying to arrange the films with a year, as clearly even the screenwriters didn't research/watch their own films. I doubt my idea would be considered, but I think it is a less stressful way to describe a broken timeline. Cardei012597 (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I think there's enough evidence by now to confirm that Annabelle takes place in 1970 (several references and news reports about the Tate-LaBianca murders that happened in 1969, some of them even explicitly dated 1970 in the film itself), with the first Conjuring opening being merely retconned to take place the same year as the rest of the movie. This fits with what's mentioned in Annabelle Comes Home, which is set one year after the Warrens acquire the doll (considering the retcon, that would've happened in 1971 rather than 1968, further explaining why Annabelle Comes Home is set in 1972). Also, the music box from the first Conjuring appears in the Warrens' artifact room, which completely rules out any possibility of the film taking place before 1971. This would also mean that Annabelle: Creation, taking place 12 years prior to Annabelle, is actually set in 1958. All of this is supported even further by the timeline IGN put out on YouTube a few days ago. Just my 2 cents. MiaHarris74 (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems as though filmmakers have created a plot hole in terms of the timeline with Annabelle Comes Home, but now with multiple sources and the official social media handles of the films themselves claiming the new timeline, I think we can add it to the article. @Cardei012597: and @Joeyconnick:, could I get your word on this? KaitoNkmra23 talk 12:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

If several reliable news sources are added into Annabelle Comes Home's plot summary to confirm the year the film is set in, I can be willing to allow this into the film page. Cardei012597 (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I haven't been following news on the franchise closely to avoid spoiling the latest film. However... I would say we'd be better off sticking to a real-world timeline (i.e. the year of release of the films) which is not going to change. Trying to come up with a fictional timeline is more in keeping with a fan wiki, not an encyclopedia. We already know there are several inconsistencies in the in-universe timeline between films; trying to untangle that or constantly update it based on however the filmmakers attempt to retcon things seems like a classic losing battle and I'm not at all convinced it adds anything to the articles. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The timeline is definitely messed up, but I just watched the movies chronologically based on the order in this article and it feels wrong, specifically the Annabelle Comes Home placement. The references in this article point to one Looper article that says the film takes place in 1972, but if you watch the film, a bulk of the film clearly takes place one year after the interview with the nurses which is 1968 in the prologue of The Conjuring (1), putting the events of Annabelle Comes Home in 1969. I think that Looper article is just incorrect and shouldn't be referenced as a source. Two other news articles and (which I also got from this wiki article and here both have the filmmakers saying it takes place before The Conjuring.Dc3k1 (talk) 06:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

That can’t be right, since the music box from The Conjuring is present in Annabelle Comes Home. The newspaper we see towards the beginning of the film also further proves that 1972 is the year in which the film takes place. KaitoNkmra23 talk 08:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I undid revision by Dariosipunct because it makes no sense. I know in Annabelle Comes Home there is "One Year Later" but they forget about that the Annabelle Scene was in 1968. And placing Annabelle in 1970 makes no sense because how the baby grows. They just made a mistake in Comes Home that's it. Let not retcon the whole timeline because they made a little mistake. Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I wanted to ask. Can Timeline have its own section? To add there the comic book and one of the short films because only the creators of The Confession said where it takes place on the Timeline. Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Only the timeline for the feature films is necessary. KaitoNkmra23 talk 22:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KaitoNkmra23 well I don't know. I think that people would like to know the whole timeline. But I get it. :) Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Guys, 1967 is just so wrong in so many ways! The First Annabelle Movie is set in 1970 - the untertitle of the first conjuring was just wrong. The Makers said it to: 1967 is WRONG. Damn it. Stupid-serienjunkie (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Exactly! I mean, since Annabelle is supposed to take place in 1967, then tell me how the hell is Mia watching a news report on the Manson murders that occurred in 1969? It makes no sense, that's why the film is actually set in 1970. The only REAL problem is the title card for the Annabelle case that shows up in the first movie. If we ignore that detail in favor of the larger picture (as the creators themselves have done, mind you), everything starts to organically fall into place. MiaHarris74 (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

References