Talk:Wolfwalkers

Removed talk page comments

I have cleared out the talk page, which was being used as a forum to speculate about the movie and generally talk about it in ways that were not related to improving the Wikipedia article. Please be aware that adding similar content will result in it being removed. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You didn’t archived the comments.CycoMa (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• I didn't think that they needed to be archived, given that they were such huge violations of WP:NOTFORUM. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Forum-type posts are typically never of any future use per the talk page guidelines, it's fine to remove those without archiving them. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Wolfwalkers got Delayed to June 2021!

Wolfwalkers Is Expected To Get a New Release Date On June 25 2021.2600:1700:BFA1:B110:696C:6D9F:BA56:704A (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey guest what, Wolfwalkers will arrive to Theatres on June 25th 2021. 2600:1012:B06C:6586:BC55:22A4:8A88:432B (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Do you have a source for this? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• The only sources I could find were some tweets from a fan wiki, as well as a Facebook post. The Facebook posts looks like it might be legit, but I can't find anything on the listing to show where the Facebook page is legit and not a fan posting. Given the hoaxes introduced on here, I have to take this with a grain of salt. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Facebook is not a reliable source (and Wolfwalkers page is not confirmed). You can only expect someone who "introduced the hoaxes" to write "On June 25, 2021, get ready go back to the big screen, Check out the Wolfwalkers has to Delayed schedule to New Release on To return wolf packs on the big screen in, and see the film in theaters June 25, 2021 (United States)." on the website. I'm pretty sure they are the same person. nyxærös 11:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• That was my thought as well. I know that there can be limited releases that pop up, but honesty I think that if they were going to be releasing in about 4 months there would be a little more fanfare. I'll add this as a sock of the vandal. They seem to IP hop fairly easily, so I don't know how good it would do to block them. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Future Sequel

What the heading ! Nonsense paragraph that should not be here. Besides, it is not referenced. (Krenakarore) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.112.6.78 (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• I've removed it. There have been some people adding nonsense comments to the article and talk page, acting like this is a forum to discuss the film and speculate about whether or not there will be a franchise. There has been zero evidence that there will be any further Wolfwalker films and from what I'd heard about the director, he does not prefer to do sequels. I've opened up a sockpuppet investigation since I believe that most, if not all, of the IPs are from a single editor who is evading a block for using the talk page as a forum. If it's proven that they are evading a block, they will likely get permanently blocked from editing. If this keeps up then the article may get semi-protected as well. This will unfortunately also penalize the IPs making beneficial edits as well as the ones making poor edits, so whomever is making the poor edits please read this warning: if you continue, you will be hurting the people who are making beneficial edits because you wish to use this as a forum. Please go somewhere else to discuss this film. Reddit has a subreddit specifically for the film, so that would be a better option. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• I also want to note for the IPs making WP:NOTFORUM edits that this page is in no way maintained or created by the people who made the film. They do not read the talk page nor will they respond to comments on here. This page is entirely made and maintained by volunteers with no connection or ties to the people involved in the film, so petitioning for a sequel here or posting similar information in the article will accomplish nothing except aggravate the people volunteering their time, as they will have to clean up after you. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected talk page

I've protected the page so that only auto/confirmed accounts can edit. It's only for a week, as I don't want to keep IPs from posting, as we've had good editors on the live article. I just want to prevent the IP(s) that are making the NOTFORUM posts from continuing to use it as a forum. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Side note: this will not keep IPs from editing the live article, just this talk page. I hate doing that, since it keeps them from being able to create discussions about improving the article, but hopefully this will deter the vandal using it as a forum. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Week protection for main page

I've protected the main page from the IP addresses that have been adding and re-adding hoax information about sequels and a franchise. I've also blocked the main account, but I fully expect them to continue trying to edit with IP addresses. I've enabled the ability for new and unregistered accounts to suggest edits, so hopefully that won't be too much of a barrier to the IPs who have been making helpful edits. I'm very sorry that I had to do this and wanted to hold out on doing this for as long as possible, but the vandal is very persistent. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for that as I experience the same thing, too. Espngeek (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Actually, thank André the Android. If they hadn't let me know about how bad it'd gotten here, it may have continued for longer unchecked. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• I've expanded the protection to three months, given that the vandal has returned after the protection ended last week. I did leave the ability to suggest edits, so that will hopefully not deter the IPs who have made helpful edits. To the IP who is making these edits, stop or this will become permanent. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

There should be a mention of Hayao Miyazaki in the article.

Every review speaks openly about Wolfwalkers being the same to Princess Mononoke what the Seven Samurais were to Magnificent Seven. Thus, people will get the idea of censorship when visiting this WP article and realize there is no mention of Ghibli, Hayao Miyazaki or the Mononoke-hime anime. Anyhow, H.M. is such a J.S. Bach-like genius in animation that admitting being influenced by him isn't shameful in any way! 94.21.160.121 (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Easy: source it. 95.90.129.96 (talk) 09:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• This must absolutely be sourced. If you want to say that he was influenced by PM there should also be some sort of primary source where the director says that he was influenced, otherwise this is original research and the most that could be said is that reviewers compared it to HM and Ghibli. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Year protection

I've re-upped the protection here for a year since it seems like an IP address tried to start up with the nonsense again once the protection ended. It was a single edit, but the attempt to add info about the nonexistent future sequel gives off the impression that they'll probably start up again if left unprotected. I'm not protecting the talk page, but I will warn that this is not a forum and that if similar not-forum and OR posts start up again, there's a major risk of it getting protected. I hate that this penalizes the IPs not making bad edits, but this vandal is very persistent. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Also, if this continues after the year is up, this becomes permanent. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Awards

Wolfwalker has won the 15th Kecskemét Animation Film Festival (2021)'s Best Animated Feature of European Competition Award (among 5 films) and the Audience Award too: 84.236.79.236 (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

References

"Oliver Cromwell"?

It doesn't seem like a good idea to me for the article to refer to the "Lord Protector" character as "Oliver Cromwell". Clearly, the character is strongly informed by the historical figure - but the work never explicitly equates them. And as the setting isn't strictly historical, for the article to do so is OR, surely. A quick google yielded an Los Angeles Times article which describes the connection like so (emphasis mine):

"In the 1650s Ireland of 'Wolfwalkers,' a city girl from England and a feral 'wolfwalker' child become friends as an Oliver Cromwell-type Lord Protector tries to wipe out all wolves in the country."

"So that’s why we wanted to focus particularly on Oliver Cromwell as the bedrock for the Lord Protector character; he goes down as being like the villain of Irish history."

The second quote is attributed to co-director Tomm Moore, and I doubt he'd have phrased it like that if he'd not meant to make a distinction. The motivation for this may or may not have to do with the incompatible deaths of the fictional and historical incarnations. Thoughts?

ETA: I don't have a problem with it being in Category:Cultural depictions of Oliver Cromwell, though.

- 2A02:560:428C:A300:E455:C41B:4FD6:A419 (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Removing uses of "Oliver Cromwell".

- (OP) 2A02:560:428C:A300:44:3732:5BB:6818 (talk) 05:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2021

(see above for context) Kindly replace all occurrences of "Oliver Cromwell" and "Cromwell" with "the Lord Protector" (or plain "he" or whatever else seems most appropriate in each case).

- 2A02:560:428C:A300:44:3732:5BB:6818 (talk) 05:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Kept Category:Cultural depictions of Oliver Cromwell per above discussion. For what it's worth, here is an additional source sharing that Cromwell inspired the Lord Protector character, but is not actually Cromwell. Here is the film's official IMDB page. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I really don't see why this page is locked at all, but if you won't let me do it myself you might want a link to Robin Goodfellow, that's hardly a name we have never heard before.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.229.4 (talk) 05:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Permanent protection

I hadn't kept up with the page, but it looks like this is still a target for vandalism and hoaxes. I'm giving this a permanent semi-protection at this point. It's been a couple of years now at this point. It stinks, since there were absolutely good IPs making edits, so to them I do apologize that they were impacted. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)