Talk:Everything Everywhere All at Once#Evelyn Quan Wang character article

I noticed that this article was split/copied off from this article on March 7, seemingly without any prior notice or consensus that is often required per WP:SPLIT unless making a bold split. I don't think anything found there wouldn't be found here, so I'm confused on the splitter's reasoning that was not properly given in the edit summaries aside from the text being contributed to this page. @ICOTEYE, would you like to give your reasoning here?

I'd also like to gather some opinions on if this article should be kept separately from the article or not. Personally, I think this fails WP:FICT since most of the sources I found relates to the film or the actress more than the character, but I might be wrong. Spinixster (trout me!) 02:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

:The reception section looks strong, but... the other parts are kind of weak. So maybe borderline keep? Historyday01 (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

::The reception section was copied off from this article with a few changes FYI. Spinixster (trout me!) 14:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

:::It can be okay to have a standalone article about a fictional character (even if they appear in only one film) if coverage of that character would be too excessive in the film's own article. Generally speaking, supporting characters sometimes get standalone articles if they are noteworthy themselves. This does not necessarily mean they have to be the full focus of a reliable source's coverage. If they get WP:SIGCOV, that is enough. It is more about figuring out scopes and redundancy. A film-centric article cannot cover every single detail about a film. A character-centric article can focus more on details about that character than the film-centric article would. Think of film series articles; we are not going to include all the box office and critical reception details for all films in a series-centric article. We keep the details high-level.

:::So here with this film-centric article , there should be a light level of detail about the character, saving the fuller detail for the character-centric article. For example, the "Critical reception" here could focus more about the film's general qualities, where the character-centric article could focus more on what critics said about the character and the actor's performance of that character. The challenge with coverage of a film and its main character (as opposed to supporting) is that there is more overlap than with a supporting character. I do agree that the actual splitting and copying is messy, and content in both articles should be appropriately balanced in scope. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

::::I agree, but I don't think that the character is independently notable outside the film, which is required for notability. All the information currently in the character article right now can also be found here, because it is merely an article copy-pasted from the film article with no or barely any additional information. Unless individual notability can be shown, I think it should be redirected back to the film article. Spinixster (trout me!) 03:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

:::::Significant coverage for establishing notability does not mean that the potentially-notable topic needs to be the main topic. Most films' articles will cover its main characters sufficiently, and I think characters and related performances that win awards wind up having a greater level of detail. In general, this character definitely has significant coverage to warrant a standalone article, but the current execution of it is poor. This film's article could have a more general "Casting" scope (meaning that Yeoh-specific content could be in the character's article) and a more general "Critical reception" scope. If anything, the "Critical reception" is a little too Yeoh-focused with not even Quan mentioned despite his own set of awards. I don't care to get my hands dirty with cleaning up this split, but I do believe a character article is definitely possible. For example, I found [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-99-9821-0_6 this] that focuses a lot on Evelyn, including a full-focus section in that chapter as seen [https://imgur.com/a/BFgOl90 here]. It takes some intentionality and grit to make a good article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe the directors said something about using this story structure, I swear there was a quote... and if so, shouldn't it be added to the article as something notable about the development?--KimYunmi (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=So,_even_though_you_have_broken_my_heart_yet_again,_I_wanted_to_say,_in_another_life,_I_would_have_really_liked_just_doing_laundry_and_taxes_with_you.&redirect=no So, even though you have broken my heart yet again, I wanted to say, in another life, I would have really liked just doing laundry and taxes with you.] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 21#So, even though you have broken my heart yet again, I wanted to say, in another life, I would have really liked just doing laundry and taxes with you.}} until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

From section "Accolades":

: [T]he first science-fiction film to win five of the top six Academy Awards.

That's all kind of messy.

• The link goes to List of Big Five Academy Award winners and nominees, not six.
• Apparently the sixth in the "above-the-line" group would be supporting actor..... which would make it seven, not six (film, direction, screenplay, 2x best lead, 2x best support).
• EEAAO actually won six of these, not five (film, direction, screenplay, actress, both supports).

There is no source, so it sounds pretty ORish to me. I also have my doubts that highly specific records of any sort are notable.

So, is there a source not only for the trivial facts (number and type of awards), but for the contradicting numbers and the terms used? What makes this notable? --91.5.99.247 (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)