Talk:Alpha and Omega (film)

Alpha and Omega 3: The Great Wolf Games was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 03 April 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Alpha and Omega (film). The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Film: American / Animated

	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
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Animated films task force.

Animation: American / Films / Computer 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Animated films work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Computer animation work group (assessed as Low-importance).

more info wanted

I removed the "unsourced" tag and wanted to remove the "notability" tag on the article. But there's a hidden comment next to the "notability" tag in the article, asserting that future films are not notable unless there is substantial coverage about them. I don't happen to know much about that policy or guideline or practice. But, this seems like a big film, based on its having an actor list that is impressive to me--and i don't know many actor names at all. So, surely there must be more coverage that could be added to this article. --doncram (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tag is there because we need substantial coverage in independent reliable sources before any future film is notable, even if it is directed by God with Jesus starring as Himself. At the moment, the article has zero independent reliable sources. IMDb is not notable. Additionally, on a future film, its information must be from the studio (i.e., not independent of the production) or gathered from unknown sources (i.e., not reliable). - SummerPhD (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am having trouble with repeated assertions that IMDB is not a source, or not reliable as a general statement. Or that it is not "notable" (did u mean to say "reliable" there?). I have read some of the previous long discussions about IMDB and there is consensus (as i see it, others will differ nonetheless) that IMDB is reliable for some info, like centrally entered awards info. There is other personal stuff that is not reliable there, I understand. I also understand that news/gossip about a future film is hard to pin down. But, whatever you say, IMDB is a source. And there are 2 sources in this article. So tag it with "refimprove" but not "unsourced". You can also tag the topic for notability, and like i said already, that's out of my expertise right now. --doncram (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did mean "reliable". Especially for future films, IMDb is not reliable. What I'm reading on Big Cartoon DataBase doesn't exactly sound like theNew York Times. Yeah, they've "done (their) best to validate the information" and "want to do (ther) best to make this the most informative, correct resource possible!"[1] If that is a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy"WP:RS, I'm the pope. And I'm not. So sure, it has "sources". Heck, they might even be the sources used for the article. If we cite those sources, though, we would still have zero reliable sources. Anything (other than a few writers' credits) sourced to either of those can be removed as lacking a reliable source.

And for the record, we have discussed imdb before and decided it isn't a reliable source. For example...

I'll leave it as "refimprove" for now, but really, it completely lacks reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Video Game and additional media

There is a video game released by storm city, as well as at least four books based on the film and wolf education. I might post information about them, and I am simply notifying those reading this so that they may post it themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.93.73 (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 12 September 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sequel

Alpha And Omega 2, a direct sequel to 2010's Alpha And Omega will be released on October 8th 2013 straight-to-DVD and BluRay as part of it's list of holiday films.

File:Http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2013/213/2/5/10 1 by heavenlybreasts-d6g73uz.jpg

Alpha And Omega 2

68.183.91.167 (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I have reviewed the information available for both articles, and I am unconvinced that Alpha and Omega 2: A Howl-iday Adventure and Alpha and Omega: The Legend of the Saw Tooth Cave are independently notable enough to have standalone articles. All of the verifiable information in each of the current articles can be reproduced in the original film's "Sequels" section, and information pertaining to plot can be summarized briefly here. Critical reception for both films is scarce, and what is available can easily be stated here. Ultimately, both films fail guidelines set forth at WP:NFILMS and should be merged. Mz7 (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has commented on this proposal for almost two months now, I think I will move forward with the merge this weekend, assuming consensus from silence. Mz7 (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha and Omega 2: A Howl-iday Adventure has been merged (diff). I only merged content that was cited to a reliable source that verifies the content it is associated with. This is done under the verifiability policy, and unsourced material that is likely to be challenged (e.g. the unsourced controversy discussed in the former "Production" section) should not be reintroduced without a reliable source to back it up. Mz7 (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged Alpha and Omega: The Legend of the Saw Tooth Cave (diff). Mz7 (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have also merged Alpha and Omega: Family Vacation as well (diff). I am not convinced that the sixth film (do I sense another Land Before Time (franchise) here?) is more notable than the other 4 sequels. Mz7 (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]