Talk:Shawn Levy

Untitled

Hi shawn how are you, I want to ask when are realising Real Steel 2; I really enjoy 1

Picture

First of all, I'm sorry if my English is bad. I think the picture in this article is very Confusing, because if i understand correctly, the main person in it is Hugh Jackman, not Levy. Elyasaf (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed for age, but not DOB?

I mean, if we're sure about the date of birth, the age is just a simple matter of subtraction, isn't it? (Unless he time-travels or something.) CaptHayfever (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Lfkfjvjv

Ahhhhh 2601:82:C202:2A0:B1A8:11C6:4DB5:A073 (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Unrealized Projects

After declining Draft:Shawn Levy's unrealized projects, @ZanderAlbatraz1145 ported most of the draft information into this article. This has lead to an issue of Wikipedia:UNDUE, with the article now having a significant amount of content on unfinished projects that overwhelm the rest of the article's content. Any suggestions about how to improve this content or in regards to how this content should be moved or removed would be greatly appreciated. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, many many pages have large sections for 'Unrealized projects' that span paragraph upon paragraph upon paragraph. Nothing new here. I realize the scope of it is large, but I see it a different way: that the rest of the article is not detailed and needs to be brought up to par. Perhaps a further in-depth career biography? No reason for the unrealized projects section to be carelessly deleted. The article is imbalanced because of it, but that does not mean the information is worthless and it certainly does not mean it should be trashed. An attempt at a page of it's own has failed, despite many examples of 'Unrealized projects' pages having the right to exist without a 'collective reference' that cites several or all of the listed projects as the main subject. In fact, I'd argue more than half of them do not. Does this mean they should be deleted? Again, it would be counterproductive. And besides, some have existed for years. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd avoid citing Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and the article age, since those can easily turn out to be non-notable regardless of age and how many other similar lists exist. Regardless, my discussion is not really pertaining to them, and moreso to this article. I agree the article could do with beefing up, but that should have been accounted for prior to a merge of this size given the kind of undue focus this causes. If you would be willing, I'd be willing to help you with implementing more content into the article to try and fix the balancing issues, especially since I doubt I'd be able to fix the issue entirely on my own. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I did my part; most of that that I added would be my way of, as you say, "beefing up" the article. I don't seem to ne negatively seeing it as the "mess" that you seem to, nor do I feel it needs cleaned up and rearranged. The article is lacking overall, and clearly that's a lot of information that deserves inclusion somewhere (like I said, I tried to give it it's own page; TWICE, to no avail, despite, again, there being COUNTLESS pages existing currently with the issues that the editor who declined the submission listed, and then some). I don't know what to say beyond that. If it comes to me having to do more work and bring this entire article page as a whole up to par or the information myself and the user 2K LMG carefully and attentively added and wrote out over the course of many months being deleted, then I will choose the former. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)