Jump to content

Talk:Beetlejuice

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleBeetlejuice was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 6, 2008Good article nomineeListed
May 9, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
October 7, 2008Good article nomineeListed
September 11, 2024Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Danny Elfman's score

[edit]

Reviewers rarely pay attention to a film's music. Danny Elfman's score is one of the greatest of non-Herrmann scores. It's also one of the most ripped-off scores of all time, both the actual music and the style. Bits of it were used in trailers over the next decade.

At the very least, someone should analyze the opening, which perfectly obeys Herrmann's dictum that the title music should tell the audience what the film is about. There is a "Beetlejuice" theme (a variation of the Dies Irae), mixed up with Grieg ("In the Hall of the Mountain King"), plus a bit of hoe-down, which not only refers to the story's bucolic setting, but is a tip of the hat to Herrmann's score for The Devil and Daniel Webster. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know what would REALLY be helpful in deciding how Betelgeuse's name is spelled?

[edit]

REFERENCES. My god I was about to change all the names from Betelgeuse to Beetlejuice. All I saw was some crap about it being a phonetic spelling. I was very tempted to change it, but I knew there had to be an explanation, and lo and behold, in the "Betelgeuse in fiction" I fid out the reason:

Beetlejuice's name is a reference to Betelgeuse, and is spelled Betelgeuse on his tombstone.

WOW. I had to go to another article?? There apparently was a discussion about which spelling to use, and this ALL could've been avoided by simply citing proof his name is Betelgeuse??? In the page history, I noticed people constantly changing Betelgeuse to Beetlejuice. 75.72.205.243 (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where'd That Picture Of Beetlejuice In Universal Hollywood Come From?

[edit]

Where'd That Picture Of Beetlejuice In Universal Studios Hollywood Come From, i don't see him there in Hollywood! I'd like to see proof of that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.204.215 (talk) 01:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you took a moment to Google, or even looked at the Wikipedia article for it, you’d see that "Beetlejuice's Rock and Roll Graveyard Revue" closed in Hollywood in 2002, and was replaced by "Spider-Man Rocks"; however it is apparentky still on in Florida.Jock123 (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth putting a link (or some info) about the stage show on the Wiki page?--TimothyJacobson (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn’t there another sequel script?

[edit]

Until I read this article I’d never heard of the “Goes Hawaiian” sequel. The script that I’d heard spoken of - by Michael Keaton, amongst others - was called "Beetlejuice in Love", by Warren Skarren. Is this the same, or a different thing? If so, it should be added. Not that I actually would want a sequel - the first one was quite bad enough! Jock123 (talk) 09:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Vandalism

[edit]

I removed the "ADAM LIKES MEN" from the beginning of the article, as it was a clear act of vandalism. 144.160.130.16 (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DEUS EX MACHINA

[edit]

is t worth mention that the end of the movie is a "deus ex machina"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.140.112.212 (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely deus ex machina... The wife randomly comes in riding a worm out of the ceiling and it solves the problem of beetlejuice out of nowhere

Plot clarification

[edit]

From reading the summary, one doesn't know why the wedding is occurring. In the film, Beetlejuice says that she must marry him so he can stay alive. --Boycool † (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure in the movie, he says he wants to marry her to BECOME alive (since he is obviously dead). This was the reason behind the revert. Ckruschke (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
Ok thanks for clearing it up. --Boycool † (talk) 01:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beetlejuice or Betelguise

[edit]

I have reverted at least four instances (two in as many days) where editors have changed Micheal Keaton's character from "Beetlejuice" to "Betelguise". I'm happy to be wrong, but everything I've read on the credits, IMDB, etc state that Keaton is the TITLE character (and therefore it's spelled Beetlejuice) - the only Betelguise I know of is a star in the constellation Orion. Ckruschke (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

It's quite simple - the character's name is shown onscreen and in the credits to be spelled "Betelgeuse". The film is spelled "Beetlejuice". There is no need for discussion, as there is only one possible right spelling for the character's name. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huh... Since I don't currently own the movie, I'll have to take your word for it since "there is no need for discussion". Since every source I looked at on the web disagrees with this fact, you'll have to shepherd this since the name has changed back and forth many many times in the couple years I've watched the page... Ckruschke (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
Actually, earlier discussion indicates several versions are used in the film itself, and the consensus (in the green box above), having not been revoted on at a later time, is still in effect. Therefore, all references to the character have been changed to "Beetlejuice" per that consensus. If someone wants to change it, it needs a vote again, not the assertion of one person. MSJapan (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. That so-called "consensus" you refer to is 5 years old and there was no discussion, so I do not think we can call it definitive. I agree with MikeWazowski's comment above: the name is spelled in the film and in the credits "Betelgeuse" and that is the spelling that should be used. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The opening credits can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaCYL04Kd8g. At 1m23s it states the character name as "BEETLE JUICE". In the graveyard scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdpTGOepEvU) it is clearly written as Betelgeuse. I can't find a clip of the end credits but I believe it is stated there as "Betelgeuse". I think the safest thing to do is to add a section on the main page to discuss the character name spelling, citing the three sources from the movie, mentioning that he is named after the star, and the little trivia about McDowell being impressed that people made the connection. Otherwise people will keep editing the name and arguing over itAdxm (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Something needs to be done. Continues to be an issue. Your rationale seems sound "to me". Ckruschke (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
Well, since this is still an on-going issue, I think it's okay to add in. I think the biggest focus should be on the Plot section, since that's what people will be more likely to read. Perhaps we should call him "Betelgeuse", but add in brackets that it's pronounced "Beetle Juice". It'd be particularly notable to include the pronunciation, since it was worked into the script that laymen can't work out how to pronounce it and need help.-- 194.81.33.118 (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the Beetlejuice wiki it's spelled as Betelgeuse in the movie (http://beetlejuice.wikia.com/wiki/Betelgeuse) Oddly enough however in the animated show his name is Beetlejuice. Just adding my two cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KentuckyBengalsAndReds (talk • contribs) 07:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Above, Ckruschke cites IMDb, saying that it lends credence to the view that the character's name is "Beetlejuice."  But, when you actually go to IMDb's cast page, it says this: "Michael Keaton ... Betelgeuse".

I agree with MikeWazowski, The Old Jacobite, IMDb, and Tim Burton that the character's actual name is Betelgeuse.

Best regards,
allixpeeke (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if you look at the full discussion - and don't simply stop at the comment made by MikeWazowski over two years ago - Adxm states pretty convincingly that he believed a note should be put on the page describing the apparent dichotomy in the naming convention WITHIN THE MOVIE so as to end this somewhat pointless discussion once and for all. I have been on only a little bit in the last year, but had assumed that this had already taken place. So this is what I suggested at the time and still believe would be the most logical end-state rather than to endlessly debate the "real" spelling. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

References for use

[edit]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beetlejuice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Beetlejuice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beetlejuice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beetlejuice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fansite

[edit]

Is there some exceptional reason why a Fansite is included in the External links section or has no one just gotten around to removing it yet? Fansites are not normally allowed. WP:EL -- 109.78.201.245 (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

gone Ckruschke (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes

[edit]

Just a side note for editors of this page...

Normally for 'critical response' I tend to think of reviews as happening in the first couple of years after a show/movie has started. Beetlejuice came out in 1988. Metacritic started in 2001 and Rotten Tomatoes in 1998, more than a decade after the movie had been released.

This strikes me as highly odd. They are certainly a source for critiques, but anyone reading this who is not aware of recent history will walk away thinking the internet was active LONG before it actually was.68.111.75.31 (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Internet predates 1988. See History of the Internet. Dimadick (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]
The title that appears on screen is Beetle Juice -- with a space. https://i.ibb.co/bL9RWVm/Beetle-Juice-title-card.png
Same job for the character name at the start (although in the end credits he is correctly named Betelgeuse). https://i.ibb.co/719xjs2/Beetlejuice-credit.png
All of which is to say: kindly stop removing the Beetle Juice AKA from the lede. It is more than relevant. Thanks! https://www.radiotimes.com/film/rndw/beetlejuice--beetle-juice/ 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:49AF:CA13:80CC:B8C2 (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can create an image, post it on the internet, and claim that it means something. Give us a reliable source from someone who was actually involved in production of the film, not some random person's image. Sundayclose (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwDE5dMCtsc&feature=youtu.be&t=34 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:49AF:CA13:80CC:B8C2 (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not doubtful that the title card shows Beetle Juice, and there can be inconsistency between the title card and the advertising materials and what secondary sources use. While the spacing exists in the title card, the vast majority of reliable sources do not use the spacing. It looks like The Tim Burton Encyclopedia says on page 168 of a screenwriter, "He wrote the first draft of Beetlejuice (then Beetle Juice) in early 1985." I don't mind this detail being mentioned in the article body, but I'm not sure if it needs to be mentioned in the opening sentence since it is too inconsequential to do that so upfront, unlike some other alternative titles. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another consideration is the film's record at the US Copyright Office here that shows the official title to be Beetlejuice. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but the on-screen title is always mentioned in the first sentence of the article (in brackets) if it differs from the WP:COMMONNAME. There are no exceptions to this. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:49AF:CA13:80CC:B8C2 (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except you have provided no evidence that it's a "common name". I will be moving it out of the lead sentence to a later place in the article. Sundayclose (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However commonly used, the on-screen title is always mentioned in the first sentence. No exceptions. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:C59C:A410:479F:B9DD (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You need to link the policy for that, including the "no exceptions" part. Your saying it doesn't make it true. Otherwise I'll be removing it from the lead sentence. Sundayclose (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) "No exceptions" has no basis in the guidelines. I would know, I've been involved with film articles for over a decade. It would be a local consensus depending on each topic. The lead section has the most important information, and the opening sentence contains a key basic description. The on-screen title is ignored by the vast majority of reliable sources writing about the film. Even what I quoted above only mentioned it in the context of screenwriting. It doesn't matter in terms of the big picture. I'm fine with Sundayclose moving it out of the lead section and into a relevant spot in the article body. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid not. There is no precedent for removing the on-screen title from the lede. Many reliable sources ignoring it is of no consequence. Wikipedia consistency is. That's the relevant policy. If you could find me other articles where the on-screen title is not mentioned in the very first sentence, you might have an argument, but the onscreen title has always been mentioned at the start. I'm happy to start an RFC on this if we can't agree, but there is simply no precedent for removing this from the lede, so yes, the conversation can be had, but you'd need a pretty persuasive reason to break with Wikipedia consistency. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:C59C:A410:479F:B9DD (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We're waiting for you to link the relevant policy, but we don't plan to wait indefinitely. Feel free to start an RfC, but follow the requirement to word it neutrally. Otherwise it will be reworded. And note that you need to identify yourself for every comment, since you IP hop with every post. We can easily determine whether it's the same person, so don't try to deceive us. That's a great way to get an RfC rejected because of vote-stacking. Sundayclose (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't do any kind of hopping, thank you. It's a dynamic IP, which doesn't alter post-to-post, but session-to-session. I have no idea why, but there you go. Thanks so much for the pleasant tone. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:C59C:A410:479F:B9DD (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Using a different IP with every edit is the definition of IP hopping. I didn't state that you have any control. But if you don't identify yourself with every change of IP when commenting in an RfC, that's vote-stacking. And by the way, don't make changes regarding this issue in the article while discussion is ongoing. Sundayclose (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Has someone been using a different IP with every edit? 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:C59C:A410:479F:B9DD (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So far you've edited the article with 5 different IPs that I know of. That's enough to cause a lot of misunderstanding in an RfC unless you make it clear who you are. Sundayclose (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may notice that those 5 similar IPs only altered day-to-day. Not post-to-post. Thank you. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:C59C:A410:479F:B9DD (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By hair-splitting you've missed the point. Just make sure it's clear who you are in an RfC and everything will be copacetic. In any event, this is not the appropriate venue to quibble about those details. Sundayclose (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not splitting hairs. You've suggested that I may be trying to deceive you (which was why I "thanked" you for the pleasant tone), which would probably be the case if every post was a different IP. There is major difference between post-to-post and session-to-session, so thanks for admitting you were wrong. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:C59C:A410:479F:B9DD (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please drop this and move on. Sundayclose (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the American Film Institute is about the most reliable of reliable film sources. https://catalog.afi.com/Catalog/MovieDetails/55732 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:9018:CEE2:997:8F66 (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AFI is a good source depending on what it's used for, but it isn't necessarily more reliable than other sources. I'm not sure where you come up with ideas like "no exceptions" and "most reliable of reliable", but as always your saying it doesn't make it true. Also note that the page you link points out that "the majority of reviews and articles published at the time of the film’s release listed the title as one word." But that has already been pointed out in this discussion. It's not a compelling case for WP:COMMONNAME. Sundayclose (talk) 04:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have I made an RM? No. Am I arguing it's the common name? No... 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:614F:DF63:DA36:F60A (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have you provided a link to the policy or guideline for "no exceptions" after a couple of requests to do so? No. Have you provided any evidence for "most reliable of reliable"? No. You've expressed your opinion. Let's wait and see if there is any support for it. Sundayclose (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are indeed no exceptions. At least, not that I have ever seen. Can you find any exceptions? Other than this title right here. And if you want to make an exception for this one... why? It is a well-known fact that the AFI is a highly reliable source. No one is going to deny that. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:614F:DF63:DA36:F60A (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the fourth time, give us links to back up your bold claims of "no exceptions" and "most reliable of reliable", not just your opinion. Once again, your saying it doesn't make it true. Be aware that consensus is not determined by how many times you can repeat yourself. Also be aware that continuing to repeat the same thing over and over is disruptive editing. Give us the links to back up your claims or stop repeating them. Sundayclose (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat: the policy of consistency between articles. It is not a difficult concept to grasp. If you can't find any exceptions, there are, by definition, and cunning deduction, no exceptions. So... why should this article be the one exception? The onus is on you to explain why one article should be treated differently to all similar articles (Ocean's 8, X-Men: First Class, Nymphomaniac, Scary Movie 5, Mowgli, 13 Reasons Why, Brotherhood, Life Sentence, Cube 2: Hypercube, Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials, M*A*S*H, etc.) 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:614F:DF63:DA36:F60A (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "policy of consistency between articles". If you think there is, please link it. No one has to obey your command to "find any exception". You, on the other hand, need to back up your claims about "no exceptions" and "most reliable of reliable" with links to actual policies rather than policies you create in your mind. Otherwise, move on and stop being disruptive by endlessly repeating claims with no basis in policy. I'm very serious about stopping this incessant repetition. Read WP:DISRUPT, especially WP:IDHT. Accordingly, I will not pander to your disruptive editing. Thus far you have no support for your edit, either here or in Wikipedia policy. Future repetitive comments will be ignored. A reasonable period of time to establish consensus is a couple of weeks. After that time, if you don't get significant support from other editors, your edit will be removed and placed in an appropriate place later in the article. Sundayclose (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are no policies or guidelines that requires including on-screen titles. There is no explicit policy for consistency other than article titles being WP:CONSISTENT. Since this is related to film, there would need to be WikiProject Film WP:CONSENSUS to support this, and that does not exist. Furthermore, the examples are a mixed bag where some alternative titles are also reflected in the marketing materials, where I've seen local consensus to mention them. That's not the case for Beetlejuice. The existence of these examples do not mean they are valid; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Some examples seem worthwhile, others are not. Like who cares if Ocean's 8 spelled out the number onscreen, and who cares if Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials only focused on the subtitle onscreen? There is a stronger case to make in mentioning alternative titles reflected in marketing materials, as they may be likely to be searched for, but not necessarily on a universal basis. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, even IMDB has "Beetle Juice" as the primary title. Weird that Wikipedians are ignoring this notable variation. I'm struggling to understand from the above discussion why you want it buried? Jenny Jankel (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, IMDb does not have it as the primary title. It says "Beetlejuice (1988)" in both the web page's title and on the page itself. I'm not sure what you're looking at. And as far as I can tell, no one is objecting to mentioning Beetle Juice in the article body. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section is a summary of the most important parts of the article body. A difference of a space in an early copy of the script is not important compared to other details about the film. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about the script. IMDB's policy is to use what appears on screen as their primary title, which is why it is "Beetle Juice" (two words) as the primary title there (you will only see their localized display title if you're accessing via your phone), and I have to agree with the above argument that I haven't come across a Wiki page which doesn't show this in the lead. If you did have consensus to move it from the lead (I don't see consensus) then the correct course of action would be to move it to the article body, not delete it entirely. Jenny Jankel (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's about what IMDb uses as the title on it's page for the film. Give us your evidence that "IMDB's policy is to use what appears on screen as their primary title", and then explain why IMDb uses "Beetlejuice" as the title for its article as well as the content of its article. And yes, there was a consensus because there were no comments here for three weeks. You just violated that consensus by not getting a new consensus. Feel free to mention "Beetle Juice" in the body of the article, but not in the lead without a new consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you're getting funny about "new consensus" because a couple of weeks elapsed. If you had consensus, your move would be to move it to the article body, not delete it, which you have once again done. Here is the evidence of IMDB's title policy, which has always been this way, and I repeat for the third time: IMDB's primary title for this film is Beetle Juice. Their display titles are localized common titles, which is why you see "Beetlejuice", but you will notice the primary title directly below the display title. Jenny Jankel (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Three weeks without discussion is quite sufficient to determine consensus. Consensus can change, so please seek a change in consensus before changing the lead. Sundayclose (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anything to say about the evidence presented above? And what policy says three weeks is enough? The discussion is ongoing. Aggressively hitting my talk page with false warnings isn't going to get you anywhere. Jenny Jankel (talk) 12:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's very clear from the above that there is zero consensus to change the title on this page. There are two camps on the subject and neither are moving. @Jenny Jankel can argue that the discussion is "on-going", but you are the only voice pro change and the dissenters aren't budging. If you feel that the issue needs mediation, I'd suggest that you take this to admin as the horse is officially dead. Ckruschke (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
I'm fairly sure no one was trying to change the page title, and your count is also... wrong. But thanks for your input! Jenny Jankel (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm admittedly coming late to the party, but I need some help understanding exactly what is being asked. Does someone (Jenny Jankel, Sundayclose, or the IPv6 user on Sky Broadband in the UK, perhaps) want to rename (move) the article? Rewrite the lede? I've read this Talk section and am really confused as to what—specifically—is being asked. I'll appreciate any help any of y'all care to give. Meanwhile, I'm going to get some popcorn and rewatch the movie. Cheers! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 01:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In essence, it is about whether or not to mention Beetle Juice as an alternative title in the opening sentence. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought about the title's variance before, but I shrugged it off because it's not the first work of fiction to have that type of inconsistency. If it's important enough, rather than just some trivial thing, to mention on the page, I'm okay with that. Film Bio Legacy (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Character name spelling

[edit]

I realize I'm reopening a can of worms, but can we take another swing at achieving consensus for how this article should spell the character name? Going to start this out as a plain old discussion, but can turn it into an RfC if there isn't enough engagement or if consensus remains elusive...

Note that I'm not questioning how to spell the movie title, which seems to be a relatively settled question, just how to refer to the character. I see there are claims on this page that consensus has been reached (both for "Beetlejuice" and for "Betelgeuse", which is a good sign consensus probably has not been reached), but it seems pretty clear from a review of past discussions that it has not been. Furthermore, the article currently uses the "Beetlejuice" spelling for the character within the lead and plot sections, "Betelgeuse" in the cast section, and a mix of both in the production section, making it confusing to read.

From a review of past discussions, it seems that this all stems from inconsistency within the film itself, so it's understandable that there's not a clear answer. To try to summarize:

To simplify discussion, let's call Option A support for using "Beetlejuice" throughout when referring specifically to the character, and Option B support for using "Betelgeuse".

Pinging editors involved in past discussions on this topic, with apologies for those of you who discussed this 15 years ago and don't care anymore. I've skipped those who haven't edited in years and years. @Brideshead, GastonRabbit, Wildroot, MikeWazowski, Serendipodous, Allixpeeke, Ckruschke, and Adxm: GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Talk:Beetlejuice Beetlejuice. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B ("Betelgeuse") because that is the spelling used within the film, and that spelling is somewhat of a plot point itself (given the characters have trouble pronouncing it, which they likely would not if it was spelled "Beetlejuice"). I'm also swayed by the fact that it's the spelling favored by Burton himself in his autobiography. There is no clear WP:COMMONNAME among the sources used in this article — by numbers alone, "Beetlejuice" wins out 12–6, but excluding some of the lower-quality or UGC sources leaves it roughly even. I would also support adding a footnote explaining the spelling discrepancies. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B If "Betelgeuse" is the name given in the film and by the credits then, honestly, I don't understand why this discussion is happening. This is the factually correct spelling of the name. This isn't a WP:COMMONNAME issue because we are not discussing the name of the article, so the amount of coverage the factually inaccurate spelling gets is irrelevant. Betty Logan (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B ("Betelgeuse"): I concur with the above and support adding a footnote, perhaps as early as the introductory paragraph: "starring [...] Michael Keaton as the title character" (emphasis mine). Beaudine Wilson (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lack of Consensus: I'm sorry and I'm probably going back on what I've said in the past, but when the movie and all the literature on the movie is titled Bettlejuice and other references to the character within and without of the movie spell it Betelgeuse, even the source material has no consensus with itself so I'm not sure how Wikipedia can sort it out when its unsortable. Yes that option is hard to take and keeping the page the mess that it is is stupid, but I'm not sure how we can make a decision when even Burton doesn't refer to the movie with its given title spelling - he's part of the problem. Ckruschke (talk) 13:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
    We can reach a consensus on how to treat it within the article(s) even if the source material is inconsistent. That doesn't mean we're deciding what the One True Spelling is, we're just picking an option to stick to for our own internal consistency. I've suggested including a footnote on the spelling inconsistencies as well, to directly note in the article that there is some variation in how the name is spelled. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented the change given the general consensus here. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaand someone already broke it. Beaudine Wilson (talk) 07:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cult Following?

[edit]

Should we add a “cult following” status to Beetlejuice? It seems to have acclaimed one over the years, in my opinion. Meghan Norry (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please don't. People spam the claim "cult following" all over Wikipedia to the point that it is almost meaningless (and then low quality sites like Screenrant claim a film has a cult following the circle of Wikipedia continues). Editors should first make sure there is enough of a "cult following" or "cult status" to write a properly referenced Legacy section before you go giving such claims WP:UNDUE emphasis by adding them to the lead section. -- 109.77.197.194 (talk) 12:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Beetlejuice

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. Hog Farm Talk 01:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A 2008 GA no longer up to standard. Lots of unsourced content (almost entire writing section) and the article also seems incomplete (i.e. a complete lack of the film's influence and legacy) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beetlejuice&oldid=1249637447"