This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of holidays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HolidaysWikipedia:WikiProject HolidaysTemplate:WikiProject HolidaysHolidays articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Media franchisesWikipedia:WikiProject Media franchisesTemplate:WikiProject Media franchisesmedia franchise articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 20th Century Studios, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 20th Century Studios and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.20th Century StudiosWikipedia:WikiProject 20th Century StudiosTemplate:WikiProject 20th Century Studios20th Century Studios articles
There is literally no casting for Kevin and other main charators for the Home Alone Cast section for the 3rd installment. Add it in! I need to know who did him. 70.62.142.66 (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC) the third movie have different characters.[reply]
why is the fourth movie the only one without it own article
considering kevin`s age. i believe that he is 9 in the fourth while he is 10 in the second. logic therefore dictates that it takes place between the first and the second. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.86.142 (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The arcticle has more refreces. Should we delete the thing about needing more refreces? The lead is also expanded. Should we delete the issue for that too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.182.93 (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
– I was kind of surprised to see this setup. I think it's more likely that a reader searching for "Home Alone" expects the article about the original film. (Heck, that's what I expected.) The film series article is not really a natural destination; a search term like "Home Alone movies" or "Home Alone films" should lead there instead. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm surprised you were surprised. You knew there were more movies than just one, right? It's very standard for the base name to be about the film series, if most of the films incorporated the name into their titles. PowersT11:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point is, the original film is the primary topic over the film series. What else is one supposed to type to get to the original film, knowing that there are additional films? That's why I mentioned the two other terms. In addition, I'm requesting it because it is a precedent. Here are some arrangements: Death Wish, Beverly Hills Cop, Free Willy, Ghostbusters, Hellraiser, The Matrix, Once Upon a Time in China, Scary Movie, Silent Night, Deadly Night, The Prophecy, Wrong Turn, etc. That arrangement being common is why I expected the first film article. I think it comes down to this: readers don't know whether or not to expect a film series article, since one does not always exist. It is kind of an artificial setup that aggregates information, even if they do not use sources that explicitly discuss the series as a whole. In this case, the film series article is pretty weak. The first two films have all the fame. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support No one is searching for the latter two films. Even the people in those films are not searching for those films except to scrub their names from the cast listing. Home Alone is the search term people would use to search for the iconic film and is the title the article should be under as the first film is the primary topic. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The film series article is really weak, I'm not a big fan of film series articles anyway. It's confusing to see the infobox for the first film but it isn't the article you want. I think we can all agree everyone will be looking for the first film. --Peppagetlk15:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I didn't even realize that there was a fourth film. I recalled a third vaguely, but typically when I think of Home Alone I'm thinking of the original film. Otherwise, I'm thinking of Home Alone 2: Lost in New York. It makes better sense to me to have it be "film series" and have the original be unambiguated. BIGNOLE (Contact me)15:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The move is completely consistent with WP:NCF. Is there are reason to overrule the guideline? On the basis of page accesses, the film article received 600,000 hits in 2010 while the series article received 700,000 hits. It's most likely that the majority of visitors looking for the film article accessed the series article first, since it occupied the base name, so it's possible that 600,000 of those 700,000 series hits carried through to the film article. Given that the original film is clearly the most notable work in the franchise, and everything else is derivative of that work, then it is entirely appropriate for the original film to be assigned the base name. Betty Logan (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agree entirely with the supporters above. Most people would assume to find the film. not the series, at "Home Alone". Also, Betty's stats support that. Jenks24 (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Any reason why we should remove the made-for-tv movies completely? I'd guess that someone has retained or bought the rights over the years, so they are all connected in that way. --Ronz (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Home Alone (franchise). 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.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support - the video games are tie-ins to specific films. As they are not independent (with standalone stories, for example), they should not be enough to merit expansion to "franchise". -- Netoholic@15:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the sake of comparison, I tried to find some analogous examples. Here are some articles that use the (franchise) disambiguator despite having only relatively obscure/minor tie-in elements (video games, novelizations, etc.):
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
I still do not see anything to suggest any of these user voted web polls are notable. Including Rotten Tomatoes user votes is bad, including IMDB votes is worse. Stop making assertions and back up your claims of notability.
User:DisneyMetalhead has been reverted repeatedly first by User:Prefall and also by me. Note that WP:BRD specifically says "Discuss on a talk page" and that comments made in edit summaries are not sufficient.
One of the arguments made in edit summaries was that there aren't critic scores available for the later straight-to-video films. (If anything this only shows how non-notable they are.) It would be better to not include them in the table at all, rather than including user voted web polls. -- 109.79.186.239 (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@User:109.79.186.239; As I have stated multiple times - when a franchise has various installments in it (regardless of whether it is theatrically released or straight-to-video), it is notable to show the overall reception to the entire franchise. This article is an overall topic of the franchise/film series. It is not just about theatrical releases. On top of this, audience scores are absolutely notable when the critic reviews differ greatly from the audience. This is a discussion that takes place on various articles - not just this one.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have stated, and made assertions that it is notable but you have not ever actually shown that it is notable or even shown that you have any kind of a local consensus to support you making exception so that you can include user voted web polls in articles. More fundamentally you seem to think these scores are useful to readers, but haven't said what exactly it is you are trying to say to readers, or why you think they are useful.
You claim incorrectly "audience scores are absolutely notable when the critic reviews differ greatly from the audience" that is at best partly true, it is only sometimes allowed in that case, and usually there needs to be significant coverage from other sources to show it is notable. (When I say significant coverage I mean articles such as Sticks_&_Stones_(film)#Audience_response and The_Orville#Audience_response where various reputable sources wrote about how there was significant difference between audience reactions and critic reactions. According to Rotten Tomatoes no reputable critics have even reviewed Home Alone 4 or 5.)
You are also claiming that the reviews score differ substantially. They do differ slightly for some films (unless you are trying to claim the complete lack of any critic reviews for the straight to video features is significant) but there a positive self selection bias is to be expected in audience polls and you should at least have a someone else besides you agreeing that this difference is significant. -- 109.79.165.65 (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with the IP user's assessment of the situation. The locking of the article mid-dispute is fine, though I believe the admin has chosen the wrong revision as STATUSQUO. Perhaps WT:FILM should be notified of this discussion for more opinions, as no one besides the involved parties seem to be watching this page. Prefall20:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is best to put this to WT:FILM as you say. They can decide if they want to open the door to these sorts of exceptions to WP:USERGENERATED or not.
Unfortunately shouldn't even be here, since have many other things I should be doing, I'm working Monday to Friday this week same as any other. I really shouldn't be back to this discussion before Friday. I will bring it to WT:FILM then if no one else does first. -- 109.79.165.65 (talk) 23:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]