Corruption in 3rd paragraph (caused by Visual Editor) edit

Sorry, guys, but I met my match in the Visual Editor tonight. For some reason the Web-based mobile version of WP no longer includes source-code editing, and I found that my last Visual edit (saved a few minutes ago) caused a surprising amount of corruption in the third paragraph's last couple of sentences. I've searched for a backup copy so I could try to restore it, but couldn't find one, and this interface offers no History options. (It doesn't even let us style text, or add WP links! What's going on, anyway?)
I hope someone on a better interface can undo the damage. It wasn't my intention (or actual doing), but I'm sorry nonetheless for the confusion and inconvenience it may have caused. – AndyFielding (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Plot edit

I have only seen this once, but...

"Finding themselves to be kindred spirits, she and Stan begin an affair, and they conspire together to manipulate Kimball, with Ritter secretly providing private information to fuel his charade. She also begins therapy sessions with Stan, who reveals his guilt over Pete's death and his hatred of his alcoholic father, who he killed in their home before joining the carnival."

.. doesn't the affair begin some time after the agreement for her to provide the info?

.. don't we only know that he killed his ill/dying father - via letting him get too cold - in a flashback around the fire later?

"Ritter feeds information to Stan to use against Grindle as revenge for him previously attacking her. She shows Stan a scar down her chest and abdomen she received from Grindle."

.. is this said or is this someone putting two and two - the comment about Grindle being dangerous and his confession about having hurt women - together in original research? It is absolutely the implication, but does she say (quietly) that he did it?

"Judge Kimball and his wife have been found dead in a murder-suicide, his wife killing her husband and then herself due to Stan's assurances that they would see their son again."

We know this, he doesn't. I'll edit.

"Ritter contacts the police and threatens to use her recordings of their sessions as evidence that he is mentally disturbed should he try to implicate her. Ritter shoots Stan in the ear, and he tries to strangle Ritter, but the police arrive, and he flees."

.. doesn't she only contact security - as opposed to the police - after it gets violent? Before then, it's the threat rather than actually contacting the police.

Wanted, injured, and with nowhere else to go, Stan hides in a train and wanders around for years as a hobo, sunk into alcoholism.

.. do we know it's "years"? There's an intertitle to say it's two years between leaving the first carnival and the New York act, but I don't remember one here.

Lovingboth (talk) 10:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Critical response section should include film critics edit

Stephen Colbert is a talk show host, not a film critic. If WP:SECONDARY sources reported Colbert's praise that would be different but I do not think it is appropriate to use Colbert as a primary source of (well anything but especially not) film criticism. Talk show hosts never rarely say anything critical about their guests, and it sets a bad precedent to include their praise. They are not neutral or reliable sources. (What next Fallon or Corden?) If the Critical response section included actual reviews and analysis from critics then maybe, maybe there would also be room for Other response from non-critics, industry people (i.e. other directors) and after that other commentators such as talk show hosts. (Even then video references are a bad choice and geo-blocked videos are worse.)
Colbert should be removed from the Critical response section. -- 109.76.201.241 (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I went ahead and removed Colbert from the Critical response section. -- 109.79.69.204 (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

"Nightmare Alley (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion edit

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Nightmare Alley (upcoming film) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 10#Nightmare Alley (upcoming film) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

"Nightmare Alley (upcominh film)" listed at Redirects for discussion edit

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Nightmare Alley (upcominh film) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 10#Nightmare Alley (upcominh film) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply