Talk:Stranger Than Heaven

Stranger Than and Stranger than

As the AFC reviewer I had a few issues here, in that there were two drafts, with slightly different spelling. One was presented to AFC, and I approved it, and a longer more detailed article which at that point was not approved. We had a few problems with the moves and redirects, but the shorter article is now a redirect. However the history and content of that shorter article are still available in the History tab of that redirect, so actually nothing has been deleted here. Any queries or concerns? By all means mention them here. ChrysGalley (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

For posterity, here's a link to the discussion on the other talk page:

Talk:Stranger than Heaven#Draft already exists; wrong title capitalization

Thanks for going through the trouble of getting these moved around! TheHumanIntersect (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Re: Sugawara/Tupac credit

@TrainTrash For the sake of avoiding edit warring, I'm going to explain my points more thoroughly here, and maybe someone else can chime in:

There is nothing wrong with the current credits as is. I simply do not see the need to separate them from the other cast members simply because they're dead. That is largely irrelevant in a section that is focused on character and settings, and we have an entire paragraph in the Development section to dive deep into the specific matter of the actors' likenesses. Far as anyone is concerned, their likenesses are used, the game gives them full portrayal credits along with other actors being listed as the voice, and that's that. Should there be a case of another character having different likeness and voice actors while the likeness actor is alive, it would simply make sense to maintain a consistent style throughout the section instead of trying to differentiate that the actors are already deceased, which is not the focus of that section in particular.The boss 1904 (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

They are not "separated." It's just another sentence, and one that's important to explain how these likenesses are used as these men cannot be possibly acting in this video game on account of the fact that they are dead (I think it tasteless, but that's not for this section, as you've said). As for the game giving them "full portrayal credits": it's not out yet, and the sources cited very much do not (nor would any reasonable observer).

As to "consistency," this is exactly how the Death Stranding 2 article (which you mentioned) does it for living folks ("as well as the likenesses of filmmakers George Miller, Fatih Akin..." ect.), while for dead people, who both cannot consent to act in something after they die but also cannot, in fact, act at all because they are not of this Earth, Wikipedia has thus far sensibly avoided listing them as cast members, while nevertheless detailing whatever method was used for for their "reanimation" (as in the cast section of Alien: Romulus for Ian Holm). TrainTrash (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, as I have mentioned, there is an entire paragraph in the Development section explaining the use of Sugawara and Tupac's likenesses in the game. There is no need to elaborate on that part in the Premise section. I have also pointed out clearly that the footnotes have existed to provide a short explanation that they aren't the ones doing the acting either. So your edits are, frankly, redundant, seeing as you still left my footnotes in your edit. Your example of the DS2 article doesn't make sense, because the only instance where your quoted text comes from is the opening paragraph, not the cast list mentioned in the Synopsis section (where it is styled exactly as I have done it for STH). You also ignore the fact that said opening paragraph's purpose was to list the major cast members of the game, something that this article currently isn't using. You are free to edit the opening paragraph and maybe mention such aspects, but I would prefer the Premise section retains its current style.

If you look at some more recent examples, like Val Kilmer in As Deep as the Grave, you can see him being listed in the cast like everyone else despite his appearance being AI-generated. So I don't see where there is a rule dictating that we have to elaborate dead actors' appearances the way you did. The Alien Romulus article isn't a prime example that applies to every situation. The boss 1904 (talk) 11:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

This is a the mater of two sentences versus one. I could fit it all into once sentence if you'd like; I think the notion that this (small but important clarification) is so objectionable both minimizes the broader context and is confusing to anyone who doesn't already know what's going on here.

If your footnotes "already make it clear," what could be the possible harm of the actual text reflecting this when it is otherwise:

1) Extremely confusing if you have not followed all the coverage of this game (in the way you have, but a general audience cannot be expected to).

2) Clearly a very sensitive topic (please try removing the "likeness only" note in Tupac's filmography and see where you get).

3) Just not accurate. These men cannot be cast members in a game releasing in 2027 because they have died. It is not Wikipedia's role to follow the game's marketing, it is Wikipedia's role to reflect reality, or more specifically the sources, which detail that these men's likenesses are appearing in the game with the permission of their estate. That's a world apart from "Tupac is staring in a new video game." TrainTrash (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I’m with @The boss 1904 on this personally. I think it was fine the way it was before. Kaii-El (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

What is your specific objection to taking the (important) material from the footnote and including it in the sentence, which I think reads much clearer, and again, reflects the sources? Both of you are very familiar with RGG and video games (compared to a general audience) and so you know that Tupac's estate has granted their blessing to whatever this is. Anyone wholly unfamiliar with this game is going to read this as it stands and go, "what?" The notion that "well this is covered in the footnotes" is a bit silly when it could just as easily read as a part of the text. TrainTrash (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

As they’ve said, it has its own section in development about it, but maybe we can compromise and add more info for now? Since Amaru has no known voice actor yet. Kaii-El (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement that this section is not the place for all the details and critical reception to what's going on, but I just think you need to state "likeness of" front and center otherwise it's very confusing. Sugawara and Tupac are not cast members in the game. They are dead. The game can and does feature their likenesses. Easy enough to put it that way and there doesn't feel like a good reason not to other then to hew closer to how the game is promoted. TrainTrash (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Looking back on your edit again, I see your point a bit better. Maybe we could make it clearer, especially because the Premise section does show up first. The notes do a good job of explaining, but can also blend in with the references. What if we merge the two a bit?

Example:

... Genzo Iwaki (voiced by Takashi Ukaji / likeness of Bunta Sugawara), Tadashi Hataoka (Takashi Ukaji), Takeo Godai (Takaya Kuroda), Suekichi (Kouhei Tsuji), Tetsuya Hama (Yasukaze Motomiya), and Amaru (likeness of Tupac Shakur). Kaii-El (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Excellent, that works for me. TrainTrash (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Awesome! Is this cool with you @The boss 1904? Kaii-El (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

This example seems like the best option IMO; gets the crucial information across better than the footnote, while being brief enough to not bog down the premise section when the full details are later in the article. TheHumanIntersect (talk) 07:12, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

This is where I have to disagree. Your notion that the actors aren't cast members because they're "dead" is just your personal take on the situation, not how the game developers see it. There aren't any rules on Wikipedia saying we have to treat dead actors any differently from living ones, other than the need to elaborate on unique cases (which, as I have stated multiple times, are already done). The notion that people would be "confused" by the listing of dead actors among cast members is silly, because that's exactly what the footnotes are for; if somehow they're too confused to see that part, or even just scroll down a bit to see the paragraph explaining how it all works, then that's entirely their problem. The reason I used footnotes for these is to maintain a consistent formatting style across the paragraph, and it also helps to emphasize that the likeness actor is prioritized over the voice actor, mirroring how the game markets the characters as well. It is also exactly how Death Stranding handles the likeness actors, yet I cannot for the life of me understand why you continue to ignore this example even though by your logic it shouldn't also be left as such.

But, as I have stated before, you are free to use the opening paragraph to provide a statement to highlight the use of the dead actors' likenesses, if you feel that my edit is somehow too confusing (something which I disagree with, but I digress). Something along the line of "The game notably features a mixed cast of Japanese and American actors and musicians, while also employs the likenesses of deceased actor Bunta Sugawara and rapper Tupac Shakur to depict several major characters". The boss 1904 (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

"This is where I have to disagree. Your notion that the actors aren't cast members because they're "dead" is just your personal take on the situation"

??? That's both what sourcing and objective reality would dictate. Preferring to obscure this in footnotes instead of just stating it is showing a deference to the promotional material that falls afoul of WP:NPOV. I think we've both, in flailing around, established that there's not a site wide consensus on a standard for this, but the Death Stranding articles notably first introduce the concept (near exactly to how I would) and then does this combo thing with a footnote on later mentions, but they both have more examples to work though and notably those people are all alive.

"The reason I used footnotes for these is to maintain a consistent formatting style across the paragraph"

It is a single run-on sentence: there's really not much formatting to maintain. This is an excuse to solely mirror how "the game markets the characters," which is not Wikipedia's role. What did you think of Kaii-El's proposed edit, which I think should overcome such objections? TrainTrash (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

How am I obscuring the information, exactly? What aspect of the footnotes are not clear enough for you? It is literally right next to the actors' names, you click on it, and you immediately get an explanation as to how their appearances work. I still fail to see how you hang on to the excuse that it is "confusing". Your entire argument hinged on the basis that my edit may cause confusion as to the roles of the actors involved, to which I have compromised by giving you a solution already (which you haven't addressed). I would prefer that solution over @Kaii-El's proposal, because this allows both of us to get what we want. The boss 1904 (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with your proposal as this page is going to change a lot by the time of release and it makes sense to be clear in all sections of the text from the start.

I consider the text as it stands confusing because a dead person cannot play a role in a video game. I think your preferred version is obscuring this since the sources are not similarly relegating this information to a footnote and your strident objections to the (minor, but important) change of just clarifying this in the body text explicitly come down to the fact that you'd like to follow the game's marketing, which is inappropriate. What is the exact objection to Kaii-El's edit? It can't be merely formatting, the names are grouped the same as the others. TrainTrash (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, this is your personal perspective. You're objecting to my edit simply because you take issues with the actors not being alive. An actor providing a likeness isn't "playing a role", regardless of whether they're dead or alive. George Miller isn't "playing a role" in Death Stranding 2 either, he's lending his likeness to a character voiced by someone else. Sugawara may not be alive, but his likeness is being lended by his estate to the developers to create a character. Similar processes, one just has a lot more nuances going into it, which we have a whole dedicated section to elaborate.

The reason I object to @Kaii-El's proposal is that it creates an unnecessary need to clarify in the main paragraph whether a character is both voiced by and modeled after their actor. If you have to spend time on clarifying which actor contributes what part to a character, in a section that is focused on the premise of the game, that will derail from its purpose. The footnotes exist in order to not make the paragraph too wordy, and ensure the focus itself is on the characters and their roles in the story (which will be expanded in the future as more information is released). This is also not to mention that there are characters who aren't modeled after their actors as well (e.g. Ado, Takaya Kuroda). Do I also have to clarify that the characters are only voiced by their respective actors as well? Then we create this inconsistency within the paragraph where some characters simply list the actors' names next to them, while other characters have to have their actors elaborated since now it might be too "confusing", according to your logic. All this does is render the paragraph incredibly messy. The boss 1904 (talk) 04:03, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

It adds two words: "likeness of" rather than the twelve of the footnote, which to me indicates that that this is not a matter of it being "too wordy."

As to the rest of your reply, which seems to be your real objection, this is different from those other examples you've cited primarily because these men are dead (and I will emphasize this repeatedly, it is impossible for a person to be a "cast member" of anything that was produced after their death save reanimation or perhaps if they had an open casket funeral).

If you are concerned about this "derailing" the page, I will add that Tupac is one of the most influential artists of the 20th century and the story of his estate sanctioning something like this for a video game is ultimately going to be way more important than nearly any other word on this page by release, which is something I don't really think you are prepared for. None of the existing articles about this have validated the notion that Tupac is "a cast member" of the game without any caveat the way coverage did for Death Stranding, where the folks in question were doing press about how the were happy to be in the game and love Kojima. TrainTrash (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

The footnote allows you to be wordy without it affecting the paragraph itself, so yes, I am standing by that opinion. You can be reasonably wordy in a footnote because it adds information to a paragraph while also being in its own corner.

The matter of an actor being alive or dead is, as I have stated, not a concern when it comes to listing their contribution to the game. The fact is that you're being deliberately hypocritical and not adhering to your own logic. The fact is the proposed edit doesn't even clarify to the reader that the actors are dead (which seems to be what you want to convey so much with your changes); stating "voiced by A; likeness by B" is practically the same thing as my current edit. If anything, my proposal of adding to the introductory paragraph should satisfy your demand, yet you keep insisting the information is unclear. At this point, I would have to assume you're making bad faith assumptions that random users browsing this article are somehow not intelligent enough to read an opening paragraph mentioning Tupac's likeness being used, and then somehow still be confused by his name being listed as a cast member. In which case, I simply cannot oblige to your proposals.

Your concern for Tupac's story overshadowing this game is noted, and I am aware of that potential. But that is not a reason to make such an assertion. If anything, I find your insistence on this matter being a bit too biased (which certainly does not adhere to WP:NPOV). I would advise that you refrain from making such claims if we are to discuss how to handle this page moving forward. The boss 1904 (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

All right, we are getting into "your assertion that dead people can't contribute to a video game when some people were given money to say that they can is simply biased" so we may need to leave it at that and agree to disagree.

But if you do actually wish to engage in good faith, I presume that a reader is much more likely to know who Tupac is and that he's dead than to know what the situation is with him ostensibly starting in a video game in 2027 and so it is very important to (quite simply) note that he did not, somehow, directly participate, but rather that the developers have used his likeness. TrainTrash (talk) 06:12, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, there are efn notes right next to the credits that detail it better, which is the proper way of formatting a Synopsis / Premise section. I would say that The boss 1904's compromise of having the likeness info in the opening of the article is very fair and would be good enough for most people to not get confused when reading the article's premise section. If you disagree with this, I recommend you think up some more ideas rather than circularly disagreeing further. Kaii-El (talk) 06:30, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Both TheHumanIntersect and I think Kaii-El's proposal works well, so I suggest we implement it it, at least for the time being. Obviously, The boss 1904 and I have hit a bit of standstill, but think their proposal misunderstands my objections (I'm obviously perfectly happy for the concept to be introduced in the lead, but we still cannot afterward mimic the publisher's way of communicating what's going on: a dead person cannot give a performance. Their likeness can be used in a game).TrainTrash (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to pretend that dead people are somehow giving performances here. Even the developers are up front about this, regardless of the fact that the actors receive credits like all the other living cast members. The fact is that your proposal does not change how the information is conveyed whatsoever, and you still have yet to prove how my edit creates confusion. Much of your argument relies on projections and assumptions on how a user might interact with the article.

As @Kaii-El already stated, my use of the footnotes is perfectly acceptable, and the proposal simply does not improve the article meaningfully in any way whatsoever. And as they already said, you need to put up a better argument rather than just going in circles. For the time being, I will only add the information to the opening paragraph, seeing as we're all in agreement on that. The boss 1904 (talk) 02:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement on the edit you've published. It should make it much less possibly confusing in the time being for readers. When Amaru's voice actor is announced, it will be very clear with the current method in Premise. Kaii-El (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I also think the edit you've published is quite sensible, however for the text in question, I still think the small distinction is important.

I do not think this is merely a matter of formatting. These men cannot give a performance because they are dead. The clarification that they are not giving any sort of a performance is crucial. I'm not suggesting that hypothetical readers are running around maddeningly confused, but to relegate this information to a footnote (before or after introducing the idea of what's going on) is uncritically adopting the game's marketing materials as opposed to the sources covering the game. There is a single 75 second trailer from Sega that lists Tupac and Bunta Sugawara as cast members without further clarification. Every other source does not say this (including interviews with the devs, as you say).

Arguments that we need to be "consistent" don't hold water when a simple edit to move material from the footnotes has been contested with the notion that we must mirror "how the game markets the characters," "emphasize that the likeness actor is prioritized over the voice actor" (marketing), and that it's "entirely [the reader's] problem" if they are confused or perturbed. Those are all matters of prioritizing the publisher's perspective over other sources, which misses what Wikipedia's role should be here. TrainTrash (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I do not know how we keep going in circles around this topic, but let me reiterate once more:

I have accommodated to your request by adding in the opening paragraph to note the use of the deceased's likenesses. This is literally the first thing people are going to read when they open up the article, so right away they are going to know and understand why Sugawara and Tupac's names are listed as part of the cast. The footnotes further explain how it works without disrupting the established style in the Premise section, maintaining a consistency for all characters + actors listed while still making sure we aren't making any outrageous claims that the named dead men are somehow performing in the game. Mind you, the source for the cast list also puts Sugawara first before Takashi Ukaji when their character is listed, so keeping it consistent with marketing materials is not a completely ridiculous idea to consider.

To my knowledge, there are no consensus when it comes to this topic. There are only a handful of instances where we see the use of posthumous digital likenesses in media, and every time it is handled differently. Nevertheless, I maintain that there isn't a glaring issue with my edit when it comes to providing clarity on the roles of the deceased, and it falls on you to prove that there is such an issue. So far, you have only put up conjectures and presumptions, and the proposed change to my edit does not meaningfully improve it. I would not like to keep this going any longer than it should, so I hope your next response will provide some kind of evidence showing how my edit isn't up to standard. Otherwise, feel free to request a dispute resolution of some kind because I don't think we're going to get anywhere further without more people voicing their opinions on the matter. The boss 1904 (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I think you find my objections overblown, fair enough. But that there isn't isn't an established convention on this means that I think it's worth being deliberate here. Concerns that it's somehow "disrupting the established style in the Premise section" (I cannot understand how the proposed edit does this) should be weighted against this, even if you don't otherwise follow the merits (and I have tried my best to articulate why this both doesn't follow sourcing and is an inappropriate way to present the information, claiming this is conjecture and presumption is not helpful even if you disagree).

The proposed edit itself is very simple and I cannot think of why it can't be included in the article. The objection to adding four words seems to be "the footnotes are right there" but also "it's important to put that information in a footnote rather than the body text as otherwise it doesn't match how the game is promoted." Which is it? TrainTrash (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, we keep going in circles without actually addressing the issue. It isn't a matter of "this proposal is very simple", it's "this doesn't meaningfully improve the article, and I fail to see how your stylistic change is better than mine".

Since it is clear that the discussion needs more participants besides the two of us in order to reach a consensus, I am going to go ahead and submit a request on WP:DRN so we can hopefully put this matter to rest ASAP. The boss 1904 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that specifying Bunta and Tupac as dead, especially in the first paragraph of the article is necessary. I think there's a bit of a hypocrisy going on with Onimusha doing the exact thing but got no such outrage nor mention in the introduction of the page. I think what @Kaii-El already eloquently describes their performance while also matching the standards of other games using similar methods. I could just edited this out now but wanna hear your thoughts first before doing so. DarryLaz (talk) 10:08, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I've wanted to compromise on this matter to appease to TrainTrash's demands while also waiting it out to see how this situation evolves. Given that there has been no further development and it hasn't escalated enough to warrant highlighting, I am going to remove the mention of Sugawara and Tupac in the opening paragraph, and keeping everything else as is. We can always change it should it come up again, but for now I think we can put this matter to rest. The boss 1904 (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Removing the bit you added ostensibly in an effort to address my and others concerns while retaining the rest of the text as is is hardly "putting this matter to rest," it's just reverting to your preferred edit. TrainTrash (talk) 03:30, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Dude, you're the only one who made this an issue. Not Onimusha, not COD, not Assassin's Creed, but somehow STH is. DarryLaz (talk) 08:53, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

So when I said I was going to put a request on WP:DRN to discuss the situation further, you failed to show and the request was closed. Now after months of having no further discussions, you decide to show up and make an issue out of this?

Let me remind you that no one other than you had a concern about this. Everyone else who participated in this discussion wanted to appease to your demands only because only you made it a problem. No one had an issue with understanding the previous edit in terms of clarifying how the actors are handled in the game, yet you keep insisting there is a problem. By your own words, you truly believed the inclusion of Tupac's likeness "is ultimately going to be way more important than nearly any other word on this page by release", yet I have yet to see evidence to support that notion. You made up a controversy in your head and I have tried my best to appease to the potential that it could happen. Three months have passed, and nothing has come out further from this topic. I see no reason why this article should further focus on this matter. The boss 1904 (talk)

You're replying to me. I'm in this thread, you can hardly be incredulous I'd choose to reply. You're correct this aspect may be a minor issue, but I just don't agree it's settled even if us continuing to talk past each other is obviously not very productive. As to your second point, that's obviously far broader. You can certainly cleanly remove the mention from the lead given the current state of the article (this wasn't what I pushed for). However, I can include the the existing commentary on Tupac's likeness being in the game if you'd like (it's hardly invented), just separate from the wall of text we got up to.TrainTrash (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

So explain to me why you care so much about Bunta and Tupac here while Onimusha got away scot free with their depiction of Mifune? No one is having this issue but you my guy DarryLaz (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Created a new talk section over the inclusion of the "controversy" section. (this was all about formatting the cast list). TrainTrash (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Bunta and Tupac in the opening paragraph

@The boss 1904

So I read the previous topic about this and I'll be real, I don't understand why this is being put as the vocal point while other games like the new Onimusha get to omit the fact that Toshiro Mifune's likeness is part of the advertising promotions.

If people insist that it should be included, then fine, but the same should honestly be put the same as Onimusha because I see no difference between these two games in terms of promotion. DarryLaz (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

There was an entire discussion above where a user insisted that we put significant coverage on this topic, among other things, because the previous edit apparently didn't emphasize enough that the dead actors weren't "acting" in any capacity. This was the compromise that I suggested so that we all get what we want. I don't particularly agree with needing to give it so much significance either, but this is a rather sensitive subject that I am still trying to navigate as best as I can. For now, I don't think there's any harm in keeping this mention around. The boss 1904 (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Tupac Controversy

I'm creating a separate section @DarryLaz, as the specific issue at hand in that (unwieldy) thread was over the use of footnotes in the cast list, this is separate. As to why I "care so much about Bunta and Tupac here while Onimusha got away scot free with their depiction of Mifune," that's irrelevant. You can't revert (well-sourced) changes simply because you see video games as in competition or you personally think commentators are being unfair to the game. (Notably western commentators don't really care about Bunta Sugawara, it's very much Tupac for obvious reasons). If you think there's articles that express a different view that I missed in my summary, you are more that welcome to include them. I am going to reinstate my edit unless you have concerns about a specific source or something: this is not a fanboy issue. You can't go about removing sourced content because it's "unfair" compared with what people think of Onimusha. TrainTrash (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

As The boss 1904 mentioned, he submited a request to resolve this dispute and you're a no-show then suddenly when I brought it up again you're suddenly back at it? Be honest with yourself man. You're not saying your reason because you got no reason. What was already written is already sourced and adequently addressed but clearly you're not satistifed by it because clearly you want THIS to be the vocal point of the discussion and not the game.

This whole page is all about you making a ruckus over not only something that games have done for decades, but it is something that only you care about. I already made a page protection request because you two don't seem to get a resolution on, and frankly I'm tired of it. DarryLaz (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was against in the first place when you decided to stress on the importance of this topic. You decided to make a video game article focus more on a "controversy" (of which barely anyone is talking about months after the initial reveal) than the game itself. The "controversy" is simply not significant enough to warrant such extensive coverage, not to the extent that your edit reflects. Obviously, this could all change in the coming months, and should it be something that is brought up again closer to release and/or in review articles for the game, I and others would review the situation. Regardless, your approach to this topic has been unusually aggressive, and it affects the quality of the overall article, which is something I cannot ignore.

By choosing to focus on Tupac alone, you also neglect the inclusion of Sugawara, which many articles I have previously included all point to the fact that discussions were made not just with the estates and families of both actors. Your edit sidelines Sugawara completely and only focuses on the negative aspects of Tupac's inclusion, which creates an inherent bias. You are clearly approaching this topic not from a neutral viewpoint, which makes these edits unsuitable for the article. The boss 1904 (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@DarryLaz, That was all over how to format the cast list. @The boss 1904 did not submit the the WP:DRN request correctly and the issue petered out: I'm happy to pick it up sometime. As part of their proposed edit he put some text about the lead, though that was never what I was advocating for (and indeed, preempted actual writing in the body of the article).

This new edit is a well-sourced summary of critics and journalists reaction to the Tupac announcement (the page previous just had RGG's views), which accurately reflects that there is a controversy. That there hasn't been further writing on it is irrelevant, there has been no further announcements: if things change by release (they no doubt will) we will include those thoughts.

"you also neglect the inclusion of Sugawara, which many articles I have previously included all point"

Yes, that's what the sources do. Take it up with the CBC, this has nothing to do with what Wikipedia is.

Do either of you have any substantive issues with the body of this edit? The lead, sure, say that it's undue weight or what have you, I don't mind. I have provided no less than 7 sources and a dozen commentators on this issue: you can't just remove it. As to the notion that it "only focuses on the negative aspects of Tupac's inclusion" this is what the sources we have go over. We have Snoop's view, the devs' view and a commentariat that is bewildered at best. If you find writers who like it I would be happy to include them. TrainTrash (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

"The boss 1904 did not submit the the WP:DRN request correctly and the issue petered out: I'm happy to pick it up sometime."

Then good, because I just submitted a new one, please be there this time around

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Stranger_Than_Heaven DarryLaz (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2026 (UTC)