Talk:Tron

naming

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Closed per Snow. (non-admin closure) Hot Stop 00:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Tron → Tron (film)Tron (film) – more accurate 76.120.175.135 (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: This is clearly the primary topic for the articles related to the film (games, comics). The other topics listed in the disambiguation page either have naturally disambiguated titles already, or have nowhere near the same level of popularity or notability. There's no particular need to move Tron (disambiguation) to Tron, so there's no need to move Tron to Tron (film). Sneftel (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The film is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous two objections. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:UNDAB - speedy close this good faith proposal made by an IP apparently with little knowledge about our policies and conventions. --B2C 08:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tron. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090725202233/http://www.latinoreview.com:80/news/comic-con-2009-disney-panel-tron-alice-in-wonderland-7480 to http://www.latinoreview.com/news/comic-con-2009-disney-panel-tron-alice-in-wonderland-7480

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tron. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101202105815/http://wendycarlos.com/other/PDF-Files/KbdOnTRON*.pdf to http://www.wendycarlos.com/other/PDF-Files/KbdOnTRON*.pdf

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) 02:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Critical Response additions

I don't have a link to a video, but I can personally remember seeing Gene Shalit's review on the TODAY Show, where he did not like it. The specific memory I have is the way he ended the review: "TRON spelled backwards is NORT, which is Nothing!". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashnazg (talk • contribs) 13:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Is this sentence correct?

I am not sure if the meaning intended is conveyed correctly in the following sentence. Request somebody to review: "Flynn is subsequently promoted to CEO of ENCOM, and is happily greeted by Alan and Lora as their new boss." Thesudhakar (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Yep, reads fine to me. Sneftel (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

TRON games not listed in relevance to topic?

99.75.18.63 (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected, closed by Zzz plant (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Tron (1982) was disqualified from the Best Visual Effects category of the Academic awards due to using CGI, despite having 200 hand-painters?

• Source: In the year it was released, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences refused to nominate Tron for a special-effects Academy Award because, as director Steven Lisberger puts it, "The Academy thought we cheated by using computers". [...] More than 569 people were involved in the post-production work, including 200 inkers and hand-painters, 85 of them from Taiwan's Cuckoo's Nest Studio.

• • Reviewed:

Created by WinnerWind (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

..... WinnerWind. (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2026 (UTC).

• Article is not created, expanded, or made WP:GA status within the past seven days. Per WP:DYKRULES, articles have to meet one the aforementioned criteria in order to appear on DYK. Since this article meets none, it cannot run. Do not let this discourage you from editing for contributing to DYK in the future; I made the same mistake when I was a new editor. Roast (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Easter eggs and "notability" - Gort klaatu barada nikto

Greetings, programs. I wanted to ask rather than just add in the easter egg of Alan Bradley's office cubicle having the above Day The Earth Stood Still quote on the wall - no doubt an easter egg of self-evidently significant interest, I argue, for anyone interested in or studying this area of film and pop culture history. Over on the topic for the phrase itself there seems to have been quite a bit of back-and-forth as to whether to include the reference there, owing to a lack of notable mentions by citeable publications. The prevailing argument seems to be that this disproves any actual notability that the easter egg may have, and makes any mention thereof worthy of deletion. I see the logic, particularly from the perspective of curating this website specifically and exclusively for the rigours of academic use, and in the case of that topic where, indeed, the significance of it being mentioned in Tron is (though I still assert definitely not zero) more open to debate than it is here in context of the topic of the film itself. The reality though is that this website is used by creatives and amateurs too - everyone stands to benefit from it, not just that particular industrial complex. There's a slippery slope argument to be made about filling this website with arbitrary bits of information like this, but I don't think such an issue can be addressed in too absolutist a way. We cannot know what creative or useful ideas might be sparked by seeing such a piece of information while using a resource like this. It might create the linchpin of somebody's thesis, who knows? If the veracity of such a piece of info is not in question (as was well established in the original debate - we can all see that the quote's in the movie), then what determines its inclusion in a topic is what value the information has to users, and this is calculated exclusively by use of "notable mentions", but in reality for a pop culture item like this, a notable mention can be something as arbitrary and asinine as a scarcely read magazine article simply listing easter eggs - it does not confer any more or less real-world value to the information; and the fact that it happens to appear not to have been done with this particular easter egg is curious, but in reality changes nothing about its intrinsic value as information about film history. So I say there need to be other factors to consider when judging that value. Again, keeping things working with properly managed sourcing so that academics can use the website properly is all well and good. I don't think including information like this and applying some slight modification to the value system for determining "notability" in such a context as this needs to threaten that one iota. Just my opinion as another anonymous non-academic user. ~2026-38337-37 (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Anything worth having a Wikipedia article about, is worth having a good Wikipedia article about. That means notable and verifiable content from reliable sources. There may well be room for a website which has lower standards for inclusion, one which tries harder to be complete and comprehensive without trying as hard to be reliable and well-curated, but Wikipedia is not that website. Sneftel (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Once again, it /is/ a reliable fact that the quote is referenced in Tron, and the dogged doubling down on the exclusion of that fact regardless of its self-evident interest and relevance is, I am arguing along with many others, BAD curation based on standards that only make sense if you see this website as a purely academic resource, which we all know it isn't. If you wanna actually address the point I was making, feel free. ~2026-41002-69 (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

It was addressed. Wikipedia isn't a collection of trivial facts. – The Grid (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2026 (UTC)