This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: Comic book / American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the Comic book films task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed. Comics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

So, I discovered this article after finding edits on Split that I almost reverted. There are sources for this article, but they source the claims that are made in the text. Is there a single RS that addresses this so-called "Eastrail 177 Trilogy" title? I'm a bit bothered that we're putting that language across WP in various related film articles if no one outside of fansites is calling it such. Grandpallama (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC) @Deathlibrarian, @Cartoonist 101[reply]

Hi Grandpallama, as far as I am aware this is the only name that has been used for the series.. considering Glass hasn't been released yet, it's all in a state of flux, so may be another name will appear? Or may be Shyamalan will give the series an official title? But yeah, this seems to be the current title for the series that is being used. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But are there any RS referring to it as such? Right now, the very title of the article seems to be skirting the edge of original research. Most of the places I've seen reporting on this in the mainstream news, it's mentioned as the "Unbreakable trilogy" or "Unbreakable series" of movies. In any case, it looks like the page was moved to a new name over the holiday. Grandpallama (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to bring this up again to point out that all of the articles cited in the page for the "Eastrail 177 Trilogy" name were written after this page was created under that name. I strongly suspect we're seeing this playing out. -- I need a name (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I share that suspicion. When I first raised this question, that title could be sourced, but only on fansites. That doesn't mean that WP necessarily was the genesis of the name, but it may have played the middle man in moving mentions from fansites to RS. Grandpallama (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should I remove the notability tag? I'm guessing this is a notable series of films, considering the reviews and high profiles stars?. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to this quote

Writers and fans also referred to the series as the has been referred to as the "Eastrail 177 trilogy", because, as noted, all three main characters were connected to the event in some important way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.111.72 (talk) 08:19, July 21, 2018‎ (UTC)

It's speculation based on a line in Split about how Kevin's dad left on a train. -- I need a name (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

then can it be indicated that it was a speculation and not a fact?

It doesn't matter, because reliable sources refer to the series as the Eastrail 177 trilogy. Grandpallama (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure it's mentioned in split that Kevin's dad died on the train, or a train that derailed? The implication being obvious... Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The stub was moved immediately after creation, 03:00, 22 November 2017‎ @OWSLAjosh666: moved page Talk:Eastrail 177 trilogy to Talk:Unbreakable (film series)) (undo | thank), was then "stable" for 5 weeks, if we can call 5 weeks stable, till 6 January 2019‎ @Scott Sullivan 1997: moved page Talk:Unbreakable (film series) to Talk:Eastrail 177 Trilogy (film series): Eastrail 177 Trilogy). In ictu oculi (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was stable for over a year, not 5 weeks. Grandpallama (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given the consensus above, I've also removed all references to "Eastrail 177 Trilogy" in this article as well as all articles from the series, as it is all likely OR (and I suspect @I need a name: is correct that sites started pushing the name once they saw it here). If there is a reference that traces back to the studio or someone higher up in the production chain for this name (and the reference is reliable), feel free to add it back. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure the timeline, but it would seem the official name is "Eastrail 177 Trilogy", not Unbreakable trilogy. Its the title used by the studio on the Blue Ray DVD, and M Night Shyamalan calls it that as well (have a look at his twitter). This is complicated by the fact that searching for "unbreakable trilogy" gets you lots of hits, but there are in fact TWO unbreakable trilogies, completely unrelated to each other (the other one is a book series). Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The two RfCs immediately following are relevant and decided the name for this article. If you disagree and feel it is an open question, you can start another. The same points will likely be raised again, so it would be helpful if you review the existing RfCs first. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's this text in the page: "while Shyamalan has stated that Glass will have a different thematic feel as well". Now that Glass is a released movie, please remove this line as no longer needed and useful, replacing it with "the corresponding thematic feel" of the movie. Which I don't know. Thanks. Aupa Logronnes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.1.115.208 (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this had been debated by others, but while it just seems to have been accepted that the "unbreakable trilogy" is the common name in used, I can't see where anyone has provided any proof of that. Eastrail 177 Trilogy is the official title, used by Shyamalan and the studio. I ran some searches, and from what I can see, I'd argue they are *both* common names for the series, and should both be included in the articles. My search results:

• Google: "eastrail 177 trilogy" and shyamalan 10,600 results
• Google: "Unbreakable trilogy" and shyamalan 12,700 results
• Bing: "Eastrail 177 Trilogy" 304,000 results
• Bing: "Unbreakable Trilogy" 8600 results
• Factiva: "eastrail 177 trilogy" and shyamalan 68 results
• Factiva: "Unbreakable trilogy" and shyamalan 86 results

Looking at these sort of usage, I don't think that one or the other is the obvious common name. Both are commonly in use, and IMHO should both be included in wikipedia, as per WIkipedia Common Name policy. Feel free to run your own checks, but everyway I run the searches, I see "Eastrail 177 trilogy" being commonly used nearly as much as "Unbreakable Trilogy".I noted that people have pointed towards Eastrail 177 Trilogy as being used by fan groups, but Factiva covers only newspaper articles, so that would seem to dispel that theory. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, I'm a bit sceptical about the Bing results for Eastrail, and the matter is a bit confused by the fact that there is a romance book series (nothing to do with the movies) also called "unbreakable trilogy" which makes the results bigger for any searches on "Unbreakable trilogy".Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that, according to my search results, both terms seem to be pretty common for this series, does anyone have any objections to including both in the article/s? Cheers PING Scott Sullivan 1997MacCready Netoholic Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shyamalan himself refers to this trilogy as the Eastrail 177 Trilogy and so does Universal. The home media also advertises it as such. If there were to be more films then the current name of the page would make sense, but Shyamalan has stated that Glass is the final film and the series will remain a trilogy. I feel that this should be shown with the name of this page as well, with it being renamed from Unbreakable (film series) to the official name of the Eastrail 177 Trilogy. Zvig47 (talk) 01:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME. See the sections directly above that seem to favor "Unbreakable" being the series name used most widely. I also fear a certain amount of citogenesis has occurred here, as there was some debate years ago about that title, and for a time the name crept into our articles which at the time didn't have any WP:RS for being correct. Eventually through discussions (most above, AFAIK) it was moved back to the Unbreakable film series title it's been at for some time. Regardless, it doesn't matter what the director calls it, it matters what is most commonly used in the real world. If you'd like to move it, WP:RM is the way to try and achieve that. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not personally familiar with the name Eastrail 177 - if there is text/footage of Shyamalan saying it, I would like to see it, to clarify as to whether or not he's explicitly saying that's the name, of if he's just using it casually, like how Tarantino calls three of his films his "revisionist" trilogy without ever declaring it official. Also, is there a source that shows home media using that term as a title for a box set, or is it just mentioned on the back cover as trivia? Sincere questions, I don't know one way or the other. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 08:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, YouCanDoBetterZvig47 "Eastrail 177 Trilogy" is the official name for the series given by the studio (I assume?-I don't know about Shayayamalan) It's on the DVD box (see the image on the infobox)... and on running GHITS and on Bing, "Eastrail 177 Trilogy" is now significantly in more common use, so I think that makes it the WP:COMMONNAME as well, I have to check the policy. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the previous two RMs above (May and Jan 2019), nothing indicates that the consensus has changed. Simply rehashing the same arguments is not persuasive either. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of changing anything, but I did note that according to what I'd seen with GHITS, that "Eastrail 177 Trilogy" is now in more common use, which impacts WP:COMMONNAME. Feel free to run some searches yourself if you wish. I only posted here in reply to both Zvig47 and YouCanDoBetter who had raised it, with one of them asking about the DVD cover so posted a pic. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deathlibrarian, I was not responding to you specifically, I was simply commenting on this discussion in general. I would advise not starting an RM again unless there are new arguments to consider beyond those already deliberated and rejected. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, rightio, ok apologies, I interpreted that as a response to my comment. If the second comment is directed at me, as mentioned, I certainly have no intention of starting an RM; I'll leave that up to someone else if they wish, though I think the fact the common name (appears?) to have changed, would be a new argument for changing the article name. Such a change was discussed in one of the two the previous RMs. Cheers Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]