This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company 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.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney
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 California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress 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.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animals in media, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Animals in mediaWikipedia:WikiProject Animals in mediaTemplate:WikiProject Animals in mediaAnimals in media
There are a number of uses of this phrase which i paraphrase here that basically is to uphold why a film has been placed on such a list. The whole point of the list is that it has a particular level of impact and relevancy on society and as such such be, according to the enabling legislation, preserved etc. These films do not just jiump off a piece of paper and land on the list. There is a vetting process and if by the end it lands on the list then yes it does have what it shpuld have for society etc. To say so each time in a WP article is sort of making a mayonnaise white bread sandwich--there is nothing there. What we should have in the film articles hat should also mention being on the National Firm Registry list is WHY THEY DESERVE TO BE ON THE LIST. That informstion is clearly to be found on the appropriate Library of Congress website for the Film Board. All we have to do is link them up and automatically supply citations. That is what i did here. I put some straw in the mud, made some bricks linking back to the sources and then transferred. Just because your system views this as vandalism is the dault of the the system not recognising what is happening. We use the internet and we use compuetrs so why not let them help us get the job done.2605:E000:9143:7000:995A:C286:EE14:C81D (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, nothing more need be done. The claims are cited to the proper source where further information can be found. We certainly do not need to add further details or citations to the lede sections of articles, as you have been doing. ---The Old JacobiteThe '4501:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is indulgent, and certainly overkill to repeat the blurb in the lead. Is there any film in the National Film Registry that isn't regarded as "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant"? It's just the blurb. It would be like a saying the Best Picture winner at the oscars won the award for "outstanding achievement in motion picture art" in each and every case. It is reasonable to cover it in the main body of the article but I think it is sufficient to simply state the film has been added to the National Film Registry in the lead itself. This is the approach taken at Gone with the Wind (film) which briefly mentions the National Film Registry in the lead while Gone with the Wind (film)#Industry recognition explains what that exactly entails. Betty Logan (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've just realized that most of what I have written is largely irrelevant (I should have looked at the dispute more carefully) and that TheOldJacobite has restored the version I mostly advocate. I am going to tighten the wording up slightly though. Betty Logan (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a dispute on the Cast list over whether Kathleen Turner and Amy Irving, the speaking and singing voices of Jessica Rabbit, should be listed there despite the former not being credited. What's the right way to do it? Would it help if someone sourced Turner's involvement? Irving is credited as performer of "Why don't you do right?", Jessica's song in the movie. Crboyer (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As the role is uncredited, it should not be listed in the cast. With a source, it could be discussed in the production section. I moved Amy Irving's role to the "additional voices" subsection. ---The Old JacobiteThe '4512:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shes listed on her own page as playing the role, there numerous sources pointing out that she did, even TheOldJacobite himself says she did, wikipedia is not censored and there no logical reason, requirement or argument the leave her out.86.179.135.115 (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a case of censorship, and to claim it is smacks of zealotry. Generally Wikipedia uses the cast list in the film itself when deciding who should and shouldn't appear in the cast list of an article. In this case Turner doesn't appear in the film cast list, ergo she doesn't appear in the article cast list. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article claims archival voice samples of Clarence Nash (Donald Duck's original VO) was used in the film. I'm not certain this is true. The citation given links to a YouTube video which has since been deleted. On what I can only assume is the reupload of this video (as it's the same title), it's a video of the Nostalgia Critic stating this factoid without proof or source (I guess he got it from the trivia section of IMDB? Which is also not-sourced). There is no proof anywhere from any official source that this is true? I think it'll be fitting to remove this piece of trivia unless citable proof can be given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.90.247 (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It used to be that that the poster caption for this article read “Theatrical release poster by Steven Chorney”, however, the poster was in fact not done by Chorney (who did a different poster) but by Mick McGinty. I corrected this (for those concerned, I attached an obviously credible source for this caption). However, a user Called Betty Logan undid by edit, writing “The creator is irrelevant, its purpose is to identify the film. The creator should be credited on the file page.” I disagree- the purpose of Wikipedia is to spread information, and who did a movie poster is certainly notable and interesting information in my eyes, not to mention many movie poster captions on Wikipedia credit the artists. I STRONGLY recommend you take a look at the conversation she and I had on this subject, where she argues the artist should be credited exclusively in the file, and I say it should by immediately viewable, which can be found on her talk page (under “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?”) so you can decide who’s in the right and give your input so something comes of this.
Firstly, I want to say that I genuinely appreciate you contributing to this!
I read the article snippet you provided, and, in a way, it does prove you right. However -and I’m not trying to be a sore loser; this obviously isn’t a personal matter- I can’t help but think that the amount of movie poster captions that do list the artist have created an unwritten rule that it’s something you can do. Here’s a list of articles of movies that list the artist in their poster caption (I’d understand if you’re concerned that I was the one who edited some of these myself, but I assure you that I didn’t modify one of them):
So, it is my point of view that although Wikipedia’s rules do write against this, it has been happening for so long, and is so common, why stop now? Really, what’s the harm in it? I mean, the average reader isn’t going to look in some obscure file. I respectfully ask you to answer this: do you propose the wise thing to do is to edit every one of those poster captions. What will that REALLYachieve?
Please note that I am by no means trying to start an argument or flamewar, nor do I accuse you of bad faith. I purely ask you to reconsider.
I found this conversation through a Wikipedia rabbit hole. This is a fascinating discussion for an inexperienced editor such as me to discover. Thank you to all involved: @MikeAllen@The Denton Dossier@Betty Logan
Since Denton Dossier corrected the existing artist credit for the theatrical release poster (from Steven Chorney to Mick McGinty) then it seems there is precedence for the Who Framed Roger Rabbit article to include credit to the artist in the infobox caption.
The quoted statement in MOS:CREDITS that “[u]nless relevant to the subject, do not credit the image author or copyright holder in the article” is motivated by the assumption that it is “not necessary to fulfill attribution requirements of the GFDL or Creative Commons licenses as long as the appropriate credit is on the image description page” rather than by the editorial belief that adding an artist credit detracts from the article.
I would suggest that the current caption of “Theatrical release poster” is improved with the addition of relevant information like the artist's name and a corresponding citation.
I am in favour of including the artist’s name in the image caption (“Theatrical release poster by Mick McGinty”) especially since Denton Dossier had corrected an existing artist credit that was erroneously attributed to a different artist. Precedence would seem to allow for reasonable deviation from Wikipedia guidelines as long as an article is improved or at the very least not harmed by an edit that may be characterized as unnecessary.
So why does this need to be in the infobox caption and not in the body of the article, if it is so notable? The infobox is designed to summarize the whole article, not introduce new information (without a third party source). MikeAllen19:53, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How many of the movie articles I named in the list I provided mentioned who did the poster in the body of the article, rather than in the infobox? And as for your comment “The infobox is designed to summarize the whole article, not introduce new information”, may I respectfully ask how listing editors, cinematographers, etc, gives a summary of a film, and is not ‘notable information’?
That page is an essay, not a rulebook. And I must say that I found the article you pointed me towards to be not only written in an almost comically over complicated style (even by Wikipedia standards) but also completely illogical. Another user brought this up in the essay’s talk page I recommend you take a look at that. I’m inclined to agree with Jclemens that “OSE is the "no, dagnabit, we refuse to be consistent!" counter-argument. In fact, while we need not be slavishly consistent, consistency is a good idea a lot (most?) of the time.” As I said earlier, the fact that such a high amount of poster captions credit the artist seems to create an unwritten rule that’s it’s a thing you can do. The thing is, this essay does nothing to explain why you weirdly haven’t reverted any of the other poster captions. It (illogically) say:
Keep If you delete this you will have to delete everything in Category:Wikipedia articles about X. –AllOrNothing (talk), 12:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete We've deleted other articles in Category:Wikipedia articles about X, so this needs to go too. –NothingOrAll (talk), 03:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
So, may I ask if you will you revert all the other poster captions (and achieve nothing in doing so) and be sure to credit the artist in the file information only (and surely you wouldn’t forget to that part)?
Had there never been an existing artist credit in the image caption then acknowledging McGinty in the body of the article could be a first option.
I have a straightforward question for consideration:
Since non disruptive deviations from the MOS guidelines occur, and given that @The Denton Dossier edited an existing image caption that had incorrectly identified the artist, can we choose to keep Denton Dossier's edit to the image caption box where it was prior to @Betty Logan's subsequent edit of the image caption?
Comment MOS:CREDITS seems quite clear-cut to me, so I am surprised this debate is still rumbling on.. If the photo itself were the subject of commentary then the author might be relevant. That is not the case here; its use is purely functional in that its purpose is to provide visual identification for the film. I am not really seeing how adding the artist's name to the caption enhances that function. Also, the guideline actively discourages adding the author's name to the caption in an infobox; this seems intuitive given that we exclude people from the infobox who are more relevant to the film than the poster artist. Betty Logan (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the debate is still rumbling on. And I must observe that neither you nor Mike Allen acknowledged the long list of movie articles with artists credited in their poster captions. I must respectfully ask why you haven’t reverted any of those ones in the past. Actually, it’s quite suspicious that you never reverted the poster for this article when it said it was by Steven Chorney, but when i attributed it to the right man, it’s improper. Very odd, isn’t it? And as for your comment “we exclude people from the infobox who are more relevant to the film than the poster artist.”, I’d like to point out that those people didn’t illustrate the poster.
Mike Allen pointed out that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument, just because some articles have it doesn't mean it is a consensus compared to something established like MOS:CREDITS. I took a look at a few of those and some have valid details of the poster artist in the body of the article (like Phantom Menace) which would be sufficient to support the caption mention mention, but others like Young Frankenstein have zero info, so is inappropriate. — Masem (t) 12:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
