Talk:Benji the Hunted

Credits

I have twice cleaned up the credits. Twice my cleanups have been undone by one or more IPs. I have asked them to discuss the issue on the talk page, none have. Notes on talk pages have gone unanswered.

Essentially, we have two versions of the credits.[1] In film articles, we generally do not include minor roles, often relying on the "billing block" on posters from the film. There are also questions regarding presentation of some of the roles.

A couple of examples:

• Listing "Countdown" as a role is very strange. Karen Thorndike does not play a character named "Countdown". Rather, she is the voice of the countdown. As a result, "countdown (voice)" makes more sense.

• Similarly, the overuse of capitalization ("Engineer's Hand", "Brown Bear", "Himself", etc.) is both nonstandard and confusing.

• Frank Inn as "Himself" seems rather odd. Inn was a dog trainer for movies. In this fictional plot, is the character identified specifically as "Frank Inn" or is he either not named or simply called "Frank"?

• I cannot imagine how an actor can play the part of a "Deceased Cougar". While cougars do not talk outside of kids' movies, a dead cougar talking -- even in a kids' movie -- seems highly unlikely.

• Ben Morgan is a rugby player, born two years after this movie's release. He was not in the film. Obviously it is someone with the same name. We should not link to the rugby player. The IPs want to credit Morgan as "Eagle/Owl". IMDb lists him in the role of "himself". Clearly Morgan is neither an eagle nor an owl. As I have no idea where the IPs are getting there info from and they don't seem to be discussing the issues, I can only assume they are simply mistaken.

• Yes, someone providing the voices for cougar cubs is providing the voice for the single cub, the cub on the left, the especially cute cub and any other cub you would like to mention. Additionally, she did voicework. She is not in a cougar cub costume playing the parts of "Cougar Cubs/Single Cub". Instead, she is "cougar cubs (voices)".

There's plenty more. I'll restore my version one more time, drop notes on the IPs' talk pages and hope for some discussion. If the questionable edits are restored without explanation/discussion, we'll have to move on to blocks, page protection, etc. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

As it turns out, User:71.82.252.172 is a sock, evading a standing block against User:174.102.253.76.

User:2804:7F7:A590:E090:0:0:0:1 seems to be unrelated, but continues to edit war and refuses to discuss the issues.

I've requested page protection as a temporary matter. I assume the non-communication and disruption will continue, but hope springs eternal. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

2804:7F7:A590:E090:0:0:0:1 has now been blocked for disruption. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Page protection has expired and 2804:7f7:a590:e090::1 is back as 177.126.117.74. I've requested page protection again. This time it will be for a good bit longer.

We can keep this up as long as necessary. Eventually, the page will be permanently locked. Either that or the IPs will discuss the issue or give up and go away. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Protection expired, the disruptive editor is back as 2804:7F7:A58F:AA7:0:0:0:1. Page protection is now for several months.

We can keep this up as long as necessary. Eventually, the page will be permanently locked. Either that or the IPs will discuss the issue or give up and go away. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Now back as 2804:7F7:A590:491D:0:0:0:1 adding the nonsensical credits from this film to the "References" section of Benji. Requesting page protection there and another block. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The vandal / WP:CIR editor is back as 2804:7f7:a58e:e857::1 , 177.98.233.233 and 2804:7f7:a58e:e857::2 evading the current block against 2804:7f7:a58e:b575::1. As reverting all of their edits and adding warnings to their talk page has had no effect, the article is edit protected again, this time for one year. As the are having similar problems getting the message at List of Peppa Pig characters‎‎, I've requested page protection there again as well. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Everything old is new again. User:71.82.252.79 and User:2804:14d:72b3:841f:5965:c2f8:b0a9:18e4/User:2804:14d:72b3:841f:a449:bc40:f1cc:c7ce. Everything reverted, still waiting for any explanation. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The animal actors need to be on here, because the mother cougar and the wolf are major. They need to stay on here, because the director told me on Facebook and I got them from a site for animal actors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Man from Snowy River (talk • contribs) 00:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Per MOS:FILM, cast lists are generally limited to main billing. Typically, we look to the film's billing block, often found at the bottom of the film's promotional materials (posters, video boxes, etc.). As this film lists no acting credits in the billing block, we need something else. In such cases we often use IMDb as the deciding factor. This film's IMDb page lists the cast in three levels of detail.

IMDb lists the "Stars" as Red Steagall, Frank Inn, Benji.

IMDb lists "Cast (in credits order)" as the cast we currently have listed (actually, we've added "Ben Morgan as himself"

Finally, IMDb lists "Rest of cast listed alphabetically": Ben Morgan...Himself, Bart the Bear...Bear (uncredited), Malina...Cougar Cub (uncredited)

The last set is clearly minor roles. Uncredited roles are, by definition, minor. Nevertheless, you want to ignore Wikipedia's Manual of Style and add two roles that do not seem to be credited in the film (where IMDb gets its credits) based on an email and a "site for animal actors".

Taking this one piece at a time:

1) Why should this film's article not follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style? Yes, I know you feel the roles are "major", but independent reliable sources, IMDb, the film and the film's promotional materials do not. Tens of thousands of other film articles follow one set of rules, what is so special about this largely forgotten, low-budget film ignore those rules?

2) An email to you is not a reliable source. Adding information based on that email -- no matter who it is from -- violates WP:VERIFIABILITY, one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles. Currently, over 5.7 million articles are subject to WP:VERIFIABILITY. Why should this article be exempted from Wikipedia's fundamental principles?

3) You've indicated one of the roles came from [2]. Two problems: I don't see anything on that page giving that information. Additionally, you seem to be saying that this site is accompany that provided animals for the film. It is apparently not an independent source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

4) There are a lot of pages on here that have uncredited roles. I thought you were talking about their roles in the film. So they shouldn't be on here, even if the information is from the director of the film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Man from Snowy River (talk • contribs) 02:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you numbered that 4. 1-3 are questions challenging your addition. #4 is not.

Yes, there are millions of other articles. Some of them are nearly perfect, some others are horrible. You can't really just copy what you see in other articles and assume it is correct.

An email from the director is not a reliable source. Please review the guidelines outlined at WP:IRS if you disagree and outline how you feel it meets those guidelines. I think you will find that it is not "published" in a source "known for fact-checking and accuracy" and cannot be checked by readers.

The information is not verifiable and the roles are minor. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

If it's from the director, that means it's correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Man from Snowy River (talk • contribs) 03:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Whether it is correct or not, the roles are minor, as evidenced by the fact that no reliable sources whatsoever list them.

Whether it is from the director or not, an email is not a reliable source. You either have not read or did not understand WP:IRS. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

How about this: If the animal has a major role and it's uncredited, then it should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Man from Snowy River (talk • contribs) 16:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

How about this instead: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source...Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." WP:V

The information you want to add does not come from a reliable source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Then add the cougar cubs: https://www.nytimes.com/1987/06/17/movies/film-benji.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Man from Snowy River (talk • contribs) 20:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Nothing identifies that as a significant role. The source lists pretty much every bit of info available, placing it below such trivial roles as "special cougar work by Sled Reynolds and Gideon".

Incidentally, I'm assuming some of the earlier editing was you, right? - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but another editor put the cubs' actors in earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Man from Snowy River (talk • contribs) 21:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Your earlier editing required page protection to stop your unsourced additions and refusal to discuss the issue. Had you been using an account with your earlier editing, you would have been blocked indefinitely by now. I consider this to be a dead question. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Overlinking and amateur taxonomy

Two issues that frequently occur with kids' movies and animals are a problem here.

WP:OVERLINKING - Yes, Wikipedia has lots of articles. Yes, we can link to dozens of articles in every paragraph. That we can, doesn't mean we should. WP:OVERLINK helps explain this. In general, do not link to words the average reader will understand, such as "wolf", "helicopter", "rabbit", etc.

Amateur taxonomy - This article presents a brief overview of the film's plot. There is a wolf in the film. In all likelihood, the film does not mention what specific species of wolf it is. Reliable sources about the film don't mention what species of wolf it it. As a result, saying it is a black wolf is original research. Also, it does not matter that it is a black wolf -- whatever kind of wolf it is does not impact the plot in any way. This makes it trivial, similar to the specific model of helicopter or the species of trees shown. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Soundtrack question

Isn't there an instrumental version of Fame (Irene Cara) played as an action theme during a chase scene? 207.112.57.220 (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)