Talk:Coco (2017 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Last Name?

I have a question regarding the last names as written in this page.

Should Miguel's great-grandmother and other ancestors in the family have different last names since they are related to him through his abuelita? Or should it be the other way? In the land of the dead Miguel's family is referred to as the Riveras if that is the case then Imelda and Coco would have the name (and possibly Hector depending on whether Imelda kept his name when he never returned home) but Elena, her daughter, would have her father's name and her son (Miguel's father) would have his father's name not Elena's and so on and so forth. On another note, based on the family tree Tia Rosita is Miguel's great grandfather's (Coco's husband) sister and therefore wouldn't have the Rivera name regardless of the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drn211 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Only Mamá Imelda and Héctor would be named Rivera. Coco was the only daughter and would have taken her husbands last name. Abuelita, Coco's daughter would have also taken her husbands last name which would be the last name of her son Papá and his son Miguel. Since Imelda and Héctor are at the top of the tree, Reveras refers to their descendants as a group, not their last names. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

In Mexico and most of the Hispanic countries, women don't change their surnames when they get married, and in fact in many countries people use their father's as well as their mother's surnames as well as their surname (See: Spanish naming customs). Obviously the use of the surname Rivera, is a simplification for the film, which has not taken into account family relationships.--Belagaile (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

True but the maternal part of a parent's name does not generally get passed to their children, just the paternal portions of the father's and mother's names form the surname of the children. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Deletion?

Why would this be considered for deletion? It's an upcoming film, and only more details will emerge as we get closer to the release date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.212.115 (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

los?

Should we be using "Dia de los Muertos" or "Dia de Muertos" in the article?

Walt Disney Animation Studios Holiday Film Fest

Before Disney/Pixar's latest computer-animated film Coco in theatres on Wednesday, November 22, 2017, there will be Walt Disney Animation Studios Holiday Film Fest:

• Pinocchio (1940)
• The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977)
• Hercules (1997)

Note: They're three animated features produced by Walt Disney Animation Studios, they will be at McDonald's restaurant during the 2017 Christmas season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.226.32 (talk) 03:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for this, or is this another one of your non sequitur comments? Trivialist (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Should the Conan joke even be mentioned?

It strikes me as pretty tangential—just a media figure's relatively trivial joke on the controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.55.107.7 (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 23 September 2017

The following is a closed 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: page moved. wbm1058 (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Coco (2017 animated film) → Coco (2017 film) – The other 2017 film is now titled Love Beats Rhymes. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. As long as Coco (2017 musical film) exists, even as a redirect this still needs the "animated" part for disambiguation and primary topic for this is at Coco, a disambiguation page. Also there is an AfD outstanding on the musical. If it does get deleted redirects to that article should also get deleted. If that happens would be a good time to move this article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. The other film isn't called Coco anymore, and it's looking unlikely it will actually be a 2017 film. A hatnote will suffice if Love Beats Rhymes actually does come out this year. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support, since the other one has been moved. Dicklyon (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. This is cut and dried. Shouldn't even require a discussion. — Film Fan 19:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Nohomersryan. The "animated" adds nothing at this point. Rlendog (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support chances of the other film (a) coming out in 2017 (b) being named Coco, seem so small as to not wait. Get it over and done with. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2017 (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.

Actors (for the Spanish version)

Given that the movie has been released in Mexico, right now I think the article should include the actors for the Spanish version as well. I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if all of the lines were done by the same actors. And oddly enough, the question becomes how Wikipedia determines in a movie like this *which* actors should be listed as the primary actors. My knee-jerk reaction is "Where was it first released", but of course that doesn't meet with what people would expect on the English Language wikipedia.Naraht (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The actors where the film was produced and what the actual credits in the film itself say only. Disney releases world-wide and generally takes great care in getting the localization right. Might be an interesting topic for the article if it can be well-referenced. es:Coco (película de 2017)#Doblaje shows generally how dubs are handled in the Wikipedia language article about the topic in that language and that is usually where the dub actors show up, not in the English language version of the topic. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I understand why the "actual actors" vs. the dubbing Actors would make sense to separate in a movie like Lord of the Rings. Ian McKellan is on screen and speaking in English as the movie is filmed. The person doing the dubbing is someone else. *However* in an animated movie, why should the voice actor in English be viewed as the "actual actor" and the one in spanish as the "dubbing actor"? Should it be based on whose recording the mouth movements are based on?Naraht (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

There are just too many dubbed versions of the film to list the dub actors of each and every localization. That is generally why the dub actors only show up in the language article about the film. See Frozen (2013 film) § Localization for an example of what another similar film did. Disney likes to release world-wide so pretty much does all the major dubs before release. They just released the Spanish dub first, but that was just marketing and timing. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The credits in the Spanish release of film state the voice actors of the Spanish dub; there is no mention of the "actual" actors from the English release. — Comment added by 141.101.159.87 (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC+1)

Only the Latin American Spanish version so far, might be different in the Castilian Spanish version as Disney tends to localize for the different Spanish dialects. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

My point though, is that the LA Spanish release of the movie credits the actors of the LA Spanish version in the credits. This isn't just a simple dubbing, even the animation has been adjusted to fit the Spanish voices.

"The actors where the film was produced and what the actual credits in the film itself say only." By this logic, shouldn't these actors be included then? — Comment added by 141.101.159.87 (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2017‎ (UTC+1)

The film was produced in the US and the credits for the US version belong in this article. The Spanish language wikipedia does a good job of documenting the Spanish language dub actors es:Coco (película de 2017)#Doblaje has the info. The English language wikipedia will not likely list the dub actors in all the non-English versions of the film. I doubt they adjusted the animation for the different localizations, they just do a real good job on lip sync with the dubs. Also Disney plans for localization so they try to make the animations easy to lip sync to for all the different languages. Disney is real good at this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

To add, the Spanish Wikipedia now shows two Spanish versions with different sets of voice actors. I thought they might show the Mexican version in Spain as Mexico is the setting but it looks like they still localized differently for Spain. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The Spanish Wikipedia lists Spanish as a primary language and Mexico as a country of origin, not sure why though. — Comment added by 46.127.26.206 (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2017‎ (UTC+1)

The Spanish wiki no longer list two sets of voice actors. It appears the second set never even existed to begin with.

Unrelated to this, IMDB lists Spanish as a primary language of the movie. — Comment added by 46.127.26.206 (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2017‎ (UTC+1)

Categorization

WP:NOTDEFINING requires categories to be a defining characteristic of the subject, one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. Two main characters don't make a film a buddy film and having a dog as a character doesn't make it a film about dogs. That is background and setting info not what the film is about. We need sources to so we don't get into WP:OR disputes about evaluating the content of a work of fiction. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

So, by your logic, Monsters, Inc. is not a buddy film because of two characters and Up doesn't qualify as a film about dogs even if a talking dog is integral to the story? - Areaseven (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Areaseven: Pretty much as they are not defining for those films and more so because of lack of reliable sources describing them that way. Making personal evaluations about major themes or what a film is about is WP:OR. Buddy films get a lot of press describing them that way and need more than two main characters who are friends in it and are more about how the film focuses on that friendship as the key theme of the film. A film about dogs focusses on the dogs as the point of the film, not just because the film has a dog in it. My logic follows fairly well help:Defining. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Language in infobox

template:infobox film/doc for the language attribute says Insert the language primarily used in the film. Only in rare cases of clearly bilingual or multilingual films, enter separate entries. IMDb says language of film is English and that is the likely primary release language in the country of production with other releases being localization dubs. The reference used for "English and Spanish" is after a review of the Latin-American Spanish dub that was released in Mexico, the US release still pending. I think it very unlikely that this is a truly bilingual film with both English and Spanish being used equally particularly with Disney's focus on localization dubs to as many countries and languages as possible. If it were a true multilingual film I'd expect subtitles for the non-local languages used. Although not a reference, es:Coco (película de 2017)#Doblaje, on the Spanish language wiki does show dub actors for the Spanish version of the film. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

BBFC site recommended in the infobox template instructions for the language attribute says English is the main language for the film. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

BBFC site now also list Spanish as a language in the infobox template. 46.127.26.206 (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Main language is still listed as English, Spanish is listed as other languages. We are supposed to put main language in infobox. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

A seperate article for the song "Remember Me"

Is there a possibility that an article based on the song for the film Coco called "Remember Me" be established? That song has gained some popularity due to the critical success of the film and even making this song very memorable. Saiph121 (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Too early to say. Maybe we should wait for award season. - Jasonbres (talk) 02:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

See WP:NSONG for requirements for a song article. Basically did it chart or get an award. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Plot summary

I tried to retrim the plot summary down to WP:FILMPLOT guidelines (400 to 700 words), but was reverted twice by Hetrodite (talk · contribs) ([1]). I'm taking this discussion to the talk page per WP:BRD to avoid an edit war. Thoughts on the recent plot summary edits? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your changes but it may be too soon to start refining the plot description with this level of interest in the article and people wishing to contribute to adding to it. I suggest letting things settle down for a month then rework the plot then. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Ernesto singing voice

it says Antonio Sol could it be Marco Antonio Solís? 72.184.23.194 (talk) 10:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I am a Spanish speaker and can confirm that several articles have the Spanish singing voice for Ernesto De La Cruz listed as the famous Mexican pop star Marco Antonio Solis. I'm new to Wikipedia and uncertain how to edit, however. Jesur16 (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The reference says Antonio Sol so that is what goes in the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected

Article has been semi-protected to prevent continued addition of unsourced material. A mild reminder if necessary that edits must be verifiable and supported by reliable sources. Even if you're absolutely positive something is correct, it can't be added to the article without a source to back it up. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2018

North America is a continent, and Mexico is included in that continent. In this article under the "Reception" section, it defines North America as the U.S. and Canada, and it puts Mexico in the section named "Outside North America." I have included an article by Wikipedia which defines North America.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_America 2605:E000:91E0:D500:A469:862E:AB23:3485 (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Done Absolutely - it's been moved up now. Wasechun tashunka^HOWL_TRACK 19:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Already done Sam Sailor 22:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Not a musical

Coco should not be referred to as a "musical" in the lead. The songs in this film are not "interwoven into the narrative," as is stated in our article for musical films. All the songs are diegetic and do not tell the story; La Bamba, This is Spinal Tap, The Bodyguard and Ricki and the Flash have stories about music, but we don't call them musicals. Just because music is a theme in a movie doesn't make it a musical. 24.18.128.102 (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. It is about music but is not is not a musical in the sense that song lyrics are part of the narrative. Is there any reliable source that calls it a musical? Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Now that you've explained your thoughts I can sort of see where you're coming from. And now that I've thought about it I'd say that I agree with you. The movie certainly does prominently feature music, but the music doesn't really use it to tell the story of the film. I think that simply going off of the Wikipedia definition isn't the best way to go about anything, but looking into this it seems that most sources define them the same exact way. I think I'm in full agreement with this. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Violation of WP:CAPTION

Hi.

I find the original caption of "Theatrical release poster" zero-informative. Certainly, nobody thinks this image is a James Lind diagram.

Well, I tried adding a very short bit of detail to it, per WP:CAPTION, but ... well, if you are here, you know what happened already.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Brojam, who is engaged in edit warring, has tried to justify his blind reverting pretending to follow the infobox documentation. Well, guess what? The infobox documentation reads: "Image caption with a brief description of the image content". You don't even need to visit the doc page; it is right on the VisualEditor interface.

Codename Lisa (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Have a look at the hundreds of other film articles on Wikipedia and all of them simply describe it as the type of poster. Also nothing about your edit is brief or even clear about what the image is (which is a poster). - Brojam (talk) 06:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Brojam: Oh, the "other stuff exist" argument, the second most hated in Wikipedia, my most hated one. Well, hundreds of film articles on Wikipedia are not okay.

Additionally, when you change your reason for reverting so rapidly, jumping from one to another, it is a clear sign that you are reverting reflexively. You really must not. That's disruptive.

Even worse, I made a full assessment of Template:Infobox film/doc. It says three different contradictory things:

1. "Insert image caption, which should describe the type of image used." The type of the image is JPEG.
2. "The caption= field should describe the image, i.e., identifying it as "theatrical release poster" or "DVD cover"; repeating the title of the film here is not necessary." So, now it says the caption should contain the "theatrical release poster".
3. "Image caption with a brief description of the image content" in TemplateData. This one says the caption should contain not type, nor image description, but image content, which is what I wrote and got reverted.

A document that is so self-contradictory is null and void. Why not use common sense and WP:CAPTION?

Codename Lisa (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Giving multiple reasons why your edit was incorrect does not mean I'm "reverting reflexively". If you think that document should be null and voided, then you should bring it up at WP:MOSFILM as it would affect all the other film articles that according to you do not respect WP:CAPTION. - Brojam (talk) 06:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Multiple valid reasons yes. Multiple excuses that fail simple scrutiny, not so much.

I don't think that /doc page "should be null and voided"; it already is. It wasn't a policy or guideline in the first place; any executive power it has comes from merit, which is clearly lacking. But that's not even the problem here; no matter how you look at /doc page, it does not forbid adding other details to the caption. Not only that, our top tier policy is WP:NOTCENSORED; you may not delete someone's contribution, unless you cite a policy is support.

And you have started all this policy game for what reason? To banish a short educational sentence that says who is who in that poster and only makes the article more useful? Codename Lisa (talk) 07:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Since it appears other people are now interested, I reiterate why I changed the caption to "Theatrical release poster, showing (clockwise from the left) Coco, Danté the dog, Miguel, Héctor, Ernesto and Imelda":

1. It is educational contents that helps identify items of the "Cast" section
2. Contrary to what many have claimed, Template:Infobox film/doc says "a brief description of the image content" must be in the caption.
3. Template:Infobox film/doc sanctions three things for the caption ("type of image", "describe the image", and "the image content") but does not say anything else is forbidden.
4. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions (shortcut: WP:CAPTION) says "A good caption [...] clearly identifies the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious".

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose: Excessive. Most editors don't want info beyond the minimum necessary and demonstrated consensus is against inclusion of more than basic info which is just what the image is, not details of what is in it. There is nothing in wiki policy that required more than saying what the image is. On the other hand the alt parameter, WP:ALT, is there for describing the image for people who can't see it and a full detailed description of the image would be appropriate there. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose: It's pretty clear we're getting nowhere citing various guidelines that contradict one another. So why don't we just go straight for the jugular and reach a consensus, that is how disagreements are resolved here on Wikipedia after all. I oppose to adding anything more beyond "Theatrical release poster". Adding more to the caption is just overkill. If readers wish to know more about the characters, their names & roles, we do have a Cast section to provide such information in more vivid detail. The infobox is just there to cover the basics, not excessive details. Armegon (talk) 04:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I also oppose adding anything more than "Theatrical release poster". As Geraldo Perez mentioned WP:ALT is available for a more detailed description. - Brojam (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Armegon and Brojam: Violating a guideline such as WP:CAPTION needs more than a couple of votes by people who revert first and then half-heartedly seek to justify it. Consensus means to be of one heart and mind. What you are doing here is bullying. And sure, the film section of Wikipedia has a very dark history of bullying IP editors. —Codename Lisa (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

It is not a violation, and definitely not vandalism, to remove excessive unnecessary wording, it is a editorial choice subject to consensus discussion which is what is happening here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

You flatter yourself. An editorial decision is cooperative, and needs a semblance of reason, something that at least says why you disagree with Template:Infobox film/doc, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions and WP:NFCC#10. So far, you have demonstrated nothing but bullying.

No. I am putting my foot down this time.

—Codename Lisa (talk) 06:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Then take it to WP:DR. Reason has been sufficiently given. You disagree with the reasons given. This is an infobox image, it just needs a description of what it is, not what is in it. Anything more is excessive, particularly in an infobox where the goal is to be concise. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:DR isn't a place to take things to; it is what we do. In other words, I am at DR! Except you refuse to participate in a discussion.

—Codename Lisa (talk) 06:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Read the whole page at WP:DR. And I am participating in the discussion as are all the others who disagree with your interpretation of guidelines and how they apply to this article. This is an editorial decision subject to consensus. Your preferred version is against consensus and there is no policy reason to overturn consensus in this case. Assertions that it is vandalism to remove your excessive wording in an infobox caption is not persuasive. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: This revision: [2]. Is it your sockpuppet?

No. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, do yourself a favor and actually discuss the contents inside the blue box above. What editorial concerns had lead you to the editorial decision of removing dispute content that is:

1. More important than helping read understand "Casts" section.
2. More important than obeying Template:Infobox film/doc, which you guys actually pretended obeying in the past revisions.
3. More important upholding the community consensus as whole, which is then written as a guideline in WP:CAPTION?

—Codename Lisa (talk) 06:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 1)It is the infobox, not the cast section and a cast section image should be in the cast section and include more of the cast. 2)brief description "Theatrical release poster" sufficient for that. 3)nothing else is required either. 4) Met with "Theatrical release poster". Also note description on the file page is "This is a poster for the 2017 animated film Coco.", nothing more there and neither is there more at the image source. Anything beyond text identifying what the image is is excessive for what is needed for an infobox image caption. Other image captions may need more or less text based on the the context of where they are used. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Excessive beyond what is needed" is not a compelling argument for deletion. Wikipedia is very much full of information that is beyond what some editors feel is all that is absolutely needed. Jeh (talk) 07:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)

(1) I know where it is. It helps the casts section despite not being in it. Making two copies of it would be awkward and have two images with the same purpose is the violation of WP:NFCC. And per WP:LEAD, the lead section must mention the casts section.

(2) Template:Infobox film/doc explicitly says "Image caption with a brief description of the image content".

(3) And yet you said in #1 that it is required. In fact you said "should be in the cast section and include more of the cast". We can't do that, but you can't want more and less at the same time.

(4) The subject of this image is not a "Theatrical release poster". (That would a photo taken from a poster.) The subject is some animated characters.

(Text after) Let's say it is indeed excessive. (I've proven otherwise so far, but let's say it indeed is excessive.) What harm does this excessive thing do that you want to delete it? Yes, lots of people think Wikipedia itself is excessive but we don't delete Wikipedia to oblige them.

—Codename Lisa (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Please note, for example: South Park, The Simpsons, Family Guy, Top Cat. It seems that when an animated work's title card features the main characters, it is not at all uncommon for them to be clearly identified in the caption. I believe this contradicts the opposers' claim that "demonstrated consensus is against inclusion of more than basic info which is just what the image is, not details of what is in it". Jeh (talk) 07:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Support per Codename Lisa's four rationales. Any one of those would be sufficient, and opposers have refuted none of them. There is no requirement anywhere that infobox images' captions must be trimmed to some specific level of brevity. ALT text is primarily for non-sighted readers; for the sighted reader it does not fulfill point 1 as there is no visible indication of the ALT text's existence, so no reason for them to hover over that image. Jeh (talk) 07:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment WP:FA#Films shows best accepted practices and in a brief examination I found very few with more than a infobox image caption saying what the image was, not what was in it. Yeah Wikipedia:Other stuff exists but featured articles provide good guidance for contentious issues. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

So what? My contribution has merits regardless. FA article has been known to get promoted despite having minor flaws, and good ideas are known to have come around at a later time. And the kind of contribution that I did in this article is impossible in Zodiac (film), Witchfinder General (film), Uncle David and American Beauty (1999 film).

So, yeah, no wonder "other stuff exists" is the second most hated discussion in Wikipedia: It is often abused to stifle improvement, evade dispute resolution process and give validity to an invalid discussion on an ex post facto basis.

—Codename Lisa (talk) 07:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: It says that what you want to do is not required and is not done in practice in articles that do get a high level of scrutiny. When the other stuff that exists is featured article standard practice it becomes much more compelling as an demonstration of what is expected in an article. This is not trying to use a C class article to justify something. There are FA film articles with images of characters in the poster. I didn't see any that identified the characters in the caption. Geraldo Perez (talk) 08:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: (edit conflict) Well, just from the first few rows there, The Carpet from Bagdad and A Cure for Pokeritis contradict your claim. As does The Simpsons (a FA) which I mentioned already.

More generally, your analysis is flawed. It is fairly common for title cards or pictures to not feature most or all of the main cast, and such are clearly irrelevant to this discussion, as there is no opportunity for the caption to enumerate the characters pictured if none are pictured. So those should not be counted as cases where the people are not named. Same for cards or pictures that only feature one character as there is no need for further identification; same for those where identification is obvious and easy from context (say, one female and one male, or one young and one old); same for those where the actors are clearly identified in the picture (as in many lobby cards); same for those with so many characters that their pictures are quite small, or otherwise rendered so that they don't serve as good identification. Etc.

Certainly your analysis is not robust enough to justify deleting factual and useful data simply because you can't find any guidelines that specifically require it - never mind that Codename Lisa has pointed out guidelines that do at least encourage this info.

I see no compelling P&G-based arguments, nor even OTHERSTUFF arguments, from the opposers. Only "I think it's excessive and it isn't required, and it isn't done every place else that it might be, so I insist it is a discouraged practice and should be deleted." Jeh (talk) 09:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The examples you gave were not posters, they were stills and images specifically used to illustrate the characters appearance basically in lieu of poster being available. I still couldn't find film posters where the characters were called out in the infobox caption and posters were it could have been done if that was deemed appropriate in those articles. And I still think it excessive and unnecessary in this instance in this article, arguments for inclusion are not compelling and as an editorial choice I would not include it. What is obvious is that it is not required to include the content under dispute and consensus is needed to include it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 09:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• The images under consideration ... some are lobby posters, some are title cards from TV series, some are, as you say, images specifically created to illustrate the characters. It does not matter that "some are not posters" and you cannot say that examples involving not-posters are irrelevant. What matters is that they are all images used in infobox templates in movie and tv show articles. There is no P or G that says "consensus is required to include anything that is not required". Identification of the contents of an image is in no way forbidden, so consensus is needed for deletion. You don't have it. Jeh (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• "The examples you gave were not posters" That's exactly why Template:Infobox film/doc says write "theatrical poster" or "DVD cover" in the image caption. You just defeated all four arguments you provided to your own answer.

You don't seem to have the slightest idea what our dispute is about. When you hit the "revert" button, if you have absolutely no idea why you are doing it and what problem for the humanity you are solving, then you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

—Codename Lisa (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support - it is more informative to name the characters in the poster, especially since they are not depicted elsewhere in the article. Helping the reader shouldn't be controversial.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Geraldo Perez's reasonings. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: Good lord, this is a heated conflict if I've ever seen one. I'm honestly split in terms of where to place my support, as both @Codename Lisa: and @Geraldo Perez: have brought up fair points in this discussion. On the one hand, saying the name of every character in the caption does seem a tad excessive to me, as the names of the characters is irrelevant to the simple fact that it's the movie's poster. Conversely, having it there would perhaps be a useful description of the poster's primary contents. At the same time though, a far more detailed description can be seen by hovering the cursor over the poster. But to be fair, that isn't necessarily the average person's go-to action when browsing Wikipedia at 5 a.m. on their Chromebook at a coffee shop while dunking a toasted bagel in a mug of coffee. Or anyone else browsing Wikipedia for that matter.

And the point that the characters are supposed to be outlined and elaborated on in the cast section with a separate picture is also a good one- I feel like that's something which could definitely be pulled off.

Ehhhhh, you know, I'm gonna have to go with Oppose actually. The names of the specific characters isn't relevant information for the infobox poster image imo, and it should be outlined respectively with a separate image in the Cast section rather than in the infobox. Mentioning the characters there would add undue weight to what information is and isn't being presented, and just listing it as the theatrical poster seems more concise and summary-ish (summaric..? What would be a fitting word for that anyway???). Listing the characters on the poster also isn't exactly a "brief description", it's a fairly long sentence and could be more brief.

Lisa, it seems that you're doing a lot of finger-pointing here. Your argument is fair, but just to side with Perez a little bit, the reason that they were reverting your attempts to return it to what you did was because what you did is currently being actively discussed, if that makes any sense. As long as we're all here bitching and bickering through typed sentences over what to do and what not to do, the page should be kept to what it was before the discussion began. From what I can tell it seems that the caption with the character names was added originally by you, and from what I can tell no concrete consensus has been quite reached here, and you keep trying to return it to your change without any said consensus. So I'm not gonna make any unwarranted assumptions, but it seems that you only want to return it to what you intend it to be in opposition of the ongoing discussion simply because you want it to be that way in the end?? Huh... Well, either way, I've made my opinions clear, and I don't want to get into any major arguments, but I think that regardless of your differing opinion you need to stop accusing people of bullying and vandalism and remember WP:Good faith. Perez hasn't been particularly hostile about anything, and they've continually explained their rations and reasoning behind their actions. You've done the same, to be fair, but you've also continued to basically accuse Perez of editing out of their ass and without any reason or consideration of other thoughts when they've been clearly explaining their reasoning for their thoughts.

Sorry if I'm foolish for coming in late and commenting incorrectly on this stuff. I'm somewhat going off of my own intuition as to the complete history of this edit conflict and speaking off of my own evaluation of the situation, but I hope I don't bite off more than I can chew and come off as ignorant/uninformed or anything like that. So... yeh... I'm done now. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

It looks like 5 editors are opposed (Brojam, Geraldo Perez, Armegon, Lord Sjones23, and TheDisneyGamer) and 2 editors are in support (Codename Lisa and Maunus). We've discussed the topic, all gave our two cents, and reached a consensus. I think we're done here. It's best to now (metaphorically) shake hands and move on to contributing to other Wiki pages. Armegon (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Armegon.

That's voting, not consensus. Consensus decision-making (I quote) "involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." I haven't read TheDisneyGamer's massive comment yet, but the other four (you included) have explicitly refused an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns and guidelines. Not only that, two of them first pretended to act according to Template:Infobox film/doc; but when I demonstrated that they are acting against it, they simply switched tactic. In fact, they were so careless with handling the most basic fact, it is becoming very hard not to assume they are not committing decit. (For example, you dropped Jeh's support from vote count.)

If you pay not attention to either legitimate concerns or guidelines, then you are not here to build an encyclopedia and have no right to do anything.

—Codename Lisa (talk) 05:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

See also WP:NOTVOTE. Consensus on Wikipedia is not decided through voting, but by well-reasoned appeals to relevant policy and guidelines. As a counterexample, "it seems excessive to me" is not that. Jeh (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose per what Geraldo Perez stated about excessiveness. Keep the description as concise as possible and as relevant to the infobox's purpose as well. If the intent was to provide visual context for the Cast section, than a separate image featuring the characters within that section would be more effective. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 16:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Section break 1 for ease of access

• @TheDisneyGamer: Hello.

Let's get to your long comment. To be honest, you are the first opposing party that made an effort to build a consensus. I appreciate that. I'll divide my comment into sections, so you can read whichever you want.

• Caption. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions and Template:Infobox film/doc both say "describe the contents of the image". The former represents the consensus of the community. To you however, it seems "a tad excessive". Does this sentiment of yours have such urgency to warrant violating community consensus? And besides, per WP:NOTCENSORED, removing any and all contents, even the indescent ones) from Wikipedia is forbidden, unless the removal can be defended with policy, guidelines, common sense or U.S. laws.
• Alt text and hover text. Those are the artifacts of the desktop computing which has mouse. Today, the bulk of our readers are on mobile devices, which do not have a mouse. Hence, no hovering. For them, alt text is invisible, unless they are using a screen reader. Also, our mobile view alleviates the problem of being "a tad excessive" because it might switch the infobox to full-width when needed.
• WP:NFCC prevents us from having a separate image in the casts section. Article three of NFCC says because a caption under the poster does fulfills that purpose, you don't need another image.
• Assuming good faith. I am of the opinion that everyone in Wikipedia, except vandals, are acting in good faith. Most people who link to WP:AGF haven't read it and don't know what it is. In every discussion to this date, whenever I said that part about AGF, I was meaning to ascertain that I am assuming good faith in all of the participants. But wait here. What would you do when a registered user commits something that resembles vandalism in all respects? Simple, one must not call them vandals. One must give them a chance to clean up their act, i.e. come to the talk page, and help build a consensus. (Please read the lead section of that page at least.) For the first time in my career, I saw two users (Sjones23 and Brojam) not cleaning up their act. Sjnoes23 simply stayed a vandal and Brojam resorted to deceit. He claimed he is doing all of this per Template:Infobox film/doc. When I demonstrated that he is actually violating it, he just changed his pretext.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough- thank you very much for the constructive feedback. I think I'm gonna mostly stay out for the rest of this discussion, as I feel like the same exact points and arguments will be continually repeated without much of a consensus, and I don't really have the time or level of commitment to stay active in such an issue as this. But, I wish the best of luck in getting it resolved. Cheers. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@TheDisneyGamer: Actually, thanks for saying that. You are wise. I am going to stay out of this too. The world certainly isn't going to end when one caption violates best practices. But also, seeing your kindness and civility, I all of the sudden see why I got so worked up: It wasn't because of blatant violation of a guideline, but because I was treated like a vandal, i.e. was reverted without the curtsey of them telling me why I am reverted.

It was nice knowing you.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

This issue is a non-issue, and consensus is clearly against your addition at this point. Please don't waste anymore of your own or other editor's time pursuing this further.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Maunus

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions is the entire community's consensus.

You are more than welcome to refrain from coming here if you feel your time is being wasted.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

A possible good article

There exists sufficient amount of sources about Coco on the web. I intent to include the reliable ones to expand the production section and perhaps take the article forward to Good article. Is anyone else also interested? 2.51.16.20 (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Officially nominated. Songwaters (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Songwaters, I have removed your GA nomination for a couple of reasons. The first is that you are not a significant contributor to the article and have not consulted here with those who are to see whether they think the article is ready to be nominated. The second is that you nominated the article and then opened a review of your own nomination, something that is absolutely not allowed: the reviewer must be someone other than the nominator and someone who has not made significant contributions to the article. I am putting a speedy deletion template on the review page you opened, since it cannot proceed.

You are welcome to do the consultations—if so, I suggest you add a new section to the bottom of this page where more people are likely to see it, and perhaps directly ping some of the major contributors. You should not renominate until the consultation has concluded, a process that should last at least seven days. Best of luck going forward, however you decide to proceed. I strongly recommend that you read the Good Article nomination instructions page in full first. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for misunderstanding and completely screwing up the good article process. Songwaters (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Last name source?

Hello. While I'm trying to find a WP:RS for Miguel's last name, should it be mentioned in the cast or plot section if it's necessary? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It is not really important. None of the credits show a last name so it should not be mentioned in the cast section. Adds nothing of value to the plot section as that is not how characters refer to each other in the story. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Lombardo Boyar's roles

In the cast section, Lombardo Boyar's role as Gustavo is listed two times, one for the "Plaza Mariachi/Gustavo" and a separate one for the "Gustavo" role. Despite WP:FILMCAST recommendations about the credits, I have concerns that the "Plaza Mariachi/Gustavo" credit is redundant to the role listed below, so I had to remove the name and listed it as "Plaza Mariachi" for now. But if there are any objections, we should try to sort things out wherever necessary. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I consider the above a valid WP:IAR justification to the strict reading of WP:FILMCAST since it is two separate roles for the same person. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)