Talk:Junk Head

Correct release date

The Wikipedia article reads "Junk Head is a 2021 Japanese stop motion", even when several other sources (IMDb, Mubi, Rotten Tomatoes) point to 2017 as the actual release date. --HotSpoto (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2024 (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. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 06:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a short version of the Japanese stop motion film Junk Head was favorably reviewed by director Guillermo del Toro?

• ALT1: ... that the award-winning stop motion film Junk Head was directed, written, performed, animated, sculpted, lit, shot, edited, and scored initially solely by Takehide Hori?
• Reviewed: A Passage North

Created by ねをなふみそね (talk). Nominated by SL93 (talk) at 19:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC).

• Thanks for the nomination. The article is long and new enough with no copyvio issues. However, the lead is too short and can be improved by adding some more informative lines. Please include synopsis, reception and awards in the lead. Also, there are multiple "a curator of"s in the reception section which seems excess to me. As for the hook, it is interesting but I can't see it in the body. Please address the mentioned issues. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Mhhossein I fixed the issues. However, the hook is already in the body of the article at the bottom of the Awards section - Director Guillermo del Toro lauded a short version of the film as a "work of deranged brilliance". SL93 (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The sentence you are mentioning is referenced to a WP:TWEET. Can you find a more reliable source for it? Moreover, the lead currently reads "The film was positively received" which I don't think be in accordance with the reception section – "positively" is just something you need to prove. I would suggest adding something which covers the most significant POVs or removing the problematic sentence. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Mhhossein I removed the sentence. The tweet can be used due to it being Guillermo del Toro's own Twitter account and it is his comment = reliable. Tweets and Facebook posts are not always unreliable. Per WP:SELFPUB, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." SL93 (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@SL93: Everything is almost OK, but I still think per WP:TWEET, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves [...] so so long as: [...] 2. it does not involve claims about third parties;..." Anyway, why not using this source for the claim? Because it is not necessary to use a social network post when there is a secondary reliable source available. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Mhhossein I'm not using that source because it doesn't clarify that the review was only for a short version of the film. You are reading the guideline wrong. It clearly says, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as". The director is a published expert in the field so therefore it is allowed. I will bring this up on the DYK talk page. SL93 (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

You are ignoring WP:SELFPUB which is part of WP:V also and clearly mentions social media posts from experts in the field. SL93 (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this is a claim about a third-party; it's two parties, Toro and the film. It also isn't an WP:AEIS claim so a primary source is fine - yes, you'd need a secondary source to explain why Toro's opinion is important but that does not mean the Tweet itself cannot be used at all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I will add the Japan Forward link as the secondary source. SL93 (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I added it. SL93 (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Jo-Jo, but I still think Toro's comment is kinda evaluative so WP:AEIS applies here. Also, I was not talking about putting the tweet aside. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• With the secondary source added, we can go with the proposed hook. I also suggest SL93 to add the movie poster to the infobox (this is just a suggestion and we can go without it). --Mhhossein ^talk 16:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• @SL93 and Mhhossein: I think there's an opportunity for a unique style of hook on this one—does ALT1 work for you? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Theleekycauldron Not really. Only because the director doesn't have an article. SL93 (talk) 02:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• What if the name were omitted, then? I feel like there's a good opportunity here. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• His name could be replaced with "the director" or something similar, but I don't see why anyone would care when the director has no article or much fame despite the notable film. I have watched plenty of low-budget movies as well, mostly B movies, and such a thing isn't uncommon for those. SL93 (talk) 03:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Theleekycauldron Can the original hook be promoted? A big name director giving a positive review for this type of film is more significant than a common thing for such films that the director did much of the work. SL93 (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• All right, I'll promote the original hook when it's time. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 14:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

ALT0 to T:DYK/P1

Requested move 24 May 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. It was pointed out that DIFFCAPS is enough disambiguation here. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Junk Head → Junk Head (film) – There is already a page named Junk head (about the mechanical device). Hencemachine (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• The current capitalized title should be enough to distinguish it, per the WP:DIFFCAPS guideline. A full discussion will probably be needed if you would still like to see it moved. DanCherek (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• I am in favor of restoring the name of the article. It was changed 17 November 2021 without any discussion. I respect the practices of English Wikipedia, however, a film title should be distinguished, when it is also common noun, by appending Wikipedia's disambiguation or something like suffix. --ねをなふみそね (talk) 09:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose the distinguish tag is apt in this case. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:DIFFCAPS. Natg 19 (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.