Talk:Wonder Woman 1984

Cameo appearance in a photo

People have added notes to the Cast section saying characters from the first film make a cameo appearance in a photograph. This note has removed [1] Dec 28, and similar note was previously removed Dec 26 [2].

I agree with this removal. As a general rule I don't think a cameo appearance in a photograph is WP:NOTABLE (in this film or any other film I can think of, not even big franchise films like Jurassic Park). I think it would take exceptional sources to somehow show it was notable, AND it would at least need to be discussed and gain consensus __before __ being added to the article.

Do other editors agree or do they think a cameo appearance in a photograph is worth mentioning in this or some other way? -- 109.79.76.202 (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

On Twitter Lucy Davis wrote "It was so good to say hi and catch up with everyone for just one day."[3] So she was actually there and it was not entirely digital trickery, and although I think it was a lovely detail, I still don't think it is notable. But maybe others disagree? -- 109.79.76.202 (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Special:Contributions/109.79.76.202: Photographic appearance/cameos are indeed notable. Especially given the fact that the actress was present on-set with the rest of the cast and crew. Cameo appearances are notable.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, please explain why you believe the cameo appearance isn't notable. What reasoning to you have?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

DisneyMetalhead does not get to assert that it is notable because he indeed says so, he needs to show notability. RustedAutoparts removed it twice already, and he had good reason to. Editors should reread WP:MOSFILM, and pay close attention to WP:FILMCAST 1. "it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors" the guidelines are already saying not every minor role or cameo is notable. Editors already need to show any cameo is notable, and for a minor minor photographic only cameo especially so. Twitter is a weak source, only slightly better than no source at all, barely enough to WP:VERIFY and not enough to show it is actually WP:NOTABLE either. -- 109.79.65.133 (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The standard for inclusion of facts in article prose is not WP:N. Please do not follow this policy because it is falsely applied. WP:N is the policy for inclusion of whole articles on Wikipedia vs. their deletion from the project.

The proper guideline for inclusion of facts in articles is WP:DUE. If there is demonstrable coverage by WP:RS compared to the preponderance of sources and coverage of the article, then a fact is DUE and we can include it. Notability does not attach to mere facts. Elizium23 (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Early critical response

Is it notable that early critical response was more positive than current average critical response? This includes a Rotten Tomatoes tomatometer score that was 89% (71 reviews) and a Rotten Tomatoes critical consensus text that read:

"Great Hera! Wonder Woman 1984 is an epic dose of heart and vibrant escapism that proves there are still unexpected thrills to be found in superhero cinema."

Reliable sources of the old score and consensus text are available at People,[4] and Comic Book Resources,[5] among others. There's also an analysis of the score-drop/text-change by Dan Murrell, former Screen Junkies writer/creator. Related is also the film losing its "Certified Fresh" status - which, apparently, rarely happens to films. Various sources for this too, including Screen Rant,[6] MovieWeb,[7] and Comic Book Resources.[8] --143.176.30.65 (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Same thing happened on Game of Thrones (season 8). We can include its previous tomatometer (and maybe metascore) before the release on 25 December as notes if there is a consensus. Screen Rant is not a reliable source by the way. nyxærös 13:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Someone entirely deleted the mention this precipitous drop from this from the Critical response section. I restored it and added another reference. The rewrite change of the Critics consensus alone was unusual, but when the score eventually dropped as low as 59% Rotten Tomatoes themselves said it "a fall like none we’d seen before". That's WP:NOTABLE.[9] -- 109.78.193.228 (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

comparison to unrelated films

Concern this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wonder_Woman_1984&type=revision&diff=999647963&oldid=999646833&diffmode=source by @Masem:

Freaky Friday (1976 film) had no sex in it at all. It was a mother and daughter switching bodies for a comedy. Big (film) is not about switching bodies with anyone at all, the body just makes a wish to be bigger, and becomes an adult. Why should the article mention that a fan mentioned these films, and the woman responded "Hahaha. Exactly @DustyDontShoot!!"? A news source mentioning the exchange as the only response she gave about it, doesn't mean its notable enough to be in the article about the film. Doesn't really deal with the specific issue. Dream Focus 09:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I am using the two films named in the CNet source, nothing else. I know neither film have sex in them, but it is a response from the writer to the controversy. Yes, above that, I recognize the comparison misses that neither of those films discusses the sex issue, and that's also a point the CNet writer makes (hence why I made sure that was included). You also have that The Mary Sue was not happy with Jenkins only have that take on the matter as well. --Masem (t) 14:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Big does have sex in it with the child in an adult body when a woman seduces him, as the Mary Sue article explains. Anyway, was this her response to the situation, or her just agreeing with a random fan with "Hahaha. Exactly" for their post? Dream Focus 14:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Given how CNet and TMS have taken it, they are considering that her "statement" on the matter, and consider it lacking. I haven't seen anything further from Jenkins on it yet, and obviously for her it would be better to speak more explicitly about it. --Masem (t) 14:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

"1984 (Wonder Woman)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 1984 (Wonder Woman) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 26#1984 (Wonder Woman) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)