Talk:The Ice Age Adventures of Buck Wild

Other characters aside from Scrat are also absent, like Louis, Peaches and Shira. Should this statement be on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:4700:2D30:2913:E077:6AB8:1F69 (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

User:Thriley, User:Iamnoahflores, User:ZX2006XZ, User:Bkissin - I did look at the future film notability guidelines, and have reviewed them in detail. If anyone thinks that they call for acceptance, please explain in detail, actually citing the actual wording of the guideline. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Have you looked at recent news stories? Here’s one I found that was published 8 hours ago: [1] Thriley (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Why don't you and every other admin tell ME where does it say that for an upcoming film to be notable it needs to be released and have reception. It's contradictory at it's finest, if an upcoming film is released then it's no longer upcoming. You should understand why I'm rightfully angry at this situation. I once tried to fix the guidelines, and it was then reverted, fine I made a few mistakes I'll admit it, but after a discussion on what works and what doesn't NOBODY updated it, so now we're stuck with the same faulty guidelines, and it feels like I'm the only one who actually wants to actually fix it, so we can stop this same argument from happening where I need to repeat myself. Iamnoahflores (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm trying to fix this too. ZX2006XZ (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think there is a disconnect between what NFF says and the reality on the ground. If I'm going by GNG, the sourcing seemed to be largely blog-focused, but I'm not focused on the notability question. I have frequently suggested that the subject is notable. However, the sourcing needs to be there. My larger concern is around the tendentious resubmission of the article, often without any substantive change. I understood the ANI situation to be that in this particular context, we are waiting until the release of the film before accepting (so as not to condone tendentious editing). Bkissin (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea why the editors kept resubmitting without fixing anything, I don't come on this particular page often, but frankly it feels like the frequent editors on this page are, without a better word, amateurs. I may have to look over this draft more frequently. Iamnoahflores (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

User:Bkissin and others - It is very true that there is a disconnect. See the discussion at the film notability talk page. There has been a disconnect for 13 years. The current wording is clearly very badly written, and I tried to offer the community either of two improvements, but the result was No Consensus. So I will apply the guideline on future films as it is written, not how it has been interpreted by some editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I welcome any change in the guidelines, either to permit or to exclude future films. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Kaleeb18: Now what? ZX2006XZ (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@ZX2006XZ: Remove tv series section. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 14:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Kaleeb18: I remove the TV series section. ZX2006XZ (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@ZX2006XZ: now it’s almost ready let me look over it and fix some things. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 14:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@ZX2006XZ I’ve put it up for review again seeing that everything looks good. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 14:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Kaleeb18: I'm pinging @Bombastic Brody:, @Iamnoahflores:, @Bkissin:, and @Bovineboy2008:. ZX2006XZ (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Is it January 28th yet? @Robert McClenon: Can you link to the ANI discussion where the decision was to wait to resubmit until the premiere of the show? Bkissin (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

User:Bkissin - I will find that ANI discussion soon. However, WP:ANI is being completely useless with regard to this particular film, because there have been four trips to WP:ANI, but nothing gets done, and I think that the ultras know that. What I have done is to restore the record of rejections and declines. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Why do we have to wait till January 28? I see in the past y’all have said it doesn’t meet WP:NFF but it definitely does now provided by the reliable sources in the article. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 16:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Also the reason it got declined in Robert McClenon latest review was that The submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondarysources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of films). ZX2006XY and I have fixed that. And if y’all had a discussion to not put the article into main space until it’s released why would y’all not say that here also? I see no reason why this article in not ready to be put into main space. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 16:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Kaleeb18. Why do we have to wait until January 28? What's the point when the draft has been reworked? ZX2006XZ (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

What the guideline says is:

Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. 

Has the production itself received significant coverage by independent secondary sources? I can see that there has been a great deal of non-independent coverage, as is often the case with planned movies. The usual notability criterion for released movies is review coverage, which really is independent and secondary. But apparently some of you have the idea that if you push enough electrons, some of the coverage will become independent and secondary by magic. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Robert McClenon Are these okay independent sources Newsbreak, The Suburban, UPI, and CNN in Spanish? ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 22:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

And the the AP? ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 22:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Can someone accept the page as it is now out. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 17:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Done - Brojam (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Was the soundtrack released by Walt Disney Records or Hollywood Records? I’ve been seeing both used for news reports, so if anyone can find a direct source from Disney, that would be great, thanks! SlySabre (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

See this link. ZX2006XZ (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

The producers were supposed to put the 20th Century Studios logo at the opening and closing of The Ice Age Adventures of Buck Wild! But the 20th Century Studios logo did not appear because it was omitted and was not credited in the film and the Walt Disney Pictures logo appeared by mistake! I'm reclaim because they didn't use the 20th Century Studios logo! The film was supposed to go with the 20th Century Studios logo. And it wasn't supposed to start the movie without the 20th Century Studios logo! That's why I'm reclaim! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.122.235.208 (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

The producers should have put the 20th Century Studios logo at the film's opening. 189.40.107.39 (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Where’s the 20th Century Studios logo in the opening film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:214:81BB:59CB:C4B3:21C2:5BBF:6195 (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Where’s the 20th Century Studios logo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:214:81BC:6939:EC04:BB1E:7B2A:2C15 (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@ZX2006XZ: Read WP:FILMMUSIC. If a soundtrack is not notable, a film article does not need both a music infobox and a track listing. Films like Bad Times at the El Royale need a track listing because they feature a number of pre-recorded songs. This is not one of those films. It is a film score. A music infobox and a track listing are unnecessary. Also, stop reverting my edits to #Release. Per Template:Infobox film, the only release important for an American film is an American release. We do not need to include the territories in which it will later be released. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Some Dude From North Carolina: I see you are a way more experienced editor than I so I do not think you are wrong, but Im just here to ask questions to help me edit Wikipedia better. So how is the soundtrack not notable if it has reliable sources backing it up? ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 03:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Kaleeb18: The soundtrack has the average amount of sources. Film Music Reporter usually shares info about the composer and how many pieces of music are in the score. As a result, the album infobox is not necessary and should be removed. A track listing is usually added for a list of pre-recorded songs (see Bad Times at the El Royale and Yellowjackets as recent examples) and is also not necessary. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Some Dude From North Carolina: So are you just wanting to get rid of the infobox part because I agree with that or are you wanting to get rid of both the infobox and the list of music. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 03:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Kaleeb18: Both the infobox and the list of music should be removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

As there is no independent source covering it that I could find. I only foun Film Music Reporter which is not independent. I think it should be removed too. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 03:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I do know that this movie marks the sixth installment in the Ice Age franchise, but there's one little question: is the film canon to the theatrical films? Because Peaches, Shira and Granny are absent, contradicting the fourth & fifth movies, and what if there's a firewall between the defunct Blue Sky (the franchise's original studio) and Walt Disney Pictures? Please be free to respond. --Sstanford2 (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sstanford2What do you mean by is this film canon? It’s already been released on Disney+. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Kaleeb18: Of course it's canon. Besides Granny (real name is Gladys) decided to stay with Teddy in Geotopia at the end of Collision COurse. And Peaches most likely moved out with Julian. ZX2006XZ (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

ZX2006XZ Seems to make sense, but then what happened to Shira? --Sstanford2 (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Sstanford2: I'm wondering that too, along with what happened with Brooke and...I guess everyone else. ZX2006XZ (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

It is a sequel! It is clearly yet another film in the franchise. It is also a spin-off, which is a type of sequel that changes the focus to different lead characters. But why do editors insist on emphasizing [2] the claim that it is a "standalone sequel"? Surely the amount of separation and the degree to which this story stands alone from the previous films is not only subjective but in any case irrelevant and unimportant. Please stop adding "standalone" back to the intro. -- 109.76.139.121 (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Despite no response whatsoever to my comment, another editor has rephrased the lead because he disagrees entirely with idea that a spin-off can even be called a sequel.[3] It is a convoluted mess, is what it is. If someone could just please simplify it, maybe avoid emphasizing any of this and instead simply say "the sixth installment"? -- 109.78.210.152 (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Here is your rs saying it’s a spinoff Variety, here is one for standalone Cinemaexpress. This is one for sequel Screen Rant ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 11:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Reverting to the GA reviewed version of the lead did not address the issue[4] and this is one of the thinnest GA articles I have seen in a long time. I am surprised that this passed GA review at without a greater depth of coverage.

No one is disagreeing that it is the sixth film, that is what is important. Variety is a reliable source, that is enough to verify the description of this film as a spin-off. But again I was not even disagreeing that this could be called a spin off (a different editor did that[5]). Is CinemaExpress even a reliable source? I was disagreeing that any need to emphasize the claims that this was a "standalone" sequel rather than a sequel. This reminds me very much of editors trying to say a film is a "loose adaptation" of a book/source, it doesn't matter how loose or how standalone the story is, it is WP:UNDUE and unnecessary to highlight it in the lead. There is no need to include the word "standalone" in the lead section. -- 109.77.207.247 (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I’m not really wanting to look for reliable sources right now as I am busy, but maybe @AryKun:, @SlySabre:, @ZX2006XZ:, or @Some Dude From North Carolina: can help with this situation. Also I do no see how calling it a standalone sequel is undue weight if that is what it is. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 14:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Me personally, I see the film as a spin-off, although I can see where others might also consider it a sequel. Perhaps we may have to do more digging like on the official press reports to find out for certain. SlySabre (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

The WP:FILMLEAD is supposed to summarize what is actually in the article body. The production section does not bother to mention to what degree the story of this film does or does not "standalone" from the previous films in the series, so mentioning it in the lead is WP:UNDUE. SlySabre it is the sixth in the series, and by any definition it is a sequel. Calling it a spin-off or a standalone sequel is merely an (unnecessary) attempt to say what specific type of sequel it is. It is like arguing about things being canon or non-canon, which is just fancruft and not details that are important to an encyclopedia article. -- 109.77.207.247 (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think it has been officially referred to as the next entry in the series, so maybe you’re right. I honestly dunno though, in the meantime we could just refer to it as that, “the next installment”, until we know for certain. SlySabre (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

More like a sequel. It's not a spin-off, unlike the Lego Batman Movie or Puss in Boots; THOSE are spin-offs. THIS is viewed as the sixth film in the franchise. But even if this was a spin-off, would anyone even care? FlapjackRulez (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

An editor continues to insert "standalone" into the summary[6] without any edit summary by way of explanation, or any comment here. As I said above, this distinction is pointless (WP:UNDUE), and it is not even supported by anything in the article body (not sourced, and WP:FILMLEAD). -- 109.79.64.54 (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ok if you would like to you could kindly message them on their talk page as they will likely not see your message here. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 00:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

They should have at least followed the WP:SIMPLE rules already and explained their changes with an edit summary. They definitely should not have repeatedly added the same thing over and over again without any explanation, some would call that edit warring. A message on their Talk page seems pointless at this stage. -- 109.76.147.104 (talk) 05:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Well it looks like they might be a new editor so they probably don’t know that ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 11:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Ice Age Adventures of Buck Wild/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 12:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Permalink to version reviewed.
• A truly horrendously animated movie that competes only with the likes of The Seven Deadly Sins' latter seasons.

• "spin-off of it" → Does "it" here refer to the franchise? The sentence should be reworded since this isn't very clear.   Done
• "Pegg reprising his role as Buck Wild" → "Pegg (reprising his role as Buck Wild)"   Done
• "...as a Disney+ original film." → This isn't mentioned in the body.   Done
• "A sequel is in development." → But the quote in the body says that they're only thinking about whether to make one based on audience response, which hasn't been phenomenal, so I don't see how this is implied.   Done
• The note in the infobox needs a reference.   Done
• The plot summary is too long (650 words out of a total 1550) and should be reduced.   Done
• Protoceratops and Tyrannosaurus should be italicized.   Done
• "In June 2016, on the possibility of a sequel, Galen Tan Chu, co-director of Ice Age: Collision Course stated that there were some ideas for the sixth installment" → " On the possibility of a sequel, Galen Tan Chu, co-director of Ice Age: Collision Course, stated in June 2016 that there were some ideas for the sixth installment."   Done
• Any information on release outside of the US and Canada? Like, I'd at least expect it for major markets like the UK, Europe, China (if Disney+ is there?), and India.   Done
• "late-stage pre-viz pass" → "late-stage pre-viz [ previsualization ] pass"   Done
• I'll do a prose review of the plot section after it's rewritten.

• Id say it’s ready for this now @AryKun:

• I've copy-edited the plot.

• The images are all licensed correctly.
• Not required for GA, but consider adding alt text.

• All the references are consistently formatted.
• What makes Flickreel, Coming Soon.net, Discussing Film, Cartoon Brew, and Film Music Reporter reliable sources?
  • I know for a fact Film Music Reporter is fine but let me look into the others ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 12:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

  AryKun I removed Flickreel. The Looper.com ref cites Comingsoon.net and discussing film so are they fine to use? Also coming soon.net at WP:RSN didn’t really come to a consensus if it were reliable or not, but they are owned by Mandatory (company) and cited by comic book.com. Cartoon Brew is cited by Animation Magazine. Also if you look the up at WP:RSN someone says So I really don't think there should be any question that Cartoon Brew is a quality source. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

  I'm still not convinced by the rationale for Film Music Reporter. The others are fine, I guess. AryKun (talk) 05:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Yeah at WP:RSN some said it was reliable and other said the opposite. I know I replaced the ref in The Book of Boba Fett because I though it was unreliable, but then someone reverted my edits saying it is reliable. I guess I could ask again at WP:RSN ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 12:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Spot-checks on the following refs found that they supported the claims they were used to cite:

• "The Ice Age Adventures of Buck Wild". Rotten Tomatoes. Fandango Media"
• "Howard, Courtney (January 28, 2022). "'The Ice Age Adventures of Buck Wild' Review: Disney Plus Spin-Off Suffers From Mammoth Problems". Variety."
• "Hassenger, Jesse (January 28, 2022). "The new direct-to-streaming Ice Age sequel is a generic chunk of content". The A.V. Club."
• "Miller, Laura (February 2, 2022). "'The Ice Age Adventures of Buck Wild' doesn't fit into the original series". The Michigan Daily."

• This reference is misattributed. The author of the article is Laura Millar, with an a, a writer for The Michigan Daily, not Laura Miller, with an e, a writer for Salon.com. In the body it links to Laura Miller's page as well. I'm new to this editing thing so major apologies if I'm going about this wrong.Dailyjustice (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

• "Looch, Cassam (June 27, 2016). "ICE AGE: COLLISION COURSE INTERVIEW WITH CO-DIRECTOR GALEN T. CHU". Flickreel. "

• What does this mean I need to change? ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 12:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

• You don't need to change anything for this, this is just here for the record to show that the references actually support the information they are used to cite. AryKun (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Okay, I've passed the article. AryKun (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Awesome thanks for the review. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 11:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply