This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film This page is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm Manual of Style This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style This page may fall under the contentious topics procedure and be given additional attention, as it may be closely associated to the article titles policy and capitalisation. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

WikiProject Film
General information () Main project page talk → Discussion archives Style guidelines talk → Multimedia talk → Naming conventions talk → Copy-editing essentials talk Notability guidelines talk Announcements and open tasks talk → Article alerts → Cleanup listing → New articles talk → Nominations for deletion talk → Popular pages → Requests talk Spotlight talk Film portal talk Fiction noticeboard talk
Project organization Participants talk Project banner talk Project category talk
Departments Assessment talk → B-Class → Instructions Categorization talk Core talk Outreach talk Resources talk Review talk Spotlight talk → Spotlight cleanup listing Topic workshop talk
Task forces General topics Film awards talk Film festivals talk Film finance talk Filmmaking talk Silent films talk Genre Animated films talk Christian films talk Comic book films talk Documentary films talk Marvel Cinematic Universe talk Skydance Media talk War films talk Avant-garde and experimental films talk National and regional American cinema talk Argentine cinema talk Australian cinema talk Baltic cinema talk Belgian cinema talk British cinema talk Canadian cinema talk Chinese cinema talk French cinema talk German cinema talk Indian cinema talk Israeli cinema talk Italian cinema talk Japanese cinema talk Korean cinema talk Mexican cinema talk New Zealand cinema talk Nordic cinema talk Pakistani cinema talk Persian cinema talk Southeast Asian cinema talk Soviet and post-Soviet cinema talk Spanish cinema talk Uruguayan cinema talk Venezuelan cinema talk
Templates banner DVD citation DVD liner notes citation infobox invite plot cleanup stub userbox

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 10.

Additional opinions are requested at Talk:Mars Needs Moms#Gribble Full Name. Edit dispute about including the full name of a character name that was revealed in the film as part of the listed credits in the cast list. This is a MOS:FILMCAST issue specifically related to the guidance "Names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source." Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor whose recent edit prompted this discussion, the full name of the character is clearly spoken in the film, which qualifies as a reliable primary source (per WP:PRIMARY). MOS:FILMCAST says "names should be referred to as credited, 'or by common name supported by a reliable source." Since the film explicitly provides the full name, which is technically a common name, and no reliable sources contradict that usage, this meets MOS criteria. The full name is also briefly mentioned in the plot summary, reflecting its usage in the film.

The format Firstname "Nickname" Lastname is a common way to present character names when both full names and nicknames are mentioned in sources including the film itself. It is clear and non-confusing to readers and not much less concise.

Since this is a standalone film rather than a large franchise with an extensive cast and complicated character naming conventions, the need for strict conciseness (such as using only the most common name or nickname) is less pressing. Including the full name alongside the nickname in this context is reasonable, clear, and should be acceptable to help build general consensus.

I just became aware of this discussion after some time, so it’s now easier to make my point again.

I disengaged about three weeks ago after a two-day dispute to focus on other priorities and to avoid getting obsessed or warring. I do not intend to get into a dispute over this matter again, but I hope this helps progress to resolving the issue constructively. Exce1sior (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This should really be posted to the article talk page rather than here. Also, you appear to have been editing regularly whilst logged out, using least two different IP addresses, which is a bit of a no-no. Barry Wom (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it moved here was because the initial discussion on that page lasted a couple of days, far longer than it probably needed to, so I decided to disengage at the time. I know editing while logged out is a bit of a no-no, but I don’t think it’s that big of a deal; I just edit casually and don’t worry too much about whether I’m logged in or not. I’m not looking to get back into the dispute, and even though I still disagree, I’m pretty much over it now. Exce1sior (talk) 07:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Especially in category. Regarding the validity of this edit. --Altenmann >talk 23:05, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest public screening: MOS:FILMLEAD. Betty Logan (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion regarding the box office figure decimals in Template:Infobox film over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Decimals in box office figures. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:57, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Removed duplicate query as requested on talk page and linking one at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Film plot in TV style?. Updated: M. Billoo 11:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Please do not WP:DISCUSSFORK. Answered at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Film plot in TV style?. Gonnym (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's the MOS recommended practice for writing a plot section where a character's name isn't revealed until the closing credits, and they aren't named in any way on screen during the events of the film? Do we use that name, or do we write the plot as the audience would have experienced it - that the character's name isn't important, and isn't mentioned?

The Polar Express article has had some trouble over this: nearly all the characters are unnamed during the film, but the end credits give them descriptive names such as "Hero Boy" and "Lonely Boy". Belbury (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor added inflation adjusted figures to the Plot section (as a footnote). The really huge billions of dollars figure even adjusted for inflation remains a really huge billion dollar figure so including it does little to improve readers understanding of the plot. The editor argues that it is "harmless" and that many other articles do this. I understand his good faith intentions in adding the information but my argument is that it is simply not relevant, it is minutiae or trivia. (My past experience has been that inflation adjusted figures do not improve film plot sections, but I haven't been able to recall or dig up the one or two cases where I discussed this before).

Talk:Entrapment_(film)#Inflation_adjusted_figures

It doesn't come up very often but perhaps the style guide should address the issue, and warn that inflation adjusted figures should only be used when there is a particularly strong reason for doing so, not simply because it can easily be done using the template. Or maybe I'm wrong and editors would like to see articles include inflation adjusted figures more often? -- ~2025-43070-44 (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Still no comments? Needs a 3rd opinion. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. I remain skeptical that inflation adjusted figures are ever appropriate in plot sections. Some editors might believe it is helpful but I believe it sets a bad precedent for an encyclopedia. -- ~2025-43070-44 (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey folks, I’m doing a review of The Stuff, and I’m wondering about the release date. I can’t find any indication it was released in June. I have found indications on AFI and on newspapers.com that it was released in either late August or early September of 1985. Any help updating the infobox with accurate info is appreciated. Viriditas (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS says under MOS:FILM#Historical and scientific accuracies:

If analysis is limited, links should be provided to historical or scientific articles so readers can read about topics based in reality after reading about the work of fiction that uses these topics with dramatic license.

I am not sure how exactly to provide such links without falling afoul of WP:SYNTHESIS. Can I write something like, "the reviewers said X but the scholars said Y"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation is if there are sources discussing historic or scientific accuracy you can include a section on that, but if there are no good sources to use then you should ensure the article provides links to relevant historic or scientific articles so the readers can do their own comparison. Those links could come up naturally in the article, or be added in a "See also" section. For example, if an historic person appears in a film and there are no sources comparing their portrayal to real life, you will presumably link to the article for that person somewhere and readers can use that to read about their real history. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How about adding a separate paragraph in the accuracy section, stating that scholars have discussed these issues in such and such articles? The problem is that film reviewers and commentators often don't know what is in the scholarly literature. See for example this reviewer comment that I deleted. Our own page has the correct narrative, but I didn't know how to link to it without falling afoul of WP:SYNTHESIS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally I would have liked to say something like some reviewers said X but historical evidence exists for the film's view. Not discussing the issue at all seems like a disservice to the reader. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no sources saying that then you are definitely running into WP:SYNTH category. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Essentially, you need sources that state what so-called scholars think or interpret in comparison to what the film depicts. It shouldn't just be a random source from a scholar with no mention of the film, because then you would be synthesizing that a controversy exists.
  Also, reviewers are not historical scholars, so if their views on that aspect are to be included, it should contain proper WP:INTEXT attribution and should probably be discussed on the article's talk page to gain consensus. As long as your example removal (linked above) didn't go against an established consensus, I would agree that it was the right move. However, your change from "depicts" to "blames" introduces questionable WP:TONE, which isn't recommended unless quoting the source. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. The "blames" part is a separate issue because Nehru was not a character in the film. There was apparently commentary (voiceover) that "bashed" Nehru, according to a reviewer. I will add a citation to that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncertain on how we handle multiple production countries in the MOS.

Currently, the manual of style suggests "If the nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), identify it in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section."

This seems complicated as per template:infobox film and a recent discussion on WP:FILM's talk page. template:infobox film notes the complications of a films nationality (near WP:FILMRUNTIME), specifically that there is no " There are no widely accepted international or even European definitions of the criteria to be used to determine the country of origin of a film." The complications of what is a requirement for a co-production or even a production within a country becomes more complicated when actually trying to look into it This older BFI one goes into details of what could qualify something for a British film. I found a similar qualifier for Canadian flms here from Stats Canada in the early 1980s. These are all obviously only attributable to the dates the films were made.

So when it says "cover the different national interests later in the lead section." how should this be done? In some cases, this can be relatively simple. In others, like our discussion recently at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Nationality_for_the_Super_Mario_Galaxy_Movie, various sources would share different blips and often limit their information to a simple "Country: United States" or "[film title] [country/countries] [runtime]" and its very rare to find any sources or writing that go into detail on the how and why they came up with this info. I'm also a bit torn about this even being in the lead per MOS:INTRO "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article", but we rarely discuss this kind of material in the prose the way the MOS for film is set-up and how much writing about the nationality of a single film usually is.

Does anyone have any solid articles where this is handled well? From there I think we might be able to phrase this part of the MOS a bit better. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would also help if someone could find a recent (because old FA has much less actual standards) FA film article that is a co-production. Gonnym (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at more recent Featured articles

• KPop Demon Hunters (passed in December 2025) is referred to as American in its infobox. There are two citations in the lead (presumably for the genre). In them, the first identifies its production company as being a "Japanese corporation Sony Pictures Animation". There appears to be no discussion of why its labeled as American within the article.
• Pulgasari (passed in 2025) does go into it bit, but just cites one source in the infobox, while the prose mentions several companies involved, but seems to be a bit synth-y to me just citing several sources between Japanese and Korean studios, and a single one for the Chinese one then presumes it as production between all of them. (this is a lot to sift through, but this is just another good example of how complicated it is to get these kind of details across.) The lead does state it as a " A co-production between North Korea, Japan, and China," but the prose in the article suggests the previous problem I mentioned. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be no discussion of why its labeled as American within the article because Sony Pictures Animation is an American company, not a Japanese one. Gonnym (talk) 09:30, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I'm not here to disagree about that, but it would be confusing for anyone else wondering what that source is doing in the lead and shows how this material is or isnt discussed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

...it would be confusing for anyone else wondering what that source is doing in the lead

The sources are placed right next to the genre, urban fantasy. They are providing support for that claim. Their purpose seems pretty clear to me. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thats because you know wiki standards work. If anyone checked this and read what I read, it wouldn't line up. For someone so adamant about having no sources in the infobox, I'm surprised you are okay with citing genres in the first sentence if the lead. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For someone so adamant about having no sources in the infobox...

I know you know that wasn't what I said in the thread where I had to explain NOCON to you, but let's stay focused on content, shall we? Let's get right to the point...

Now that you've looked at a couple FA examples and cleared up any confusion you had, are you still hoping to make a change in the MoS excerpt you've highlighted at the top or at Template talk:Infobox film? If so, what specific changes would you propose? -- GoneIn60 (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't really defined a problem; what does "handle multiple production companies" mean? If there are multiple production companies, we list them out in the article and infobox. Similarly, if they come from multiple countries, we list out the countries in the infobox. The infobox lists as data the various people and entities involved with the film, on an inclusive basis, supported by appropriate citation.

If the question is about how the film is described in the lead section of the article, that is based on how it is described in reliable sources, as for any other descriptor within the film article, or any other type of article on WP. If the film is widely described as "American" then in WP it's an American film; just the same principle used for descriptors such as "acclaimed", "horror", "epic" or "flopped". Or, indeed, "co-production". Yes, sometimes achieving consensus around the balance of sources can be challenging, just as it can be for many articles across the site; resolving these is the essence of being a WP editor. Where we sometimes run into difficulties, often with editors who concentrate on film and TV rather than editing more broadly, is with the assumption that the countries in the infobox somehow derive or determine the descriptor in the article, or alternatively that the descriptor can be deduced by looking at the film's financing, or where the production companies are based. Sometimes these used to be advanced as 'rules' for film articles, when no such rules exist, and such an approach is effectively WP:SYNTH, since the descriptor isn't being sourced explicitly. American or British or French films are ones that are described as such in reliable sources - sometimes it's helpful to look at English-speaking sources outside the country of production for these as, for example, an American film is more likely to be so described in the British or Australian film press, with American sources taking it for granted. MapReader (talk) 07:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what this post is supposed to say in regard to this conversation. The is issue is that we are told to "cover the different national interests later in the lead section", but if the lead is supposed to represent the prose in the article, where and how should this be written in a general way? I'm sure there will be outliers, but I don't see anywhere that would be an appropriate fit. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:23, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest is the solution? Maybe your suggestion will help us understand the problem more. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure! I'm open to suggestions, but I think the current structure seems to be against what MOS:INTRO is about, i.e: having the material in the lead be representative of the context of the article. This would also go for genre like in the K-Pop Demon Hunters genre cite. The closest thing I can think of citing it in the infobox as I have suggested in my recent infobox suggestion and which appears to be the preferred solution in the current discussion about the Super Mario Movie discussion. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I understand you correctly... Your primary concern is the placement of items in the lead (like genres) that aren't covered in the body, and you feel that doing so is in violation of MOS:LEAD? Are there any other secondary concerns besides that? -- GoneIn60 (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's that, but the discussion in this item was also for the nationality of the film. Its one of those things that's hard to "discuss" or find discussion about in studies on film to give a fledged out discussion. But seems to be something people researching film seem to find important in term of discussing this type of material. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, well I can help describe the current state of things. The Film project has taken the stance that basic descriptors, such as genre and nationality, are elements that should usually be present in the lead per MOS:FILMLEAD. These do not necessarily need to be addressed in the article body. Per MOS:LEAD:

Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

Items considered basic facts are exceptions. We see this addressed in more detail with examples down in MOS:LEADNO. Now in some rare situations, one of these basic details may have received extensive coverage in sources, for whatever reason, which would warrant additional coverage in the body. That could happen and maybe has happened, but it wouldn't be the norm. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

These "basic facts" are complicated though, as what makes something the nationality is, as established, it is not an easy to clarify. So the lead asking us to explain it in the lead is where problems come in. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But it is easy to classify in most cases. In situations where it's not, find the necessary sourcing and cover it in more detail down in the body. If the necessary sourcing doesn't exist, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS may decide to omit it altogether. Seems like a logical approach. What other options are there? -- GoneIn60 (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"down in the body" is a very vague. Where per the MOS, would you suggest? This is where the problem kicks in. Nobody has been able to provide an area where this fits. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some rules are meant to be a little vague for a reason. Wouldn't nationality be discussed in the Production section? I'm sure local consensus can figure it out on a case-by-case basis. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's not how it's currently being handled. Please note per my user page I'm on a vacation. Regardless, you seem to be arguing it should be handled elsewhere and not in the lead which is currently what the MOS states. So I presume you also think it should be explained elsewhere. This would require it to be updated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzejbanas, you've been asked to make a suggestion here, yet all you seem to want to do is have someone explain something so you can criticize it. Again, I invite you to make a suggestion on how you would improve things, and also how you would change the MoS. If you aren't able to do either, then I'm not sure there's anything to discuss. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Use a footnote in the infobox to clarify the situation for the country when it's complicated. simple solution. I'm aware of wp:infobox purpose. Please don't rush to close. I was seeing if someone else had a suggestion first or if I was misunderstanding. This is the best solution in my mind. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox film budget says "If there are conflicting estimates, do not cherry-pick; list each estimate either as an individual value or as a number range."

I understand "do not cherry-pick" to mean that budget figures should not be excluded. I do not think that editors can know for sure if outlier budget figures might represent something else (such as the price the film was greenlit at not the final spend, or the net budget after tax credits, or something else entirely) we simply do not know for sure.

Some editors have interpreted this guideline differently, and do not see excluding certain sources as cherry picking. In good faith they have found a source where the director of the film said it had a budget of $150 million and taken that as good enough reason to exclude a lower budget figure from The-Numbers.com. I think we cannot be sure what the lower figure means and the intention of the documentation (and my vague recollection of past discussion) was that such lower figures should be retained, with the exception of cases of forced financial disclosers (such as the Sony hack, lawsuits, or UK tax reporting requirements).

Do editors think the director giving the budget in an interview is reason enough to exclude the alternative budget figure from The-Numbers.com? Even with all the good faith in the world I do not think editors should be excluding sources, without WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. It would be nice to believe that the most frequently stated budget figure was the correct one but Hollywood frequently lies and excluding figures from conflicting would be a misunderstanding of the intention behind that Template:Infobox film documentation.

Specifically Talk:The_Incredible_Hulk_(film)#Restore_budget_range but also Talk:Iron_Man_(2008_film)#Budget_range_should_be_restored -- ~2025-43070-44 (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I remember an old article from NPR [1] which talked about ballooning budgets on films, with Spider-Man 3 costing more than Sony was willing to admit, and Pirates of the Carribean, and Transformers 2007 costing considerably more than $150 million. Sometimes filmmakers like to brag about their big budgets but as journalist Kim Masters explained in the article the studios fear cost inflation and don't want to admit the real budget because they'll have to pay the next guy more. ("You know, that kind of thing doesn't play real well in the Hollywood clubhouse, because, well, first of all, the guy across the street is, like, I can't believe you did that. Now I am being harassed by the agent who made your deal or the agent who didn't make your deal because I have to match it.")

My point is Hollywood budgets are a murky subject and this encyclopedia should not attempt to select the best figures based on a sense of confidence about it being the right one, film articles need to keep all the figures. (More recently Disney lied about how much Snow White cost until UK tax filings showed it cost more than they were saying.[2]) - ~2025-43070-44 (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The opposite is happening here, you are advocating for adding lower reported budgets that appear to be outdated, when the higher budgets coming from more reliable sources after the films were released are more likely to be accurate. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This happened before, "appear to be outdated" those arguments were made too, but an editor deciding what sources are out of date is subjective. Again some editors interpret it as cherry picking, other editors see it as using "more reliable sources" but the documentation makes no such distinction. Without specific context we cannot know for sure what those lower figures meant and confidently exclude them (as I previously mentioned the lower estimates often indicated that a film started and was greenlit with a certain budget but ended up finally spending far more). "you are advocating for adding " I am advocating for restoring the status quo. The documentation was written to warn against this, it was quite deliberate that the articles included the budget range for many years. Recent good faith updates go against what the intention of the documentation. -- ~2025-43070-44 (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Editors must always decide whether sources are up-to-date and accurate. Information from certain sources, even the most reliable, is not just added to Wikipedia unilaterally and assumed to be accurate forever. As I pointed out in one of the other discussions where you are bludgeoning about this, WP:UNDUE applies here. If all the reliable sources gave one figure at one time, and then later changed to a different figure, then clearly something has changed about what they know and it is undue to treat both figures as equal. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Adam makes a good point here (diff) about WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. If it was just me arguing with only him over some other fact in a film article I'd take his point, and weigh the various sources accordingly but this case, the case of budget figures specifically is where the documentation expressly says not to pick. The mode value appears most often but that doesn't necessarily make it the right answer, so too budget figures. -- ~2025-43070-44 (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If updated sourcing at any point provides a better, more reliable, and clearer indication of a budget (beyond what is potentially pre-release estimates), then it is fine to update. This doesn't just apply to budget numbers, but any piece of information about any topic. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with this and added my thoughts here. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOMOREARCHIVETODAY links to archive.today should be replaced with other archive sites. If you maintain GA, FA, or FL articles, please make sure those links get replaced as soon as possible. See Wikipedia:Archive.today guidance for more information. Gonnym (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I’m now glad I always used Archive.org. Wow. Mike Allen 12:31, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]