Talk:The Ice Age Adventures of Buck Wild

Absence of characters
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)

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

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

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

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


 * Remove tv series section. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 14:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I remove the TV series section. ZX2006XZ (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * now it’s almost ready let me look over it and fix some things. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 14:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @ZX2006XZ I’ve put it up for review again seeing that everything looks good. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 14:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm pinging, , , and . ZX2006XZ (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it January 28th yet? 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 16:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also the reason it got declined in 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).  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. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 16:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with. 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)

The Guideline
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)


 * @Robert McClenon Are these okay independent sources Newsbreak, The Suburban, UPI, and CNN in Spanish? ― Kaleeb18</b>Talk<sub style="position:relative;right:20q;margin-right:-15px;">Caleb 22:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And the the AP? ― <b style="background:#000;color:#f07b3a;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Kaleeb18</b>Talk<sub style="position:relative;right:20q;margin-right:-15px;">Caleb 22:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Can someone accept the page as it is now out. ― <b style="background:#000;color:#f07b3a;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Kaleeb18</b>Talk<sub style="position:relative;right:20q;margin-right:-15px;">Caleb 17:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Brojam (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Question Regarding the Soundtrack
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)

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

Why they didn't use the 20th Century Studios logo?
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Music, release, and the reverted edits of 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)


 * 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? ― <b style="background:#000;color:#f07b3a;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Kaleeb18</b>Talk<sub style="position:relative;right:20q;margin-right:-15px;">Caleb 03:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. ― <b style="background:#000;color:#f07b3a;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Kaleeb18</b>Talk<sub style="position:relative;right:20q;margin-right:-15px;">Caleb 03:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Both the infobox and the list of music should be removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 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. ― <b style="background:#000;color:#f07b3a;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Kaleeb18</b>Talk<sub style="position:relative;right:20q;margin-right:-15px;">Caleb 03:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Is This Film Canon?
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)


 * What do you mean by is this film canon? It’s already been released on Disney+. ― <b style="background:#000;color:#f07b3a;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Kaleeb18</b>Talk<sub style="position:relative;right:20q;margin-right:-15px;">Caleb 13:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 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)


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


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

Sequel! Spin-off. Standalone?
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 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)
 * 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. 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)
 * Here is your rs saying it’s a spinoff Variety, here is one for standalone Cinemaexpress. This is one for sequel Screen Rant ― <b style="background:#000;color:#f07b3a;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Kaleeb18</b>Talk<sub style="position:relative;right:20q;margin-right:-15px;">Caleb 11:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Reverting to the GA reviewed version of the lead did not address the issue 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). 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)
 * I’m not really wanting to look for reliable sources right now as I am busy, but maybe, , , or 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. ― <b style="background:#000;color:#f07b3a;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Kaleeb18</b>Talk<sub style="position:relative;right:20q;margin-right:-15px;">Caleb 14:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

An editor continues to insert "standalone" into the summary 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)


 * Ok if you would like to you could kindly message them on their talk page as they will likely not see your message here. ― <b style="background:#000;color:#f07b3a;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Kaleeb18</b>Talk<sub style="position:relative;right:20q;margin-right:-15px;">Caleb 00:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Well it looks like they might be a new editor so they probably don’t know that ― <b style="background:#000;color:#f07b3a;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Kaleeb18</b>Talk<sub style="position:relative;right:20q;margin-right:-15px;">Caleb 11:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)