Talk:Dora and the Search for Sol Dorado

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

CC License?

[edit]

Hi all. I have found these videos by NickRewind under CC License.

Can screenshots from these be used in this page? I think it would be helpful for briefing cast and characters. Hope for a kind and helpful response, thank you! M. Billoo 21:11, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel or Reboot?

[edit]

This question has been answered here in this reference. The story is a reboot, which redefines all the characters, and altogether tells a new story. So it is not related to the 2019 film. Thank you! M. Billoo 18:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

#Production

[edit]

I do not think this is reliable to source here. The link uses images from Wikimedia, and now has a changed date (added in article in August 2024, the link now says May 2025).

Instead, I am looking up to replace it with these [1] [2]. Need a while to extract the encyclopedic info. Thank you. M. Billoo 15:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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: rejected by reviewer, closed by Launchballer talk 16:04, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
5x expanded by M.Billoo2000 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

M. Billoo 15:21, 5 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: No - None of these hooks are particularly interesting. They're just generic facts about the film.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Can you come up with an interesting hook? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts: Thank you for the feedback, dear admin. How about these?
Any help is most welcome, thank you! M. Billoo 04:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think any of these are particularly interesting or unusual. Also, a tennis ball was used as a stand-in during filming, not to animate the monkey. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
M. Billoo 05:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ALT8 is fancruft and ALT9 is incorrect; both of the sources state that Dora is the source of the map's power, not that Dora's map is not the Map. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response, dear admin. The revelation that Dora has always been the map... I am still confused how to pick up the hook, need help. M. Billoo 07:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that I'm an admin isn't relevant to your DYK nomination; I'm reviewing this as just another editor. Per WP:DYKHOOK: The hook should be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest in the topic. Per WP:DYKFICTION: If the subject of the hook is a creative work, the hook must be focused on a real-world fact. I'm not sure how else to explain that the hook must be "unusual or intriguing". Not every fact is "unusual or intriguing" and not every article is going to have an interesting-enough fact to qualify for DYK. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this is not a fancruft and qualifies real world fact. M. Billoo 11:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

[edit]

Hi, thank you for your contributions!

@SomeAnotherCastaway: Sorry, I really did mess up in recognizing Daniella and Mariana, I should have rectified it. But, please see Template:Infobox film, it says, "As a starting point, use the WP:PRIMARY source of the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release as a rule of thumb for listing starring actors." Further, it has a footnote, "The original poster is also called the "one sheet" and is the ideal source for this information."

Which poster? If you're talking about the character posters, those do not count for billing blocks.SomeAnotherCastaway (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the poster itself is the better proof to depict and identify the lead cast (as per the policy footnote), no need to have a text inside it every time. Otherwise, the end credits may have more names, and not everyone is the lead cast. M. Billoo 02:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did some more work. Aside from this set of primary refs, there are some secondary references including Deadline, Parents, Vareity, etc., that indicate Daniella as also one of the lead. But found none who say Christian Gnecco Quintero, so I do not think mentioning his name is good here as per the second part of the above highlighted policy. M. Billoo 05:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. This is how it usually goes. If there is no billing block in the poster, then we use the billing block in the end credits. NOT secondary sources, NOT character posters, and most certainly NOT judging it by which characters are on the poster.SomeAnotherCastaway (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SomeAnotherCastaway: Since I am having a sort of disagreement, I think I should ask for a 3O. Please do not mind. Thank you! M. Billoo 05:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3O Response: SomeAnotherCastaway's justification is faulty. The infobox also notes that alternative approaches can be used with sufficient sourcing and editor consensus, and there is more than sufficient sourcing to justify the alternative in my mind. MOS:FILMCAST lists several options for sourcing separation of actors, with billing only one of them. OnyxIris (talk) 07:38, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that since there is no billing block on the poster and no cast list on the poster either, we would only use the end credits billing for the infobox. I'm not worried when it comes to the Cast section, as that is when we would use the other options. But when it comes to the infobox itself, the billing is the best way to go. SomeAnotherCastaway (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GatekeeperofCoolness: I can understand your point, but consider another case. What if a film is released on VOD and then also theatrically? Would it be called a theatrical film or not? I assume yes, and similar case is here. The subject is stated in multiple references as a film on television and VOD, both. Plus, it is not billed as a Paramount+ only, the poster itself says Nickelodeon as well – same day of release. If the dates were different, then your point would be valid.

Hope I cleared my point. Awaiting the feedback, thank you! M. Billoo 01:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. But I still don't agree. But also, it's been a rough day for me and I don't wanna get worked up over something as small as whether or not a film I haven't even seen should be put into a certain category. Basically what I'm saying is if you wanna put the category back, I won't revert it or start some edit war. And I appreciate that you actually took this straight to the talk page to calmly work this out instead of just going "nuh-uh" and reverting it like that one user who kept removing it (and several other films) from the Nickelodeon Movies page just because it was a simultaneous release and he felt it shouldn't count despite it opening with the logo.
I went on a tangent there. Basically what I'm saying is that as long as you're not like that guy, we should be good. Thank you again and apologies for starting this brief little spat. GatekeeperofCoolness (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GatekeeperofCoolness: I did not know what is going on, so I stayed back. But based upon this reply above and the recent edits, it seems like a history of content dispute with Akandkur.
  • Have you two tried discussing out?
  • Who are the "So many people" who told to stop and are not on the other side?
Sorry for the need to dig out, but I assume this needs to be clean and clear on one page. Thank you! M. Billoo 07:52, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just look through the history of the List of Nickelodeon Movies productions page. As far as I can tell, this has been going on for over a year. I only got wrapped up in it recently. GatekeeperofCoolness (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me say something. Based on articles and trailers, I don't think these movies that aired on TV are credited as Nickelodeon Movies. First, it was announced to be released on Paramount+, but when it comes to airing on TV in every latest announcement (rather than only on Paramount+), then each film gets credited as Nickelodeon Original Film. Akhil K. (talk) 04:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Akandkur: How about "Paramount and Nickelodeon were incredibly collaborative", "La película es una coproducción entre Paramount Players, Nickelodeon Movies y Walsh Valdés Productions", and "A Paramount+ release of a Nickelodeon Studios production? Plus, I disagree with your change of genres, based upon the citations provided under #Production and #Reception sections. I find it hard to call this a "fantasy" film. M. Billoo 05:40, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I just woke up and I'm tired so let's just come up with a compromise. I've checked each of there movies we've disputed over in the past. They've all started with the Nickelodeon Movies logo. I feel like that means they belong in the Nickelodeon Movies pages. But because they're also simultaneous releases of Nickelodeon itself, they can still be TV movies and Nickelodeon originals. There's really no reason they can't be Nickelodeon Movies and Nick originals. There's quite a few films released under Nickelodeon Movies that they didn't actually produce. Paws of Fury comes to mind. So that's my idea. We just go with both. Categorize them as TV films with the info boxes and everything. But we still call them Nickelodeon Movies. The source is literally the beginning of each of these movies and you can check if you don't believe me. I feel like this is a good compromise GatekeeperofCoolness (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see better reason to change the infobox, the article is completely written under MOS:FILM policy. Otherwise, the main problem would be the plot, we need to reduce it as per MOS:TV. That infobox mainly suits if there are multiple release dates, episodes, seasons, etc. Here and here is what I have discovered from some history that how the infobox was changed for a TV film. And then see this digital film's current infobox. The main problem here is, being a simultaneous release. Another example, see this. M. Billoo 19:49, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you wanna change the infobox, then change the infobox. I only changed it back because of this guy's weird insistence over what does and doesn't count as a Nick movie. If you wanna do it, I won't stop you. As long as you don't take out the parts where it says it was released under "Nickelodeon Movies", we should be good. Otherwise, I'm ready to stop getting e-mails about this. GatekeeperofCoolness (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is to say I forgot that I initially agreed to not remove the television label after our discussion a couple weeks ago. I'll admit I was blinded by irritation and I apologize for that. If you put the categories and infobox back, I won't change them back. All that matters to me in the long run is that it (and several others) count as "Nickelodeon Movies". GatekeeperofCoolness (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

[edit]

@SomeAnotherCastaway: I am going with the sourced version, as also mentioned in above 3O comment, due to the sufficiency.

@GatekeeperofCoolness: I am ok with the current state of infobox, and with the categories as you have originally suggested.

Hope this does not create any trouble, thank you! M. Billoo 14:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT SOURCED VERSION?! SomeAnotherCastaway (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Special:Diff/1303468110 and read WP:3O policies. I request for not creating any dispute, because I have nominated the article for WP:GA now. M. Billoo 15:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Brother, I told you, if there is no billing block on any of the posters, then we use the billing block in the end credits for the starring section in the infobox tab. That is how it usually goes. SomeAnotherCastaway (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. So the 3O editor called your justification faulty, and pointed toward the sufficient sourcing. M. Billoo 15:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Betty Logan: The other user tries to explain that the infobox and lead section should have cast as per the main credits in the film, only if there is no billing block inside the poster. While on the other side, I say that there are enough secondary references to support my identification of the lead cast to be added there. However, despite the third opinion pointed toward my favour and called the other justification faulty, the user still undid my edit. M. Billoo 16:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The disagreement has been for one month now. Here are the previous revisions: Special:Diff/1300778153, Special:Diff/1300804170, Special:Diff/1303439691, Special:Diff/1303442278. This lead me to start this talk page discussion and multiple reminders on the other user's talk page, instead of reverting them. Thank you! M. Billoo 16:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have reviewed the discussion and the diffs above. First of all, I believe the lead and the infobox are being conflated. Let's deal with the infobox first.
    • The purpose of the "starring" field in the infobox is to identify the stars of the film. This should adhere to strict billing order. Usually the billing block identifies the billing order of the stars, but in this case the poster does not have one. Films often typically identify the stars in the film itself (either by listing them before the main title or after the main title with the word "starring"). I don't accept the main cast list at the end of the film is a valid mechanism for identifying the stars because this lists the entire cast and it does not clear make it explicitly clear who the stars are. An other solution is to defer to a reliable source, such as Variety, who identify the principal cast as Samantha Lorraine, Jacob Rodriguez, Daniella Pineda, Gabriel Iglesias, Mariana Garzón Toro, and Acston Luca Porto. The order in the infobox should reflect the order in the source.
    • As for the lead of the article, this is less formal and allows for a bit more discretion. It should list the stars of the film, but the lead can also identify other key members of the cast if the coverage in the article justifies mentioning them in the lead.
The main thing here, is that you should use an objective criteria for determining the stars. The billing block on the poster is the usual way, but if not a available then either the opening credits of the film or a reliable source will suffice. Betty Logan (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Betty Logan: The other user is referring to this, an animated credits scene after the film and just before the actual end credits on black screen. But this animated screen has three more names after "and Daniella Pineda"; J. Santiago Suarez, Scarlett Spears, Tiago Martinez.
So, I stick with my opinion. M. Billoo 00:35, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those names won't be credited. We refer to the single screen billing in the end credits if there is no billing block on the poster or opening credits. At least, that's what it usually is. SomeAnotherCastaway (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do the end credits not count if the opening credits do? They're both part of the film itself, meaning they're the same amount of reliable. SomeAnotherCastaway (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because end credits do not—as a rule—differentiate the stars from the cast members. But the trailer here clearly introduces the stars, starting with Samantha Lorraine, and concludes with "and Daniella Pineda". Based on the grammatical structure of the credits, I do not believe the names that come after Daniella Pineda are credited stars. Therefore, the stars as explicitly credited in the film are: Samantha Lorraine, Jacob Rodriguez, Mariana Garzón Toro, Acston Luca Porto, Christian Gnecco Quintero, Gabriel "Fluffy" Iglesias, and Daniella Pineda. Betty Logan (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. That's what I was trying to say. That's what I use for the infobox and starring tab. Single screen billing if no billing block is available on the poster or in the opening credits. SomeAnotherCastaway (talk) 05:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably you changed the decision and concluded this only after the reference I provided to support the other user's claim, because I had clearly seen two votes above in favor of my argument.

What if there is actually no such reference available, how could someone else reach consensus without watching the film and only studying the available references – against those who claim their edit is made after watching the film?

MOS:PLOT is understandable, because no one else can compete by providing references there until there are some major spoilers. But I think this specific part of WP:FILMCAST* policy is not doing well and needs to be challenged fairly.

Thank you. M. Billoo 00:26, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided my thoughts based on the evidence available. {{Infobox film}} is the applicable guideline for the infobox and WP:FILMLEAD is the applicable guideline for the lead, not WP:FILMCAST. To quote the relevant bit:

As a starting point, use the WP:PRIMARY source of the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release as a rule of thumb for listing starring actors. If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits. An alternative approach may be determined by local consensus and with WP:SECONDARY sources. Use either the {{plainlist}} or {{ubl}} template for multiple entries, and link each actor to their article if possible. Don't add additional text (such as "with" or "featuring") or punctuation to the list.

The aim here is to determine who the stars are and the correct billing order, which the screen credits from the trailer provide. They literally use the word "starring" before the names, so this is not ambiguous. I am sympathetic that you didn't get the conclusion you seek, but you should be pleased that you provided the decisive information. Remember, Wikipedia is not about winning, it's about getting things right. You followed the rules by securing third-party viewpoints and we have reached a point where we can now determine the proper billing order. Betty Logan (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
*Striked and correction: infobox and lead policies. I mistakenly linked wrong, sorry, despite already discussing the actual one the whole time. Thank you. M. Billoo 01:00, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]