Talk:It's Coming (film)

Cherry picking tag discussion

The article has been tagged for "cherry picked sources" but I believe this tag may not be appropriate. The article includes:

• Coverage from major industry publication Variety
• Reviews from multiple independent publications
• Festival coverage (Hot Docs International Documentary Festival)
• Distribution news from industry sources
• Reviews from established horror/film publications

All sources are properly cited and verifiable. The reviews happen to be positive, but this reflects the actual documented reception of the film rather than selective sourcing. No negative reviews have been excluded as they do not exist.

Would appreciate discussion on whether this tag is warranted given the comprehensive nature of the sources used. Stan1900 (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Paid editing tag discussion

This article follows Wikipedia's guidelines for neutral content: - Uses major industry sources (Variety coverage of Hot Docs premiere) - Includes independent critical reviews from multiple publications - Maintains neutral tone throughout - All claims are properly cited with reliable sources - No promotional language used

The article focuses on verifiable facts and independent coverage rather than promotional content. Stan1900 (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Are Home In Hollywood (publication) or Lisa Johnson Mandell (writer in it) notable? What about Grimoire of Horror or Kate DeJonge? DMacks (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The articles demonstrate the notability of these topics per Wikipedia's guidelines:

At Home In Hollywood and Lisa Johnson Mandell's notability is supported by coverage of Mandell's work premiering the film in Variety, an established entertainment industry source. Mandell is a Rotten Tomatoes verified critic and a very active member of the Critics Choice Association (CCA).

Grimoire of Horror and its senior critic Kate DeJonge, who is Rotten Tomatoes verified, have been substantially covered in respected, long-running horror publications beyond routine listings or promotional material.

This coverage in independent reliable sources satisfies the general notability guideline and the criteria for films, publications and creative professionals. Stan1900 (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Request to remove paid editing template

I formally request removal of the paid editing template from 'It's Coming'. This article was not created or edited for any payment or compensation. The content is based on multiple independent, reliable sources including:

• Variety's coverage of the Hot Docs International Documentary Festival premiere
• ComingSoon.net's exclusive coverage
• Horror Society's reporting on distribution acquisition
• Multiple independent critical reviews from:
  • Sun Coast News (Lee Clark Zumpe)
  • Toronto Guardian (Michelle Ormsby)
  • Women in Horror (Staci Lynn Wilson)

All content maintains a neutral point of view and is supported by verifiable third-party sources as shown in the references section. The paid editing template should be removed as these contributions were made independently to improve Wikipedia's coverage of documentary films. ~~~~ Stan1900 (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

New Page Patrol Review

This article was recently moved out of draft and is awaiting review by New Page Patrol. Contributions are based on verified independent sources, and any input from experienced editors would be welcome to ensure the article meets all standards for indexing. Thank you! Stan1900 (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Follow-Up: Request for Removal of Paid Editing Template

Hello

I am following up on the previous request to remove the paid editing tag. As mentioned, this article was not created or edited for any form of compensation. All contributions have been made independently with verifiable, reliable sources and comply with Wikipedia's neutrality and verifiability guidelines. Independent coverage includes reputable sources such as Variety's report on the Hot Docs International Documentary Festival premiere and reviews from notable outlets like Film Threat and Rotten Tomatoes.

The content has been written to provide factual, third-party perspectives without any promotional language or bias. Given the demonstrated independence of the article's creation and the neutral presentation, I kindly request the removal of the paid editing template.

Thank you for your time and assistance! Stan1900 (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Follow-Up: Request for New Page Patrol Review of It's Coming

I am following up on my previous request regarding the new page review for the article It's Coming. The article was moved out of draft space and into mainspace on November 30, 2024, and I understand it is currently awaiting review by New Page Patrol.

The content is based on multiple independent, reliable sources and has been written to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines for verifiability and neutrality. I recently added a Reception section that includes a 100% Rotten Tomatoes score and critical consensus, further demonstrating the film's notability and reception.

Any feedback or assistance from experienced editors would be greatly appreciated to ensure it meets all standards for indexing and categorization. Stan1900 (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Promotional tag

I recently added a promotional tag due to the great majority of the article consisting of positive press coverage. My impression is that the entire Reception section should be removed. The article is clearly promotional in its current form and seems to have been created by a very pushy single purpose account. Any thoughts pro or con the removal? Axad12 (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed the reception section is unduely promotional. Theroadislong (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I've now removed the Reception section. Also some unsourced info and material that wasn't borne out by the source indicated. As a result I have also removed the "Promotional" tag. Axad12 (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Axad12, Theroadislong, the removal of the entire Reception section wholesale, despite consisting of neutrally-presented information from reliable sources goes against policies on verifiability and neutral point of view.

Removing properly-cited content simply because it is positive in nature sets a dangerous precedent. I request restoration of the Reception section with its reliable sources.

Stan1900 (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

No, the removal was reasonable because it is in line with WP:CONSENSUS. Axad12 (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Axad12, removing properly sourced content without discussion is not "consensus." The Reception section contained verifiable information from reliable sources. If you have specific concerns about content or sourcing, please identify them rather than making blanket removals Stan1900 (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Consensus relates to editors agreeing on a course of action, which is what happened above. Copying in Theroadislong who agreed with the removals.

Certainly there is no consensus for inclusion, which is what you would require for the material to be included in the article. Axad12 (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Axad12, that's not how consensus works on Wikipedia. Two editors agreeing to remove well-sourced content from reliable publications without specific content concerns does not override Wikipedia's core content policies.

The Reception section contained:

• Verified reviews from established publications
• A documented Rotten Tomatoes score and consensus
• Proper citations for every statement
• Factual reporting of critical response

If you believe content from reliable sources shouldn't be included, the burden is on you to demonstrate why it violates Wikipedia policies. Simply declaring content "promotional" without identifying specific issues isn't sufficient justification for removal.

I request restoration of the properly sourced content unless specific policy-based concerns can be identified.

Theroadislong, could you please specify which particular statements from the reliable sources you found promotional? Stan1900 (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes it is how consensus works. Axad12 (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Let's be honest here...

Pretty much every user who has contributed to the various threads you've started disagrees with what you've been trying to achieve.

That is also a consensus.

Also, misquoting policy won't help you. The onus is on the party in favour of inclusion (for which see WP:ONUS) not on the party in favour of removal.

Nice try, but gaslighting won't work.

You may also want to look at WP:FORUMSHOP. Axad12 (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Axad12,

1. What you're calling consensus is actually just a few editors agreeing to remove properly sourced content without specific policy-based concerns. Real consensus requires actual discussion of content issues, not just removing material because reviews happen to be positive.

2. Using appropriate Wikipedia venues for different purposes isn't "forum shopping" - it's following proper processes. Talk pages for initial discussion, help desk for guidance, NPOV board for content neutrality issues. When talk pages receive no response, seeking input through proper channels is legitimate.

3. Citing WP:ONUS while removing reliably sourced content from established publications misapplies the policy. The content meets standards with proper sources and neutral presentation. If you have concerns about content, they should be identified, not wrapped in vague accusations.

The continued removal of properly sourced content while making unfounded accusations about contributors' motivations is anticonstructive editing. Stan1900 (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

You are wrong on all 3 counts. Axad12 (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Axad12, stating "You are wrong on all 3 counts" without any explanation or policy-based justification exemplifies the problem here. Wikipedia is built on collaborative discussion and specific policy-based reasoning, not unfounded declarations. If you have actual policy based objections to the points, present them so we can have a constructive discussion. Stan1900 (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I have already discussed these points with you in considerable detail. Stop wasting my time with your incorrect and self-serving interpretations of policies and guidelines. Axad12 (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

"The film documents the family's encounters with unexplained supernatural and paranormal entities and their attempts to understand these occurrences."

This doesn't fit in wiki-voice. "What the film-maker considers the family's encounters with unexplained supernatural..." or something like that might work. Also, a "Synopsis" or similar section would be good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, thank you for the constructive feedback about the lead's wording. Your suggestion about wiki-voice is well taken. How about this revision:

"The film follows a family reporting encounters with unexplained phenomena and their attempts to understand these experiences."

Regarding a Synopsis section - yes, that would be a good addition. I can draft one based on reliable sources. Would you be willing to review it once drafted?

Stan1900 (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

That sounds better. I can take a look, sure. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I've implemented your suggested changes to improve the wiki-voice in the lead and added a Synopsis section as discussed. I've rephrased it to "follows a family reporting encounters with unexplained phenomena" to maintain neutral language. Please let me know if you think this works better. Thank you for your constructive feedback. Stan1900 (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

That looks ok to me. I haven't seen the film, but it sounds plausible. The poster is giving me Candyman-vibes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

User:Stan1900 says here [1] that they are an “authorized representative” they CLEARLY have an undisclosed conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Theroadislong An authorized rep for image licensing does not inherently create COI. My involvement has been strictly limited to facilitating factual corrections and ensuring images were properly licensed—both fully compliant with Wikipedia's policies.

There is no evidence to support your claims. I have repeatedly stated that I reached out to the rights holder to obtain source materials due to the lack of available information on the films. These accusations are baseless and detract from the real issue: the improper removal of neutrally written, well-sourced content about notable films that meet inclusion criteria.

Misusing COI accusations to exclude verifiable content is far more disruptive than working within guidelines to provide accurate information. Vague accusations and gatekeeping harm Wikipedia’s mission to inform. My simple goal is to collaborate and ensure these articles meet high standards, not engage in personal disputes. Stan1900 (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

You said "Being authorized to handle tasks like verifying copyright or providing accurate information does not mean that contributions are biased or promotional." To Wikipedians, this does indeed sound like a WP:COI-situation. Possibly WP:PAID as well, why else would someone agree to be authorized to provide accurate information? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I appreciate your concern and want to clarify my statement:

1. My 'authorized' status was specifically for image licensing/copyright verification only - the process being that requires someone with authority to confirm poster licensing rights. This was handled through proper channels and is documented.

2. Regarding 'providing accurate information' - this referred to basic fact verification (dates, releases, locations etc.) similar to how any editor may verify facts with primary sources. This was 100% not a paid or official role.

3. All my content contributions:

- Are based entirely on reliable, independent sources

- Follow NPOV guidelines

- Include both positive and critical coverage

- Have been properly cited

The image licensing role was necessary solely to ensure proper copyright verification for posters through established processes. This limited administrative function does not extend to content creation, which remains based on independent, published sources. Thanks. Stan1900 (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)