Talk:Iron Boy (film)

"Wendy Ide suggested that the film could be a strong contender for awards recognition. ^[1]"

is allowed to be added. Restoring properly attributed critic commentary (WP:CRYSTAL allows sourced, attributed speculation from RS). There is no reason to delete @jon698. Who are you in the first place making random edits. Claiming them as valid Hjkall (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Not critic commentary, but idle speculation. We do not just include any comment by a critic in the reception section. Jon698 (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jon698 Hjkall (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jon698 CRYSTAL doesn't ban this kind of thing. It allows sourced, attributed speculation from a reliable source, which is what this is. It's attributed to Wendy Ide by name and sourced to her Screen Daily review, not stated as fact. So it's allowed under CRYSTAL.

The phrase: "Wendy Ide suggested that the film could be a strong contender for awards recognition. ^[1]" Does the job Hjkall (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

We do not just include any random line from critic reviews. They must be relevant and notable. That line could be said for thousands of films yet we don't put it into every single article because doing so would be utterly pointless. Jon698 (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jon698 Fair point that generic "could be a contender" lines don't automatically warrant inclusion. But that's a DUE argument, not a CRYSTAL one. Your initial response was claiming that "we do not include award speculation" I countered that with the CRYSTAL. Now are you trying to make a DUE argument? Hjkall (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

We still do not include award speculation. Find me a single GA/FA film article that includes such lines. Jon698 (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jon698 That's shifting the goalposts, not addressing the policy point... GA/FA status isn't a rulebook for which sentence types are or aren't permitted... it reflects overall article quality. The absence of this kind of line in other FAs doesn't establish a rule against it; it might just mean editors judged it not particularly notable in those specific cases, which is a DUE question, not a CRYSTAL one. Hjkall (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

1. You started this by claiming award speculation isn't allowed, period. I showed that CRYSTAL permits it when attributed and sourced.
2. Now you're asking me to find precedent instead of engaging with that. So which is it? are you saying this is disallowed by policy, or that it's not notable enough for this specific article?

Hjkall (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

You do not have any actual points in favor of adding in this line. We do not include award speculation and there is no reason to include it. Jon698 (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

You appear to not understand how consensus is formed. GA/FAs articles are great examples of consensus since they explicitly require multiple editors to agree before they reach that status. Jon698 (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jon698 GA/FA articles reflect consensus on those specific articles' overall quality... they're not a substitute for citing an actual policy or guideline that prohibits this content, which you still haven't done. I've quoted CRYSTAL directly twice now; you haven't engaged with the text.

I don't think we're going to resolve this just between the two of us at this point. I'll open a WP:3O request so an uninvolved editor can weigh in. Hjkall (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jon698 I'd suggest actually reading WP:CRYSTAL before repeating that claim. It states directly that "properly sourced statements... that are almost certain to be true" and, more relevantly, attributed predictions/speculation from reliable sources are permitted, as long as they're presented as the source's view rather than as fact. That's exactly what this is: attributed to Wendy Ide, sourced to her Screen Daily review. Hjkall (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Once again: We do not allow award speculation. Jon698 (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

You seem to not be reading the CRYSTAL page. Since we don't seem to be converging, I'm going to request a third opinion per WP:3O so an uninvolved editor can weigh in. Hjkall (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute for 3O:

The disputed content is a single sentence in the reception section: "Wendy Ide suggested that the film could be a strong contender for awards recognition.", sourced to Wendy Ide's review in Screen Daily.

Position 1 (Hjkall): WP:CRYSTAL explicitly permits properly sourced, attributed speculation from reliable sources, provided it is presented as the source's opinion rather than as fact. The sentence attributes the claim by name to Wendy Ide and cites her published review, so it meets that standard.

Position 2 (Jon698): The line is generic/non-notable... similar "could be a contender" remarks appear in many film reviews, and including this kind of line in every article where a critic makes such a comment would not be a meaningful addition. Points to the absence of comparable lines in GA/FA-status film articles as evidence this type of content is not typically included.

Where the disagreement currently sits: Whether CRYSTAL's permission to include attributed speculation is sufficient on its own, or whether the specific line also needs to clear a WP:DUE/notability bar given how generic this type of critic comment tends to be. Hjkall (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jon698 I'll grant that a single "could be a contender" line in isolation is exactly the kind of generic filler you're describing, and if that's all we had, I'd see your point. But this isn't hanging on Ide's word alone. The film already won the Special Jury Prize at Cannes (Un Certain Regard), so this isn't hypothetical framing about an unproven film, and multiple other outlets independently used similar language about its awards prospects, not just Ide.

That combination is what separates this from the boilerplate case you're describing. It's not "a critic said something nice that could be said about any film" it's an assessment that lines up with the film's actual prize history and a broader critical pattern, not one isolated remark. I think that clears the notability bar you're raising, even setting the CRYSTAL point aside Hjkall (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

This is in fact idle speculation and is in fact made even less relevant by it winning awards. She is not speculating about winning one award, but awards in general. The reader also does not need to read this line as they can just look at the accolades section. Once again, no other article contains lines like this. Jon698 (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

3O Response: The reception section could probably be fleshed out further before adding quotes from reviewers. The quote itself doesn't strike me as a WP:CRYSTAL issue since it comes from a published review. However, it would be stronger if the section reflected multiple reviewers' reactions rather than highlighting a single review. This would provide a broader overview of the film's critical reception. Nemov (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2026 (UTC) Nemov (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how the line passes DUE and no other film articles includes such generic lines. Jon698 (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Nemov: Could you expand upon your comments? Your paragraph doesn't seem to answer the main question of whether the line should be included or not. Jon698 (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Nemov

I'll also note that this isn't the first time a comment I've added has been reverted without a policy citation to back it up by Jon... the same pattern held here until Nemov weighed in. I'd genuinely welcome it if future disagreements led with the specific guideline you think is being violated, rather than starting from removal and asking me to justify restoring it.

@Jon698 Nemov's 3O directly contradicts your core claim: they explicitly said the quote isn't a WP:CRYSTAL issue since it's from a published review. That was the entire basis of your original objection ("we do not include award speculation"). You still haven't cited a policy that supports that claim... this is now the second uninvolved perspective (mine and Nemov's) that doesn't support it.

What Nemov did flag is a genuine, separate point: the reception section is currently too thin, relying on one reviewer's voice. That's a fair critique, and it's actually an argument for expanding the section, not for removing the Ide line. I've pulled together excerpts from several other Cannes reviews (Hollywood Reporter, Variety, ScreenDaily, TheWrap, Cineuropa) that can be worked in alongside the existing citation. That resolves Nemov's concern about relying on a single review while keeping the properly attributed, policy-compliant content intact. How about we focus on this?

Happy to draft the expanded paragraph here first if you want to weigh in on which reviews to include. Hjkall (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

You should not be using LLM to write. You did not add any of those reviews to the page, I did. Jon698 (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

This is not LLM Hjkall (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

i never claimed you didn't. I pulled right now more quotes Hjkall (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

You obviously used LLM to write that text and you have been previously told by editors to not use LLM for your replies. Jon698 (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

That was not LLM. Hjkall (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

It obviously was LLM. You should be honest about it and stop using LLM. Jon698 (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

How about we focus on the main issue at hand, the actual article --- rather than continuously changing the topics Hjkall (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I have been in speech and debate competitions, and am very well aware of how to properly write argumentative and summary paragraphs. This is irrelevant regardless to your numerous arguments that I continue to shut down. Hjkall (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

You have been told multiple times by other editors, such as at ANI here, to not use LLM. Jon698 (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Please message me on my talk page if this is an issue you would like to bring up. This is not place nor setting for such behavior. Hjkall (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

This is the correct place since you are using LLM in this discussion. Jon698 (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion on the topic. If you think there's a behaviorial issue take it to the editors's TALK or to WP:ANI. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Nemov! Hjkall (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jon698 How the comment was drafted (which it wasn't LLM) isn't relevant to whether the CRYSTAL/DUE analysis holds up. per WP:FOC, let's keep this focused on content, not the contributor. Nemov's 3O already addressed the substance; happy to keep discussing that here. If you have a conduct concern, my user talk page is the right place for it. Hjkall (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

If you do use LLM to write more text like above I will indeed be reporting you to ANI. So please be advised not to do that. Jon698 (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Please listen to Nemov. Either take it to my talk page or bring it to WP:ANI. I will not be conversing in this chat anymore if it is not regarding the content of this talk message or Iron Boy the film. Thank you very much. Hjkall (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I recommend leaving the quote out until it's properly weighed against the rest of the reviews. I don't have a real opinion if it should be included since the section it so thin. Nemov (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good. Will back up with more evidence of positive reviews and reviews hinting towards similiar conclusions and then will replace it back in. Thank you Hjkall (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2026 (UTC)