Talk:Justin and the Knights of Valour

Animation Low‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spain Low‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: Spanish

	Film portal This article 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 articles
	This article is supported by the Spanish cinema task force.

Criticism section[edit]

It gives a summary of the plot. Not only is it unnecessary, it's also in the wrong section, whereas there's almost no information on the criticism, aside from getting negative reviews and having an 8% rotten rating.--92.114.148.141 (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Starring parameter[edit]

In this edit I condensed the obnoxious list of names in the |starring=. Per Template:Infobox film instructions, the content that should occupy this parameter are the names on the film poster's billing block. "Starring" is not the same thing as "appearing in". It's a special credit that actors negotiate with the studios for. This is the poster I used and the ordering is Highmore, Banderas, Cosmo, Dance, Egerton, Everett, Humphries, Molina, Strong, Walliams, Walters, Williams, and Ronan. Since film community consensus already exists on this point, any deviation will require a local consensus. I also removed the litany of names from the lead in the same edit. The cast section is the right place for this list. I don't understand why we're listing the Hindi cast, Hindi film dates, and so on, and frankly, I suspect some pernicious editing like this from a Sky broadband user in England at 176.26.89.143. There's no indication from sourced prose that this is an Indian co-production and I will be removing all unsourced content related to India. And I might recommend to whomever added "Hindi" to the list of countries involved, to brush up on your world geography, as Hindi isn't a country, it's a language. Any content added will need to be sourced per WP:BURDEN. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the established consensus re "starring" makes sense here. I see no particular reason to do otherwise here. Additionally, as there has clearly been a good bit of ... um ... suspicious editing in the article, a fairly strong insistence on following the sources closely make sense. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive/redundant use of photos[edit]

The headshots of Bandaras and Highmore are used twice in the article, in such close proximity that it's not really possible not to see the duplicate usages simultaneously. There is absolutely no reason why these need to be used this way, and I believe it is actually against WP policy to have a photo appear multiple times in the same article. The captions for the second use of these photos offer nothing to a discussion of the film, as this info is already in the body. Move to delete. If there is no argument, I will do it myself next week. Canonblack (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canonblack - I have no problem with that. The article was heavily vandalized for quite a long time, and that's probably a result of some of that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]