# Talk:Chef (2014 film)

Is it worth noting that Jon Favreau, Robert Downey, Jr., and Scarlett Johansson have previously worked together on the Iron Man and Avengers films?
--70.17.203.220 (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Chef (film)/GA1

Does anyone have a source on the movie's budget. Most movies on wikipedia have it listed. It seems odd especially since the movie's "low budget" status is being used as a selling point - a counter to his other movie budgets. I did a quick search but came up empty. Thanks. 50.1.125.85 (talk) 04:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It grossed over US$45 million at the box office and was well received by critics. A picture of the movie cover for "Chef" was also featured in the youtuber, FilthyFrank's video, "Vomit Cake".
ThePapaFranku (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Bazj (talk) 07:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Chef (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140529123900/http://www.suntimes.com:80/entertainment/movies/27402577-421/chef-a-funny-story-then-a-long-dinner-break.html to http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/movies/27402577-421/chef-a-funny-story-then-a-long-dinner-break.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I've semi-protected this for a year because people keep trying to add a link to FilthyFrank's YouTube video about the movie. A note to anyone that wants to add a mention of him to the article: please stop. As far as I can tell, FilthyFrank would not be seen as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Do not take this badly - most YT personalities (and reviewers in general) would not be considered a RS on here because things like that are considered to be self-published sources. 
In order to show where he would be usable you'd have to show where he has been quoted as an authority on the topic of films by other authorities in reliable sources - this almost always means coverage of the reviewer/personality in places like academic texts and mainstream newspapers. Even then the threshold for being seen as a RS is very high - and I say this as someone who has had to argue pretty hard to get some fairly obviously reliable places seen as reliable. (And even then I wasn't successful in every situation.) A person's or source's popularity doesn't play into how reliable they are or aren't - it's all about who has cited them as an authority and where. Trying to re-add this guy to Wikipedia is only going to result in longer (and possibly stronger) protections in the future. You're not doing this guy any favors and by doing this you're actually making him look kind of bad to others since this can be seen as vandalism at this point. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@TCJJ: is currently trying to add this addition to the article. Per WP:YTREF "YouTube and similar sites do not have editorial oversight engaged in scrutinizing content", and "Editors should also consider if the content being referenced is truly encyclopedic if the best citation that can be made points to YouTube". I asked TCJJ to find a more reliable source to back these claims. It may also be worth mentioning that this addition is the same reference to Filthy Frank (external link) that is continuously attempted to be added to the article. Does anyone else have an opinion on the inclusion of these YouTube references? --  samtar talk or stalk 08:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed the above from Tokyogirl79, so I'll revert again - @TCJJ: please do not revert, and instead discuss here --  samtar talk or stalk 09:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
From here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources "The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet." You have contradicting statements. By this definition, the other definition, under (YouTube) Videos as references cancels this out. You can't really have one or the other, even though the latter is trying to be an exclusion list but again, contradicts some of what is defined by Wikipedia as a reliable source.
Considering that the YouTube URLs are the original source and the movie is indeed featured in the videos, I do not see how this is wrong. Now, that aside, it may be suited for a different section of this article, but I did not want to create an entire section simply to add this one part. If, however, you think that would be more appropriate, a section on references in popular culture (or similar) could be made.
Yes, many people tried to add this previously, but most of them did it without sources or through destructive editing of the article, often with poor spelling and/or grammar, and sometimes with unnecessarily coarse language. My goal here is to add the information that people tried to add before but in a much more professional manner.
If I may be so bold, I have a suggestion for you: if you are going to personally write me a message about an edit you have undone, make sure you include a proper explanation and link to the necessary information. The link I was provided with took me to the definition of reliable sources, but never mentioned the "exclusion" of YouTube videos.
Again, as YouTube is the original source of the information and the information is factual as opposed to the use of YouTube for making claims about things such as history or politics, this abides by all the guidelines set out, at least as far as I can see.
TCJJ (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
It being the original source of the material doesn't always make the link reliable. In this case what we have here is a popular YT personality who has made comments on a film. Popularity does not always make a person reliable on Wikipedia, which is what is required when it comes to adding sources on Wikipedia. The reason why self-published sources like YT tend to be unreliable is because in most cases the content hasn't gone through any type of editorial oversight that can be verified to Wikipedia's satisfaction. It also doesn't help that in most cases the content is typically sensationalized or presented as a joke. A look at the linked videos show that they were created as joke entertainment - nothing wrong with that, but that doesn't make them a very reliable source. It's typically why we can't use most YT videos as a source even when the video focuses specifically on the topic. Now in this case you've tried adding the links by just saying that it was mentioned in his show. Now aside from reliability you also need to show why this warrants mention in the article at all. If we're doing this as a mention in pop culture alone (and not as FF commenting on the film) then you would then need to show where the show and/or its host are notable enough to mention in the article. Popularity alone isn't enough in this case, as a mention in an "in the media/pop culture" section would require that there be coverage in RS to justify inclusion - and ideally the person making the comment would be notable enough to warrant their own article. This takes a lot of coverage to justify. In other words, you'd have to show that Filthy Frank's mention of Chef was notable enough to warrant inclusion in the article because a mention in that context now requires that it be a notable mention rather than just him giving an opinion. In all fairness this requirement would be for anyone, so even if this ongoing joke was done by Patton Oswalt, you'd still need to show where the joke is notable and provide about the same number of sources.
The TL;DNR of this is that in 99% of the time most pop culture references don't make it into Wikipedia because any given thing (especially anything even remotely mainstream) will get a ton of jokes and mentions. Some of these jokes may come from fairly popular people, however that popularity does not guarantee that it'll be notable enough to warrant inclusion. If we included every mention by every person then we'd end up with something like this, which is why Wikipedia tends to be so selective. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Add Jon Favreau link to wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Favreau) 2601:449:8400:1C61:7816:E16A:F898:C2D4 (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The article Jon Favreau is linked throughout the article (lead, infobox, cast section). Any further links would be excessive (see WP:OVERLINK). Also, in future, please format requests as "please change X to Y" for ease. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 23:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)