Talk:Who Framed Roger Rabbit

message: There are a number of uses of this phrase which i paraphrase here that basically is to uphold why a film has been placed on such a list. The whole point of the list is that it has a particular level of impact and relevancy on society and as such such be, according to the enabling legislation, preserved etc. These films do not just jiump off a piece of paper and land on the list. There is a vetting process and if by the end it lands on the list then yes it does have what it shpuld have for society etc. To say so each time in a WP article is sort of making a mayonnaise white bread sandwich--there is nothing there. What we should have in the film articles hat should also mention being on the National Firm Registry list is WHY THEY DESERVE TO BE ON THE LIST. That informstion is clearly to be found on the appropriate Library of Congress website for the Film Board. All we have to do is link them up and automatically supply citations. That is what i did here. I put some straw in the mud, made some bricks linking back to the sources and then transferred. Just because your system views this as vandalism is the dault of the the system not recognising what is happening. We use the internet and we use compuetrs so why not let them help us get the job done.2605:E000:9143:7000:995A:C286:EE14:C81D (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, nothing more need be done.  The claims are cited to the proper source where further information can be found.  We certainly do not need to add further details or citations to the lede sections of articles, as you have been doing. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 01:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is indulgent, and certainly overkill to repeat the blurb in the lead. Is there any film in the National Film Registry that isn't regarded as "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant"? It's just the blurb. It would be like a saying the Best Picture winner at the oscars won the award for "outstanding achievement in motion picture art" in each and every case. It is reasonable to cover it in the main body of the article but I think it is sufficient to simply state the film has been added to the National Film Registry in the lead itself. This is the approach taken at Gone with the Wind (film) which briefly mentions the National Film Registry in the lead while Gone with the Wind (film)#Industry recognition explains what that exactly entails. Betty Logan (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just realized that most of what I have written is largely irrelevant (I should have looked at the dispute more carefully) and that  has restored the version I mostly advocate. I am going to tighten the wording up slightly though. Betty Logan (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, . ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Film Registry list designation 

message: There seems to be a dispute on the Cast list over whether Kathleen Turner and Amy Irving, the speaking and singing voices of Jessica Rabbit, should be listed there despite the former not being credited. What's the right way to do it? Would it help if someone sourced Turner's involvement? Irving is credited as performer of "Why don't you do right?", Jessica's song in the movie. Crboyer (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As the role is uncredited, it should not be listed in the cast.  With a source, it could be discussed in the production section.  I moved Amy Irving's role to the "additional voices" subsection. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a case of censorship, and to claim it is smacks of zealotry.  Generally Wikipedia uses the cast list in the film itself when deciding who should and shouldn't appear in the cast list of an article.  In this case Turner doesn't appear in the film cast list, ergo she doesn't appear in the article cast list.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that, .  And, as I said above, her role could be discussed in the production section, if we have a source that talks about why she was uncredited.  That could be illuminating. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast List 

message: The article claims archival voice samples of Clarence Nash (Donald Duck's original VO) was used in the film. I'm not certain this is true. The citation given links to a YouTube video which has since been deleted. On what I can only assume is the reupload of this video (as it's the same title), it's a video of the Nostalgia Critic stating this factoid without proof or source (I guess he got it from the trivia section of IMDB? Which is also not-sourced). There is no proof anywhere from any official source that this is true? I think it'll be fitting to remove this piece of trivia unless citable proof can be given.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.90.247 (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarence Nash 

message: *https://collider.com/why-no-who-framed-roger-rabbit-2/ Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good development source 

message: Could we make a Roger Rabbit 2 (unproduced film) page there so much we could put on the article. Similar to Silver & Black (unproduced film) and Star Trek: Planet of the Titans there currently a Draft:Who Framed Roger Rabbit 2 we could work on that and move it to a main Wikipedia article 92.236.253.249 (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roger 2