Talk:Iron Man 3

Onscreen title

Onscreen title is Iron Man Three. IMDb states this, but it was reverted when I tried to post it that way here, seemingly without aq good reason. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no difference between "Iron Man 3" and "Iron Man Three" worthy of being prominently highlighted. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Section about Air Force one

Isn't the fight on the plane a simulator, so it wouldn't be considered a real part of the story? Ft763 (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

"Iron man 3" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Iron man 3. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 23#Iron man 3 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Re-addition of non-RS

This self-published non-RS,[1] as explained in the edit summary of its revert which pointed to the guideline, was re-added. Can the editor explain why? Thank you. --2603:7000:2143:8500:14B6:711A:E2C2:19A9 (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems like a basic description, with the quote covered by Yahoo! here and IGN here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

It's proper to use RS refs. It is not proper to use non-RS refs. (Otherwise, of course, we have a problem with the spamming / self promotion of non-RS refs, to drive readers for improper purposes to non-RS blog sites). The quote should remain with the proper RS refs. But the non-RS ref should not. 2603:7000:2143:8500:14B6:711A:E2C2:19A9 (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

But do you consider Yahoo! and IGN appropriate as substitutes or not? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Thanks. And to be clear, all that was ever deleted by me was the non-RS ref. Not any text, not any quote. 2603:7000:2143:8500:14B6:711A:E2C2:19A9 (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that IGN and Yahoo! are both pointing to the interview at Showbiz 411, the same source we are using in article, which is why we are using it in the article, as it is the originating source of information. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

There are also exceptions to the rule when examining unreliable or self published sourced, as in this case, the website is interviewing the actor in question. If this was not a direct quote from the actor, and the site was making up this statement, then, yes, the source shouldn't be used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

It's fine to use IGN and Yahoo as refs, as they are RSs. Showbiz 411 itself cannot be a ref however, as it is not an RS. Self published sources themselves can never be used as independent sources about living people, other than about the writer of the self published source. 2603:7000:2143:8500:94D2:447:CF44:F53 (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)