Talk:Iron Lung (film): Difference between revisions

Line 113: Line 113:

== Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2026 ==

The use of the word “also” is redundant in the line “as well as also revealing”. Change the line “as well as also revealing” to “as well as revealing”. [[Special:Contributions/~2026-78470-7|~2026-78470-7]] ([[User talk:~2026-78470-7|talk]]) 19:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

:{{done}}<!– Template:ESp –> {{[[User:GearsDatapack|GearsDatapack]]|[[User talk:GearsDatapack|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/GearsDatapack|contribs]]}} 19:49, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale.

This article uses a self-published YouTube video and three Twitter posts as sources and only two publications considered reliable, one of which contains just four sentences about the subject. I fail to see why this justifies the existence of this article. WP:RSP Asperthrow (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t have time to edit atm but found two better sources – its clear to me that this meets GNG

https://www.dexerto.com/tv-movies/markiplier-reveals-bloody-details-for-his-upcoming-horror-movie-iron-lung-2192304/

https://www.eurogamer.net/markiplier-is-set-to-finance-write-and-star-in-a-movie-adaptation-of-indie-horror-iron-lung 213.105.99.162 (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has 8 secondary sources that are independent of the subject and contain non-trivial coverage. It certainly passes WP:GNG. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but shouldn’t we add a reference to the episodes of their podcast where Mark discusses these exact points?

I’m unsure what the rules are as I’ve never edited an article on here. Is there a reason it hasn’t already been included or has it just not been added yet? Is the primary source considered unreliable? It’s from an episode of a podcast co-hosted by Mark, so I can understand if there’s a conflict of interest or something.

But several of the references are links to articles that just rehash and ‘discuss’ things that were said on the podcast. So if the secondary source is just quoting the primary source itself, wouldn’t that make the primary source just as reliable as the secondary?

Minor side note: I’m also hesitant to consider Game Rant a ‘reliable’ source given that a significant portion of their gaming articles have content that is straight up misleading. XandaPanda42 (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not a regular editor or commenter here but I agree. As a average fan the most extensive behind the scenes details Mark has audibly said is in his guest appearance of a podcast called Chuckle Sandwich. We hear details he hasn’t given to anyone else anywhere else about the movie’s development such as the NACMO and its operator and such. Can we get someone more experienced unlike me to get that info on the article and also hopefully the full name of the Namco operator mark mentioned? 2600:1010:A015:A088:C9CB:F3A7:DC7C:E5B8 (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only temporally until the official “images” come out 2601:846:57F:B0F0:B819:14FF:FE84:4525 (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

let me go ask teahouse Mrmorson (talk) 04:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a discussion on a user’s talk page about removal of a quotation at the beginning of the premise section:
Beginning of discussion:
Hi,

I’m simply asking: why did you take away the quote that was in the article mentioned in this topic’s heading? Because I did not see anything wrong. Just wondering, just asking.

Jibblesnark86 (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not customary for a film’s premise to be formatted in that way. TheMovieGuy (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok then. I stand down. Thank you. Jibblesnark86 (talk) 04:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jibblesnark86: TheMovieGuy is wrong. I restored the quote. If he removes it again, feel free to restore it. Sundayclose (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sundayclose Thank you very much, and it’s ok, it doesn’t bother me much. Thank you for understanding. Jibblesnark86 (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not wrong I have a decade of experience editing film pages, but feel free to take it to the discussions page as need be. TheMovieGuy (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sundayclose TheMovieGuy (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop edit warring and wait for consensus here. If you need a warning consider this a warning. I have more than a decade of experience, but how long we have been editing is irrelevant. Link a policy or guideline supporting your removal of the quote. Otherwise move on. Sundayclose (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

End of discussion from user’s talk page

@Jibblesnark86@Sundayclose@TheMovieGuy How about we all assume good faith here rather than pointing out the years you have all be editing? ^SMason_Garrison 02:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. What Sundayclose, has failed to include here is the next part of that discussion:

For the record, I sent you a warning – which you referred to as “garbage” on your talk page history – and then you retaliated by issuing me a warning afterward (see timestamps) – which was entirely unjustified as I’ve only reverted once and noted in the reasoning that should it be contested that a discussion tab should be open (see edit history). Nevertheless. I’m also noting your uncivil comments here (example: urging another user to just reverse my reversal without anything to back it up.) TheMovieGuy (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

End of discussion from user’s talk page

What we are trying to come to a conclusion on is whether or not the quote block in the premise section is justified and necessary. Sundayclose thinks it is. I think it is not because it is not customary and I implore any reader to review other upcoming film’s wiki articles for verification of my claim. That’s all. TheMovieGuy TheMovieGuy (talk) 02:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly, which is why I moved this discussion here for the entire Wikipedia community to participate. Sundayclose (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support this, yes. TheMovieGuy (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there two premises in the section? Rusted AutoParts 03:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a great question, which, quite frankly, I somehow neglected to bring up, because I was caught up in the whole “quote block” of it all. But in removing the quote block premise – I reduced it to one proper premise and made it fit with how most other film articles are. There is no need for two premises in the section. TheMovieGuy (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusted AutoParts, & with one being a huge promotional block quote. I agree with @TheMovieGuy, this is not standard and actually against Wikipedia’s principles. Mike Allen 14:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve never been one to let a discussion linger longer than necessary. So since the consensus at this point is (and likely will continue to be) to exclude the quotation, I can agree to that. Thanks for the discussion. Special thanks to Jibblesnark86 (talk · contribs) for his calm handling of a content dispute that he didn’t create. I hope in the future that TheMovieGuy can help avoid this kind of conflict by leaving an edit summary when he first removes content instead of waiting for it to be challenged, to explain his removal with something that has more substance than “I have a decade of experience editing film pages”, to take the matter to this talk page before repeatedly removing content, and to avoid false accusations (unfortunately another false accusation will likely follow my comment here). Sundayclose (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently its being produced by Troublemaker Studios. Any source (other than Markiplier himself)? redforests (talk) 06:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the footnote next to this text doesn’t include a reference to any release in Australia, and the Iron Lung official website only lists US and Canada theatres. Is there a better source for this or is it incorrect to include? ~2026-12243-5 (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the film was largely self-financed, would it make any sense to also describe it as an independent film? CY223 (talk) 10:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really seeing it labeled as “independent” even though it likely technically qualifies. I think “self-financed” fits more precisely, it’s like micro-independent in a way. While that characteristic is in the middle of the second lead-section paragraph, perhaps it could go somewhere in the first paragraph since it does seem like secondary sources highlight that characteristic. I don’t really think it needs to be in the very first sentence since we don’t have to overstuff it, but surely the second or third. Erik (talk | contrib) 19:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The ‘plot’ section appears to reference large amounts of content that are not explicitly mentioned in the film itself (from the game?)

Toldyr (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Much of the backstory referenced in the plot section is not present in the film, and much of the plot from the film is absent. Metalnut4 (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The current synopsis mentions Simon “inadvertently exposing himself to radiation.” This is not a plot point in the film, nor is it alluded to. However, he does inadvertently expose his team to radiation. This sort of mistake has me thinking AI was used to write the synopsis lol ~2025-42586-97 (talk) 05:15, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The film pauses on a page from the manual on the camera stating “use at your own risk” and after he rigs it to fire continuously he begins coughing up blood. Later in the film it’s shown that his skin is starting to peel and develop boils, though this could be from contact with the “blood.” So I would say that it’s implied but not outright stated as far as I remember, though perhaps a source should be found Toldyr (talk) 05:33, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely implied, because he also starts coughing up blood after continued use. Bobbis99 (talk) 07:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know how to unhyperlink Caroline Kaplan from a different Caroline Kaplan, who is a film producer. I got one erased further down, but if someone can figure this out, it would be helpful! CloverBun (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I unlinked it the one at the top 🙂 OwlLemons (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just went and the end credits said “Iron Lung Studios”, not “Markiplier Studios”. There’s not source for it in the article. I don’t have a source either and maybe it’s a legal think but I don’t think the article is correct. Someone should take a look at it. NatriumGedrogt (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Every official source says that the movie was produced by “Markiplier Studios”, not “Iron Lung Studios”, which does not exist as far as I can see. You may be misremembering or misreading something. ~2026-73701-5 (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To add to my previous, it appears Iron Lung LLC was the company they were distributing the film under. Specs9979 (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve missed Alanah Pearce out of the credits for this movie Desincarne (talk) 08:19, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In Cast, add Alanah Pearce(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alanah_Pearce) as the named character “A Familiar Voice” (https://m.imdb.com/title/tt27564844/fullcredits/). Relevant with her rising fame especially due to her role in Dispatch. Sadbrontosaurus (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Already done Day Creature (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The use of the word “also” is redundant in the line “as well as also revealing”. Change the line “as well as also revealing” to “as well as revealing”. ~2026-78470-7 (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done {{GearsDatapack|talk|contribs}} 19:49, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply