Talk:Dora and the Search for Sol Dorado

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: American

	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
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Television: Nickelodeon Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Nickelodeon task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Australia: Queensland Low‑importance

	Australia portal Dora and the Search for Sol Dorado is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).

CC License?

Hi all. I have found these videos by NickRewind under CC License.

Can screenshots from these be used in this page? I think it would be helpful for briefing cast and characters. Hope for a kind and helpful response, thank you! M. Billoo 21:11, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel or Reboot?

This question has been answered here in this reference. The story is a reboot, which redefines all the characters, and altogether tells a new story. So it is not related to the 2019 film. Thank you! M. Billoo 18:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

#Production

I do not think this is reliable to source here. The link uses images from Wikimedia, and now has a changed date (added in article in August 2024, the link now says May 2025).

Instead, I am looking up to replace it with these [1] [2]. Need a while to extract the encyclopedic info. Thank you. M. Billoo 15:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Launchballer talk 16:04, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the 2025 film Dora and the Search for Sol Dorado has the sixth Dora of the franchise Dora the Explorer?

Source: "The Sixth Dora the Explorer Wants to Have the Same Career as No. 5". The Hollywood Reporter. July 1, 2025.

ALT1: ... that the 2025 film Dora and the Search for Sol Dorado is inspired by the Indiana Jones franchise? Source: "... director Belli was aiming for a vibe similar to ... "Indiana Jones" ... with multiple homages". Variety. July 1, 2025.
ALT2: ... that the 2025 film Dora and the Search for Sol Dorado is the reboot to the franchise Dora the Explorer with redefined characters? Source: "Dora and the Search for Sol Dorado is a Reboot ... other major elements of Dora's backstory are revealed to have been significantly altered". Screen Rant. July 2, 2025.
ALT3: ... that Boots and Swiper do not speak English in the 2025 film Dora and the Search for Sol Dorado? Source: "Boots Technically Doesn't Speak English ... Swiper Doesn't Speak At All". Screen Rant. July 3, 2025.
Reviewed:

5x expanded by M.Billoo2000 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

M. Billoo 15:21, 5 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting: - None of these hooks are particularly interesting. They're just generic facts about the film.

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Can you come up with an interesting hook? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts: Thank you for the feedback, dear admin. How about these?

ALT4: ... that to animate the monkey in Dora and the Search for Sol Dorado, a tennis ball was used? Source
ALT5: ... that Inca mythologies revive in Dora and the Search for Sol Dorado? Source
Rephrase 0 and 1 into ALT6: ... that Dora and the Search for Sol Dorado's sixth Dora is inspired by Indiana Jones and Camila the Crusader? Source
ALT7: ... that Dora's grandfather sends her messages from his afterlife in Dora and the Search for Sol Dorado? Source

Any help is most welcome, thank you! M. Billoo 04:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think any of these are particularly interesting or unusual. Also, a tennis ball was used as a stand-in during filming, not to animate the monkey. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ALT8: ... that Swiper's master is revealed in Dora and the Search for Sol Dorado? Source
ALT9: ... that actual map is not the Map in Dora and the Search for Sol Dorado, but someone else is? Source

M. Billoo 05:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ALT8 is fancruft and ALT9 is incorrect; both of the sources state that Dora is the source of the map's power, not that Dora's map is not the Map. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response, dear admin. The revelation that Dora has always been the map... I am still confused how to pick up the hook, need help. M. Billoo 07:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I'm an admin isn't relevant to your DYK nomination; I'm reviewing this as just another editor. Per WP:DYKHOOK: The hook should be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest in the topic. Per WP:DYKFICTION: If the subject of the hook is a creative work, the hook must be focused on a real-world fact. I'm not sure how else to explain that the hook must be "unusual or intriguing". Not every fact is "unusual or intriguing" and not every article is going to have an interesting-enough fact to qualify for DYK. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ALT10: ... that children series Dora the Explorer gets an action-adventure film reboot? kids' film + action + adventure + reboot

Hope this is not a fancruft and qualifies real world fact. M. Billoo 11:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a hook that meets the DYK criteria is forthcoming here. Sorry. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

Hi, thank you for your contributions!

@SomeAnotherCastaway: Sorry, I really did mess up in recognizing Daniella and Mariana, I should have rectified it. But, please see Template:Infobox film, it says, "As a starting point, use the WP:PRIMARY source of the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release as a rule of thumb for listing starring actors." Further, it has a footnote, "The original poster is also called the "one sheet" and is the ideal source for this information."

Which poster? If you're talking about the character posters, those do not count for billing blocks.SomeAnotherCastaway (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the poster itself is the better proof to depict and identify the lead cast (as per the policy footnote), no need to have a text inside it every time. Otherwise, the end credits may have more names, and not everyone is the lead cast. M. Billoo 02:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did some more work. Aside from this set of primary refs, there are some secondary references including Deadline, Parents, Vareity, etc., that indicate Daniella as also one of the lead. But found none who say Christian Gnecco Quintero, so I do not think mentioning his name is good here as per the second part of the above highlighted policy. M. Billoo 05:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is how it usually goes. If there is no billing block in the poster, then we use the billing block in the end credits. NOT secondary sources, NOT character posters, and most certainly NOT judging it by which characters are on the poster.SomeAnotherCastaway (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SomeAnotherCastaway: Since I am having a sort of disagreement, I think I should ask for a 3O. Please do not mind. Thank you! M. Billoo 05:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GatekeeperofCoolness: I can understand your point, but consider another case. What if a film is released on VOD and then also theatrically? Would it be called a theatrical film or not? I assume yes, and similar case is here. The subject is stated in multiple references as a film on television and VOD, both. Plus, it is not billed as a Paramount+ only, the poster itself says Nickelodeon as well – same day of release. If the dates were different, then your point would be valid.

Hope I cleared my point. Awaiting the feedback, thank you! M. Billoo 01:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. But I still don't agree. But also, it's been a rough day for me and I don't wanna get worked up over something as small as whether or not a film I haven't even seen should be put into a certain category. Basically what I'm saying is if you wanna put the category back, I won't revert it or start some edit war. And I appreciate that you actually took this straight to the talk page to calmly work this out instead of just going "nuh-uh" and reverting it like that one user who kept removing it (and several other films) from the Nickelodeon Movies page just because it was a simultaneous release and he felt it shouldn't count despite it opening with the logo.

I went on a tangent there. Basically what I'm saying is that as long as you're not like that guy, we should be good. Thank you again and apologies for starting this brief little spat. GatekeeperofCoolness (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GatekeeperofCoolness: I did not know what is going on, so I stayed back. But based upon this reply above and the recent edits, it seems like a history of content dispute with Akandkur.

Have you two tried discussing out?
Who are the "So many people" who told to stop and are not on the other side?

Sorry for the need to dig out, but I assume this needs to be clean and clear on one page. Thank you! M. Billoo 07:52, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just look through the history of the List of Nickelodeon Movies productions page. As far as I can tell, this has been going on for over a year. I only got wrapped up in it recently. GatekeeperofCoolness (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]