Talk:Cameo appearance

On 12 February 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Cameo. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Daniellablitz, Monicavaldez. Peer reviewers: MackenzieBarnes12, Gracekelly27, Ggopher33.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Lee[edit]

I'm sorry that I dont know alot about how to fix things and how to post correctly in wikipedia but a Good Cameo is Stan Lee. He has come out in every movie he has directed. I don't have links but I know for a fact that he comes out on them. This would fit good in Popular culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaiasnaruto (talk • contribs) 02:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 antitrust cameos[edit]

just added Miguel de Icaza and Scott McNealy who played in antitrust, i dont 100% remember Mr. Icaza being in the movie but Antitrust (movie) says he did, am going to watch it later to see if he is really in it

Spike Lee[edit]

According to the Internet Movie Database [1], Spike Lee does not appear in all of his films (just counting the fiction feature films, he did not appear in Get on the Bus, He Got Game, Bamboozled, 25th Hour, or She Hate Me). Furthermore, in some of his movies such as She's Gotta Have It and Do the Right Thing, his role was too large for me to consider it a cameo. Could someone more familiar with Lee's work edit his entry to indicate in which films he truly played cameo roles? --Metropolitan90 09:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable[edit]

One of the rules here is that Wikipedia content must be verifiable. I suggest that the current list of people and movies falls far short of that requirement. We can easily meet it, in my opinion, simply by pointing out which scene the person appears in. If anyone seconds this motion, I'll begin adding such references for the cases I'm familiar with, and others can do the same. Thanks. --Keeves 02:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Video game cameo?[edit]

Some video games feature characters normally in a different video game series. These are usually called cameos. Does this deserve a mention? M2K E 21:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No. That's more of a video game studio system. ::Ghosts&empties 09:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It sloud be on it becusce it does count as a cameo games such as Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne,SC2 and Kingdom hearts series have cameos .::Ratchetcomand 09:43, 9,25 ,2006 (UTC)

Corleone[edit]

I cut the line about the Sicilian (the novel), because its not really a cameo; Puzo interweaves the story of Guiliano with the subplot of Godfather. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.211.249.230 (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Scorsese in Taxi Driver?[edit]

I think whoever posted that forgets that later in the movie Scorsese has a much longer appearence in which he converses with the protagonist for a number of minutes. Can you really call his appearence toward the beginning a cameo? Perhaps not. --76.188.161.254 19:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of the Rings movies[edit]

Peter Jackson also manages to insert his and co-director Fran Walsh's two children in each of the movies. He also has film crew and Weta staff in some scenes. These are documented in the director's commentary on the DVDs. Do they count as cameo appearances? I'll insert the details later if there are no objections. —JustJimWillDo (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Images[edit]

This might be being taken care of elsewhere but... that Peter Jackson image is looking pretty darn fake. Madhackrviper 00:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I looked into it, its probably real. Madhackrviper 15:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why Cameo? (word origin)[edit]

The article doesn't explain why cameo appearances are called what they are. Are they somehow related to cameo art? —Nahum Reduta 04:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was already mentioned in the text ("Like a cameo brooch - a low-relief carving of a person's head orbust - the actor or celebrity is instantly recognizable"), so I added the link. --FinnFinn (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This idea doesn't stand up. The relevant OED entry for cameo says "2. transf. and fig. Esp. a short literary sketch or portrait; a small character part that stands out from the other minor parts." and this is well supported by examples of usage. The essential feature of a cameo is that it is small but distinctive. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ORIGIN: If you do a search on books.google.com for the phrase cameo role, it has an entry for "Morris Dictionary of Word and Phrase Origins" and it says there was an afternoon TV show caled "Cameo Theatre," which presented condensed versions of plays and close-ups of actors. And later producer Mike Todd's "Around the World in 80 Days" widely used the term because of all the guest appearances in it in brief roles. This can be used by any editor who wants to add the origin to the article. 5Q5 (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cameo?[edit]

Usually you wouldn't call an appeareance of a director in its own movie "cameo" (tarantino for ex.), because the whole idea is based on someone popular, but alien to the movie or play itself appearing in it 80.171.25.48 20:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Martin Scorsese cameo Taxi Driver.png[edit]

Image:Martin Scorsese cameo Taxi Driver.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Pjcameo.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Pjcameo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Jackson[edit]

Current version: "Likewise, Peter Jackson has made brief cameos in all of his movies, except for the puppet movie Meet the Feebles." However, the page for Meet The Feebles states that "Peter Jackson has a cameo as an audience member dressed as an alien from "Bad Taste".".

These two don't make sense together, and I'm not sure which one is true, so I'm throwing this out there as something that needs changing. -Mindez --87.82.1.235 (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...[edit]

This page needs a line drawing under it before it ends up with a list of every cameo appearance ever made. The "Examples of cameos" section should be renamed something like "Types of cameos", and all the random examples at the end hacked off. — sjorford ++ 14:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 February 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. This seems not a primary topic. (non-admin closure) TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cameo appearance → Cameo – Per WP:CONCISE; this is the simplest form of the term. "Cameo appearance" and "cameo role" are actually tautologies. Popcornfud (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This would elevate Cameo appearance to primary topic, and I'm not convinced that's justified. Cameo (carving), Cameo (band) and Cameo (website) are also significant articles that share this name. Pageviews last year were about 50% [2] for Cameo appearance, not quite a majority. 162 etc. (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would definitely make it the primary topic, which is what I assumed it would be - perhaps I'm wrong. I've never even heard of those other cameos, though of course WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT is not a great argument. Popcornfud (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There is no primary topic here, and the current title is a good natural disambiguation. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If anything, the carving is the primary topic by longterm significance. The appearance absolutely isn't. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I attempted this move in 2020 here: Talk:Cameo#Requested move 31 August 2020 and it was rejected. Natg 19 (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does this article contain original research?[edit]

@Jcejhay: Where does original research appear in this article? Jarble (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Jarble. I added that tag about a month ago, but I think my concern was not based on any one particular assertion, but a general pattern of assertions that seemed more interpretive than strictly factual, without being cited to reliable sources. I think it read, to me, in places, more like someone's subjective and perhaps overly narrow impression of what constitutes or exemplifies a "cameo appearance," rather than a scholarly overview of their history and taxonomy. (The template, of course, includes the word "possibly," so it's more a "red flag" than a definitive judgment.) Jcejhay (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]