Related films not related to the book - question

Opinions please.

Someone has added films that cover the same subject matter; but are certainly not otherwise connected to the work. Going to be lazy, because the title is so long:

http://www.librarything.com/work/22352560

From https://wiki.librarything.com/index.php/Common_Knowledge#Related_movies
"This field is specifically if the movie is a direct connection to a book. Not an inspiration or example of its storyline. The movie and the book must have a direct link."

>2 r.orrison:

Unfortunately, that text is in the Wiki, people rarely look at (not that it's easy to find anything unless you already know it's there).

It really ought to be there when someone opens the box to edit.

That is the Common Knowledge help page, as linked to from everywhere Common Knowledge is edited. Why do people always bring up that it's a wiki, as if that was somehow a problem? Does that somehow make it less official, or less readable, or less findable? Would it be better if the page said all the same things but wasn't a wiki?

Anyway, the OP asked for opinions about the field, and I replied with a fact. Regardless of whether the Common Knowledge help page is a wiki page or not, that is the documented purpose of the field.

For those that don't know how to find it, the link is here:

>4 r.orrison: I read >3 lilithcat: as a complaint that people don't bother to click through to read it, rather than the wiki itself is a problem. In my experience people are less likely to read instructions if they have to leave the page they are on to do so--of course they don't always read the instructions that are literally right in front of them either.

>1 2wonderY: I'm in favor of deleting those entries.

>5 amanda4242:

I read >3 lilithcat: lilithcat: as a complaint that people don't bother to click through to read it, rather than the wiki itself is a problem.

Exactly.

It looks to me like the edit objected to in the OP was made on Mar 9, 2019, but that the version of the CK Wiki in existence on that date did not have the text quoted in #2 above.

I will try to compose a note to that member, using the material >2 r.orrison: pointed to. They are doing it on multiple works. For example, listing Casablanca for a 2019 book on a particular spy bio.

http://www.librarything.com/work/22126615

>8 2wonderY: Ugh. You might want to point them to lists or maybe recommendations.

Have not heard back from the member, though s/he is adding books. So I started removing the inappropriate entries.

>10 2wonderY: They could be adding books with the LT app and might not have seen your message yet. I don't think it's wrong to remove the unrelated movies now; I'm only pointing out you might not have been ignored, because the feeling of that happening can be frustrating.

I took a few out.

Let me give you another example.
https://www.librarything.com/work/9449556
Beautiful Maria of My Soul
by Oscar Hijuelos

According to CK this was published in June 2010
The related Movie is
The Mambo Kings (1992 ∙ IMDb)
So the book was published after the movie

>13 bergs47: I would disagree with that one. The 2010 book is a sequel to the 1989 book that the movie is based on, and the 2010 book is a retelling of the same story as the 1989 book and the movie, from a different perspective. That seems like a fine connection to me.

>13 bergs47:, >14 norabelle414:

Yes, there is definitely a close connection among the film and both books.