Talk:Seedance

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. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that according to a major Hollywood writer, Seedance 2.0 is a sign that "one person is going to be able to sit at a computer and create a movie indistinguishable from what Hollywood now releases"?

• Source: “I hate to say it. It’s likely over for us,” wrote Rhett Reese, writer of the “Deadpool” films, in a comment on the Cruise-Pitt video. “In next to no time, one person is going to be able to sit at a computer and create a movie indistinguishable from what Hollywood now releases.” Variety

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Kim Chwajin, Template:Did you know nominations/Fanny Cochrane Smith

Created by Thriley (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 208 past nominations.

Thriley (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2026 (UTC).

• Hooks must adopt a neutral point of view. Someone else's opinion about Seedance 2.0 (even more, a wild prediction about Seedance 2.0 that may never actually happen) does not sound like a neutral hook. Cambalachero (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

ALT1: that after viewing a viral clip of Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt fighting generated with Seedance 2.0, a major Hollywood writer stated "It's likely over for us"? Thriley (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Still the same problem. it's a wild prediction. I have noticed a problem with the article: it only talks about the reception of Seedance 2.0, and there's basically no info about Seedance 2.0 in itself. What are its features? Has Bytedance shared any insights, stories, or anecdotes about its creation? What changed from Seedance 1.0, 1.5, or whichever was the previous version? (surely it did not start as 2.0). Add more info from that angle, and surely you'll find a better hook in the process. Cambalachero (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Is this article in a good enough shape to be featured on DYK? Guz13 (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

The article itself has the technical requirements (new, length, etc), but the hook is not suitable, and reading it I can't propose other alternatives either. That's because the article is mostly a "reactions to Seedance 2.0" rather than a proper "Seedance 2.0" article, and as a result there is no interesting info that can be made into a hook that isn't a variation of "someone has X opinion of Seedance 2.0". And, as pointed, hooks must be neutral. Cambalachero (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

There has been tons of press over the past week, so there is certainly more to add. I'll propose some new hooks over the next day or so. Thriley (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

• ALT2 ... that a fight between Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise, Friends characters reimagined as otters, and Will Smith battling a red-eyed spaghetti monster were early viral videos created with Seedance 2.0? Thriley (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Full review needed, including of ALT2. Have struck the previous hooks per earlier comments. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I take, will review in the next 24 hours.--Launchballer 06:19, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

You sure this needs a full review @BlueMoonset:? I see the phrase "The article itself has the technical requirements (new, length, etc)" above. (@Thriley:, please do something about the stub template, and either get rid of the lead section or expand it.)--Launchballer 06:26, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I just added a lead section and removed the stub tag. Anything else needed? Thriley (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Launchballer, since I wasn't checking myself, I can't know exactly what was done over six weeks ago, and the article has changed since then. I certainly would do all the unmentioned checks myself if I were the one putting a tick on this nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Alright, long enough and new enough. QPQs are both done and Earwig shows only quotes (though there a lot of them that want trimming, this isn't a DYK issue). My concerns from 06:26, 11 April 2026 (UTC) have been resolved. Let's roll.--Launchballer 14:12, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 2 August 2026

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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

---

Seedance 2.0 → Seedance – The common name for the subject of this article is Seedance. Seedance 2.0 was a specific version that gained widespread attention first but that version is not the sole subject of this article and we now have coverage of Seedance 2.5 and earlier versions too. Even many sources from 2.0 time correctly use "Seedance" only to refer to the whole family of models. ~2026-42765-07 (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

100% agree to this change, i was already trying to move it to just the model name 43agoravaigames (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

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.