Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, requiring its content to be notable and reliably sourced, above all else. While there are now many television programmes showing outtakes, and many magazine articles, websites and other observers noticing purported errors in continuity, anachronisms, solecisms, and other failures of intention, that does not imply that they should be reported here. Indeed, in some movie websites, there are scene-by-scene lists of unreferenced claims about continuity errors or bloopers. A strong, and reliably-sourced case should be made for the inclusion of statements about bloopers, errors, or other flaws.

The content of articles should be relevant and there should not be undue weight on certain sub-elements of the topic. If you have a PhD in historical 19th century wallpaper designs, any time you see a period piece movie set in the 19th century, it might JUMP OUT at you that the set designers have used floral patterned wallpaper that was not available until the 1920s. However, 99% of the rest of the world, including published film critics and film scholars, have not noted the anachronistic wallpaper in these films. So even though your point that the "wallpaper is anachronistic" may be true, it is Original Research, which is not allowed to be the basis of edits in Wikipedia.