Talk:Halloween (franchise)

Request for Comment

I'm requesting additional opinions at Template talk:Halloween series#Where to link?, as there is a debate about where to link a particular page within the template itself. Additional opinions are really appreciated, as I don't believe that many people actually monitor the template in questions.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The storyline image.

User:Bignole Removed it straight away saying it was confusing, but I need more convincing than that to let it go without a fight as I put a lot work into it. The image is here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Halloween_storyline_continuity_histogram_by_film.svg I've already had someone tell me they finally understand how the sequels relate to each other because of it, it's not confusing, the actual order of the movies are confusing, this is the best way to make the story clear - in an image rather than forcing people to check every single article scanning down the page to find out which story line it follows. I've seen similar things for long lasting film series. I'm sorry but I'm going to revert your edit. The LMOE (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

First, please read WP:BRD. You were bold in your edit, and it was reverted. The next step is what we discuss it and then put it back in if it's decided upon by consensus. We don't put it back in and then have to decide if we're going to remove it. Second, it's a user created image, not something officially done. We are not here to promote editors' creative works. Third, why do we even need a visual image in the first place. The prose itself clearly identifies when the continuity has been retconned or simply restarted from scratch. Lastly, when looking at the image, it's simply confusing to try and piece together a bunch of numbers and see which ones go to which films. Again, the prose on this page clearly identifies retcons. There's no scrolling necessary. It's all here. What featured or GA film series articles are using images like this to identify the continuity of a series? 05:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason I think it's needed is as you said, it's hard to piece together a bunch of numbers, when the article says H20 is ignoring events from 4 and 6, it's easier visually see that this implies it is a continuation from number 2, when it says resurrection continues from h20, you get stopped dead in your tracks when trying to figure out what sequel does that actually make it, you have to recall it takes from h20 that's total of 2 films, which skips 6, 5, 4, and all of them skips 3, and there are only 2 left so it must be the 4th film i.e. third sequel. How is seeing an image that tells you that straight away not useful? It's just slightly easier to comprehend, and if it improves the article why remove it just because it's user created?

There is scrolling necessary, you need to read the entire Films Overview section to get the gist of it, and fine combing of it for which ones are about Laurie. In regards to promoting creative works, that's why I attempted to make it as bland as possible, but maybe this is not to the standard. The one similar to it I was referencing was on a batman related page, but I've failed to locate it at the moment, I'm pretty sure I've seen one for resident evil too but that may have been more focused on actual characters timelines.

Perhaps a compromise, such as a less outright position, smaller thumbnail, closer location to the bottom of the article, or a change in the image itself to reduce your confusion like removal of either the numbers or colors, or removal of films taking continuity from themselves? I won't bring it back again until we can agree, thank you for your time. The LMOE (talk) 07:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No image is needed for any of that. First, H20 is the 6th sequel, no matter how you slice it. Just because it negates 3-6 does not mean that it automatically becomes the 2nd sequel on that point. Yes, you need to read the overview section to understand that H20 comes after II continuity wise, because it says it verbally. Your image is just a page filled with numbers. If you don't understand what the numbers are representing (because the image doesn't explain itself other than "this is the continuity") then the image isn't actually making anything easier. It's actually making it more difficult to understand because you're trying to scan through a ton of numbers, which are crammed together, and figure out what each represents and where it goes. Prose is much better at explaining such things. I've searched through dozens of film series pages and none have them. I've worked on many horror series pages and none have them. I don't think this page needs it at all. Since you and I have a difference of opinion, I'm deferring until more people come and voice their opinions on the subject because two people really cannot decide anything unless they already are on the same page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I support Bignole on the removal of the image. Yes, Halloween continutiy is convoluted, but I don't think we need a graph/chart to explain it, it can be explained well enough in prose. Personally, I think the article already sufficiently explains the split timelines (sentences like "The events that transpire between Halloween 4 and Halloween 6 are effectively ignored in 1998’s Halloween H20: 20 Years Later" are pretty clear). If some readers are too dumb to understand that, then they obviously can't read. Secondly, I don't find the chart remotely helpful in understanding Halloween continuity; it makes it seem like there are 10 timelines when there are only four (4-6, H20-HR, III, and RZ). All the numbers and colour coding is just extra confusion, and the random Laurie note is biased (who cares if she's the heroine, what does that have to do with continuity?). So, no, I don't think the image is at all suitable for the article, sorry.  Paul  730 16:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I came to this page to see if I could make out how the continuity of the storyline in these films goes. I could never make it out because each film seemed to have a different storyline and they're not all related to each other etc. On seeing this picture in question I could immediately work out what I came to find out. I think it's a very well done image and puts the films continuity in lamens terms for those who do not understand it. I don't see why it cannot be used. Dylan (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You couldn't make out the statement, "Halloween H20 ignores the storyline from Halloween 4, 5, and 6"? The doesn't put the film's continuity into lamens terms, because there are no terms in the image. It's a picture of numbers. That are confusing to try and follow. But, you're more than able to do a request for comment to bring in outside opinions.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I only just realised that each separate paragraph deals with a different movie and that it is stated at the beginning of each paragraph where the film is in the franchises timeline. I didn't notice this before as I thought the whole piece simply summarised the franchise as a whole rather than film by film. Seeing this I also agree the picture is unnecessary. Dylan (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Box office sub-section

Could someone please explain to me where the figures are coming from for the prose piece at the start of the 'Box office' sub-section? Checking out the references given for these figures the numbers given on the website do not match up at all with those written on the page. It seems as though the editor added the actual gross box office take with that of the average box office take for each film (the site gives an average box office take for a film in a series). It says that the Scream franchise has accumulated $400,000,000, whereas the reference given states that the franchise has accumulated $293,553,139. Can someone rectify this or am I myself wrong ? Dylan (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read a little more carefully. What it says is, "adjusted for 2010 inflation". Which means that we took how much each individual film made and used an inflation calculator to determine what that would equate to in 2010 dollars. For example, Friday the 13th made about $30 million in 1980. If that movie was released today, and received the same amount of ticket sales as it did in 1980, that would be equal to about $100 million in revenue. This is because of the inflation in ticket prices over the years, and what the US dollar is worth now compared to then.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see that part Dylan (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. It's a lot of numbers to digest, so it's understandable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to update the figures to 2010 rates? I tried using the application cited as a source but it would not work for me. Would you be able to do it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123dylan456 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm at work now, and it takes a bit of time to do all of the movies. So, if it can wait till either later this evening or sometime over the weekend, then I'd be glad to update it. I'm looking at the other pages, and I'll have to go through and update the info for each of the other franchise articles as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, tell me if its a lot of work/you want help and I'll try and help. Dylan (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. It's cold in my office, so I think my fingers are going to fall off from all the "CTRL+C/V" I was doing. LOL. The only films to change significantly were the ones who had new films come out in the past couple of years since they were not included in the original calculations. Only two ranking changes as well. Everyone else actually slipped in amount earned because the US dollar isn't worth as much this year as it was last year.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It might be purposely cold to discourage workers from going on Wikipedia in the office lol. Ok well I'll keep an eye out in case any more movie changes pop up. To my knowledge Scream 4 isn't due until 2011, and I dunno if any other franchises are releasing, so it shouldn't be too much work. Dylan (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I meant my office at home. LOL. Even when Scream 4 comes out, I only suspect that it will only rise in number and not actually change places. Given that Saw has a new film coming out here soon, that will solidify its place ahead of Scream, even with the latter releases its new film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm I'm not so sure. Scream fans have been waiting 10 years for an addition to this franchise comprising of only 3 movies. Yet with 3 movies released it is already one of the top contenders of the list in question. The Saw franchise however seems to be pregnant with sequels, spewing out new movies each year yet it only tops out Scream by 6.2 million. With reports stating that the newest Saw baby (LOL) may be the last due to falling box office takings, I think Scream 4 may revive the franchise and push it further up the list. Dylan (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

We're getting a little off topic on here (can continue on my talk page if you like), but I will say that with the dissappointment over the third film and the fact that it felt "jump the shark"-ish, I don't believe this next film will make that much money. Plus, the fact that Saw 8 will probably be coming out around the same time - giving it potentially two movies worth of gross to compete with. At the most, Scream and Saw will be trading places back and forth. Neither is going to come near Friday the 13th or A Nightmare on Elm Street'. Based on average revenue so far, Saw would have to produce 5 more films just to catch Nightmare and about 10 more to catch Friday the 13th (assuming neither made another film itself). Scream would have to do about 2 films and 3 films (maybe 4), respectively to catch those top two (that's based on the assumption that the films makes 90 million+ domestically, which I don't believe it will).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I realise we're gettin a little off topic but it has been stated that Scream 4 may be a revival to another Scream trilogy, which, if your calculations are correct, may be enough to "catch those top two". At any rate I myself agree that it would be a stretch to think that Scream may catch up to such horror behemoths as Nightmare on Elm Street or Friday the 13th, time will tell. Dylan (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Layout

I tried to restructure the page [1] to give a clearer overview of the progression of the films, much like the Batman in film or Superman (film series) page, but my edits were reverted. I feel that the main problem is that giving an overview of the plot of 7-8 movies with no break as the first section leaves the reader a little bewildered, and it is difficult to find one's place. The point of breaking it down gives a clearer path and structure for the reader to follow. It would be nice to see a clear chronology and I felt that section breaking was most appropriate. What do others think? Rob Sinden (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

These pages were based on Friday the 13th (franchise), which has gone through extensive reviews (GA, FA, Peer Review) and the format has stuck through all of those. I personally prefer this format because it keeps everything neat and to the point. I don't think readers need their hand held when reading the most basic of plot summaries when we have the individual film pages that they can read longer versions of each. To argue that the plots need to be broken down would be like arguing every section needs to be separated by film (Developement, Music, Box Office, etc.). I think there is too much push to try and make things "easier", and I think that "easier" really is about editing and not about reading. It might be difficult to edit this type of page because you have to scan through all the plots to find the one you want to fix, but that's just the price of admission IMO. People have also suggested just breaking the films up by paragraph, and to me that leaves these weak looking paragraphs. Batman in Film and Superman (film series) are different types of pages. I'm not sure if I agree with their layout, but for the most part none of those films really co-exist. Superman and Superman II, sure. But the other films, and the other Batman films typically have indepedent stories. Halloween, Friday the 13th, Nightmare often have storylines that extend across multiple films (especially for Halloween and Friday the 13th) and to me it makes better sense to blend those connections then simply put in 10 subsections and unnecessarily extend a page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

A couple of points:

1) How are Batman in film and Superman (film series) "different types of pages"?

2) Each film in any of the series you mention are self-contained stories. It is not the case they "have storylines that extend across multiple films" as there is no continual pre-planned narrative throughout the series, just successive sequels based on each film's success.

Rob Sinden (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rob that the films are self-contained, but I would rather see the Friday the 13th (franchise) approach applied to the Batman and Superman pages. After all, much has happened in between each films, especially the long development history. I do have to agree with Bignole, though, that a paragraph for each film seems weak. I do think that the films could be listed in one go, though... readers cannot gather all the films in their minds until later in the article. Could we do a bulleted list before "Overview", or even list the films on the right side? It would help list them chronologically, and we don't need to link to the films in the overview. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

(If my comments just stop abruptly, it's because I had to finally leave for work) Batman in film and Superman (film series) are pages devoted specifically to just basic understandings of each individual film. They don't cover the overall production of those series. In other words, the focus is on the individual films that were and never were, and less on what went into making a franchise. In addition, the overall structure of those films is an eyesore. I find it harder to stare at these tiny subsections within a section that give the briefest of information. The horror franchise pages are far more fulfilling, both as they are structurally and with the type of content they contain. As far as stories go, Halloween has 3 distinct storylines that cross multiple films. Those storylines are continuations of the previous films events. It flows better when you're writing a summary of Halloween 4, 5, & 6 then separating by subsections. With Friday the 13th, the same is true. The first four films all take place within the same couple of days. Then Part 4, 5 and 6 are all one giant storyline involving one character (other than Jason). The only films that are unique stories are Jason Goes to Hell and the ones that came after. Nightmare on Elm Street shares storylines among multiple films as well. Part 3, 4, and 5 are all tied together into a single storyline.

To Erik, I figured a list of the films to the right of the plot would just be redundant because they're all listed in order in the CREW and BOX OFFICE sections.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I know, but these sections are later, and it seems appropriate to gather the films in the "Overview" section somehow. It's just a matter of how much linking we should do. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It certainly would seem prudent to have a linked chronological list of films somewhere earlier in the articles than the "Crew" and "Box office" sections. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Without wanting to discuss too much here about the Batman and Superman pages, I would argue that they discuss more about making a franchise and the overall development than these pages do, but that's by the by. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to side with Bignole on this one. There are basically five narrative threads in the series: the first two Laurie Strode films, the Jamie films, the retcon strand, the remakes and Halloween 3. I think splitting the article into little self-contained sections about the films is quite a generic and limited approach, although I concede it is prettier. The article presents the different narrative strands of the series, and since this is an article about the franchise it is probably a superior approach. The little self-contained sections about the films are redundant at a certain level because readers can go to the main articles and read about each film. Maybe we can explictly list the films before launching into the overview so that the films are clearly identified before the narrative structure of the series is discussed, but beside that I wouldn't make any major alterations to how it is written. Betty Logan (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I see Erik also mentioned the possibility of listing the films before the overview too. It could easily be solved by taking the table in the "Crew" section and putting it at the start of the "Overview" section before the text. Would that work? Betty Logan (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why not. I wouldn't call it "Crew" though, just leave without a header under "films" and would suggest that it is properly linked (and maybe remove the column and row-spanning to make it easier on the eye?) Rob Sinden (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this what you're suggesting?? I'm not sure I'm entirely against such a move, because it would certainly satisfy Rob's concerns without really changing the page, though I would disagree with the removal of the col/row spans. It's a standard procedure when the same person works on multiple, congruent films. Otherwise, you'd be listing the same names repeatedly. I don't think it's confusing to see Rob Zombie stretched across writer and director, between two back to back films that he made.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that looks fine Bignole; there may be some value in having a column for the year of release too, but by having the table first we get all the main information about the films before the discourse. I don't have an opinion on the row/column spanning thing. Some people like it, some don't, I don't care either way personally, but it's an aesthetic decision so unless MOS has some guideline for it then I'd just go with a vote on what people prefer. Betty Logan (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much. I'd either lose the numbering, or put in a separate column, and as per WP:REPEATLINK, would like to see the table fully linked. With regard to the row/column spanning, I think for clarity this should be avoided, but yeah, it's just aesthetic. I think it works fine for actors (as at List of Harry Potter cast members) but is less useful here. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

All of the films have their years next to their names in the overview. Is it necessary to put them in the crew table, the overview, and the full releases in the box office? As for the row/col, if we're going to leave it as a personal preference "vote" then I would argue that the vote be for people who edit the page regularly since they're the ones that deal with it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. We were asked here to comment on a specific aspect of the article so I have no intention of telling you how to write/stucture the article beyond the input you've asked for. If you and Rob are ok with the general outcome it's sorted as far as I'm concerned. Betty Logan (talk) 05:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As this table is meant as an introduction, would see no harm in having the years included also, maybe in a third column. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay - Ignoring redlinks and the fact I haven't filled in all the years - How about this? this? Aesthetically, I think this is the most pleasing, alternatively this. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I really don't think we need special columsn for the numerical position or the years. Numerically, it's just an unneeded column, as the numbers look nicer just resting next to the titles, instead of having them in a tiny column sectioned off by themselves. The same for the years. The years I don't think we need at all because they're already in the overview and the box office section. That particular data is largely extraneous when it comes to what you're just trying to accomplish, which is just a list of the films in plain sight. But, if the consensus is to include them, I think they're better off just next to the titles as well. It just seems weird to have a column just for a year, and not a full release date (which is already present in the Box Office section, a more relevant place for it).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to have numbers at all (and I don't personally think they are necessary), then they shouldn't be in the same cell as the title (and to my mind they certainly don't "look nicer"). I'd say either a separate column, or not at all. As far as showing the year for each release goes, if the purpose to give an overview of the films, then I'd argue that these are very relevant to illustrate the chronology. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the box isn't to give an overview of the films, the purpose of the box is to just provide a quick chronology of the films. The release dates have no bearing on anything related to just the title or who worked on the film. The release dates have bearing on box office information (which is why they are there). I don't think we need to start repeating the same information over and over in every section of the article. As for the numbers, I don't understand why they need to be separated by a column. Personally, I think the average reader can count to 10 rather easily, and probably doesn't need numbers to assist in that process. I mean, we're not talking about a huge list of films here where you'd have to scroll just to read every title.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

How can you have a "chronology" that doesn't show a time scale? The release date is relevant in an "at-a-glance" list of the films, probably more so than the producer. If you are to number the films, then this should have a separate column. This is the conventional way that tables work, and these numbers shouldn't be in the same cell as the title of the film. However, I'm not saying that they need to be numbered. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No-one has actually made a case for retaining the numbering, so unless someone does it can probably just be pulled. As for a column for the years, my suggestion was based less on a need for a "chronology" (which I incidentally agree is probably not essential for just identifying the films) but more of a pragmatic suggestion to cleaning up the table. Four of the ten films are already accompanied by years next to the titles to differentiate the originals from the remakes, but "Halloween (1978)" isn't actually the title of the film, it's just the disambiguated name of the article about the film; so my reasoning was to separate the title from the years so the title would be explicit, and just extend what is already present for half the films in the table. If it's an issue for some of the editors though, it's not that big a deal. Betty Logan (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

What do we reckon to this? Rob Sinden (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it looks any worse or any better without the numbers, so I'm cool with that. But, to me the mini column of just years looks odd. It seems so out of place with columns full of text to be infiltrated by arbitrary numbers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

How do we feel about the years in parentheses after the films' titles? Rob Sinden (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm ok with that, because it doesn't seem as weird as having a lone column just for a year when everything else is text.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay - updated. Although personally I think I prefer a separate column for the year, but no big deal... Rob Sinden (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Looks like we need to discuss further. Despite agreeing to the above, you seem to have made further changes. Firstly, I see you unlinked the tables. Whilst I see your point on the redlinks, as most of these are not likely to have articles created, WP:REPEATLINK states the exception that links should be repeated "where the links are in a table, as each row should stand on its own", so please do not revert this. Also, you seem to desire the cells to be merged, much like they often are for actors in film series. I do not think this is a good idea, and don't think they can be treated in the same way. Aesthetically it makes the table a mess, but more importantly it also confuses the information, especially when some individuals span different roles, and some span over the film sequence progression. I have reverted your changes (except the redlinks). Rob Sinden (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I've put back the col/row spans because that is a preference of the editors who regularly edit this page. There isn't a guideline for such a thing, and is always left to editor preference. Your personal displeasure of that is noted, but not something I agree with. I find it unnecessary to say the same name 3 separate times when it's the only one in the row. The same when it comes to being the only one to write and direct back-to-back films in the series. I don't believe it is confusing in the least. I can follow it just fine and neither I nor you can assume that the reader isn't intelligent enough to understand what is being presented unless there are numerous complaints about it. There haven't been. You're actually the first one to try and change it since it was instituted.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, please read my original statement about the row/col spans above: "Is this what you're suggesting?? I'm not sure I'm entirely against such a move, because it would certainly satisfy Rob's concerns without really changing the page, though I would disagree with the removal of the col/row spans. It's a standard procedure when the same person works on multiple, congruent films. Otherwise, you'd be listing the same names repeatedly. I don't think it's confusing to see Rob Zombie stretched across writer and director, between two back to back films that he made."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact remains that you agreed to the previous template. In any case, while I can see the point of the same role being spanned across multiple films, the arbitrary order of director / producer / writer should not be spanned - look at Sean S Cunningham on the Friday 13th page or John Carpenter & Debra Hill on the Halloween page. Let's discuss further before you keep reverting. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agreed to the template being moved. I agreed to the removal of numbers and the years in parenthesis. I didn't agree to removal of col/row spans. Read my comments above. Again, they were there first, and as I said it should be a discussion for regular editors of the page, which you are not. Even Betty agreed that it is a decision for those who regularly edit this page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It should not matter if the person has worked on the article substantially or not. We're all looking at it and evaluating it for the best presentation, whether or not we have history with the article. My take is that no spanning works best because it is easier to track the names with one's eyes. With the spanning, it feels like jagged consistency with the names. We should compensate for overlinking, though, since it's not too big of a table. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

See, I think that the spanning compensates for the overlinking because it removes unnecessary names. I'm fine with Rob's recent change of "by film" instead of "by role", because it still serves the same purpose. As for the "working on the article", Erik you know as well as I do that when you have put forth all the work in an article to reshape it and someone who hasn't done that wants to make nothing more than aesthetic changes to it that you don't care for, it really isn't the same as "improvement", because it's a subjective change.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Any reason why you're shortening the film titles? Rob Sinden (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Because it was throwing off the columns on my screen.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Then why not set the width? Rob Sinden (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

And are we headed towards ownership territory? Rob Sinden (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The width should be set on all of them? At least, it was when it was part of the "Crew" section. As for "OWN", you cannot tell me that there are not articles you are protective over. If there aren't, then I'd have to assume there aren't any articles that you've had to basically rewrite from scratch because there were the epitome of worthless Wikipedia trash when you found them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Nope - just checked the Halloween page, and width isn't set now, and wasn't when it was a crew section either. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

And, for the record, I'm sure you've done a great job on these pages. Coming to these pages with fresh eyes, I felt there was a way that the information could be presented in a more useful manner, so, as usual, I guess we're all fighting for the same thing esssentially :) Rob Sinden (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Back to the spannning / linking thing though... Rob Sinden (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Policy pretty much takes care of the linking dispute. WP:REPEATLINK clearly states only the first occurrence should be wikilinked, but tables are given as an exception to this rule: "where the links are in a table, as each row should stand on its own". If this were a table without any row or column spans, the first and second columns would have to be wikilinked since they all contain the first occurrences within each row. However, in the "Writers" column of the first row, only Debra Hill would need to be wiklinked because it is the first occurrence of her name on that row since John Carpenter would already have been wikilinked on that particular row. In the final column, neither Hill's nor Carpenter's names would need to be wikilined. On the second row, both Debra Hill and John Carpenter would need to be wikilinked in the "Writers" column since the wikilinking of the first row has no bearing on the second row; again it would be unnecessary to wikilink their names in the fourth column. In the case of row and column spanning some "over-linking" in the first and second rows of Hill and Carpenter can't be avoided due to the rowspans having to accommodate the first occurrences of their names in the second and third rows. I believe Wikipedia's policy on wikilinking tables actually obliges us to make it look like this in its current form: [2]. Here's the diff between the two versions: [3] Betty Logan (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Still not happy about the spanning really, I can see the point on a page like the Saw (franchise), where there are few changes throughout the series, but when there are multiple writers, producers, directors it gets messy. In any case, if we must have spanning, then I think that this should be restricted to span the films only, as the roles are in an arbitrary order, and the table would look different if the writer and producer roles were swapped (see Sean S Cunningham in Friday the 13th (franchise), or Rob Zombie in Halloween (franchise). Rob Sinden (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Future section

There is disagreement over where the "Future" section needs to be placed. In my opinion, it does not make sense to put information on a film yet to be made in the middle of information about films already released. If nothing ever comes from this potential film then the information will eventually be scrapped because there is nothing noteworthy about a film that was "talked about" and never actually made. Films are talked about and even written all the time and nothing ever makes it to film. For me, the proper place is after all the information about the films that have already been released. That's all the way after "Box Office" information. Because to me, that's a natural chronological order of events.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Make it a sub-subsection ("===") under development or break out the Rob Zombie versions into an entirely different sub-subsection. Sottolacqua (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's a few examples where the future film sits immediately after the overview / development of the films, and before the box office figures (agreed, some could use work!):

• Ghostbusters (franchise)
• Rambo (film series)
• Alien (franchise)
• Transformers (film series)
• American Pie (film series)
• Terminator (franchise)

Personally, I think it follows the chronology of the development better to have the "Future" section immediately after the individual films. Even if a film isn't made, but then the franchise is picked up again later on, these failed films should sit in the middle to show the whole process - see Superman in film or Batman in film.

I think this article, the A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise) and the Friday the 13th (franchise) could be improved by following the lead of other franchise/film series articles by moving "Box office" to a "Reception" section and adding a "Critical reaction" section. Agreed, some of the other articles have plenty of room for improvement too. Shame Wikipedia:MOSFILM#Film series is blank! --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

But "future" has not certainty. This is very true for horror film franchises that get "sequels" that never get made. We don't know if "Halloween 3" will get made, or if it was still a sequel to Rob Zombie's films. It is unprofessional to have a single subsection. When doing outlines, the rule is that if you have an "A" then you must have a "B". So, single subsections are look unprofessionally organized. As for your examples, the Ghostbusters page is horrendous so I won't even comment on that. With regard to the reception sections, please explain how you can accurately report the reception of films like Rambo, Alien, and Terminator through a Rotten Tomatoes rating when that rating does not reflect the opinion of those films when they were actually released? That makes no sense whatsoever. Not to mention that limited number of reviews that are listed are not even a good sample size to generalize from. Seriously, 42 reviews is the sample size for the first Terminator film? Of those reviews, most are from within the past 5 years. So, how does that reflect that opinion of the film in 1982? It doesn't, that is why there isn't a Rotten Tomatoes section on Friday the 13th, Halloween, or A Nightmare on Elm Street, because only the most recent couple of films have accurate sample sizes. I'll also point out that out of all of those pages, Friday the 13th has passed a GA review and only failed an FAC because of copyediting issues. No issues on page structuring or lack of a Rotten Tomatoes box. Your examples would have a hard time passing a simple GA review.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

I did point out that the articles needed improving! However, you've not really addressed the point regarding chronology of the development of the series, which is what this discussion is about. Really any current developments should sit in chronological context with things that have happened or may happen in the future. See Superman in film or Batman in film of good examples of this. Say that this third in the reboot series never gets made and is officially cancelled, it would still be worth mentioning in the article that there had been plans to make it. However, it would no longer belong in a "Future" section. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I addressed it originally. It's not part of the chronology of the series unless it's made. If the film never gets made it's just another "what if", that would ultimately be deleted as not being noteworthy. Superman in film and Batman in film discuss each movie from an individual perspective, not from a franchise generality. That's the different. You cannot compare Tim Burton's Superman Rebirth to Halloween 3 because Tim Burton's film had garnered 10 times that amount of coverage, they actually had everthing in place to begin filming (cast, crew, locations, etc.) and then the plug was pulled at the last minute. That is not the case, so far, with Halloween 3. Right now, we have "talk" and a potential script. That amounts to nothing because scripts are a dime a dozen and this one has already been rewritten like 3 times. No one even knows what the focus of the film is going to be because it hasn't been decided yet by anyone of consequence. When the film is made, then it naturally makes sense for it to be in the "Development" section because that section is about the development of the franchise. "Future" merely discusses what might happen and to cut through information about already established films makes no senses whatsoever. Especially if the film is never made. It becomes an afterthought. Why would an after thought be placed in the middle of information about already released films?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

If a film is planned, or enters pre-production but is ultimately never made, it still deserves a sentence at least in the chronology of the development of the series, as it is part of that process. Hence why I believe that a future film forms some part of that chronology. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ A planned film has no notability. A film that enters pre-production (pre-production is more than simply writing a script because anyone can write a script) has more notability, but not necessarily enough to warrant a mention. It always comes down to how much coverage it is actually getting. A few news sources saying "They are going to make 'Halloween 3'," does not equate to actual coverage if the film is never even taken beyond a script (which has happened in the past repeteadly with this franchise, and several others). It might be something to mention if they make a film later down the line, to point out that there was once talk of a film years prior, but if they don't then it's irrelevant to the franchise as a whole. Regardless, you're trying to plant potential information in the middle of already established information. The chronology right now is based on films that were made and released and how they performed. Logically, talk about a potential next film is more suitable after you've discussed the films that already exist. If you've ever read a news report on a film franchise, they typically cover the whole franchise and then at the end go, "there is currently another film in development...."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm a big stickler for WP:NFF, so I'm with you on the notability issue. Yes - "Halloween 3D" (or whatever) is NOT notable. However it is worth mentioning if a film goes into development, because, if it isn't included here, some bright spark will try to create the article page. We're not talking about the notability of this film, but where to position the information regarding the current status of the franchise (which you accept does belong on this page). To me (and to Sottolacqua), it logically sits at the end of the essay on development of the franchise (which is not in the middle of established information, but a continuation in a relevant section). To you it does not. It seems a little bit out of place stuck out on its own after discussions on the music and box-office results, as I feel that these sections are complimentary, appendix-like information. It seems that there are as many articles with this included in the development as not, so no established consensus as to how to play this. So I'm not going to push the issue - this is one to discuss when the MoS is written. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If it actually enters real development, then that's something to discuss. Right now, it hasn't entered anything. Unless you're trying to say that "development" is someone writing a script, then you might as well include a "future" section for almost every film under the Sun, because people write scripts for sequels all the time and nothing ever amounts to anything for most of them and we don't report on them and people don't create articles for them. People wanting to create an article for Halloween 3D right now is because it's a recent buzz about the script. That's it. If nothing changes, then the buzz dies and there isn't an issue anymore. If it does change, and they actually start working on the film then you have an argument. Until then, we're talking about a crystal ball effect here, where you're giving weight to information that basically says very little.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, lookin deeper into the information, I'm wondering whether it even merits its own section. How would you feel if a short sentence was added to the end of the development section mentioning that a release date has been set but there is no film, and leave it at that? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It's still crystal balling. You're playing the information like it's definitely happening. That film has had previous release dates, previous directors, and writers. If you recall, we were reporting on a "third" film way back when Halloween II came out in 2009. We removed that information because the potential release date (October 2010) came and went. As of right now, what you want to say is that "A film is wanting to be released on October 26, 2012". We're not a news source. We're supposed to be reporting from a historical perspective. Why are we giving any real thought to this in the first place is beyond me, but "Future" in a franchise article should mean the future of the franchise itself. That could include future documentaries, future comic books, future anything. Just, at the moment it's not occupying anything other than a potential film that has been "in talks" for the past 2 years.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, to be honest, I have not been following the news story, was purely getting involved in this on a matter of structure rather than content. Having looked at the source (and other news articles that I could find), there is very little firm information - it is all up in the air. I guess we need to leave something on this page though (as other editors will soon add it ad infinitum if it is removed). Leave it where it is! --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)