Talk:Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

Split out accolades

As awards season goes on, it's become clear that this film is one of the major contenders, and is thus subject to be listed for more nominations/wins. As the accolades section is already taking up a substantial portion of the article, might it be wise to just split it off at this point?--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes indeed Anna (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

To the cascading IP addresses reverting due to "spoilers"

Please read WP:LEAD and WP:SPOILER. The function of the lead is to give an overview of the article. Since the bulk of many film pages is the plot (and it's always a substantial portion), it is not acceptable to say, "x is a 2017 movie about a man with a truck." You have to give an overview of the plot, not the most barebones premise conceivable. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you, Justin, but I do think that we can have an overview of the plot in the lede without revealing the one detail of the sheriff's suicide. I think that one detail can be left out. Just my opinion, of course. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine--I have no problem with some different wording but the film is not just about the billboards: it's is fundamentally about the changes in character that happen as this stunt unravels, a man reassesses his life, the woman who took action is harassed, etc. Far, far too many film articles here are in the form I mentioned above with only a dozen words given to the plot. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that WP cannot exclude content on the basis of spoilers. But for a film or a book, I expect those spoilers to be safely quarantined in the "Plot" section. I can reasonably expect to get a non-spoiling synopsis from the summary paragraph, or non-spoiling information (where possible) about the production or cultural impact. For that reason, I think the spoiler should be kept out of the opening paragraph. The same information can continue to live under "plot". 24.23.243.9 (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

You have simply repeated the same argument, clearly without having read WP:SPOILERS or WP:LEAD. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I completely and totally disagree with this. It's a huge spoiler for the movie, containing events that take place well into the second half, and that aren't mentioned in any of the promotional material. It's honestly just a dick move to keep putting it back. When people go to look at the opening paragraph they want to know the PREMISE, not the entire plot. People shouldn't have to be spoiled on this movie because of this Justin guy's weird attitude about this. 82.10.113.92 (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Did you read WP:SPOILERS or WP:LEAD? Do you understand that Wikipedia is not spoiler-free but presents encyclopedic information? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Our spoiler policy doesn't mean that people should include spoilers simply because we can, nor should spoilers be avoided because simply because they're spoilers, rather the material should be evaluated to determine whether or not the material serves an encyclopedic purpose. Given that most material mentioning the synopsis, does not seem to include this information, I think we should err on the side of caution. If however there is significant developments regarding the spoiler either in the production or in the reception of the film, than yeah we should cover it, but it's probably not lead material. --Deathawk (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

(in reply to Koavf, formatting got weird on this page): I think the current summary of the plot in the lead section is more than adequate. The sheriff's suicide happens nearly halfway through, and while it definitely affects how the film unfolds (obviously), the film is primarily about Mildred Hayes' public outcry about the unsolved murder of her daughter. Full agreement that spoilers shouldn't be avoided just because they're spoilers, but this isn't that. The detail of Willoughby's suicide is a plot development, it's not part of the premise, which is all the lead really needs to cover. Sock (tock talk) 16:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sock: That is not all we need to cover: the lead is supposed to be representative of the entire article and just saying that she sets up billboards and is angry does not represent the plot, which is several hundred words and has several developments after the billboards are erected. I have brought up this issue at WT:FILM several times and others have tacitly acknowledged the problem but no one wants to fix it. @Deathawk: the fact that many articles are insufficient doesn't justify this one being incomplete as well: there are a lot of articles that have unsourced claims as well but we don't let new unsourced claims slide because of it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Koavf: I've just looked through the archives for WT:FILM from the past year and your name didn't appear once, certainly not when discussing this film. Maybe you're just trying to drive a point home, but non-specifically saying "others have tacitly acknowledged the problem" with no links and no recent discussion on the place you pointed to, it rings hollow to me. If you could show me discussions where other editors acknowledge this as a problem, I'd be grateful to read them.

Apart from that, sourcing from my own work, I brought Her up to GA with this as the lead plot summary: "The film follows Theodore Twombly (Joaquin Phoenix), a man who develops a relationship with Samantha (Scarlett Johansson), an intelligent computer operating system personified through a female voice." It doesn't mention his relationship with his ex-wife Catherine, nor his friend Amy, nor even how their relationship ends up being romantic. The lead is not a place to recount the whole plot of a film, and having nearly half of this film's content cut down to two sentences isn't summary, it's over-explanation. Some films require more backstory in the lead to set the stage, like Avatar, but even that film summary is simple and short after the backstory is explained: "The expansion of the mining colony threatens the continued existence of a local tribe of Na'vi – a humanoid species indigenous to Pandora." That's the base of the whole movie; the Na'vi are threatened on Pandora. The backstory for this film is that Mildred's daughter was murdered, and that creates the story of her putting up billboards demanding justice, and the townsfolk's varying responses to that action. One of those responses is Willoughby's suicide. That is the core of the film, and that, to me, is all that's necessary. However, I would like to hear other editor's opinions on the matter, as I can acknowledge that I think we're just not going to agree on this, and I don't want to go in circles. I don't want it to come off like I don't respect your opinion either, as I can see how that might be the vibe I'm giving. Sock (tock talk) 18:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't in the last year and it wasn't about this film (e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 59). This is my point is that the problem is not localized to this film. I had the same thing happen at Murder on the Orient Express (2017 film)--I guess someone is worried about spoilers for a 70 year-old book. The lead is exactly the place to recount the entire film since the lead section is supposed to include a summary of the entire article. A one-sentence premise that just mentions what you see in the first five minutes of a film does not adequately summarize the plot. Yes, we clearly disagree but I've not gotten a disrespectful vibe from you--you're alrite by me. I hope the converse is true as well. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The issue is, in my opinion at least, a practical one, many of our readers check to see info about a film before seeing a film, providing spoilers in the lead, does not serve a purpose to them, other readers have already seen a film and know the spoiler, providing spoiler to them does ot serve a purpose to them either. Really putting spoilers in leads serves a to benefit only a few at the expense of many. The info, spoilers and all is in the "plot" section if anyone is really interested. I guess I just don't see a good reason to put the info there. --Deathawk (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Deathawk: Did you read WP:SPOILER? E.g. "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality (e.g., the lead section)." I have to be honest, I'm confused about what is confusing about this. "Spoilers" are arbitrary information that some users don't want to read--if so, you probably shouldn't read an encyclopedia article about something. And when do they expire? Is it "spoiling" Romeo and Juliet to say that they don't make it out alive? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes but reading further the guideline states that "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served" and I pose that the inclusion of including a spoiler in this case does not serve such a purpose. To use your example of Romeo and Juliet, that would be encyclopedic because it's such a well known part of the story, this however isn't and doesn't further the understanding of the work. For your second point there are many reasons a user might want to visit an article about seeing a movie before they see it, to see what kind of reception it got, to see who produced the soundtrack etc. So it can't be assumed that a majority of the people reading the article would have seen it and would be ok with the spoiler. --Deathawk (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

But what constitutes a "spoiler" is an arbitrary--virtually random--way of saying that some information shouldn't be viewed yet. Since the lead is supposed to give an overview of the article, including the plot, just stopping at what happens in the most basic premise is not enough. We wouldn't start out the article on ducks by saying that they are nidifugous birds but then keeping the fact that they fly a secret until you read the whole article. Our purpose is to make facts well known and explaining what happens in the story does exactly that: enhance understanding. By what standard should we decide that some information is top-secret from the lead? I don't want to be disrespectful but I'm sorry--this is just ridiculous. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

My objection isn't that it's a spoiler, but that it makes the plot description needlessly bulky in the lede. Leave it for the plot section. Czolgolz (talk) 08:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Two sentences? Ridiculous. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Koavf—RfC? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Agreed. This quite literally impacts every film/book/comic article and intersects two pretty fundamental policies. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, the original summary was one ONE sentence, so yes, two sentences is a significant increase. Czolgolz (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Which is not what you argued. That was that it was becoming "needlessly bulky," so regardless of the actual percentage increase, the end result is still perfectly acceptabe and well-within the limits of WP:LEADLENGTH. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Note that the lede for Star Wars: The Last Jedi says The plot follows Rey as she receives Jedi training from Luke Skywalker, in hopes of turning the tide for the Resistance in the fight against Kylo Ren and the First Order. The lede should always be fairly terse. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC) Thank you for this statement, my dude. I only wish it had come before koavf spoiled this movie for so many while picking this as a hill to die on. 82.10.113.92 (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)