Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:FILM)
Jump to: navigation, search

Move request on Drama (film and television)[edit]

Inviting participants. I have made a move request here.----Let There Be Sunshine 07:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Opinions requested on category usage[edit]

I have started a discussion at Category talk:Police misconduct in fiction#Minimum threshold for inclusion? regarding whether it's appropriate to apply the category if the misconduct is only discussed in the plot section of a film article, or whether mention outside the plot summary should be required for the category to be added. Additional opinions would be welcome! DonIago (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Just a quick FYI that the above-linked discussion now includes some conversation regarding film-related categories that allow for "casual mentions" (e.g. "Murder in Film"), and what our feelings are regarding such categories. I believe we're a very long way from making any suggestions or proposals with regards to such categories, but if editors have opinions on them, they may wish to review the discussion and consider participating. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

In general should we be listing when projects were announced and when cast members joined[edit]

This has been a debate between @Erik: @Masem: and me for a while now, centering on what I thought would be a fairly non controversial edit here on the page for Hotel Artemis. We had establish previously through an RFC (link) that casting timetables and general announcements to the public were not appropriate for a Wikipedia article and I was removing material which corresponded to that. I got push back almost immediately from @Rusted AutoParts:, which Erik and Masem soon joined. The crux of the issue seems to be that the MOS doesn't explicitly forbid including the material (despite the fact that it highly advises against the inclusion in the first place) and that the it may be 3useful at some point (although I am not really sure how) This reasoning seems problematic for me as it would mean that most work on cleaning film articles up could not commence, it also appears to be in stark contrast to the RFC's ruling in the first place.

I opened up a discussion on the Film: Manual of Style talk page (here) to try to get a consensus but it ,with a few exceptions, boiled down to the three of us debating among ourselves and got too big to truly invite many onlookers.

The question I guess I'm trying to get answered is should frivious material such as contextless cast announcements dates and public announcement dates be removed from film articles --Deathawk (talk) 05:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

My stance has been and still is that as part of a collaborative project, that while a film has yet to be released, these types of additions are fair game from less experienced editors and should not be discouraged, but when it is possible, and certainly near, at , or after the film's release, the exact dates should be reduced or integrated with more concrete development information. In this case, the MOS should be used to judge the quality of the article and to argue for the removal of the casting dates/etc. but that's going to be after a film's release, and the MOS should not be strongly enforced prior to that. In general rough dates (month and year) are helpful for key milestones of a film: when the project was greenlit, when pre-production, filming, and other factors started, and in some cases, casting dates can be important to understand an actor's commitment. (For example, just today, we learned that Bill & Ted 3 is happening, and with this news was focus on how Keanu Reeves would be balancing his current work in John Wick 3 with this project). But if all we can say about how someone was casted was a date when that was announced, then in the long run it should be removed, but you aren't going to know that until the film's actually done and being released. --Masem (t) 06:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
The MOS states a preference. An imperfect article is not going to meet that preference. That's fine. Removing the information without replacing it with information of the quality standard you expect, is not. Stop. --Izno (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
That's not really an argument against removing information that isn't relevant in the first place, though. Popcornduff (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
In the long term, information about when things like casting is announced usually isn't notable or relevant, and worth removing after a bigger picture of the project emerges (usually after it's released). I think details of announcement are defensible when essentially all a project is is a set of announcements and there isn't much more to go on.
This doesn't just apply to film articles, by the way. I don't like reading that, for example, a band announced a tour for 2015 when we can just say they went on tour in 2015. The thing itself is the subject, not the announcement. Popcornduff (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
A lot of that is related to WP:PROSELINE - it's a "problem" that its an easy way for unexperienced editors to add information (we want that) but doesn't have the necessary cohesion for a more proper article in the long run. I'd rather us accept rough work that should include sources to polish up rather than have no work to start from at all. --Masem (t) 14:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I think we can all agree that proseline is a problem to address. But it is fully possible to have scenarios where every fact behind a proseline-type sentence is relevant. I find the opposite hard to believe, though, that a section of only proseline-type sentences has zero value to warrant wiping out the section completely. At the very minimum, it seems like the very beginning of the production is worth staking out. It is a valid starting point and helps create a space to summarize relevant facts about the production (obviously subject to discussion between editors). I think that's why the outright blanking at Hotel Artemis is anathema to me. If it was simply replacing the original draft with a super-condensed write-up, then that means at least the space continues to exist to put in and take out detail based on talk page discussion. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
A common objection I hear is something like "Casting news is all we have early on" well then why, do we have a production section at all at that phase? If we all can agree, that when cast members were announced should at some point be removed, then what's the point in even having the information in the first place? That does not accomplish any goals that a production section should be addressing. A significant issue also is that these production sections are almost never cleaned up afterwards, and by including them in the first place we are just adding material that we know we are just adding to a mess that we have to clean up at some point without adding any net positives. I'd like to finish up by having people look at the current revision of the article for Robin Hood, an upcoming film whose trailer was just released and, who no doubt, many people are flocking to the Wikipedia page. That page is a mess and it's embarassing for us to be presenting a page like that to the world. For most film articles about upcoming films this is the norm. --Deathawk (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I would also like to state, that while Masem's worry about stifling new editors is admirable, the reality is that most new editors aren't the ones creating these style edits and that by and large it's a handful of experienced editors creating the problem. The ones done by new editors seem to mostly air on the conservative side --Deathawk (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I seem to only read film articles after the film's release and always wondered when and why certain actors and actress signed on or dropped out was important to even know. The article was outdated for many lead stars change and production stops and starts in movie making world. The history of how a movie progresses may be important to know but the article should not read outdated. Editing by many may be the simple answer.Eschoryii (talk) 01:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Oppose blanket removal of this information from production sections unless better content is immediately inserted to replace it, just blanking is a retrograde option Atlantic306 (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
The information is that, depending on the movie, better information may never be available. If you look at films made in the 80s 90s and 2000s this is not a problem as there are only production sections for movies that warrant it. However in the last few years I'd say 90% of all film articles have a production section attached to it, which often consists solely of information that we identify in the MOS as inappropriate. Removing this information is not a retrograde approach, it makes articles look cleaner and causes people to look at substansial information when it appears. Going with our current ways of doing things, I worry that even when there is substantial information about a film, a lot of readers just won't bother looking at it, because of the glut of bad production section. --Deathawk (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
There is insufficient consensus for removal of these sections unless something better replaces it and we can't guess what the reader requires as for example I would rather read a by the numbers production section than the plot sections which I always skip unless am copyediting as they are full of spoilers and if ive seen the film I know the plot, the readers would obviously have diverse viewpoints which can't be guessed, Atlantic306 (talk) 10:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess to get a clearer picture I'll ping those who were involved with the initial RFC. Pinging @SMcCandlish, MapReader, NinjaRobotPirate, BattleshipMan, Alsee, Argento Surfer, Betty Logan, Pbsouthwood, Hijiri88, Huggums537, and Tenebrae:. Erik and Masem have already commented so that represents everybody who voted. What do you all think we should do? --Deathawk (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Would prefer this be determined on a case-by-case basis, without editors insisting that this content be included even when the only sources that can be found are bullshit pre-release sources that get pretty much every detail we don't cite them for wrong. Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
In other words, I guess I would say I oppose blanket removal but also oppose mandated inclusion. Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
FTR, the specific instance I had on my mind while writing the above was this, where a pre-release source was the only one that could be located, and it was being cited for information we knew was inaccurate. When pre-release promotional materials universally mislead regarding what certain characters' roles in the story are, we can't use the same sources to write that a certain actor was offered the part of "a character" with "a certain role". Saying that a certain actor was offered an unspecified role but turned it down, which is really the only thing we can say with certainty based on the bad sources we have, basically violates WP:TRIVIA, and encouraging editors to include this information regardless is definitely a problem. Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I think we should only make sub-suctions on production sections to make things less of an issue with production sections. Casting sections should be used when essential actors join that particular movie. For sequels, there should be who is returning and which essential actors joined that movie. The question is how to make it more encyclopedic. Most older films tend not to reveal production information back then. Many newer films tend to have production sections, which is necessary in many ways, if not all. That's an issue we need to figure out.
Another words, I oppose blanket removal of production sections, but we should think on certain issues with production sections to avoid issues, including who joined the movie, where the filming took place, sourcing and such. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The debate above has spun off in some unhelpful directions. The question here is whether casting dates are notable encyclopaedic information, and the consensus is that generally they are not, but sometimes they are (and if they are, month and year are sufficient). Really that's the end of the matter. The MoS remains guidelines, not mandation. No-one is suggesting deleting all production sections. The suggestion above that we should include inaccurate or irrelevant information if nothing better is available is obviously contrary to WP-wide policies. MapReader (talk) 04:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@MapReader: FWIW, I wasn't suggesting that. I was suggesting we should do more to prevent that. Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Responding to ping by Deathawk: I concur with MapReader's summary of 04:57, 13 May 2018 above, so my answer to the question in the section header would be "No, in general we should not be listing when projects were announced and when cast members joined, and frivolous material such as contextless cast announcement dates and public announcement dates should be removed from film articles". Since the general case would be to not include, and to remove when included, such material, the onus would be on the persons wishing to include it to show that it is sufficiently notable and relevant to be included, and that the sources are reliable and accurate. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I think we should try to avoid routine announcements from glorified press releases, but I'm most concerned with egregious proseline – the stuff that reads, "On X date, Y magazine reported that Z actor joined the cast". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I oppose any blanket removals from articles that are being done based on the grounds that the content is "not notable" enough. This is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines, which clearly (and prominently) states, "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article". [Emphasis added] WP:NOTEWORTHY. If you want to remove content from articles, then find a better reason like unsourced or some other reason besides "not notable". Notability is a judgement reserved for deciding whether a topic should have it's own article or not. It's not a judgement to decide if a topic should have it's own sentence, paragraph or section... Huggums537 (talk) 09:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I feel like your using the term "notable" in a different context than we are Huggums. The actor being in the film is obviously notable which is why they're listed under the cast listings along with other places, however the question we're asking is "Does this casting announcement help us understand how the film came together?" which is what we mean when we say "notable". There are million such business maneuvers done during production of a film and not all of them are worthy of inclusion. --Deathawk (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
@Huggums537: When people talk about "notability" in this context they almost always mean avoiding trivial content within articles, and this is borne out by the fact that a lot of the "non-noteworthy" content under present discussion has in fact been covered in "multiple third-party reliable sources". It is not helpful to wikilawyer over the fact that WP:NOTABLE and WP:NOTEWORTHY do not necessarily mean the same thing. Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, both Popcornduff (talk · contribs) and MapReader (talk · contribs) nuanced "notable" with "encyclopedic" or "relevnt", so dismissing their arguments because they appeared tp apply "notability" to content within articles (and in common parlance "noteworthiness" and "notability" are synonyms) misses the point. Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I think we actually are all talking about the same kind of notability here. Especially when we are suggesting that the "onus" is on the one introducing the content to "prove" that the content is "notable" in an article. You say, "The actor being in the film is obviously notable which is why they're listed under the cast listings along with other places", but that should not even be a question since we are talking about content within an article. It should not matter if it is "obviously notable" or not since we are talking about content within an article and notability DOES NOT APPLY according to WP:NOTEWORTHY. You have missed the point entirely. As far as wikilawyering about WP:NOTABLE and WP:NOTEWORTHY not meaning the same thing, well they are talking about exactly the same thing as both links go to exactly the same page, so yes we are talking about the same thing. It's all about notability on that page. I also think it IS helpful to educate fellow editors about WP:NOTEWORTHY so they will know for themselves that they do not have to prove to anyone that their content within articles is notable (only that it is reliably sourced) unless they are creating an article. Thank you. Huggums537 (talk) 11:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, think about this; if anyone is talking about any form of "notability" outside of what is outlined in the notability guidelines that I just pointed out to everyone then their viewpoint is not founded on guideline such as mine is and amounts to little more than wanting to remove the content simply because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I couldn't help but notice how Hijiri 88 likes to do his own wikilawyering by piping in links to guidelines while trying to accuse me of doing the same thing simply because I also choose to back up my position with actual specific guidelines. I bet you didn't think I would see that did you? Huggums537 (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Huggums, Hijiri 88 was right when they said I used "notable" in the sense of "worth mentioning". This isn't a WP:IDONTLIKEIT situation - I think it's pretty obvious that there are lots of things that don't belong inside articles, because they're too trivial or just not important enough or whatever, and we have to make judgements there. Popcornduff (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Hey, everyone, when you start feeling the urge to yell at people, remember that the MOS is under discretionary sanctions – and this debate centers around a recent change to a MOS guideline. For what it's worth, when people talk about how someone "has an onus", they're paraphrasing WP:ONUS, which says that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and the onus to demonstrate consensus is on the person who wants to keep contentious material. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it's important to distinguish that the WP:ONUS is on us to demonstrate "consensus" of disputed content within articles NOT to demonstrate "notability" of disputed content within articles and that is the all important distinction that I was trying to make because disputing content based on it being WP:TRIVIA might be perfectly valid, but basing a content removal dispute on not being "notable enough" is certainly invalid according to WP:NOTEWORTHY and basing a content removal dispute on WP:TRIVIAL could possibly be invalid as well. As Popcornduff stated, these are all important judgements to consider when deciding how to form a consensus on the content in question. Huggums537 (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I would say that the date and order of when stars — the leads and main supporting cast — were cast is significant; many projects only happen because a particular star got attached at an early stage, and the order in which main roles are filled represents creative and/or production-necessity choices that seem notable for posterity, within the obviously narrow niche of a particular movie's history. Beyond those stars, I don't imagine the dates and order of the perfunctory remaining cast is necessary (though cites, of course, would still be required for any included in the Cast section before the movie's release).--Tenebrae (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
A film "only happening because" a particular star got cast is worth mentioning - but does not make the casting of the main cast worth mentioning as a general principle! MapReader (talk) 04:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I think what should we do about that issue is only list lead stars and main supporting cast as well as any cast member who is returning for a sequel, which are considered significant. I think we should do so in month and year to avoid issues. For example:
Gerard Butler and Bryce Dallas Howard joined that movie in early May 2018. Robert Redford signed in for a role in mid May 2018. Keith David and William Fichtner joined in late May 2018.
With this suggestion, we will have to put sources to confirm those who have signed in for the roles. What do you think? BattleshipMan (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I think this takes us back to the original issue and I stand by the view that a load of data of months and years when each cast member was given their role simply clutters an article without (in most cases) telling me anything about how the film came to be made. However, before a film is released, editors that start to assemble a cast list, showing character and corresponding actor, would (without the film itself to act as a reference) need to add citation with sources giving the casting information. Such citations don't need to be removed when the film is released (or indeed could be added afterwards - there is nothing to say that the film has to be used as the only source). In this situation therefore the minutiae of the casting arrangements would be available via the linked publication.MapReader (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I stand by the view that a load of data of months and years when each cast member was given their role simply clutters an article without (in most cases) telling me anything about how the film came to be made. Yep. I think this is an eloquent way to state the problem. Popcornduff (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I see us traveling through all kinds of directions in this thread and the answer as to what to do is becoming less clear by the second. To get us back on track I would like to simply just ask if when I made my initial edit if I was following the correct interpretation of the Manual of Style? If so, can we enhance the MOS wording in any way to make it more clear? If not, what am I missing.? --Deathawk (talk) 06:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

    • No, as you took out valid information such as when shooting started and additional information beyond casting details such as distribution rights. This thread clearly shows that such blanking edits do not have consensus, and the MOS RFC was not decisive as it had insufficient participation with more participation here, so the MOS changes to production should be reverted not strenghened when there is such a lack of consensus and large opposition, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Atlantic306. Especially when we see the WP:PRESERVE policy go into a fair amount of lengthy detail about different ways to creatively retain content in a positive manner as opposed to simply blanking it. We also see that the all-mighty consensus is not the "end all be all" we seem to think it is when we realize that other policies such as WP:CONEXCEPT and WP:CONLIMITED do exist. In light of this, the consensus of a few over at an MOS should not over-ride well established policy, which should take precedent over guideline. Likewise, the MOS guideline should compliment policy, not contradict it. Huggums537 (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
To recap what I've said in previous discussions, I generally support removal of trivial "production cruft". It is not the case that we want to retain such filler just to pad out an article's length. This, in particular, is unencyclopedic, misguided thinking: "Oppose blanket removal of this information from production sections unless better content is immediately inserted to replace it, just blanking is a retrograde option". Just, no.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
    • see WP:ADHOM you really dont need to quote a passage just near to yours, and trivial production cruft is subjective if you are including information on shooting schedules and other details that other editors here are suggesting is of interest and relevant. Just blanket removing sourced content without making any effort to improve the section based on a small consensus is the unencyclopedic act Atlantic306 (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Atlantic306 once again. There is a HUGE difference between pruning some trivial information here or there and just blanket removal of a whole section without any more thought, action, or work than it took to create "the mess" in the first place. In fact, I would argue it is even more lazy and takes even less thought, action, and work to perform a blanket removal. Yet, the "blanket remover" is looking down their nose criticizing "the mess" to begin with. How ironic that the "blanket remover" is possessed with enough knowledge and skill that they are able to determine others work is a "mess" (implying that others were lazy, substandard, or otherwise failed to make improvements). Yet, by doing nothing more than performing a blanket removal when they obviously have superior knowledge and skill to make better improvements than that, have themselves demonstrated the very same lazy, substandard failure to make improvements they judge others for. If you want to prune trivial information, then by all means do so and improve the article. However, a blanket removal is no improvement and it's not the answer. As Izno stated early on, Wikipedia is a work in progress (WP:IMPERFECT) and if we follow the "blanket removal" line of thinking to it's logical conclusion, then we would probably be forced to remove the majority of articles on Wikipedia and that is not helpful or an improvement to anyone. The better approach is to contribute whatever skills and knowledge we have to apply them to existing content to improve it to the standard we expect, if we expect a higher standard, not erase it all. That is the whole spirit of collaborative growth which Wikipedia seems to stand for in the first place, but it seems a few elitists want to have "truth and usefulness prevail". Yet, they fail to realize this is a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too because they cry out that "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful" (WP:NOTEVERYTHING). Yet, they want "truth and encyclopedic usefulness" to prevail. It should be duly noted that just because information maybe should not be included, does not in any way mean that it can't be improved, altered, moved, or otherwise WP:PRESERVEed and it also doesn't in any way suggest that entire sections should be blanked out without any thought or bearing any scrutiny to make sure any good information is retained.
P.S. Note to Deathawk: It should be pointed out that when I talk about "blanket removers", I am not speaking about you personally. So, please understand that my POV is purely topic related and nothing personal at all. Thanks very much for inviting me to the conversation even though it seems I am not on the same side of the debate... Huggums537 (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I feel like it's almost impossible, not to be attacked by that , but I also feel like it's coming from a place that is feeling attacked, and that's weird to me. My pruning is not meant to be a sleight against you or any other editors that work on production section. It is just trying to do the job that we're expected to do. I would say about 90% of the time my work in production section works with what's already there. A great example of this is The Happytime Murders (Before, after The issue with the 10% is that there is nothing to use in accordance with what we determined in trivial at the MOS. If someone could come back find out some context and then re-add the info than that would be fine, however adding lists of casting timetables and when things were announced is generally frowned upon. We have to look at the bigger picture: Are we adding the info because it'll be useful to readers and it'll be something that they want to read. or are adding it because it gives us a big green number and makes us feel good? With the latter I worry that it's causing production sections to be irrelevant and content that's skipped by a majority of readers. I desperately do not want that to happen. Again I'm sorry if you take this personally that is not my intent. --Deathawk (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
To answer your Q directly, I think you were right to delete most of the detail about casting, but there appears enough material there to justify and appropriately reference a couple of sentences about how the film first came to be made - rights being granted, shooting starting, etc. Deleting the section wholesale could be seen as overkill, hence why we are have this discussion. I also see that, whilst most of the discussion here has been about the MoS wording on casting dates, the justification you gave for your edit was actually the MoS wording about announcements, which is a different if related matter?MapReader (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
is this true? Because my main concern is the long list of casting news, and if we can all agree that that's excessive that'd be a huge relief. I'd like to hear more opinions on the matter though: Do others agree?Deathawk (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
The original edit, pointed to above, that started the discussion refers to announcements, not casting dates, which I took to be a reference to the MoS "referring to public announcements only when these were particularly noteworthy or revealing about the production process."MapReader (talk) 05:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think I agree with MapReader. The bulk of the removal was justified. However, there was a small portion of salvageable content. Huggums537 (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Deathawk, thank you for providing The Happytime Murders example for us because it is proof of concept for a couple of important points. Firstly, it exonerates you from being in the "blanket remover" category and so you should have known my comments were not a personal attack against you by virtue of this example representing 90% of your own good work, which excludes you from being put in the "blanket remover" category. 90% of your own good work should be more than enough to convince you of that.
Also, I actually found the "Before" version of the article to be much more interesting than the "after" version. The "after" version was easier to read, less cluttered, and more concise. However, it was also plain, boring, bland, and uninteresting. I find the "before" version to be much more appealing with all the depth of information you would expect to find from reading anything of interest.
To address your concerns noted earlier about this: "I worry that even when there is substantial information about a film, a lot of readers just won't bother looking at it, because of the glut of bad production section."
Well, should we really be worrying about or catering to anyone who has an aversion to reading on a Wikipedia website full of articles designed specifically for reading purposes? This makes no sense.
I must assume the utmost good faith that your main goal here is to make a better Wikipedia, and not just satisfy the MoS. I believe that it is and I think you want to make the experience better for the reader. This is evidenced by your comment, "Are we adding the info because it'll be useful to readers and it'll be something that they want to read. or are adding it because it gives us a big green number and makes us feel good? With the latter I worry that it's causing production sections to be irrelevant and content that's skipped by a majority of readers.". We have to remember though, that we are talking about readers and readers are naturally supposed to like to read, right? I think your worries are unfounded, and fear-based. Especially when I see that, as a reader, I derive more satisfaction and enjoyment from The Happytime Murders article before your good work was applied to it, than after, even though it took me longer to read it. I'm not saying that I would change your work, or that it was bad, just that I got more out of the article and even found it to be of particular interest before you stripped it down to plain, boring, who-cares, if-I-wanted-a-paper-encyclopedia-I-would-go-to-the-library, uninteresting version. ;) Huggums537 (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
In addition: to speak to the part you said about, "I worry that it's causing production sections to be irrelevant and content that's skipped by a majority of readers." I think it's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. Plus, having it gives readers the option. They can skip it, or not. If you remove the content then you give them no choice but to skip it. This seems contrary to your goal of satisfying the reader. If your goals truly are in favor of the reader then wouldn't it make more sense to give the reader the option to make the choice for themselves rather than to unilaterally decide for them that they don't need the information? Huggums537 (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
The better to have... argument inside the above (lengthy !) contribution is a well-known dead end; progressing it onward we would then add the date on which each scene was filmed, and add "morning of" or "afternoon of" in front of dates. The point is that WP is an encyclopaedia with judgement about what should be included, because we cannot and should not include every known fact about every known subject. MapReader (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
MapReader, I think this: "we cannot and should not include every known fact about every known subject." is debatable. We can't? Technically, we can. We have all the resources needed to do so, (a virtually unlimited writing medium and editor pool) and if ever not enough, technology and manpower is always scalable. We shouldn't? I really think we should and I think it would be an even better and more unique model of encyclopedia than the current model we work with today.
Also, when you said my "better to have" argument, "is a well-known dead end; progressing it onward we would then add the date on which each scene was filmed, and add "morning of" or "afternoon of" in front of dates.", I could see right away this is just another cheap device to dismiss my argument that is only based on fear because if we actually progress the scenario onward all the way through to it's logical conclusion, then we will eventually see that there are ultimately only so many scenes, dates, cast details, announcements, etc. that could possibly be included in an article. It is a FINITE, exhaustible, source of material that will - for sure - inevitably HAVE TO run out of steam on it's own without our help.
My dissenters would play on your fears and have you believe that if we allow ANY of these "trivial" details then "the sky would be the limit" and there would be "no end" to the "infinite" list of details! So, we must "cut the dragon off at the head before it grows 10 more"!
This is very problematic for people who find relevant use from the details. This fear quite literally drives people mad and it even makes otherwise completely rational and intelligent people like Deathawk to perform random and senseless acts that they might otherwise never do 10% of the time such as the random blanket removal we discussed earlier.
I really wish I would have been a part of the discussion at the MoS because I feel like I'm making some very points that make rational sense. Huggums537 (talk) 08:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I can certainly see that you don't rate highly the value of keeping things concise. You need to read this and, if your opinion remains unchanged, challenge it on the relevant talk page; it's not a debate to be having here. And, please, don't ever go into publishing ;) MapReader (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I know about WP:NOT. It's funny you mentioned publishing, because I was actually thinking about it...:) Huggums537 (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Huggums537 I appreciate your concerns. Before I get started diving into them I want to make you aware of that the production section was largely the collaboration between myself and an editor named TheMovieguy. This is actually the result of the work I did, but Movieguy wanted to make some edits, which I found made the section read a bit more "boring" but overall still worked so I wasn't going to fight it.
As for your issue about preferring the "before" version, that's your preference but it comes contrary to what a lot of of us at Wikipedia think. Although it was made before the official MOS change, there was already talk about how notoriously bad production sections of films were at the time, and the MOS change was in keeping with the spirit of the work I did there. The whole point of having guidelines is so that we're not writing based upon our personal opinion we're writing based upon the widely accepted consensus. Another thing that I think you may be reacting to is the fact that the before version simply had more words, although it wasn't necessarily saying more. I paid particular attention to make sure that everything was covered just to make everything more concise. As the film remains unreleased there will be more info that comes out about it, and over time the section will be beefed up again.
I have to say I disagree with your last point though:Having a messy production section, I feel anyway, actually causes information to not be read, and is thus either as bad or worse than not having a production section in the first place. It simply does not let the readers find the information they are looking for. Not everybody is going to want to sift through a bunch of meaningless casting news and rote business maneuvers to get to the crux of the matter, the result is tons of readers missing out on important information about the making of the film.--Deathawk (talk) 03:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Hotel Artemis production section[edit]

What I'm hearing from a couple people here is that my removal of the production section at Hotel Artemis was largely right, except that I accidently deleted to much. I wanted to get a consensus on what should ideally be kept and thrown out. For the record I would write a production section like this:

Lionsgate acquired the international distribution rights to the film at the 2017 Berlin Film Festival, with WME Global dealing with the North American release.[1] Filming started in Los Angeles in May 2017 .[2] [3]

I left out the part about production begining in November 2016 because it was unsupported by the source linked to it, which merely was about Jodie Foster's Casting. My next question is how do we feel about production sections where there is no salvagable information For instance this was an edit I did for the film Early Man, which I feel I was in the right for. --Deathawk (talk) 04:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

My stance still remains that the additions of the cast is fine so long as it’s not written in a repetitive way. We talk of Production history, yet is casting for the film not included in that? I saw someone mention wanting to know how the film came to be. Isn’t casting a factor in that? Sometimes the first big update on a project is the additions of those who’ll be staring in it, so why isn’t that worth noting? Fact is most films just don’t have lengthy articles or stories written up about its cinematography or its visual Effects or editing or music or what have you unless it’s a film that meets a substantial reception or gains instrumental interest in every facet of its creation like Star Wars. With casting news it allows us to makes note of When one joined the film, and if in some cases it’s due to replacing a previous member. It may not be as interesting as other aspects of production history, but it’s still part of its production history. That’s my two cents. Rusted AutoParts 04:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
The best case scenario for including this is that it looks very strange and comes across as unneeded, in the worst case scenario it completely clogs up the production section for something that is largely trivial. There is a reason that the MOS had multiple debates on how to deal with the problem. It also, is strongly discouraged by the MOS. In the best case scenario to comply with our quality standards the production would, at some point have to be completely redone to get rid of such info, so why not now. Why is it so important to have this in the first place? --Deathawk (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^ Tartaglione, Nancy (2 February 2017). "Lionsgate Checks Into Jodie Foster-Starrer 'Hotel Artemis' For Offshore Sales – Berlin". Retrieved 27 August 2017. 
  2. ^ Kroll, Justin (12 May 2017). "Sterling K. Brown, Charlie Day, Jenny Slate Join Jodie Foster's 'Hotel Artemis'". Variety. Retrieved 27 August 2017. 
  3. ^ Galuppo, Mia & Ford, Rebecca (May 30, 2017). "Zachary Quinto Joining Jodie Foster in 'Hotel Artemis'". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 27 August 201.  Check date values in: |access-date= (help)

·:: I would also say that in more general terms even if you say your making these sections non repetitive by their very nature they are . Let's say you have a film with five principal cast members, it's a foregone conclusion that all five joined at some point, some after other people, so there's very little reason to point that out to the reader. If this happens for one or two films, it's fine, but we're getting to a point where it's a listing for Every.Single. Film, which regardless of how you massage it does come across as redundant. There are so many unique aspects to an indivisual film, that this shouldn't be the standard way film articles are read. --Deathawk (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

New Section[edit]

This debate has been going on for a little under a month now, and the arguments seem to be going nowhere. Feeling like I may of not expressed myself clearly at the start of debate, and because I am just so tired of going around in circles (By my count the discussion is a stale mate) I have started a new section called "Frustrated" You can view it here. --Deathawk (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Overlong plot[edit]

The plot summary in the Hereditary article badly needs pruning. Will someone do the honors? Tks, Slightlymad (talkcontribs) 11:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It looks like it may be a copyright violation, according to this tool. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Film score review table[edit]

What do other editors think of the table in this section (diff) with all the star-based scores? I've not seen this in any other (film) article before. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

    • Don't think its a problem, as it is useful as a quick summary, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Apart from it being unsourced, and indiscriminate? Half of them appear non-notable, with at least one based on user-generated reviews (IMDb). Why would this supercede prose? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
The table contents are already referenced in the prose section and imdb is the only unreliable link, its ok as an addition to prose but not as an alternative imo thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC) 13:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
To me it begs the question of why those specific sites, some of which I'm unfamiliar with (though I'm no expert). I'm also concerned that making this generally available may cause focus to shift from providing actual prose regarding reviews to simply populating the "star table". DonIago (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Unlike at video games, where the number of notable/trustworthy sites is within dozens (and thus we have a reasonable reason to use such tables), there's far too many "expert" film reviews that a table either will be far far too long, or will have to use selective reduction to certain critics which can be seen as original research or POV. It is best that film articles do not use them. --Masem (t) 13:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, am convinced they are not necessary Atlantic306 (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. I've gone ahead and removed that table, based on the above, and that the editor who added it has not replied anywhere to discuss it. I'll look out of the Red Dot of Revert soon... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Category rename discussion[edit]

Hi all. Category:Performance capture in film has been requested to be renamed to Category:Motion capture in film. Discussion can be found here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

When to add announced roles to an actor's filmography?[edit]

Hi all, this may not be the best place to ask this, but under what circumstances would you add an upcoming release to an actor's filmography?

Context: this edit. A future film project was added to Disha Patani's filmography. It has a reference. No indication that principal photography has begun yet.

Too soon to include, or fine to include? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that previous consensus has been that roles should not be added until the film is in production, though I'm not sure where I could point you to for that consensus. DonIago (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I guess it can be included. Two confirmed cast members of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3 are mentioned here in a Featured List but still in 'in development' phase (though, the film's name is not included in both the actor's filmography). So, I think it can be included with proper citations. Vivek Ray (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Films about space at AfD[edit]

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

List of film and television clichés at AfD[edit]

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


This was meant to be a part of another ongoing debate but I feel like for various reasons it's best suited here. Over the past couple of years I have grown frustrated with Wikpedia's construction of film articles. Specifically the production section within them. It seems a lot of them are unending streams of when cast members were announced which seems to me like for a better term "empty calories". An example of this can be found in Flarsky, which I would say is written about how 85% of upcoming film production sections are written. That would be bad but not detrimental except that about 95% of them are never cleaned up. Take a look for instance at Get a Job, a now two year old film where the content remains largely similar.

There was a successful RFC done in attempt to eliminate the problem and it passed unanimously and seemed like a major step forward in cleaning up Wikipedia. Since then I have tried several times to initiate discussion about how best to clean up these articles which mostly fell on deaf ears. Things came to a head recently when I tried to clean up the Hotel Artemis article to make it look presentable and got blowback from a large group of editors. Part of the problem is that I also removed the date the film started shooting accidentally. but the debate, while acknowledging that also seems to argue that such repetitive casting news should stay. It's really taken a lot out of me, and I haven't edited a film article since. I am honestly trying to improve Wikipedia by making the unique aspects of film production stand out, however I'm worried that they're being ignored based on bureaucratic ideas. I decided to make this a new section and not a continuation, not in an effort to sway things in my favor, but because the old debate is quite lage and I fell like I may not have made my case clearly the first time through.--Deathawk (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

It May be frustrating for you, but making new threads about the same topic within a short period of time isn’t going to fix it. Check out the talk page of Stanley Kubrick where it seems almost weekly there’s a new discussion about whether an infobox should be added or not. Let the discussion breathe a bit before refreshing it again. Rusted AutoParts 01:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
It isn't about not having made your case clearly, but about sensitive editing. Even where there is consensus on a point, only a few editors will have participated in that discussion. Taking a point agreed in one place and using it to remove a whole chunk of other editors' work is very likely to lead to discussion, as indeed you have found. If only you had taken the time to carefully remove the listed casting dates whilst preserving the section and as much of the other editors' content as the MoS could justify, we probably wouldn't be here. MapReader (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I guess my main purpose, and why I wanted to start a new discussion is I'm confused on things beyond Hotel Artemis. I think we can all agree that there was a problem there, however a lot of the arguments seemed to be in favor of keeping the casting dates in place, and that's what's so confusing to me. I also feel like the another objection is to the removal of the section itself, so I'm also confused with how to deal with sections that only contain material forbidden from The MOS, The example I brought up last time was this edit from Early Man. Was that a "correct" edit? --Deathawk (talk) 04:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
People are entitled to different views, even where there is consensus. Inevitably, if an issue reappears on a talk page, they will take the opportunity to argue their case. The MoS doesn't 'forbid' since it is a set of guidelines, not rules. I don't think it's appropriate for any editor to go through your past edits giving them marks out of ten; the fact remains that this discussion started because of a wholesale deletion of a section, when carefully editing out the trivial detail was really needed. If there is a section entirely of trivial information then, yes, under the MoS you would be 'right' to delete it - but that doesn't guarantee you won't get complaints (by firing up the 'better something than nothing' debate) and an extended argument before getting there! A more sophisticated approach would be to take the trouble to find and insert some relevant and appropriate material, both demonstrating to other editors the real purpose of the section and delivering a better end product for the user. MapReader (talk) 06:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Village Pump[edit]

Because this project hasn't discussed production enough lately, some editors of this project might be interested to know there has been a discussion started at the Village pump regarding how/when notability is judged for films. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)