Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page was nominated for deletion on February 27 2007. The result of the discussion was keep—the nomination was withdrawn.

Contents 1 Criterion 1 2 50 Rule 3 Something from books notability 4 Released films criteria 5 200 Commercial Theaters? 6 What about Straight-To-DVD Releases??? 7 Wouldn't TV Movies fail these new guidelines, too? 8 Pointless. 9 Certainty 10 Objection 11 Tagged as Historical 12 Some other article that covers the issue then 13 Time to update 14 We Appear To Have No Standards 15 My suggested criteria for released films - please discuss 16 Heavily Edited Guideline Proposal 17 Question to all editors (including zadignose) 18 Notability of actors 19 Tagging 20 RFC 21 m:voting is evil 22 Here's a thought 23 AfD (Second) 24 Options 25 Merge 26 WP:3O 27 Guideline 28 Who supports this and why?

[edit] Criterion 1

I'm not happy about the medium to large country, this will surely be viewed as a case of systemic bias. Of course it's not like Wikipedia is drowning in articles about Gambian cinema but still... Pascal.Tesson 16:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with you here. There are many films which are of a high quality being released in smaller countries. The above mentioned criteria should be changed. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The wording is borrowed from WP:MUSIC criteria 1 and 2 which are footnoted There are, at present, no precise definitions of a "small", "medium" or "large" country in this context. However, a very limited definition of "small" will generally be used, excluding only a few of the world's smallest countries.. I'll add the note, but alternately the criterion could be scraped or rewritten. The idea behind it is to demand actual release rather than "I screened my fan film at a Star Trek conventon". Eluchil404 21:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I'm not sure this is needed at all for films. Again, it will be easier to get support for a simpler proposal that has no weaknesses. Films are not songs: a song is very very unlikely to be a charted hit in Luxemburg only but the probability that a movie would be released only is Luxemburg is zero if only because even the cost of printing a copy of a film for theatrical release discourages such a limited release. Pascal.Tesson 15:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually most luxembourgian films are only released in Luxembourg. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.41.34.154 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 25 November 2006.

WP:BK uses the following released nationwide in a country, or into 200 or more commercial theaters, but in no case less than 50 such theaters with regards to what constitutes a "major motion picture". If that a better criterion? Eluchil404 01:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that a lot of independent movies skip theatrical release these days and are only out on DVD, I wonder if requiring a theatrical release is over the top? Most of the good ones would still qualify under one of the other categories, but you could end up with a direct-to-DVD movie that's in every rental store in the world, which millions of people have seen, but which can't be included here. Mark Grant 03:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think the change to has been written about by in a non-trivial manner would cover that situation, since any popular movie should get at least a few reviews. Mark Grant 22:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the rewitten coverage criterion should cover such cases. On the whole I think the new fuller version is better. There may be difficult cases in practice but the examples given should provide as fairly firm floor. Eluchil404 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 50 Rule

I thought the idea of the 50 rule was so that a movie wouldn't qualify just because it's been shown in, say, the single cinema in the Cook Islands? Mark Grant 01:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that that is what was ment, but it was rather poorly worded, perhaps adding back in the medium or large country wording is the best way to go. Eluchil404 18:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something from books notability

If a film's been studied similar to the way a book has in multiple programs, isn't it notable? This would be a similar point to the one already used by the books notability criteria. ColourBurst 16:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Do you mean academic programs, like college classes? How might you verify that? --Satori Son 17:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You could verify that by examining a university syllabus.

[edit] Released films criteria

I don't think #4 is necessary, possibly not even #3. Any film meeting those will almost inevitably meet #1 as well, certainly if reviews count. Of course, if a major-studio release gets no publicity or coverage whatsoever that fact is probably itself notable. Basically, I don't think Wikipedia should have a deliberate, clculated pro-corporate bias. It's already primarily edited by the fortunate fifth, probably the fortunate fiftieth globally.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 17:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 200 Commercial Theaters?

By that logic, a film shown at Cannes and Toronto and Sundance, but nowhere else, wouldn't make it onto Wikipedia. I know some of the other clauses would make up for it, but I think an appearance in at least one film festival is suitable. —the preceding comment is by Deltajuliet - 07:43, 10 September 2006: Please sign your posts!

This is arguably a weakness, but such films will usually meet criterion 1 with reviews or 3 with awards so I don't think this is a major problem. Are there any films which would be excluded that you feel shouldn't be? Eluchil404 23:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The debate over the proposed deletion of Terror Storm is throwing up some interesting questions about notability for me because it is a film designed to be distributed by undergroud methods, such as being given away for free on googlevideo and youtube, so it will probably be shown at festivals but it won't get a mainstream cinematic release. I think it is notable, but most of its press is on the internet. If it gets awards then that solves the problem for now, but i sense that this could be the tip of a growing issue - internet distributed films will naturally be publicised more on that medium, rather than in the "reliable" sources of newspapers and magazines, thus we may have to revise the criteria of notability in future. Just some thoughts for now... Mujinga 12:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please also see Wikipedia_talk:911_POV_disputes#Sources.2FNotability for some proposals by User:JustFacts. I believe we need additional criteria for films which do not meet the proposed (01:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)) standards, but are nonetheless to be deemed notable, simply because people take notion of them en masse. — Xiutwel (talk)

[edit] What about Straight-To-DVD Releases???

There are a ton of films that wouldn't meet these standards that are fairly commercial. For example, Straight-to-DVD releases wouldn't pass these standards -- they aren't usually the greatest films but they are usually notable enough. For example, most of Wesley Snipes and Steven Seagal's recent releases. Dodgem4s 09:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of them meet either 1 or 4. Remember for 1 all it needs is two reviews from reliable sources not feature stories in Variety and the New York Times. Eluchil404 20:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wouldn't TV Movies fail these new guidelines, too?

A lot of TV movies would fail to meet these standards as well. I understand trying to add these standards -- but there are way too many holes in the proposed guidelines.Dodgem4s 09:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

TV movies get reviewed (e.g., in Entertainment Weekly, a reliable non-trivial source). I think many if not most would meet the first criterion, and possibly the fourth. Anyhow, the fact that some movies wouldn't meet the criteria isn't itself an argument against applying them; that's the point of having criteria, after all.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 14:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that many TV movies would meet these criteria, it is not really designed to apply to them so may, at times, be a poor fit. I also do not consider guidelines such as WP:NOTFILM to be necessarily binding or exhaustive. A film might still be notable while technically failing the guideline, but you would still have to demonstrate that notability with citations to reliable sources rather than mere relationship to an otherwise notable person or production company. Eluchil404 20:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pointless.

This page serves no purpose — there's no evidence that there is any sort of widespread confusion or dispute regarding the inclusion of film articles. All this does is create more bureaucracy, and its arbitrary rules are unlikely to help in any way, aside from facilitating the deletion of perfectly good articles. --SB | T 01:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

But, but, but, .... without an endless pile of rules and processes to fret over, whatever would we do? Think for ourselves? Derex 07:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Certainty

I just want to clarify: If a film is on the IMDB, does that make it notable? I think it doesn't. SolelyFacts 19:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No, being listed on IMDb is not an indica of notability. On the other hand, not being listed is a good indica of non-notability so IMDb isn't irrelevant to the discussion, its standards are just different than Wikipedia's. Eluchil404 08:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

In this case, I will tag "notability" on the so many articles that does not deserve to be on Wikipedia, according to the notability criteria. Thank you. —SolelyFacts 18:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to ask that you do not go tagging every film out there with a notability tag. That would just be unproductive. Pascal.Tesson 21:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objection

I object to the criteria for released films as they now stand. I apologize if this has been discussed before, but there are a few points that I feel I should mention.

1. The film has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the film and its creators/producers. I think this should be changed to "one or two" rather than "multiple"; I know of a few fairly important films which nevertheless have not had much at all written about them due to them fading into obscurity as time passed. Examples: The Adventure of Sudsakorn, the films of Quirino Cristiani. One or two trusted and well-researched published works should be enough, because there are many noteworthy works of cinema which slip through the cracks until some diligent historian discovers them. In short, perhaps another criterion about being "noteworthy to the history of cinema" should be added, so that such films can be added even if there aren't very many published works about them (there probably were when they were released, but who can find them now?). Also, what about films which feature notable people in their crew but do not have much written about them?

A final question: do reviews count?

2. The film has been theatrically released nationwide in a country, or into 200 or more commercial theaters. I understand that this is basically subservient to requirement #1 and thus fairly useless, but shouldn't something be written about direct-to-video and made-for-tv films at least? The more important question is, though, what exactly does "released nationwide" mean? If it's released in two different cities in a country, is that a nationwide release?

3. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. I foresee arguments about what is a "major award" and what isn't. Why not just shorten it to "award"?

4. The film is a full length film released by a major studio. Again, what is a "major studio" exactly? And why should only "full length" (I assume feature-length was meant) films count?

Anyway, besides the problems that I've pointed out, I propose a 5th qualifier: "5. If a person who is judged notable enough to have an article on wikipedia is involved in a film, then that film is notable too. However, an article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there (this last rule is designed to prevent heaps of pages about short internet videos)."

Esn 06:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

My comments on your objections are below.

1. Because of WP:V and WP:RS, I am very reluctant to rely on a single source to support notability (multiple means 2 or more). Unless it can be shown that other people consider a film notable claiming that it is important to the history of cinema is likely to run afoul of WP:OR. And yes reviews generally count for this criterion as long as they come from a source generally regarded as reliable and not from the movie makers website or a random blog.

2. This has been quieried before, and while it brought up a blind spot in my thinking, I don't think the criterion needs to be changed. Direct-to-video films simply cannot (IMHO) achieve notability based on their release and should have to qualify under another criterion. I don't think that made for TV movies are within the scope of the guideline (as they are a genre of television rather than of film), but if they are the same logic would apply.

3. Because anyone can make up an non-notable award to give to their film. Imagine a Star Trek convention that holds a juried fan film contest and declares a winner. Would that film be notable? I think not. The subjectivity of 'major' is indeed regretable but I don't think it is avoidable.

4. I honestly don't really know what a major studio would be and don't much like this criterion. Did someone else write it? On the other hand, I do think that a distinction between feature length films and shorts is appropriate. Since the former are mostly notable and the latter aren't, IMHO.

As for a transfered notability criterion, I forsee two problems, though it's not a bad idea. First, it could be read as sanctioning articles on truly trivial subjects that should be a sentence or less in the article of the notable person associated with them (e.g. Peter Jackson's childhood remake of King Kong). And secondly, the scope of associated should be clarified. The names of notable people often get attached to minor projects in which they have little or no actual input. I agree that films directed by notable directs or starring notable actors are ipso facto notable, but say films produced by a production company the president of which has a wikipedia article maybe not. Eluchil404 10:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tagged as Historical

The proposal has been tagged as inactive and I have declined to revert. There is not claer consensus on whether these criteria are appropriate or even necessary, and given the relative paucity of cites to this proposal in AfD, I am happy to leave it in abeyance until someone else feels that it is necessary to restart the discussion. Eluchil404 07:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I might as well point out that the criteria on unreleased films on this page are often brought up in AFD discussions, and the final decision often rests upon them. For example, here. My objections to the main policy above should not be so difficult to solve. It just seems like nobody really cares enough to try at this time. Esn 08:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to keep track of how often this page has been cited in AfD discussions and haven't noticed that many recently, but maybe its enough to justify a guideline. As for your objections above, I feel that most of them would inappropriately weaken the guideline to include many films of dubious notability. I'll provide a blow-by-blow rundown of my thoughts since you asked but would want to get more people involved to reach a real consensus. Note that this has been mentioned twice on the village pump, so I am hesitant to keep posting it there saying "Hey come comment on my proposal!" Eluchil404 09:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some other article that covers the issue then

If this article has to stay as a historical failure, we still have to clear out what it was intended to do, or we will never be able to solve many of the recent problems that Project Films is facing. I know it's not simple, but we have to (re)start somewhere. Hoverfish 22:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Could Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria be of any help? Hoverfish 22:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think so.--Supernumerary 22:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

We also have all these Film templates in film articles waiting for some importance assessment. I honestly don't find a clue in the above link but maybe I'm not very bright. Is importance of a film not its notability? Hoverfish 23:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think importance is, if not equal to, at least related to notability.--Supernumerary 22:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time to update

We need to redo this page to make it useful and relevant. I think this process will entail multiple votes to gain consensus. Anyway, some things that I think need fixing are, under released films, criteria three and four. They are, "3) The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. 4) The film is a full length film released by a major studio." I think we should specify what constitute the major studios and major awards. Also I don't think a major award is sufficient but that the award should be from a major organization as well. Of course these organizations will also need to be specified.--Supernumerary 23:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I added a list of major film studios, but they're all American. I have no clue what the major ones in India or in Europe are, so those need to be added.--Supernumerary 02:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note two things. First of all, criterions 2, 3 and 4 are superfluous to criterion 1 (in pretty much any conceivable situation, anything that satisfies criteria 1 will satisfy criteria 2, 3 and 4 as well). Second of all, the vast majority of film articles on wikipedia are of films which have not been released by a major studio. You'll likely find wide-ranging opposition at Wikiproject Films to deleting the majority of its articles. Basically, what you're doing now is not usefull (my apologies about the bluntness). I think it would be better to simply delete criterions 2, 3 and 4 altogether - just criterion 1 alone seems to cover all bases that come to mind... Esn 03:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, this is tricky. I see what you mean about the studios though and have removed them.--Supernumerary 06:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad this page is on the move. One odd related phenomenon I have observed in the project work-list for films without an article. I was checking Walter Matthau's filmography, fixing links and came across First Monday in October. Not finding enough mention of the film, I created a red link for it in the project's list of films without articles. Then someone deleted it. I reverted but asked why and was told the mixed article was more than enough on the issue and no article on the film was necessary. So I marked First Monday in October (film) as No importance (in the red list). Next thing someone started an article on it. I have a notion some editors will select in particlar "low importance" films to start articles on. Following the same notion, I think we will face a big problem if we use notability to delete film articles.

Also, please take a look at the temporary worklist of Australian Films. Although it was created in the list of missing articles, it ended up being a list of existing articles mostly, so I have been trying to make some markings for importance based on imdb ratings and awards (I know that's not enough, but had to start somewhere). It is my only systematic effort to mark films importance in a big list. If there are any clues in this attempt for this project, or if you have any clues for me, I'll be glad to be of assistence either way. Hoverfish Talk 08:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

My attention just fell on The Astro-Zombies. No awards, imdb rating 2.2, but still an article and a well loved one. Such films are a subculture. We shouldn't try to uproot them from Wikipedia. Maybe we could find some category for such entries. Hoverfish Talk 09:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, my proposition is that we should simply keep criterion #1 and ditch the other existing ones. Instead, we should add another requirement to criterion #1: that the film has been screened publicly at least once (cinema or TV) or released on home video. If it satisfies both of those requirements (a mention in a publication and made available to the public at some point), then it can be included. Many independent films don't get that far, so that would provide some kind of bar, as well as allowing articles for films which only get festival releases, for example (or direct-to-video/made-for-tv films).

Also, perhaps a "criterion #2" can be created (as I suggested some ways above; this is a slightly modified version): If a person who is judged notable enough to have an article on wikipedia is notably (not trivially) involved in a film, then that film is notable as well. However, an article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there.

Unfinished films which are historically important would not satisfy the first criterion but would satisfy the second (ie. Creation, which was a kind of prototype for the 1933 King Kong).

And of course, unreleased future films already have their own guidelines which I think are quite adequate already and shouldn't be changed much if at all. Esn 09:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

We will HAVE to draw somewhere a line for inclusion. Films that have been screened in English talking countries may be OK. But if all greek or italian films that have been screened in Greece or Italy (but not in the English talking world) start coming in, we are opening a bottomless pit. I also know users who will go ahead and do it. Here is what E.S.Blofeld started doing: Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List of films without article/List of missing Brazilian Films and it took me quite some effort to persuade him to bring it all in project space and start filtering it for "notability" before giving red links. Hoverfish Talk 18:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

And why shouldn't we include films which have only been released in foreign countries? We must include them as a way of countering systematic bias. This is a world-wide project, and writing about things which are only notable in English-speaking countries violates a central tenet of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is designed to be a never-ending quest - it is NOT a paper encyclopedia. Therefore, there is no reason to apply strict standards, to films or anything else. I disagree strongly with your proposition and would like to again bring to everyone's attention the two-criteria model that I proposed above, which is fairly close to what was here before but seems to me to be more logical (because before, everything except criterion #1 was redundant). Esn 21:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We Appear To Have No Standards

I'm kind of shocked at how incredibly loose these supposed standards of notability are, and can't fathom the fact that many are objecting that they're too strict! It's a safe bet that somewhere in the neighborhood of 30,000 films qualify for inclusion, the vast majority of which have been entirely forgotten. I'm in favor of MUCH tougher standards. If we can't establish some kind of reasonable standards, then we might as well abandon this guideline (though perhaps this is already the case).

The first fix I would suggest would be to change the text from:

"In general a film is notable if it meets one or more of the following criteria"

to:

"In general a film is NOT notable if it fails to meet at least one of the following criteria."

If a film fails to meet any of these criteria, then clearly it is NOT notable, but meeting one or more of them is NOT SUFFICIENT to establish notability.

I would further suggest that a film should have multiple non-trivial articles published about it at least five years after its initial release. Films that are less than five years old should have some VERY TOUGH standards to meet, as it's easy for our editors to be swept up in the hype around anything current, though most films that seem notable close to their release time are entirely forgotten by the viewing public, critics, and historians alike. Though perhaps even ten years is a better guideline for what's current. And, by definition, no unreleased film in current production or development would be notable enough for inclusion in this encyclopedia, as such films don't even exist.

This may seem like an extreme position to take, but frankly I consider the existing guideline terribly inadequate. After all, how notable do you really think Daltry Calhoun,[1] Biker Boyz,[2] and Virtual Sexuality[3] are? I'm sure I can't attest to the notability of Sweet Kitty Bellairs,[4] Rhapsody in Brew,[5] or Ice-Capades Revue.[6] Perhaps these were great films, but I doubt they are as "notable" as say City Lights, Casablanca, and Citizen Kane. Yet all of these easily qualify as notable under the current guidelines. zadignose 14:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You're suggesting multiple non-trivial articles OR a major film award, right? Also, I'd suggest that single or several major articles might suffice for less commercially prominent genres of films. I'm thinking about a classic animated short line Bead Game by Ishu Patel, which doesn't have a wealth of articles online, but has won major international awards and does merit an entry in the my country's very noteworthy Canadian Film Encyclopedia. Shawn in Montreal 14:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a better example is the short doc Banshees Over Canada, which is not well known or cited, but is included in the noteworthy List of Allied propaganda films of World War II. In my view, any new guidelines for film articles would also have to include the caveat that films can also be judged noteworthy if they are of historical or societal significance, even if they aren't award winners or well-cited. Shawn in Montreal 16:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Such historical or societal significance must be noted in already published non-trivial articles, to avoid the claim of Original Research. We can't decide what films, so far barely noted, are socially significant, but published critics and academics certainly can. I'll state here that I fully understand that tough standards of notability will exclude many great films that we wish were duly noted. But, unless they actually have inspired sufficient discussion in print articles, they just can't clear the bar of notability.zadignose 15:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

@Shawn in Montreal: Interesting that you mention Bead Game, as I met Ishu Patel at a screening of this film in Boulder Colorado a few years back. I agree that, besides non-trivial articles, major awards have to be considered an indicator of notability. Also, I'd say that non-trivial articles do not necessarily have to exist as online documents. If there have been several non-trivial articles published, that should be sufficient. Maybe someone's going to have to go to a library once in a while... but of course we're stuck with the challenge of defining "non-trivial articles." At this point, I'd say that just a capsule review in a daily paper, or inclusion in a sort of massive directory of thousands of films such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide," or "Time Out Film Guide" is trivial... of course these books are great sources of verifiable information for inclusion in articles, but not every film listed is "notable" if we can't find less trivial articles to support them. However, regarding "Bead Game" specifically, I'd say that whatever you could write about that film would best be included in the article on Patel, rather than in its own article, unless some non-trivial publications can be found to provide enough detail to justify a separate entry, full of verifiable NOR details.zadignose 15:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I fought a losing battle, facing humiliating defeat, in my attempt to challenge the notability of films not yet produced, when I nominated Ocean's Thirteen as an article for deletion HERE. So, unless our guideline makes some strong case for a change to the way such films are approached, I guess that sequels to films already deemed notable are pretty much unassailable whether or not they are actually produced. I objected to the speedy dismissal of the discussion HERE, which can be further commented on, with my basic point being that regardless of how the final vote was bound to fall, we should have been able to engage in a more thorough discussion of the relevant issues. I selected this particular film because I wanted to address the issue directly, rather than taking the disingenuous approach of nominating an "easy target" first and then claiming a precedent. But I've pretty much abandoned the debate on this point, as I see I have little support for my fringe opinion.zadignose 15:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with having 30,000 film articles. Remember that Wikipedia is NOT a paper encyclopedia, and already has over a million articles. 30,000 out of more than a million is a pretty small number, no? Rather than attempt to push through a very tough guideline which will see a huge number of existing film articles deleted which will be opposed by a large number of wikiprojectfilm contributors, I feel that it is more productive to settle on a guideline which is more in tune with which articles are being kept and deleted now and which thus stands a greater chance of being supported by members. Esn 22:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, if we want to maintain the status quo, there is no need to revise our guidelines, and in fact no guidelines are needed at all. But if we have an interest in the quality of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, then we must draft sensible guidelines to ensure the notability of article subjects. There may be over 1,000,000 articles on Wikipedia, but we are very far from having 1,000,000 quality articles! Many classes of articles suffer from the same lack of notability standards that we see for film. The fix to the problem is not to encourage the continued addition of new articles, of minimal interest, on non-notable films. And, while 30,000 articles may be a small percentage (though 3% isn't that small) of one million, it's certainly a stretch of the imagination to suggest that there exist 30,000 "notable" films. Such a definition renders the word "notable" meaningless.

I believe the WP:NOT PAPER argument has been used too broadly, and often misapplied. I would never suggest blocking the creation of a quality article on a notable subject out of fear that "we're running out of space," or to keep the number of articles arbitrarily small. But WP:NOT PAPER should not be construed to suggest that all possible articles are appropriate, or that we need no standards of notability. The WP:NOT article asserts an interest in creating a quality encyclopedia in the very first paragraph. The secion about "not a paper encyclopedia" explicitly says it should not contradict other principles... and these other principles include a commitment to a quality encyclopedia, and recognition that Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information. The only way to reasonably discriminate as the the inclusion of verifiable articles is on the basis of notability.

Notability is of significant value in judging an article for inclusion. Every vote at AfD or CfD that referred to a piece of "trivial info," or "indiscriminate collection of information" was an assertion of notability standards. This value is implicit in other existing policies and guidelines.

It may be difficult to gain support for tougher guidelines. That's because people generally don't want anyone to tell them that their personal obsession with some trivial topic is not of sufficient general interest to justify an article. But we can't abandon every effort to ensure the quality of Wikipedia simply because the majority are quite content to turn it into an indiscriminate collection of information. For the sake of the future of Wikipedia, it will serve it's users to be given meaningful, concrete guidelines, so that they at least know what is expected, and don't have to waste their time penning articles that clearly fall outside of those guidelines.zadignose 05:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I abbreviated my earlier preamble that attempted to explain some of the reasons for the guideline. For want of a place to move it, I've copied the text here in case it's relevant to further discussion:

• Many Wikipedia policies and guidelines exist, which indicate the notability standards used when evaluating articles for inclusion within Wikipedia. A great many decisions regarding whether to keep, merge, or delete articles of all kinds hinge upon the notability of the articles' subjects. Notability is often associated with the existence of verifiable references, which is a Wikipedia mandate. The existence of verifiable references is often an indicator of notability, so the subjects of notability and verifiability tend to complement and support one another.

Indeed, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so it can contain more comprehensive coverage of its subjects than a paper encyclopedia could ever achieve, and it has no upper limit on the theoretical number of articles it can contain. At the same time, it is an encyclopedia, with a goal of quality coverage of notable subjects. It is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Among other things, it excludes trivia, which clearly involves a judgment of notability.

The goal of maintaining a quality encyclopedia is frequently asserted. Therefore, guidelines for evaluating the notability of subjects is required, in order for us to identify the kind of quality encyclopedic articles that are desired, and to exclude the kind of trivial information, original research, non-notable, and unverifiable articles which could compromise the overall quality of Wikipedia.

This guideline exists to aid in such judgments regarding film articles.

zadignose 16:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My suggested criteria for released films - please discuss

(for why I think that this is the best criteria to have, see the many discussions above as well as my explanation over here. I think it is concise, reasonable, and would not require the deletion of a large number of existing film articles such as some of the other proposals above)

In general a film is notable if it meets one or both of the following criteria:

1. The film has been released publicly at least once (eg. cinema, TV, home video) and has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the film and its creators/producers.
   • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and full-length magazine reviews except for the following:
     • Media reprints of press releases, trailers, and advertising for the film. ¹
     • Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the film name and where it is being shown.
2. A person who is judged notable enough to have an article on wikipedia is notably (not trivially) involved in the film involved in the film significantly (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film).
   • An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there.

Esn 22:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

For some of the reasons I detailed above, I find this proposed loosening of our guideline doesn't fully address the needs of Wikipedia for concrete guidance in determining which films are suficiently notable. zadignose 12:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Although it may or may not be a loosening of the guidelines (the first criterion is made more exclusive than it previously was), it is in fact stricter than the primary notability criterion. And, although I admire the edits that you're proposing yourself, I'm not sure if they are really so much more exclusive than what I proposed over here. For a film to be released publicly at least once (eg. cinema, TV, home video) and to have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works is not something that many small/obscure films can manage. Although I generally agree with the guideline as it stands now, I wonder if my guideline would achieve largely the same effect while being simpler. The major weakness of my guideline is that it doesn't address the notability of unfinished/unreleased films, and doesn't cover quite as many contingencies as the one that's there right now does. I don't think that they are fundamentally too different, though, in their implications. Esn 22:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heavily Edited Guideline Proposal

I've been bold, and peformed a very extensive edit to our guideline, demonstrating some of what I think it should contain. Please note that, as I pointed out on the section A Reflection of Existing Standards, this guideline is not overly prescriptive, despite first appearances. There are so many publications relating to film that any reasonably notable film should be able to qualify. I also made a point to suggest that the guideline be used to help improve existing articles by searching out reference materials, so that it's not used to exclude notable films that simply haven't been properly researched and cited. More resources should be added to help our editors find the necessary reference materials to improve their articles.zadignose 12:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I dislike the proposal fairly intensely. Partly because I feel that it is too strict in intention, but mostly because I think that it strays too far from what is the clear consensus of editors. I've never seen a comercially released film be deleted and everything which is confirmed to be in production is also usually kept (see for instance the recent WALL·E AfD) Wikipedia guidelines and policies should be descriptive not perscriptive. Thus I also feel that the extensive justification on the guideline page is unneccessary and unhelpful. Most of the reasoning should be here on the talk page and the guideline itself should be a relatively consise guide to aid article writers and AfD "voters" in assessing notability. Eluchil404 13:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that so far there has been no concensus, which is why this guideline was stalled. There have been calls from several quarters to reopen the process. Besides, one does not await consensus to make an edit, one edits and then seeks consensus. This is not a revert. This is an attempt to improve. Obviously I expect other edits to occur.

I disagree with the notion that a guideline should not be prescriptive. In fact, all notability guidelines are prescriptive, and by definition must be prescriptive, unless they simply state that "all articles are permitted in any form." However, I've tried to make it clear that this guideline is not overly prescriptive, as it clearly leaves room for articles on literally thousands of films. In fact, this guideline as I presented it is significantly looser than what I'd like to see, but it represents a compromise with those who favor loose standards of notability. Much of its language is maintained from the previous versions, though it's been expanded with clarifying points, and separate treatment for contemporary films and older films. I also hoped to balance my edit, as I tightened some standards, but also added text suggesting resources to help make existing articles fit, rather than exclude them prematurely.

Never deleting a commercially released film seems like a serious problem to me. Such a state is indicative of a problem that a guideline like this should seek to address. It's true that many editors at Wikipedia endorse the inclusion of articles on practically everything, but there are others like me who believe that Wikipedia is excessively flooded with articles on non-notable subjects. There should be some effort to improve the quality of existing articles, and guidelines can help fix this.

Why should all commercially released films be considered inherently notable? Is there really a consensus for such a broadly inclusive standard? Also, which specific notable films do you think would not meet the requirements of this draft of the guideline?

If the preamble asserting the value of a film guideline is deemed inappropriate or unnecessary, I'll remove it, and find a place for it on this talk page.

I'll see if I can find any concrete examples to help focus this discussion, or at least make my intentions clear, though it may take a few days, as I'm semi-burned out. Meanwhile, of course, more opinions would be highly appreciated.zadignose 15:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I should also point out that I've left a kind of back door in the form of Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#Other_evidence_of_Notability, which at least allows a case to be made for the notability of a film that doesn't meet the other criteria. This is an attempt to address the concerns of some editors that certain notable films would be inappropriately excluded.zadignose 16:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, some comments:

-there is, oddly, nothing said about films which are unfinished, lost or not publicly released. I'd say that it should be made clear that the guidelines in the "Historically Notable films" section apply to them as well. Obviously, it will be far harder for an unreleased films to satisfy such criteria, which should be the point, but there are still a number of films that do satisfy it and which definitely deserve wikipedia articles (eg. Creation (1931 film)).

-I would propose adding one more criterion to "Historically notable films". Something like this:

• The film was produced by a major film studio (a studio, from any country, attaining major importance and a highly-influential position at some point in history).

Why? Because for some countries, reviews or articles are very hard to find (perhaps because the country is not strongly connected to the internet), so this would serve as a way to quicken things rather than forcing editors to fly there and search that country's archives for mentions of the film. No doubt they would exist, but they are often unreachable for us. I hope that we can agree that if a major studio releases a film, it is quite likely to be notable. For films in the English-speaking world, this criterion would largely be redundant because it would be easy to find articles about such films, but this is often not the case for foreign films. A case in point: It Was I Who Drew the Little Man. A major release by Soyuzmultfilm, directed by the Brumberg sisters (who are notable directors but don't have a wikipedia article yet). Obviously notable, I would argue, but you can't find any articles/reviews if you do a google search on the Russian title. Perhaps someone from Russia with access to a good library will eventually find the article and be able to add some important information to it. Until then, it cannot progress beyond being a stub/start-class article, but isn't it better to have it exist? (Note: This new criterion would only apply to released films. No need to have an article on every film that fell through at a major studio unless it's important and notable in some other way.)

-I suggest that guideline #2 in the "Other evidence of Notability" section be slightly modified to something like this:

• The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person whose biographical article includes significant mention of the film.
  • An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there.

I primarily object to "highly notable" - if the person satisfies the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people), that should be enough. I honestly don't object so much to the "significant milestone" requirement, but I think that if the person was significantly involved and his article has significant mention of the film, that would already cover that.

Esn 20:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the current proposal. The rewrite made it unnecessarily long, creepy and hard to go through. Dividing released films into contemporary and "historically notable" seems unnecessary. It can also give the idea that a film is notable if it is either new or a classic. I don't see why "released" and "unreleased" are not enough. Prolog 20:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking through the differences between the requirements for "contemporary" and "historically notable" films - you are right, perhaps there aren't really enough differences to justify separating them. I have no strong position on this one either way, to be honest, so I'll let zadignose answer, and hope some other editors give their opinion as well. I do think that the guidelines as they stand now are much better than they were before and are comparable in length to other notability guidelines. Let's not forget that anyone using this page will only have to read one section of the page (two, at most), so it's really not that long. Esn 21:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reorganized, merged some ideas, tried to get the most essential guidelines together to avoid the "creep," while retaining a fair amount of explanatory notes in their own sections. I tried to address the "major studios" issue in a new form, in the section Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#Other_evidence_of_Notability. I tried to keep to the stated purpose of this clause, which was to allow coverage of films from countries whose cinema does not have a lot of easily accessed English language documents. Otherwise, if the "major studios" clause is applied to major film producing countries such as the U.S. or Germany, then that would mean that money can automatically buy notability, and every film that ever had the Paramount name attached to it would be deemed notable, even if they somehow failed to meet all of the other guidelines. zadignose 13:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question to all editors (including zadignose)

Of those potential films which would satisfy IMDB's notability criteria, which do you feel should ideally NOT satisfy wikipedia's criteria? I'm just trying to better understand everyone's views on this; I still think that the guideline needs some editing (mainly simplification), and would like to better understand where people stand. Let's say that we're talking only about already-released films (since IMDB is well-known for its unreliability as far as future releases are concerned). I don't want this to be a big argument between editors, I just want to know the range of opinion. As briefly as possible, what would be your ideal "bar of exclusion", and would you be willing to compromise it in either direction? I'll say my own opinion a little bit later. Esn 08:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I don't think this is the best way to frame the issue. Since guidelines are descriptive rather than perscriptive, we should examine the current practice at AfD and write a guideline that as far as possible mirrors that. But since you asked, I would say that a film release is notable if it meets one of the following criteria: Wide release in a large country, specifically noted in reliable sources as historically influential, winner of a notable award (including Academy award nominees). This is rather tighter, IMHO, than current practice and is especially hard on independent and documentary cinema. I certainly expect any guideline to come out more inclusive in those areas (and maybe others). I would really not be comfortable with it being any tighter. In particular I feel that all large commercial films are notable (yes even Superman IV) and would resist any attempt to limit there inclusion. Eluchil404 08:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I keep wanting to respond to this, and I keep not knowing what to say. Well, I guess it's time to hobble together a response. I think I started with very strict notions of what notability should be, and quickly compromised in the face of the fact that the larger wikipedia community doesn't want restrictive standards. In my "ideal" guideline many films would be excluded on the basis of insuficient notability, including many of my own personal favorite films. However, this ideal is not reflected in the current loose guidelines which could probably be boiled down to "if no one has ever heard of it, don't put it in Wikipedia." I wanted to include some consideration of historically notable films, because I do believe that if a film is remembered decades after it was first screened, that suggests its notability more than anything else. I would have liked to be stricter with contemporary films, and fifth sequels of famous films that are for some reason assumed to be notable by association (it seems so to me that such sequels would be better discussed in small capsules within a main article on the first film of the series). I mentioned a lot of films in other parts of this discussion that I personally think are not notable enough to merit an encyclopedia article, and I'll repeat a few here:

• Childstar
• Virtual Sexuality
• Vegas_In_Space
• Frog_and_Wombat
• Def_by_Temptation
• Daltry Calhoun
• Biker Boyz
• Howling_VI:_The_Freaks
• Superman IV
• Sweet Kitty Bellairs
• Rhapsody in Brew
• Ice-Capades Revue

These are the kinds of films I'd expect to see in a Maltin's Film Guide all-inclusive collection of little articles about every film ever made. But if I was to write a guide to the art and history of cinema, with a consideration of notability, none of these would stand a chance of being mentioned, let alone featured in their own substantial articles. But again, I recognize that most if not all of these films will pass the standards laid out in this guideline, and I accept that. (Note: the last three titles don't currently have articles, and probably never will, but they came up as an arguement against the standard that automatically grants "notability" to major studio feature releases). Also, you may see my perspective (bias?) here, in that I'd like to be tough on big expensive contemporary films that may have reached a large audience, but have virtually no chance of being remembered as significant to the history of cinema. But if that's a bias, it's not a unique bias. If you ever picked up a book in a bookstore called "notable films," or "films that matter," or "1001 movies to see before you die," or one volume of a major encyclopedia like Britanica, and you found within it an article on Biker Boyz, your jaw would probably hit the floor, wouldn't it? zadignose 18:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of actors

They would most likely be covered by new proposal - see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(artists)#Overlapping_with_similar_guidelines.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging

This page is currently up for debate at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. The debate looks to be trending keep but there is also some support for tagging the page as historical/rejected. I would prefer the historical tag rather than the rejected one which was recently applied since the main problem with the proposal has been lack of interest and percieved need rather than outright opposition, though the latter also exists. I admit that {{rejected}} applies by its terms but think that the general practice is to use it on pages where there is a rough consensus to reject rather than those like this one where no clear consensus exists. Eluchil404 11:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Per WP:POL, a page is rejected by the absence of a supporting consensus, not the presence of a rejecting consensus. >Radiant< 11:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I know that's what the policy page says, but I was refering to existing community practice concerning the tags. I would appreciate feedback on that issue otherwise I don't see any difference between {{rejected}} and {{historical}} and will suggest their merger. Eluchil404 13:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The difference is that a historical page fizzled out from lack of response, and could easily be reinvigorated if people are interested in it; a rejected page is one that did have quite a lot of response and no consensus (or consensus to the contrary), so bringing in more people to comment on it is not going to accomplish much. >Radiant< 14:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the answer. I wasn't sure what had changed since November [7]. And I still don't think much has. The proposal was revived and was slowly moving towards a consensus version and then one user found it and had a stronly negative reaction. MfD rejected deletion but was pretty non-commital on the merits of the proposal. I mention tagging as rejected in my comment there, not because I support such an action (I obviously don't) but because deletion isn't called for even if a consensus to reject exists (which I don't think it does). Eluchil404 12:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late to this debate, but I had no idea that the page was being considered for "rejection" (whatever that means on Wikipedia, since we can boldly edit any time we want and remove the tag). Rather than place the rejection tag, I will start to edit the guideline this weekend. As you can see by the Mfd, there are many people who like the guideline, and believe that it has merit. I have used the guideline dozens of times in evaluating indy films, particularly those created by 9/11 conspiracy theory advocates, and found it useful in evaluating their notariety. Please do not place any sort of rejection tag until myself and the other editors voting Keep on the Mfd have had a chance to weigh-in and fix. Thanks.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 18:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Morton you clearly illustrate the problems with not deleting this (a) you say you will just remove the tag, and (b) you are already using a proposed guideline in XfD arguments, when this has no validity. Please see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present, regardless of whether there's active discussion or not. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected." A clear consensus at the MfD is to tag this page as rejected, and there is no countervailing consensus to keep here. --Kevin Murray 18:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The clear consensus is for Keep.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 21:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a little unclear. The consensus was to keep for archival purposes but to tag for rejection. Please review the criteria for evaluating rejection. --Kevin Murray 22:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:MFD does not WP:OWN articles that it suggests should be developed along a particular route. Any user is free to edit this page however he wishes, as long as it stays within appropriate policies. MFD doesn't make policy. JulesH 09:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please consider the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present, regardless of whether there's active discussion or not. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected.". --Kevin Murray 22:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• "Rejection" means that there is no consensus for the proposal. That there are some people who like it and think it has merit is irrelevant as long as there is no consensus. >Radiant< 09:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • True but one deeply committed user shouldn't be able to block consensus. All the notability guidelines have critics, some quite shrill. What needs to be determined is whether there is substantial opposition to a guideline in this area (in which case rejection is fine) or to specific facets of the proposal as written (in which case active editing is the best solution). It is honestly not clear to me if either of those is the case here. I don't consider the MfD diffinative in that regard since the status of the proposal was not the main issue. Eluchil404 12:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

This proposal does not have consensus. Recently, there has been a fight over whether to tag it as rejected. That is, as unlikely to ever get consensus. Rather than watch an edit war over the tag, I'm posting this RFC.

Two questions:

1. Do you support this proposal as currently written?
2. Are you likely to support this proposal with modest modifications?

This is not a vote; it is a solicitation of opinions. Feel free to explain what changes might persuade you to support.

• Neither. Derex 09:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Either Brimba 09:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Doesn't seem to be anything wrong with this proposal to me. JulesH 09:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• See below. >Radiant< 09:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• No to both questions. --Kevin Murray 15:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Yes and Yes. The guideline has been extremely useful for me on dozens of film Afds. If you wish to tweak it, be my guest, but pretending that people don't rely upon it, stomping your feet, and marking it as rejected is not going to work. We all have a stake in the notability issue.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 18:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Yes and Yes Conditional Yes to both. I think that this should be kept - it's well-formulated and I believe that the alternatives are worse. I think that the notability standards should be similar to those used on IMDB ([8]). However, I'd be willing to compromise and support this if the alternative was to do something like merge it with WP:BK. The criterion for books is a lot more strict than this is and I would not support its application to films. Esn 21:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Neither. There was no discussion about this page going from a essay to a proposal, radiant simply made it one. Radiant has done this on many of the newer notability essays.Travb (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] m:voting is evil

Really, a binary vote is not going to resolve the issue. Rather, you should look at why people don't agree with this page, and see if you can address those concerns. That's why RFC means "request for comments" rather than "request for votes". >Radiant< 09:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Who said it was a vote? The RFC asked two questions. People can answer those questions however they see fit. If we can't ask questions and give answers, then why bother talking at all? Derex 09:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's not a matter of the terminology you use, but of asking the wrong questions. What you're asking is "do you support this yes/no", whereas you should be asking what people think is wrong with this page and how you can address that. >Radiant< 09:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't imagine people need my permission to speak their piece. A whole big talk page has been sitting here for that explicit purpose for over a year now. If you'd like to add an explicit invitation to elaborate to the RFC, feel free. You don't need my permission for that either. Derex 10:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Radiant! I am confused, why do you talk so much about consensus now? After all, you upgraded this page from an essay to a proposal, with no consensus, no deliberation, and no discussion on this talk page.

When users question your unilateral decisions, instead of reaching a consensus, you asked for this page, and WP:NN to be protected, which assued that your policy tags, which you unilaterally added, remained.

I am confused. Please explain. Travb (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Very simple. Notability-related pages are, almost without exception, guidelines or rejected guidelines. So having one as an "essay" (like this one) is the odd man out. So I figured it should be a proposal to see if there was wider community interest in the page; if there's consensus, it should be a guideline, if not, well, not. Making a proposal IS an attempt at consensus and deliberation, and by definition NOT an unilateral decision. Look in the dictionary; a proposal is NOT a decision, by definition.
• Oh, and I asked for protection because there was an edit war. Per the protection policy, we protect pages to stop edit wars. Plain and simple. Since I didn't protect the page myself, I could not know in advance which version the page would be protected in. See also m:the wrong version. >Radiant< 09:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Here's a thought

We have an already-accepted guideline about books. How about we decide that films follow the same guideline as books, and rename the latter to "books and films"? It may need a bit of tweaking to account for writers vs. directors and such, but the concept sounds workable. >Radiant< 11:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be pretty much fine as regards to the major criteria, though the rest of WP:BK is pretty irrelevant to films as it stands. The bigger reason that I would prefer a seperate page is that I think AfD "voters" use slightly different standards when it comes to books and films. In my view, the purpose of these notability sub-pages is to give general guidelines to the current climate on AfD so that people can quickly determine whether an article on a subject is likely to be kept or deleted or what information to include to clearly assert notability. That's why I originally tagged it as an essay 8 months ago; it was ment to be purely descriptive information rather than hortatory instruction. No matter the fate of this page--deletion, rejection, or redirect--people will continue use thier established heuristics on AfD articles about films. They certainly weren't created by this occaisionally cited page and they won't be destroyed with it. If the community feels that it is not a useful summation of current practice then it may well be swept up into the dustbin of history, but rallying against the content isn't very useful. If it's an accurate description, you'll have to convince AfD "voters" who don't generally read this talk page; if it's not then you can (and should) simply change it and explain why. Eluchil404 12:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD (Second)

RE: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (films)

Lets all keep in mind that the nominator withdrew the AfD nomination on the condition that this article be marked as {{:Rejected}} and kept for historical interest.

Maybe it was a mistake for this page to remain on wikipedia.

Ultimately, I would like this page tagged as a rejected policy, as per the consensus/majority (?) on the recent AfD.

That is my first choice, as was the choice on the first AfD. But since it looks like this will never happen without a prolonged edit war, I unfortunatly think this page should be deleted. Sorry User:Eluchil404.

[[User:Radiant!]] was the person who asked for this page to be protected.

[[User:Radiant!]] was also the person who upgraded this essay to a proposal.[9] Against the original authors orginal intentions? (Can you please clarify User:Eluchil404):

That's why I originally tagged it as an essay 8 months ago; it was ment to be purely descriptive information rather than hortatory instruction. User:Eluchil404 12:00, 1 March 2007

There was little if no discussion about this change, the talk page shows no consensus. Discussion started around Febuary.

Personally, I think before a page becomes policy or a guidline there should at least be a strawpoll. Maybe eventually this should be policy, that before all pages become a policy, guideline, official policy, etc, there should be a month long strawpoll. Travb (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

We just had a "straw poll", it's called an Afd, and the "delete" position lost miserably.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 21:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Morton, you are far smarter than to misinterpret the results of that MfD as consensus to support anything other than archiving this page. Read the guidelines for rejecting, clearly a tie goes to rejection. And this behavior will be strong evidence at the next MfD for deleting and salting a rejected guideline. You are postponing the inevitable for a few days here, but supporting my position for the longer run. 1/2 smart in whole. Thanks! --Kevin Murray 21:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should try to get more opinions on that RFC you posted from the general WPFilms community. Currently the votes are around 4 in support, 3 against. By the way, there's currently a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Notability/overview that may make all of this moot. Esn 21:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

And at WP:N talk where the conversation is spilling into the validity of subpages and of notability as a valid concept. --Kevin Murray 21:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In regards to "spilling into other pages" see: Wikipedia:Notability (academics). It went from an "essay" to a "policy" by Radiant!, with to my knowledge, no discussion on the talk page. Travb (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• See previous section. (1) In case of edit wars, pages are protected. (2) Making a proposal is, by sheer definition, not a decision but a request for community input. (3) Please check out the history of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and you'll notice that (A) it was never an essay, (B) it is not policy now, and (C) there is plenty of discussion on its talk page. >Radiant< 09:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I explained myself a pretty great length over at Wikipedia talk:Notability/overview. I don't now and never did own this page. I understood the retagging of this page to be part of a decision to make all the notability subpages into proposals that would be formally evaluated by the community for consensus. I was unsure of its wisdom then, and clearly think that it was now mistaken (they should all probably have a status akin to essays but perhaps a custom tag). As for the MfD (please don't call it AfD) it is irrelevant to determining the consensus on this page. Without canvassing the "voters" one can't determine how many, as I did, worded there votes assuming (rather than deciding) that the proposal lacked support in oder to show that the nomination should fail even if the rationale that the proposal was deeply flawed was correct. Eluchil404 12:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• There has never been, to my knowledge, a "decision to make all the notability subpages into proposals that would be formally evaluated by the community for consensus", and that line of reasoning directly contradicts WP:POL and WP:BURO. >Radiant< 13:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Then what was your rationale for tagging it as a proposal? Why are essays on subject area notability depreciated?[10] Eluchil404 14:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The rationale was, quite simply, that it was a proposed guideline. Read WP:POL for the difference between a guideline and an essay; and compare this page to existing guidelines to see the similarities. Essays aren't depreciated, they simply aren't listed on a template that is intended as a list of guidelines. >Radiant< 14:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Options

To end protection a decision needs to be made on a stable tag for this page. I'll list what I see as options with some breif commentary :

{{rejected}}

Works if there is no consensus. I am honestly not sure if the useage and commentary support this (cf. Wikipedia talk:Notability), but it may be the best option in the end.

{{historical}}

Probably not correct given the level of discussion in the last few days, but maybe a compromise (cf. Wikipedia talk:Semi-protecting policy pages)

{{essay}}

May not be appropriate given the content (was tag on original version of this page).

{{guideline}}

If page reflects current practice it is a de facto guideline and should be so-tagged. I doubt it is ready for this.

A custom tag such as

This page is not a policy or guideline of the Endlish Wikipedia but instead a description how the guideline on notability is applied in practice. It may not represent the consensus of all editors but gives a rough guide to outcomes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. This page is not actionable and should not be used as a reason in a deletion debate unless you believe that it is an accurate corollary of WP:N. If the page does not accord with consensus you should edit it or inquire on the talk page.

This would be my personal preference, and also for all the subject specific notability criteria.

• Regarding this custom tag, "It may not represent the consensus of all editors but gives a rough guide to outcomes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion" is an oxymoron, "not actionable" is false, "should not be used as a reason" is both prescriptive (which is bad) and unenforceable (making it pointless), and you omit the fact that many other "subject specific notability criteria" have been accepted guidelines for years now, and several of those predate WP:N. >Radiant< 15:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No tag

If it's good enough for WP:SNOW.  :-)

• Okay. This is obviously not an essay, as explained earlier. It's also not inactive, given the traffic here. It is a proposed guideline, and the question is whether (1) there's consensus for what the page says, and (2) a need for this to be on a separate page. The easy solution, therefore, is to use the already-accepted criteria for BOOKS. Rename Wikipedia:Notability (books) to "books and films" and add a few lines to that, redirect this there, and we're all set. >Radiant< 14:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • How about "Literature and film" --Kevin Murray 15:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Also possible, except that it also applies to books that aren't literature. >Radiant< 16:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
      • OK, not so easy. Here's a riddle, what contains fiction, literature, books, films, and TV and can fit in a short snappy title? --Kevin Murray 23:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
        • "Works". Nifboy 17:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Guideline tag. In wide usage. Don't you dare downgrade.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 18:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Until an agreement is reached, perhaps the custom tag mentioned above might be a good idea, as this seems to be the actual situation at the moment. It's also a compromise, and it does mention that it is used on AFD discussions, which is generally the case. The "rejected" template should be replaced to make it clear that it's not a "dead" proposal but one that's still up for debate. By the way, why isn't {{Proposed}} an option? Esn 10:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• {{guideline}}, Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:Notability (films) seems to show quite a few references in AfD's, reflects current practice and is a de facto guideline. --Dual Freq 23:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I've added a merge tag to this page. Kevin has reverted that, because he considers the merge pointless. I believe it would be useful to merge this page to WP:BK, as suggested earlier on the page. At the very least, this could be discussed for a while. >Radiant< 10:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to come out with a strong opposition to this proposal. As I said earlier, if it's a choice between merging with WP:BK and keeping it as it is, I much prefer it as it now stands. WP:BK is much more strict than this guideline and if you read the discussions that have been going on over the past two months you will see that most of the objections were about this guideline being too strict. It was carefully toned down to make it more inclusive, but still not enough for about half of the editors, it seems. Making it even more restrictive will accomplish nothing except making a lot of people very angry. Esn 10:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3O

User:Radiant! requested a third opinion on the matter of the inclusion or otherwise of the rationale for rejection on a number of project pages. I believe that given this is quoting directly from WP:POL, this is duplication, and is not necessary. However, if User:Kevin Murray feels that other editors may be in doubt over the matter of why the pages are considered rejected, it may be appropriate to leave a note on this talk page. Chris cheese whine 10:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a ridiculous notion to say that this guideline has been rejected by the community -- that's a one-man campaign by Murray. The guideline is well-regarded, and used in dozens and dozens of Afds. There was a clear consensus for Keep on the recent Afd at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (films).  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 22:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the actual rejection. My opinion was provided in response to an edit war over the text of the rejection message only. Chris cheese whine 23:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was at least appealed to frequently, most often by people who falsely called it a guideline despite a clear lack of consensus and an explicit proposal label. The Keep on the AFD was very explicitly not a debate on the merits of the proposal, and you know this perfectly well. Derex 23:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The consensus at the AfD page was to tag this as rejected but keep as archival rather than my preference which was to delete the page. There was clearly no overwhelming support for adopting this as a guideline, and consensus for rejection does not require a majority. --Kevin Murray 23:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Morton, there is wisdom in the concept that: those who govern least are those who govern best. Take as analogies governance in economics, where complex social engineering often has unintended consequences, where more laws create less order. In the US we have experienced a plethora of social failures caused by idealists liberally creating complex and conflicting rule sets. However, we so frequently benefit when more conservative legislators reduce the complexity of systems such as welfare and tax codes.

I see a parallel danger of naïve Wikipedians introducing pages of essentially repetitive guidelines, where the value added does not justify the cost from confusion and conflict. Permutations will tend to grow as successive groups of well intentioned rule-makers address more and more specific issues, each page evolving independently without collective oversight.

Please consider how your goals can be achieved working inside the WP:N guideline through fine tuning and better training of the writers and AfD evaluators. --Kevin Murray 15:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a useful guideline, especially for areas where fringe theoriets are astroturfing to promote their product. It usefully expresses a widely-held view about one threshold for inclusion. People use it and cite it in AfD discussions. I don't think it has been rejected by the community. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Tom, can you site some specific instances where the "astroturfing" contributions would not be deleted based on WP:N? --Kevin Murray 01:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tom Harrison here on the use of this proposed guideline. Here is my understanding of things happening here, and the direction this project is going. My overall concern is that Wikipedia (users and all) are slowly being conditioned to accept anything that is written outside this project, and that some users feel that it is time for a change. In other words, "It’s out there, so we should have it here." Really? This encyclopedia unfortunately is dealing with the floodgates ever increasingly opening with bombardment of articles of trivial movies, documentaries (especially the ones made up in school one day), etc. A true encyclopedia standard would not allow the trivial articles about non-notables to be included. By definition, we are an encyclopedia, not a catch-all for anything which has little or virtually no following. For AfD, we really need more stringent guides and policies. I am surprised Notability (films) isn’t a full fledged guide, or even better, a policy. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rom Harrison and Junglecat. It is not a rejected proposal, notability guidelines should be strengthened across the board, it should be labeled a guideline or at least a proposal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please, must we trot out the same argument between the deletionists and inclusionists again? You know fully well that your view is not accepted by everyone, so please don't act like those who favour looser notability standards are traitors to the project. Wikipedia is a unique project, and is not be any means an encyclopedia in the traditional sense of the word (any more than eBay is a traditional auction). There are some who view notability as being basically the practical limit to which something can be reliably verified (WP:V). I'm not sure if I'm yet willing to go quite that far but, in the words of another user, "I find it a vital service for Wikipedia to bring me information on life's obscure topics". I think there are very few people here who would favour the inclusion of every single film that someone made at school one day, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of support for the opposite option (of only including major film releases) either. My own ideal scenario would be something similar to the IMDB criteria (which also doesn't list "films made in school one day"), but I can live with the guideline as it stands now. Even though Kevin Murray might well be raising a valid point. Esn 04:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, why are we still in protected mode?  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 03:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This was resoundingly rejected and is only being promoted by zealots. Please leave the protection in-place to prevent the inevitable reoccurrence of perennial reversions. --Kevin Murray 03:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That's realy uncalled for, and inaccurate.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 21:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a PC kind of guy. I'm sorry that you've taken offense, but I do stand behind my characterization of your actions and tactics. If you are going to be deceitfully zealous in your actions, be proud of the title that accompanies the style.--Kevin Murray 21:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You're on very thin ice here, both in your interactions with me, and with your mischaracterizations of consensus. There is no support for your perspective on this guideline -- you stand alone.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 07:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Denial or charade? Do you read or just write? --Kevin Murray 07:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the protection should be removed. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guideline

There seems to be concensus from multiple people that this should be at the least a guideline. I retagged it. - Denny 20:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Thanks.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 22:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No there is plenty of opposition to this as a guideline. --Kevin Murray 21:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems like many people here on this page support it? - Denny 22:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If there were broad support for what you want to do, you would not need to revert to impose your preference, or to modify Template:Rejected to include that preachy commentary. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, spin this however you like, but there has been plenty of oppostion expressed in the discussion above and at the AfD, but it has not been as organized as your persistence. --Kevin Murray 22:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess organization is key. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, that was the first time that user Kevin Murray has contacted me about this. The only other time he contacted me was to post a "courtesy notice" about this page's deletion. As such, I don't think you can write off all of the opposition above to the existence of a cabal. (Just saying) Esn 22:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Having read the guideline it seems uncontroversial and pretty much in line with what other topic-specific guidelines say. There should be information on films that cross any of the inclusion hurdles. It may not be easy to find, but it'll be out there somewhere. WP:NOT#When you wonder what to do says to "ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia". In an encyclopedia of cinema, I'd expect to find a short entry on award winning, critically acclaimed, and otherwise significant films, and that's what this guideline says we should have. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Angus, if it says the same thing all over again, then why do we need it? --Kevin Murray 22:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain why we have such a policy for everything else BUT films? - Denny 22:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Denny, I don't believe that we have a specific policy for everything else but films. We have an excellent and improving guideline at WP:N, which adequately covers most topics. I don't believe that we need more than that; and I would support eliminating some of the redundant or conflicting rule-sets. I would prefer a well constructed general guideline, which I think is evolving nicely at WP:N and simplify the rat's nest of superfluous special case rules. More rules seldom makes for more clarity. --Kevin Murray 22:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask why you don't actively pursue depricating the fiction, books, and music guidelines then? Why focus on this one with such vigor? - Denny 23:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Denny, this was never approved before, and was tagged as rejected from proposed status. It should not go directly from rejected to approved. My stance has been primarily to prevent further instruction creep. Right now there is a good deal of dissention about notability in general. My efforts have been to retain the status quo rather than to roll-back what was already approved, although I think that is a good next step. --Kevin Murray 23:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It was never rejected, that was just pure Kevin Murray fantasy. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (films) where it was 20 'keeps' and 3 'rejects' and 3 'indeterminate/undecided'. Hardly a rejection of the guideline -- more like a strong endorsement.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 23:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

A bit of spin from Morty in consistent fashion. The AfD was over whether to delete the page not to reject it. The resounding consensus was to keep the page and tag it as rejected. I felt that if the page was not deleted the controversy would never go away. It was marked for rejection, but not deleted. As I predicted it has been a perennial battleground ever since. --Kevin Murray 23:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Reader: See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (films) and judge for yourself.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 23:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

My God Morty, have you not one single shred of shame? The MFD had not one single thing to do with approval of the proposal, and many of those voting keep explicitly endorsed the rejected tag. 150.203.2.85 10:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who supports this and why?

I do, seems like a good idea in principle and fair. It needs to be in line with the other guidelines such as the BIO and music notability, however. This one seems a bit more stringent than those for some inexplicable reason. Will edit that later. - Denny 23:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I've now standardized this guideline to be in line with long-accepted ones such as the music and book notability guidelines. This one can't be any more stringent or lax than those. Should be fine now. :) - Denny 23:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Denny, is it possible that since these three guidelines/proposals are very similar, they could be merged into one? This would reduce my concern. --Kevin Murray 23:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that stuff is too different. Billboard standings vs. coverage of a film vs. coverage/awards for books are seperate beasts. I think a general one would be good, but someone needs to draw up such a thing. In the meanwhile, I see no harm in the seperate ones. The ATT of notability for media? - Denny 23:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)