User:Erik/Sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] To-do

Short-term
  1. Expand articles on future films listed below
  2. Update Doomsday with any new information following its UK release
  3. Combine preparation, pre-production, and production listings at WP:FUTFILM
  4. Improve Batman Begins to Featured Article status for main page showing around time of The Dark Knight
Long-term
  1. Contribute critical analysis to User:Erik/Citizen Kane/Draft
  2. Expand Fight Club toward Featured Article status (using resources) for its 10th anniversary on October 15, 1999
  3. Review style guidelines and outline possible improvements

[edit] Expansions to do

[edit] TFD argument

I am nominating {{Infobox movie certificates}} for deletion; this is its second time since August 2, 2006, when it was kept. In the past few months, there has been some discussion about the necessity of this template, as seen here and here. For the large part, certificates (also known as ratings) are culled from films' pages at the IMDb, which is generally not considered verifiable beyond cast/crew information. The issue with this template is that it gives an indiscriminate listing of certificates per this: "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." These are my arguments about why the template does not belong in the encyclopedic scheme:

  1. The certificates are only intended to inform audiences about the permissions for different age groups. Thus, the certificates would only apply in the now, instead of the historical perspective an article should offer about a film. (Read #3 for an explanation of when covering certificates is applicable.)
  2. The letters and numbers that correspond with a certificate for a film fail to provide the reader the details. A film with strong sexual content and a film with strong violent content could receive the same certificate, but this is not at all reflected in the template. Additionally, even if the details were provided, such details would only be relevant to that culture's standpoint. If it is just a list of certificates by countries' boards, there is no insight given about their real-world relevance.
  3. Instead of the template, I believe that certificates need to be covered by secondary sources in detailed prose to warrant inclusion in the encyclopedic context of a film article. This would mean going beyond a film website's timetable and citing in-depth explanations for the certificate and its impact.

I am not advocating the removal of certificates in their entirety from film articles. I am advocating that certificates should only be mentioned if they fit in the encyclopedic scheme. There are numerous examples of where an article can talk about how certificates impact a film: Live Free or Die Hard straying from its R-rated roots, being covered by the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated, explained cuts made to Fight Club for the UK, films being banned or censored in certain countries (which I think definitely should have detailed coverage), or milestones such as the X-rated Midnight Cowboy being the first to win Best Picture. There is room to tie the certificates to the film in a detailed manner if the certificates are explored in detail; I think that the template merely goes into too much of an indiscriminate listing related to the film, akin to listing every release date or to the box office opening in each country. I think that Wikipedia's film articles are better off exploring detailed prose of the assigned certificates wherever possible. —Erik (talk • contrib) -