Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Niche films

(...and independent films and other films that do not meet notability threshold). Hey everybody, I'm new to (English) Wikipedia and recently had my (first) AfD on grounds of WP:NFILM regarding Lucy's Heart. Now to be clear: I'm not here to discuss the validity of the AfD, this is pretty clear and as it stands the person who initiated the AfD is right, but the whole thing did make me wonder if there shouldn't be a category for films that are relatively niche. That is, films that are known in smaller circles of enthusiasts but lack coverage on sources that are considered to add to notability in WP:NFILM (and if they do, it's rarely more than one review or article, so it still fails WP:NFILM). I'm specifically thinking of shorts or underground films, which did have a release (home media, film festival, ShortsTV etc.) and do have a following but coverage is restricted to blogs, forums and the like and/or the distributors website. My own entry of Lucy's Heart is in this corner, and so are most films by Izzy Lee.

Right now there's no place to put articles on English Wikipedia for this type of art, which is a shame in my opinion.

So, thoughts? I'd love to hear what everybody thinks on this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjokhazard (talk • contribs) 01:23, September 4, 2020 (UTC)

• I definitely think that there needs to be a subset of NFILM that can apply to things like short films. These typically get far less attention than feature length films and as such, may get less coverage despite appearing in multiple notable film festivals or receiving awards from said film festivals. Part of the issue here is that in turn, short film festivals seem to be less covered on Wikipedia - there may be a need for a list of short film festivals that are noteworthy but currently lack articles. Maybe there can be a list of short film festivals that are essentially the short film festival equivalent of Cannes? Category:Short film festivals would be a good place to start - I'll try taking a look myself.

I suggested that Sjokhazard post here since I've come across multiple short films that look like they could be notable, but fall short due to a lack of coverage. I figure that this isn't going to be resolved with this post, but I think it's definitely worth starting a discussion and a bit of a ball rolling. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm opposed to giving special treatment to some films just because they happen to be short. As above "These typically get far less attention than feature length films and as such, may get less coverage". In other words not notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's definition of notability stems from significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. If a film (no matter if it's niche or short) doesn't get significant coverage, then it's not notable, and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. There are plenty of other wikis and sites on the internet where you could probably create articles about these films, but Wikipedia isn't the place. ‑Scottywong| [talk] || 19:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I have to concur. The goal of notability is to draw the line somewhere. It's not just films, it applies to people and other subjects too. Per WP:PSTS, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources," and if these sources don't exist, articles summarizing them should not exist either. Regarding specific sources, it's possible that some may be acceptable if they meet WP:USEBYOTHERS. For example, we reference certain horror movie websites because they meet that particular standard. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Rather than deletion why not group short films into prose list articles based on the director ? Atlantic306 (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

* Other language versions of wikipedia seem to be less strict on notability. I'm also active on the Dutch language edition of Wikipedia (nl.wikipedia.org) and the rules there are simple: prove the accuracy of your article by citing sources that can be verified. One source is enough, two is better, and IMDb is allowed as a source (which greatly helps with niche films as they are usually listed on IMDb). There doesn't seem to be a threshold a subject has to reach to be notable.

That's at the least a bit confusing to editors active on multiple language editions and does make me wonder if the conventions on English language WP aren't a bit too strict in some cases. And this is coming from someone from a country where your in-laws are, by law, forever your in-laws even after you divorce your spouse.

There's no physical limit to how many lemmas can exist at anyone time on WP, and one of the benefits to my granddad's 40 book edition or my dad's MS Encarta DVD-ROM is that you can basically put the entirety of human knowledge into it without making it crack at the seems. So it's strange that we don't aspire to, IMHO. Sjokhazard (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

SNGs and GNG

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability on the relationship between SNGs and the GNG which might be of interest to editors who watch this page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Future Film Comments

I have two questions and a comment that may lead to a rant, about the Future Films guidelines. First, the guideline is often understood to mean that films normally should be the subjects of articles after reliable sources indicate that they have begun principal photography (or animation). However, my reading is that the guideline says that films that have not begun principal photography (or animation) should not be the subjects of articles, but also that films that are between production and release should only seldom be the subjects of articles, and then only when production itself has been notable. So my first question is whether I am correct. Alternatively, if I am mistaken, fans of particular directors and franchises will write articles about future films as soon as production is underway. If I am correct, then the rant, that I would provide later, is about the misreading of the guideline. The first paragraph says that films that have not begun principal photography should not be the subjects of articles. (The second paragraph says much the same about animation.) The third sentence has to do with films that are in the intermediate stage, which is what my question is about. So my second question is whether the wording of the first paragraph should be tightened or clarified to minimize the misreadings. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I think your understanding of the guideline is correct. That having been said, in my experience the issue with preemptive movie article creation has less to do with misunderstanding the guideline (willfully or otherwise) and more to do with not having read it in the first place. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand the problem here. I disagree that "seldom" is the right word. We need to draw a distinction between anticipated mainstream films, which will be reliably covered in advance because the source material, the cast, or the crew (or a combination thereof) is notable. While notability is not directly inherited on Wikipedia, a film in production can get attention as a result of the elements that drive it, and that can lead to significant coverage from reliable sources about the film. Compare these mainstream films to films that premiere at festivals without any of these elements. IMDb can show that the film exists, maybe there is passing coverage here and there, but its notability may not be clearly established until it is reviewed by multiple critics. While it could be argued that a film that has not started filming yet could have a standalone article based on its notable elements, the start of filming is established as a "hard" threshold because the production is truly underway. Before this threshold, development can be more readily derailed. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Following Up on Future Films

I realize that I left this thread alone for three weeks, but will continue. I think that User:Rosguill and User:Erik are either reading the guideline differently, or have different ideas on what the guideline is supposed to say. It appears that Erik is essentially saying that films in production can be notable, and that Rosguill is agreeing with me that going into production is only the first threshold and not the main threshold, which is indeed being released. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC) I disagree with Rosguill in the detail that "preemptive movie article creation" has to do with not reading the guideline. It has to do with interpreting it differently, and User:Erik is an example of an editor who has read the guideline and interprets it differently than Rosguill and I do. I see a fair number of submissions of drafts on films that either are not yet in production or are in production. I decline them. I then sometimes get a reply showing a reliable source that production has started. Occasionally such films get moved into article space, and may be draftified, and may be moved back into article space again, and I think that the author is acting in good faith because they think that films are notable once they are in production. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC) I have seen a number of AFDs on such films, and most recently a Deletion Review, which appears to be waiting for closure, on The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent and Draft:The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent. If a guideline results in a Deletion Review, then the explanations are likely to be:

• 1. The filer made a good-faith error.
• 2. The closer made a good-faith error.
• 3. The guideline is inherently vague or contentious.
• 4. The guideline is misunderstood.

I don't think that 1 or 2 applies. Is it 3, a vague guideline, or 4, a misunderstood guideline? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not seeing an understanding that the notability of a film's production includes its development and pre-production. Per WP:GNG, Dear Evan Hansen (film) had significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, which per WP:N means that it is "worthy of notice". The point of applying WP:NFF is that WP:GNG could technically be argued about any film in development or pre-production, but because of the subject matter, a standalone page is usually too premature. WP:PAGEDECIDE says, "...make sure that the likelihood of the future event occurring is reasonably assured. For example, the WikiProject Film strongly recommends that a standalone article for a new film be created only if reliable sources confirm that principal photography for the film has commenced, as completion of the film is generally seen out to the end from this point on." To make up an example, if an editor created an article about a film that started filming, with only one reliable source covering the film, while it would meet WP:NFF, it does not meet WP:GNG, and a standalone page would not be warranted yet. In the case of Dear Evan Hansen, it meets both WP:GNG and WP:NFF. Is the impression that the significant coverage needs to be about the filming itself, regardless of any coverage of its development or pre-production? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The thread below has been impacted by this interpretation. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Robert McClenon: The chief reason WP:NFF exists is primarily because there are a lot of false starts in the film industry. Usually if a big Hollywood film starring an A-lister is announced it will receive a lot of industry and mainstream coverage, which will satisfy WP:GNG on the face of things, but will fail WP:CRYSTAL. CRYSTAL states that "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors" and sets a test: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." WP:NFF is an attempt to reconcile these two guidelines. If GNG is satisified, and we can be reasonable sure the film is going to be made then it is okay to go ahead and create the article. The threshold that NFF sets is that principal photography has begun: lots of greenlighted films fail to be made, likewise a film can be cancelled if a key actor drops out, but once the actual filming has started we can be reasonably sure the film will be completed and released. It's not always the case but it would usually take exceptional circumstances for the film to not be completed and released, such as bankruptcy or the death of an actor. So in a nutshell, if a film satisifies GNG and filming has begun then that is the threshold for creating an article. I think this is a fairly straightforward application of the guideline.

However, sometimes articles are created in cases where the production satisifies GNG and filming has not begun. Such cases are not straightforward and invariably come down to an editor's judgment. For many years an article existed about a potential Star Wars sequel trilogy; the reason this was permitted was because the potential production would still satisfy GNG even if the films were never made. There is a distinction here between this exception and the standard case: the production itself, as opposed to the film, was notable in its own right. I generally think it is better to cover such productions in franchise articles, on in a "sequel" sub-section on an appropriate page, but it may not always be possible or appropriate to do that. Betty Logan (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• My 2 Cents: Notability is a matter of having a sufficient weight of Reliable Sourcing, with WP:Crystal Ball significantly diminishing the weight of advance coverage. As Betty Logan notes, an article regarding a pre-production movie should only exist when there is such an extraordinary level of sourcing as to make the subject historically significant even if no such movie is ever made. It is much more credible to make the case for Notability after a film is in production, but only if it has an uncommonly elevated level of coverage. Coverage of production-plans, and coverage that Actor-X-is-to-play-role-Y, carry less weight than coverage and reviews of an existing completed film.
  So we should have pre-production articles only in extraordinarily cases, and in-production articles only where there is serious and external interest in the project. I would be particularly skeptical of coverage that looks like it might be driven by marketing or other internal forces. Press releases and paid placement do not make Notability. Alsee (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Only to add to the above: the NFF advice is the application of WP:NOT to future films and less about notability, but as Alsee says, if there is a tremendous weight of coverage of a film yet to enter pre-production to have clear GNG coverage even if the film never got made, then a standalone makes sense (case I know that applies is Akira (planned film), a film that has been bounced around Hollywood since 2002 and thus has numerous sources behind it). The key is basically to prevent the creation of mainspace articles on films that are basically stubs where all we know is the film's name and a few actors or staff that may be attached to it when production hasn't happened yet. --Masem (t) 01:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft and notability

On the topic of unreleased films, could someone take a look at this draft for North of Albany? I've submitted the draft twice for it to become an article on Wikipedia, but I have been told that it will be rejected until the film is released since the production isn't notable. Could I get a second opinion on this? I've managed to add a paragraph on the film's development, and two paragraphs on the filming process, but it's still "not considered notable". Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

It is notable enough. The declining editor suffers from a willful misunderstanding of WP:GNG and WP:NFF. It should be moved into the mainspace. Can an admin here please override that editor's poor decision? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that draft is fine to be moved to article space. By the logic of no film getting an article until it's released, all the festival films that have propped up the industry this year shouldn't have articles and the entire Category:Unreleased films and its subcats shouldn't exist. Kingsif (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The latest submission decline claims that This submission's references ... do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject, but this is incorrect and misleading. From the references, it seems that the most notable aspect of this film is its director: Academy Award-nominee Marianne Farley. One source is none other than Deadline Hollywood, one of the most reliable sources in the Film project, whose article is solely about this film (see the title: Oscar-Nominee Marianne Farley To Direct Indie ‘North of Albany’). There's also three references from La Presse, which is a Canadian newspaper, one of which is about this film and two others with this one being the most notable among the three (see the first few lines: In an industry advisory, Telefilm Canada announced earlier today funding for three feature film projects, including a psychological drama directed by Marianne Farley and two projects categorized as fantasy films.); there's another ref from this source with is exclusively dedicated to this film (see the title: Céline Bonnier to star in Marianne Farley's next film). I think this coverage is significant enough, and none of these are passing mentions, to comply with WP:GNG. El Millo (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

References

• I'm not going to fight this at this point, but just for future reference: WP:NFF does not mean, and has never been interpreted to mean, that every film is automatically entitled to have an article the moment you can source that principal photography has begun — NFF is not the standard notability criteria for films, WP:NFO (which requires things like critical reviews and/or notable awards) is. NFF is a special path for extremely high profile projects that generate exceptional amounts of production coverage — think Star Wars, MCU, things like that — and is not just a free exemption from NFO for just every film that enters the production pipeline at all. The thing is, between trade pubs like Variety and Deadline Hollywood and Playback and CTVM, you can literally always find a source to verify that production has commenced on literally every film — so if being able to source that a film has started shooting was all you had to do to exempt a film from actually having to clear the base notability criteria for films at NFO, then no film would ever actually have to clear the base notability criteria for films at all.
  So, for future reference: NFO lists the base criteria that a film has to clear to be notable, not NFF — NFF is for special case films (like Star Wars and MCU) that get unusually large juggernauts of pre-release coverage, and does not exempt just every film that can be sourced as having entered the production pipeline from the demands of NFO. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• I am not sure what you are fighting, but I have never seen anyone argue that there should be a standalone article for a film for which there is no significant coverage just because the start of filming is mentioned. WP:NFF and WP:GNG go together. There's no need to reference WP:NFO with these cases. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• You've obviously never actually perused Category:Upcoming films, then, because it's literally overflowing with films that don't yet have anything like enough sourcing to actually be deemed notable in advance of having to clear NFO — see e.g. Land of Legends. Film articles literally get created all the time on the perception that the moment it's possible to source the commencement of photography the film is instantly notable forever and NFO automatically ceases to apply anymore. Many people misunderstand GNG as "count the footnotes and keep anything that passes two", and thus argue that a topic has automatically passed GNG if it has any sources at all, but that's just not how GNG works — there isn't a single film that ever enters the production pipeline without generating enough sourcing that somebody will try to claim that it's passed GNG and is thus exempt from actually having to meet NFO. So NFF requires much more than just the existence of some sources — because if all NFF requires is that any n>2 number of sources exist, then NFO is automatically meaningless since no film in the production pipeline ever fails to have n>2 sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why NFO is being brought up. It is most relevant for older films that do not have the notoriety of the classics (see the first sentence of that section). GNG is clear to me in needing significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, so I am not sure why editors cannot be told that coverage is lacking even when there are some sources. Would it help at all to mention GNG again within NFF as further reinforcement? I wouldn't have a problem with that since I never saw NFF to override GNG. It is actually more exclusionary because there could be a project in development with significant coverage but cannot be considered a sure thing without starting filming. Please suggest wording to make sure all bases are covered. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Reviews

When it comes to the reviews of a film, why is two the minimum number when it comes to achieving some sort of notability? 172.250.44.165 (talk) 08:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Notability means a topic is presumed to be notable if it has significant coverage from multiple reliable sources independent of the topic. Usually if two nationally known critics have reviewed the film fully, that is probably not the only coverage and that there is probably more out there. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC notice for establishing Wikipedia:Notability (television) as a guideline

This is a notice that an RfC has been started requesting comment on if the draft of Wikipedia:Notability (television) should be implemented as a guideline and a WP:SNG. Comments are welcome at the discussion, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Editing and revising the notability requirements

It has been brought to my attention that the criteria for notability, especially with upcoming films, is too vague and quite confusing. We really need to edit certain sections, mainly by specifying to a point in which more people can understand. Anybody got any ideas? Iamnoahflores (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I would like to have an open discussion about the notability of Draft:The Addams Family 2 and how animated films are judged under WP:NFF, compared to live action films. Several animated films are actually deemed notable for the mainspace under WP:NFF, but lack any substantial production news (examples include Turning Red and some other Pixar/Disney productions). Wikipedia pages for animated films, in general, rarely have substantial production announcements or details but are moved to the mainspace before reviews or its release date have occurred. I propose we amend WP:NFF to judge live action films and animated films differently. Live action films become notable through substantial production news, but animated films seem to be deemed notable without substantial production news. Thoughts? Cardei012597 (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

This is my proposition for judging the notability of animated films. I am using the template from WP:TRAILER. I believe notability for animated films should be achieved by using reliable sources to provide useful commentary about a method used by the film's trailer, such as a trailer's intended effect or the audience's reported reaction to it. Along with the basics, (the film's premise, cast, and crew being substantially sourced), I think this proposition, inspired by WP:TRAILER, should be added to WP:NFF in judging the notability of a draft page for a film to move to the mainspace. Thoughts? Cardei012597 (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

My 2 cents. We developed WP:NFF based on the thoughts of WP:CRYSTAL, we cannot assume that any film in production will actually be released. The only reason we have articles about these future films is because we are developing articles based on production of the film. These things have already happened and can be verified by reliable sources. With this in mind, a future film's only indication of notability (significant coverage by independent sources) will be about the film's production. If we all we know about a film is that these people are attached and it happened at this time, these details are mundane and are not inherently notable. IMV, we have way too many future films in the mainspace since most films productions are straight-forward and mundane, or at least details of anything notable happening don't come out until well after the film has been released. So I guess my opinion is to wait until there is something notable to say about the film before moving it to mainspace. For some films, that might mean to wait until it has released. BOVINEBOY2008 23:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

My concern is that WP:NFF is used to judge both live action films and animated films on information regarding production details, but very few animated films have an extensive amount of production news, unlike live action films. But, after all of this, there are still plenty of animated films currently in the mainspace that have little to no production news, which should of kept them in the draftspace. All I present is more clearer guidelines on how and/or why animated films can be deemed notable without much production news. Cardei012597 (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that many live-action films have little to no coverage of their production, only those with big names attached or those from major production companies. If there is no production news, then it does not meet GNG guidelines, no matter the medium. BOVINEBOY2008 00:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, for example, I would argue strongly that the mainspace article Turning Red fails WP:NFF, along with many other GNG guidlines. Why is this in the mainspace? Why has a page with no production information, like Turning Red, moved to the mainspace? I strongly believe that other editors interpret the wording of WP:NFF differently, along with other guidelines. I am proposing a rewrite of the guidelines for WP:NFF to strengthen the language on what notability means for film pages, because the wording is not clear or specific enough. Cardei012597 (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

This is an issue that other editors have commented on, even User:Robert McClenon mentioned that "The guideline on films that have begun or completed production but have not been released is poorly written, and has caused controversy for years". This was said at Draft talk:The Addams Family 2. It seems that WP:NFF needed to be heavily rewritten years ago, but has not for some particular reason. The language used in this guideline needs to be improved and updated in order to properly determine what a draft actually needs to be notable. Cardei012597 (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

A comment here is that I think NFF is not quite a notability guideline as much as avoidance against premature articles per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Film projects get announced and talked about in depth all the time to the point they meet the WP:GNG's aspect of significant coverage, but until a camera is rolling, the practicality is that all of that is hypothetical talk and the movie may never get off the ground. (For example, Nick Cage was to be in Amazon Studio's adaption of the Tiger King real-life story, it was big news when it was announced last year to a level it met the GNG, but now the production has just been cancelled, so it never met the NFF).

What I see tends to happen is that we get films that do not meet the GNG yet, but we know production has started so they meet the NFF so editors go and make the article based on minimal information. This is where I think a problem lies. The GNG needs to be met first and foremost, and then we should generally defer to the NFF to avoid making articles on yet-produced films. So taking the case of Seeing Red above, it clearly passes the GNG (we have some facets about the film's creative background and development, beyond the routine writing/casting/production details, whereas for Addams Family 2, all the information is "typical" of a film in production and fails the GNG at this point. --Masem (t) 23:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it should start with GNG being met, and NFF should be an additional standard that it has to meet. Perhaps it could help to add WP:RUNOFTHEMILL somewhere in this guideline, clarifying what is and what isn't run of the mill information for films. —El Millo (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

If the GNG is meet, that is more than sufficient, and NFF is irrelevant. My guess is that whenever there is such talk, people don’t know how to assess against the GNG. WP:Run-of-the-mill is not helpful, newcomer’s do not benefit from endless low weight essays, they benefit from simple language. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Seeing Red? Do you mean Turning Red? My start of source analysis is seeing that it DOES NOT meet the GNG. You need to read the GNG more carefully. Reliable source, and independent, and significant comment, all at once in the same source. Not mere mentions. Not content that is basically quotes from involved sources, that’s plain non-independent. The GNG is a very tough ask of a film that hasn’t committed its budget, which means it is not locked in to any particular description. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Restatement of the Issue

Here is my restatement of what the issue is.

My reading of the guideline is that films are in one of three categories as to whether they exist:

• 1. Planned films, which have not begun production (principal photography or animation).
• 2. Films in production, which have either begun or completed production, but have not yet been released.
• 3. Films that have been released.

Films in categories 1 and 3 are straightforward enough. Films in category 3 are usually notable, based on reviews and other significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Films in category 1 are not considered notable, and are usually redirected, sometimes to the director or the franchise. It is category 2 that is contentious.

There are clearly at least two distinct viewpoints, a restrictive reading and an inclusive reading. The restrictive reading, which I think is the literal wording, is that a film in production is only notable if production itself has been the subject of significant coverage that satisfies general notability. The inclusive reading seems to be that the film is notable if a reliable source says that it has been produced. That strikes me as accepting an article based on a passing mention.

We (Wikipedia) have been and are inconsistent because whether a film in production is accepted depends on what subset of the community deals with it. We can deal with the inconsistency in at least three different ways:

• 1. Rewrite the guideline on films in production.
• 2. Insist on a strict reading of the guideline, although that may not be possible, because some directors and some studios have ultras.
• 3. Continue to be inconsistent.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that categories 1 and 3 are straightforward. For category 2, my opinion is, for upcoming releases like The Addams Family 2 (currently a redirect and draft) or live articles Turning Red and Hotel Transylvania: Transformania, if the film has big stars, a release date has been set, a trailer released, and it is being released by a major studio, it should be notable.Filmgirlfannn (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited. Just because big names or companies are attached to a project does not make it pass WP:GNG. BOVINEBOY2008 02:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The three examples being discussed here are all computer-animated. I see little difference between animated movies and live-action movies. The issue is still category 2, where production for live-action movies is principal photography.

I have looked at Turning Red and Transformania. I see that they have had contentious histories, especially Turning Red, and that both of them were accepted from draft space into article space. I would not have accepted them, and do not think that they should have been accepted. I do not plan to nominate them for deletion, but I think that they should not have been accepted based on a strict reading of category 2. One of the reasons why I think that category 2 should be read strictly is to minimize promotional use of Wikipedia by studios and their flacks. I am aware that there are editors who are enthusiastic about wanting articles on every upcoming film; I am aware of them because they have insulted me when I didn't accept drafts. The good-faith explanation for editors who push too hard for acceptance of drafts of upcoming films is that they are ultras. A few such editors are flacks.

We can rewrite the language having to do with section 2 and allow most of the drafts on upcoming films, which will make the ultras and the flacks happy, and a lot of the articles will be puff pieces. We can try to educate editors to apply category 2 strictly. Or we can continue to be inconsistent.

In the meantime, I will continue to apply category 2 strictly, and unfortunately will probably continue to be occasionally personally attacked by ultras. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I think a problem with Category 2 is that the guidelines need to be worded it doesn't rely the reader to have to go through links to whole guides for specifications. We need them listed here clearly so there can be as much of a universal understanding as possible. Iamnoahflores (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Going to my comment in the section below, NFF should be seen as a separate aspect from other notability factors in NFILM or the GNG. That is, even for a film where production has started and that can be documented, one of the NFILM criteria for notability or the GNG should be met to have the standalone. Just the fact that a film's production has started but fails to have any NFILM or GNG notability should not be an allowance to have an article, and they may have to wait to near-release where reviews or other sourcing that will have NFILM/GNG aspects to allow the standalone. Basically, NFF should first say "NFILM or GNG must be met" and then ask "If you can then should production has started, then you can create a standalone article". --Masem (t) 01:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. What I'm seeing is AfD keep-votes with excuses of "but it will be notable", or "but there is such a buzz about this much anticipated film". I agree that GNG must be the first minimum bar to reach. After that, "notably in production" or "film has been released" is the second bar to reach. If both are met, then a standalone article can be written. Platonk (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. If the GNG is met, everything else is moot, the GNG is always enough. Predicating the GNG means you entirely miss the point.

The point of NFF is the temporary lowering of the threshold for the period between principle photography (when the answer is always “no”), and the cinematic release (when the answer is virtually always “yes”. In this middle period, a stub is always suitable, and there are always enthusiastic new editors who want to improve it. If a reliable source reports principle photography, this is a very strong indicator that the film will be notable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I have actually been scolded for creating an article on a film that clearly met the GNG due to its long well-documented troubled pre-production but didn't start principle photography per NFF (see [1] and Talk:Akira (planned film)), which I think is wrong and why NFF is also misused at times.

The problem with assuming that "principle photography started" equates to notability is the assumption that photography will be completed and the film will actually get released. That's not a method of measuring notability because it involves too much crystal-balling of film production, though obviously, Disney or Marvel starting production on a film is far different compared to an arthouse starting production. Thing is, using NfF without encouraging more notable facets leads editors to only focus on primary data about a film - casting, directors, etc. and not about actual encyclopedic information that we look for from the GNG standpoint like background and inspiration of the script or production details (the stuff that comes from in-depth aspects about a film). --Masem (t) 02:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Akira (planned film) does indeed invite a scolding. It’s about something that doesn’t exist. To the extent that a plan exists as a plan, it is tenuous, prone to being completely change, while keeping some same connections, and generating confusion without interest. I haven’t analysed, but i expect the GNG compliance of the sources will be debatable.

“Principle photography commenced” does not equate to Wikipedia-Notability, it is an exception to Wikipedia-Notability. Or a watering down of it, as WP:PSTS remains the core policy. An assumption in NFF (principle photography has commenced) is that release is considered a certainty. As is sometimes mentioned, low budget films are a problem here. For serious budget films, the creditors had to satisfied, because principle photography means spending the creditors’ money.

NFF does not weaken PSTS, it does not give licence to bad sources or WP:OR. If there are minimal sources, WP:STUB is the answer. The point is that there is a page, and a history, and a talk page, for all the enthusiasts to work on collecting acceptable content, and for it being ready when the trailer is released, and trailer-review sources appear, and then the release.

The alternative is multiple newcomer new article attempts, and deletions burning newcomers, and polluting a parent topic page history, and newcomers being sent to the dreary experience of draftspace. All these things are far worse than a few months of training newcomers amount restraint and reliable sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Simply because a work doesn't exist doesn't meant that the effort to develop that work is its not notable and that an article about the failure to create that work couldn't be sustained, as long as the GNG is met. There is clearly a higher bar for such a work since you will not have reviews or the like, and you need the passage of time to show that the work being in development hell was well documented. But this comes to what you pointed out above, that the NFF based on the starting of principle photography is not meant as a black and white rule of when a standalone article should be created, which it often is used that way.

Keeping that in mind, to get back at notability factors, if we're talking most productions that come out of big Hollywood studios, by the time that the NFF point is met, we know there is going to be news about the screenwriter, casting, and directors in THR, Variety, and other similar works, and not simply press releases. That third-parties cover these films, and usually with some bit of depth beyond just the announcement, means we have the barest but sufficient amount of GNG-meeting sources that the standalone (from NFF's point) shows that no one really should be challenging the article's notability from that point onward. (eg the coverage I know these works have given to Borderlands (film) is sufficient to not challenge its notability). From what few film articles I see that are at the NFF state, this isn't going to cause any massive deletion spree or prevention of new article creation. What we do have at issue is that films from smaller studios tend to only get coverage via press releases or social media self-postings, and that's not sufficient for creating an article on a film that no third-party has really taken notice of or has discussed to some in-depth degree, as WP should not be used for promotion of works like this. eg to take from the section later on this talk page, Surrogate (film) is a film with only two sources of which have questionable use. NFF should not be an allowance for films to have articles where there is a clear lack of some type of GNG approach to notability. I don't expect this notability to be clear and beyond the GNG at the time the NFF criteria happens, but it should be apparent third-parties are talking about the film in a manner that shows it will get further coverage via reviews on release. --Masem (t) 13:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

NFF core element of relevance is a reliable source confirms commencement of principle photography. “reliable source” sometimes, especially back them, is read as meaning “independent”, self published press releases or social media publication was definitely not implied. This was before Facebook, but I am quite sure of the intention.

I broadly find all of your wording agreeable. Lip service to the GNG is required. Some type of GNG approach, yes. To me, this means some kind of reliably published independent content. However, failing that, the answer is to stubify, not delete, if the principle photography is reliably and independently verified.

The unusual driving factors here are to not burn enthusiastic newcomers, and to not waste energy sweeping back the sand blowing in but to channel that energy. Normally, principle photography to release is only months to several months, unless it is exceptionally big and thus not contentious, or there is a global pandemic.

Another point I see in the noise is anti-India anti-Bollywood prejudice.

Where I am not sure is what to do about low budget films, but one idea is to broadly banish all social media sources from any consideration. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

An amended form of NFF that points to something like "There should still be demonstration via sourcing that the film has been covered by independent and third-party sources prior to or at the point of principle photography to suggest that the film will likely be notable" (does not need to be this exact wording) would be something that seems to line up your view with mine.

I do agree we want to avoid any possible systematic biasing problems, particular now with the effect of Parasite (2019 film) and Squid Game that any local market is a potential for films. But that said, we do not disallow foreign sources, and if we're talking Bollywood, South Korea, or Japan, they all have healthy reporting media covering their film industries that will cover their industries just as much as Variety and THR will cover Hollywood and European films. Just that sometimes the smaller, more arthouse/indie films are still going to drop through the cracks until they get closer to release. --Masem (t) 13:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Pinging User:Platonk to here. User:Platonk has just reminded me on the possibility that a film that has started principle photography might not be intended for general release in theatres. This was definitely an unstated assumption of mine. I believe that NFF must be read as a weakening of the requirements to meet the GNG, in between commencement of principle photography and release, but now there are two requirements that were not documented. 1. The report of commencement of principle photography must be independently as well as reliably reported. 2. The intended release should be general release to theatres, not direct to subscribers, not direct to VHS. Note that GNG weakening does not mean GNG discarding. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure that the more money a film makes (especially independently counted), the more notable it is... naturally. I poked around on Box Office Mojo and The Numbers (website) to check on two films, one associated with Daily Wire ownership/distribution (Run Hide Fight) and one not-associated (Gosnell: The Trial of America's Biggest Serial Killer). Gosnell earned $3.7M and played for 10 weeks in theaters [2] [3], a relative flop since its budget was $4M, but at least it made money despite being a controversial-social-topic film. On the other hand, Run Hide Fight was not shown in theaters, was premiered on Daily Wire's platform, and reputedly earned a paltry $20K, internationally, and spent a budget of $1.5M. (I don't think Run Hide Fight is notable enough for a standalone article, even post-release.)

Though commercial earnings aren't the only thing giving a film notability, we can more easily establish notability of a non-cinema-release film after it has been released, never before. And we can more easily estimate whether an upcoming big-name film might become notable, unlike smaller independent productions such as Terror on the Prairie, which may well go the way of Run Hide Fight.

We are discussing WP:NFF, which is how do we determine if WP editors should be granted permission to create a standalone article for an upcoming film. SmokeyJoe is correct that NFF doesn't address size of film in the guideline. I hope I didn't just open a new can of worms for resolving NFF ambiguity. (I assume by "VHS" SmokeyJoe means "DVD" or other home/personal purchase.)

I still disagree that the purpose of NFF is to lower/lessen the GNG standards for upcoming films, although at this point I think that is the ambiguity that is sticking us from resolving the matter; half the editors think it does/should, the other half think it doesn't/shouldn't. That will need to be resolved. Formal RfC, perhaps? Platonk (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Films in Production (yet again)

I realize that some of you are getting tired of hearing this, but this guideline continues to be the source of controversy about films that either are in production or have completed production, but have not been released. I think that either language needs to be added to clarify, or that the guideline should actually be revised. There continue to be disputes, sometimes at Articles for Creation, sometimes at WP:Articles for Deletion, where editors on both sides insist that the guideline is clear. If different editors say both that it is clear that Film X passes NFF and that Film X does not pass NFF, then one of the following must be true:

• 1. The editors who think that the film passes NFF are completely and inexcusably wrong.
• 2. The editors who think that the film does not pass NFF are completely are inexcusably wrong.
• 3. NFF is poorly written so that it is misinterpreted.
• 4. The wording of NFF varies between editors or between times.

I think, first, that most of the films that have been the subject of controversy do not pass NFF, but, second, that NFF must be poorly written, or it would not be so contentious. The discussion above appears to me to indicate that films that have completed production are notable if and only if production itself has been notable, that is, there has been significant coverage of production by reliable sources. However, some reasonable editors think that NFF says that a film is notable if there are mentions by reliable sources that the film is in production or has been produced.

Three examples of films that, in my opinion, illustrates confusion due to the guideline, are

• Heropanti 2
• Surrogate (film)
• Vikram Vedha (2022 film). Yes, I am the nominator on them, because I take a strict interpretation of NFF, and some other editors agree with me, so it isn't just me. The fact that other editors have created and defended those articles illustrates that these controversies are common.

I may try to propose a revision to NFF to reduce the uncertainty, but first I would like a rough consensus that NFF is poorly written. So: Are the controversies over NFF due to: one group of editors being deeply confused; the guideline varying (I don't think so); or a guideline that is misinterpreted? If the guideline is misinterpreted frequently, my thought is that it should be changed. Is there at least rough consensus that the controversies illustrate that the guideline is confusing? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Not getting tired; just getting started. I think the source of the problem is deeper than a confusing policy/guideline or poor reading comprehension. After reading the previous discussion about NFF earlier today, I nominated one upcoming film for AfD, then participated in a bunch of the AfDs listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Article alerts#AfD. There's one editor there who is convinced that NFF is/was written in order to lower the bar of GNG to allow upcoming films to get their own article pre-release, as long as filming has started — regardless of notability of film or production. I find this viewpoint fascinating. If Wikipedia's goal is to be a [film] directory, or to lower the bar for entry to new film-fandom editors, then sure, open the floodgates for every Tom, Dick, and HarryPotter to write about their favorite fan film-to-be. But the quality of citations in these articles is horrendous: Instagram, tweets, actress websites, marketing press releases times ten!

I also read today an article about Wikipedia and the idea that it is elitist, hard for newcomers, wants newcomers, is shrinking not growing (its editor base), wants articles only if the subject is notable, and omits low-notable subjects people might be interested in. That subject is far too broad in scope to tackle in a mere [repeating] NFF spat. However, it's interesting to note how close to reality these issues match the creation and defense of these upcoming-film articles.

In contrast to what that other editor thinks NFF is, I think NFF was written to enable rolling back the start date for an article to pre-release, if and when the pre-release stages became notable. And I don't mean little bitty notable because of dozens of press releases all pushed out over a one-week period, I mean really notable with multiple independent reliable sources over an extended period of time (enduring).

I see a lot of suggestions to draftify at AfD. I also notice that the words "draft" and "draftify" don't exist in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (it mentions "Keep", "Delete", "Merge", "Redirect", or other view). And like ships passing in the night, WP:DRAFTIFY briefly mentions AfD, but only as in 'we chose to delete your article, if you want it undeleted then it will go to draft space'. How did this morph into voting to "draftify" at AfD? And I looked but couldn't find a noticeboard for "please draftify this article", but did find a notation where it was okay for an individual editor to unilaterally decide to move an article to draft space — though cautioned that you're responsible for that decision, and you have to install some sort of script to do it and/or have special user rights. That sounds complicated. If draft space is for incubating articles, why isn't there a straightforward way of getting something from main to draft?

It is true that things get lost in draft space. I never heard about it until I'd been editing for months. I'd never heard of AfC because I just created an article with the push of a button. So draftifying an article that a few editors were working on... I don't know how effective that is. How hidden is the draft article? Do people create new articles because they don't find an article for their upcoming fan-film? They sure do! Why isn't there an automated process when someone creates an article in article space that checks to see if there's already one in draft space with the same name?

Was NFF always doomed to be one of those attempts at trying to fit/retrofit something new into an old structure where it just cannot fit without conflicts and paradoxes? Is it conceivable that Wikipedia's WP:NOTDIR and GNG policies will always be hurdles that will inhibit or trip up any version of NFF, no matter how well worded? It's worth contemplating this a bit, since discussing re-wording NFF alone hasn't come to any resolution yet. Maybe we're just missing something. (Please pardon the novela; I would have preferred a phone or zoom conversation with the capability for back and forth discussion.) Platonk (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I always read NFF not so much as a notability guideline, but as guidance when a new page should be created about a film that otherwise has shown itself to be notable by the other metrics on NFILM. That is, just because a film is named to be in production, if there's very little else to be said about the film, then that doesn't mean a new page should be created (Heropanti 2 is an example that fits this problem). Perhaps NFF's section should be worded to be clear that it is not a notability criteria and that a film must also meet the GNG or the other NFILM criteria before the page can be created when production has been announced. --Masem (t) 13:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - A perusal through this page's archives for the topic "NFF" finds much said over the years, including: That until it is released it is not a film, it is a project, but editors have been treating these pre-releases as 'films'; that the wording hasn't changed since some time before 2009... 12 years ago; that others have mentioned that notability shouldn't just be about buzz or regurgitated press releases about upcoming films. And more. Suggestions for new wording have been proposed, and gone nowhere. If the problem has been rehashed several times over 12 years and no 'fix' has resulted, then I think some sort of fresh look at this problem needs to be taken. Platonk (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• I do think that the wording of WP:NFF leaves room for it to be interpreted in numerous dichotomous ways, which is probably why this guideline has been the subject of so many disputes over the years. I agree that the third sentence of WP:NFF ("Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available.") isn't fully clear. Let's say, for example, that I wanted to write about Heropanti 2, but there are no RS yet supporting that principal photography has commenced. Under this sentence of WP:NFF, I can include information about the film "in articles about its subject material," but what does that mean? Does it mean I can write about the upcoming film on the director, producer, or production company's page? Can I write about it on the original Heropanti film page? Hence, I agree that this is unclear and potentially confusing.

I will note, though, that WP:NFF is a subcategory on the WP:NFILM page. At the top of this WP:NFILM page, a banner clearly states that "this page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline." The first few sentences in the lead even say, "For the majority of topics related to film, the criteria established at the general notability guideline are sufficient to follow. This guideline, specific to the subject of film, explains the general notability guideline as it applies to film..." Therefore, I don't think there should be any confusion about how WP:NFF interacts with WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. WP:GNG is the broadest notability guideline that sets forth principles for all standalone articles; WP:NFILM specifically applies WP:GNG to film articles, and WP:NFF is a narrower sub-policy within WP:NFILM. Nothing within WP:NFF should be interpreted in a manner contrary to WP:NFILM or WP:GNG.

In sum, I am not confused by how WP:NFF interacts with WP:NFILM or WP:GNG, nor do I think a reasonable WP editor should be. I am, however, confused by the actual language of WP:NFF and can see how reasonable editors would be unsure what to do, especially regarding films in between the production and release stages. ~ Kind regards, PinkElixir (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

A Summary, maybe

It appears that there are two related questions. The first is whether the current guideline lowers the bar or sets a very high bar for films that are in or out of production but not yet released. The second is whether the intent of the community is that the bar should be lowered for films that are in or out of production but not yet released, or whether there should be a high bar for such films. The notability of produced but unreleased films has been contentious for years, and I have been saying that the guideline is poorly written, and I still think it is poorly written; but I can see that there is also disagreement on what the guideline should specify. The second question, what the guideline should be, is more important.

I have a sarcastic question. Was the current language, which was written in 2008, intended to be a compromise between two viewpoints that left both sides thinking that they had their way, and so has confused everyone for thirteen years?

I disagree with User:SmokeyJoe as to what the guideline should be, but I thank him for explaining coherent reasoning as to why the bar should be lowered for films that are about to be released. We can take either or both of two approaches at this point. We can discuss whether to rewrite the current guideline to provide clarity. We and the community can discuss what the guideline should be, and so whether the guideline should be rewritten. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Many years ago I was thoroughly versed in Wikipedia-Noability-lore, and it is definitely in my idealised foggy memory that NFF was a remarkedly special SNG (sub-subNG if you like) in lowering that standard threshold (the hard reading of the GNG) and in being an accurate predictor of outcome at AfD. The main SNG for side-stepping the GNG was always NPROF, but NFF did too, but in the very special case of the limited period between principle photography (reliably reported) and release. As discussed with Masem above, I think we should expand “reliably reported” to “reliably and independently reported”, to be clear, and to note that social media announcements are never ok. Of the others SNGs, WP:CORP is harsher, most are definitely “sub”NGs in that they serve to predict whether topics will pass the GNG, and others, such as PORNBIO, and NSPORTS, were clearly over-inclusive.

The fighting I see now over NFF I see as a perception that it gives liberty to inclusion of inadequately sourced material. It should not do this. NFF may give permission for an article in anticipation of proper notability, but then it may be limited to WP:STUB level.

The other new things are contention over low budget films, animated films, and Bollywood. NFF was never intended to be inclusive-leaning for low budget films. The rationale was & is that significant creditors’ money is now spent, which effectively locks in the movie plot and cast, and guarantees a timely release. This is not true for low budget films, and may not be true for animated (non-human star cast) films. The other thing in contention, is Bollywood. I think this is national prejudice, both against the Indian movie business, and Indian newspapers. There seems to be a correlation in the likelihood of something being sent to AfD and the nation of origin, a systematic bias that needs to be brought into the light. It might be that Indian news reporting has a style that sounds more promotional, on everything, to western ears. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: : Calling people with a particular view of the guideline "completely and inexcusably wrong" is not a good way to start (or continue) a discussion. Consider taking a break from this area and working on something else for awhile. RudolfRed (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

User:RudolfRed - I didn't say that anyone was completely and inexcusably wrong. I said that either some editors are completely wrong, or the guideline is badly written. I was saying that the fact that there are two very different interpretations of the same guideline is a problem with the guideline. I realize that my argument was subtle, and I see that you missed it. If you don't think that the guideline is poorly written, then why is it so contentious? Robert McClenon (talk) 08:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I still don't understand how WP:NFF could be taken to subvert WP:GNG when it is clearly a sub-sub-policy of it. I don't believe reasonable editors should be confused about that. However, if reality is that many editors are, in fact, confused by this, then the language of WP:NFF needs to somehow make clear that this policy may not be used to undermine WP:GNG. Perhaps one way to accomplish this is to, as SmokeyJoe suggests, "expand 'reliably reported' to 'reliably and independently reported.'" I would be in support of such a change. Kind regards~ PinkElixir (talk) 02:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

User:PinkElixir - I agree that WP:NFF is a sub-sub-policy of WP:GNG. However, some editors have explained that they want NFF to waive GNG. In my opinion, the current wording is clear, although awkward. However, some editors want NFF to waive GNG. That is why I am saying, below, that NFF should be rewritten via an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose any change to the guidelines. The last paragraph of WP:NFF covers it well, "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." This wording has existed forever. If a film does not meet WP:NFF and WP:GNG, there should not be an article. It cannot just meet WP:NFF. The original problem that prompted WP:NFF was the fact that there was WP:GNG coverage of a film even if it had not begun filming -- development, pre-production, casting, etc. The problem is that before the start of filming, all of that can fall apart. Just apply WP:GNG to a film that technically meets WP:NFF. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  User:Erik, you were all over it back then, and I am mystified by my inability to verify my memory of its origin at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film, but I can find simpler comments at AfD, such as by you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2009 film). As with that AfD, I don’t remember the GNG clauses being rolled in with NFF. It was a simple concept that seems to work well. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

  This by User:Iamnoahflores looks like a very good edit. -- SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  User:Erik. "The original problem that prompted WP:NFF was the fact that there was WP:GNG coverage of a film even if it had not begun filming". I really do no think that was true. I do not believe that many films that had not begun filming had sources the properly met the GNG, meaning multiple sources that were all of (1) "independent", (2) "reliable", and (3) "commented on the topic in depth". I think two out of three is common, but never all three at once. -- SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Excellent edit reverted for discussion

[4], by User:Atlantic306, is a revert of an excellent edit by User:Iamnoahflores.

User:Atlantic306 would like it discussed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The status quo ante version, Latest revision as of 02:52, 5 November 2021, reverted to, is:

Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines.

Revision as of 23:46, 3 November 2021, by User:Iamnoahflores, is:

Additionally, films that have already begun production should only have articles if the production itself meets the notability guidelines. Due to upcoming films generally having less information, guidelines are less strict and usually only require enough reliable sources. The amount of reliable sources required for an article is subjective, so discussions are recommended in the talk page of an article if any disputes arise. Also, if an article that was deemed notable during production, but unable to meet the additional criteria when released (ex. Lack of critical reception), the article can be drafted or deleted despite past notability.

Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines.

SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I read User:Iamnoahflores' version as consistent with how NFF is referred to at AfD, which is in conflict with the actual text.

I find User:Iamnoahflores' version to be in the direction of my proposed Wikipedia:Notability_(films)/November_2021_Draft_RFC#Option_3. My version adds emphasis for the reliable sources to be not just reliable, but to also be Wikipedia:Independent sources. The intention is to exclude social media or other self published sources from any substantive used in building content. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• While there's pieces of Iamnoahflores edit that I think are improvements whose reinstatement I would support, the bit about lower standards for films under production, however, strikes me as a departure from standard practices which should be discussed. I haven't been following this page super closely, but it also seemed to me like the changes were sidestepping the ongoing discussion about what to do with NFF, and if only for that reason alone I'm a bit surprised the edit wasn't reverted sooner. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  Can you re-do the improvements without touching the “lower standards” issue? The “lower standard” issue is the subject of RFC drafting right now, but that should not hinder non-controversial improvement. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  Reading it again, I'm now feeling more uncertain about the part I thought I had liked: ...films that have already begun production should only have articles if the production itself meets the notability guidelines. While I agree with this statement, I'm not sure it's necessarily an improvement over the existing text, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

You see, "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video" to me was just honestly bad writing. Of course if a movie is shooting it's not gonna release simultaneously in theaters or video, it just bothered me that it was worded like that. Iamnoahflores (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hi, the part I'm uncomfortable with is "Also, if an article that was deemed notable during production, but unable to meet the additional criteria when released (ex. Lack of critical reception), the article can be drafted or deleted despite past notability." This seems to disregard WP:GNG which can be passed without any other criteria being met in the SNG. Also WP:Notability is not temporary applies, because if the production passes WP:GNG it may still be notable as for example in some high profile unfinished films, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The reason I added that was because someone was under the impression that a movie becomes notable once it's released, more specifically when it gets critical reception. I was not aware of WP:Notability is not temporary when I edited it (there are so many rules) so I would not leave that part in. Iamnoahflores (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• A comment from considering the GNG is that itself is not a black and white line, and how the GNG should be applied (more specifically, should an article be created, or to consider if a created article should be deleted/merged) will depend on the state of the topic itself. With respect to films, clearly a film not yet in theaters should show that there is enough independent sourcing showing that there is a likely trend that the film is getting the type of coverage expected of a released film to suggest that the GNG is being met at the current time. So the problem line above "Due to upcoming films generally having less information, guidelines are less strict and usually only require enough reliable sources." may be replaced by something like "There should be sufficient reliable sourcing to show independent reliable sourcing suggesting the film will eventually meet the significant coverage required for WP's notability guidelines once the film is released." Also this related to the fact that notability is always a rebuttable presumption, designed to favor article creation until we have sufficiently satisfied ourselves that no sourcing will come about to really pass the GNG. While "notability is not temporary" has been brought up above, this assumes that we have surpassed the presumption of notability. If that presumption is still lingering about a topic or film in this case, then we can still reconsider it down the road. So in an instance of a film where we may have news of its director, casting and start of production, but for some reason filming was just shut down and the project quietly shelved, that might be a case where the presumption of notability failed and we'd look to delete or merge the film article. --Masem (t) 00:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The Way Forward (NFF)

It appears that there are at least two distinct viewpoints as to what the notability guideline should be on films that have been produced and are awaiting release. Some editors think that films awaiting release should only be considered notable if production itself satisfies general notability. If so, that is a higher bar than is required for films that have been released, which are notable if they have had multiple reviews, as is usually the case. (It is my opinion that the higher bar is what is currently specified by the future films guideline, but that is only my opinion and that of some other editors.) Other editors think that there should be a temporary lowering of the bar for films that have begun or completed production and not yet been released, and that they should be considered notable if reliable sources confirm the production status (and they cannot have been reviewed until they are seen by reviewers).

Since we have two distinct viewpoints as to what the guideline should be, what is needed is a Request for Comments to rewrite the guideline on future films, which has been contentious since 2007. The RFC should have four choices:

• 1. Leave the guideline alone. (I don't recommend this, because we know that the guideline has been contentious for more than a decade.)
• 2. Rewrite the guideline to clarify that such films are only notable if production has satisfied general notability, that is, there has been significant coverage of production itself.
• 3. Rewrite the guideline to clarify that general notability is waived for films that are awaiting release.
• 4. Something else.

If there is at least agreement that those should be the options, and that an RFC is in order, then we can discuss writing proposed text 2 and proposed text 3. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this well describes the problem, that those 4 are the appropriate choices of action that could be taken to break the impasse, that we should have an RfC, and that we first need to come up with wording for #2 and #3. If no one has any suggestions for #4, then it can be omitted from the RfC. Platonk (talk) 08:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

(#3) needs conditions. Objective conditions:

* source reports commencement of principle photography must be reliable, and independent, and to be clear that social media sources don’t count;

* it’s for general theatrical release, not subscription only

* a reliable independent source gives the film a title

subjective conditions should be avoided in black and white writing, but they are:

* The film is completely expected to be notable at the time of release

Things that imply the above subjective condition might include:

* Director, producer, starring cast are already notable (already have articles, and these articles already name this film)

* It’s a big budget film.

“waived” is a bit strong. There must be a reliable independent source confirming principle photography, and cast producer and director. Instead of “waived”, I suggest “leeway on the depth of coverage”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

A comment on the "subscription" aspect, given that Netflix and Amazon have been recognized for their filmmaking, as well as WB's plan to have films to be for HBO Max next rather than theatrical, I think this needs to be considered. I agree we don't want films destined for unproven subscription services to fall under that, but for Netflix originals, for example, there's no reason to treat those different from an intended theatrical release. (To me, that you have to apply these various conditions shows why #3 is unworkable compared to the simplicity of #2 or possible other options) --Masem (t) 18:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The simplicity of #2 is a false simplicity. It nullifies NFF entirely, because is the WP:GNG is met then the article will be kept regardless. It defeats the purpose of NFF in making decisions easier.

”Unworkable” is an absolute extreme hyperbole. I maintain that confirmation of commencement of principle photography, with the intention for broad release in a short time, is an excellent indicator that the GNG will be met, in a short time. It might be that making this purely objective is too hard.

On these filmmaking companies, employing Vertical integration, featuring a locked-in subscriber-only market, I think these should be assessed as commercial company products, I.e. WP:CORP, the only SNG respected for placing extra stringency on the reading of the GNG. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree to a point that #2 would bypass NFF. GNG is not a black or white metric, and there's various levels to what is covered to have a topic pass it. A lot of films at the time that production starts have bare minimum significant coverage. To use an example typical for most films, Borderlands (film) (which has finished filming) has a lot of sources, but when you start digging into what those sources give, its not very deep coverage, just the basic facts and nothing in-depth. If the film had not started production and we only had what was given pre-production, that is arguably not enough to really pass the GNG, but the trend is likely there. Add that production started, and now that's likely a good sign that the GNG will be ultimately met once the film is completed and released (on the basis that most films that reach the start of production will get to be shown, unless you have a case like Rust (upcoming film), which itself makes for its own notability). But if production never started and thats all we had to speak about the film, we'd likely delete it in time or merge to some appropriate article. Thus, option 2 on the basis that the weak-ish meeting of the GNG is significantly aided by the start of filming, hence why its a good and easy point to use. --Masem (t) 01:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: I think you're onto something with the introduction of the ideas of Vertical integration, WP:NCORP, and treating some films as 'company products'. This part of the issue came up during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terror on the Prairie, when it was brought up that the film was to be released to subscribers-only by a company that had only ever released one other film in the past. That instance of 'vertical integration' is almost like a startup company (or a new division), and is quite unlike the scale of Netflix and Disney+, and the maturity of their 'streaming content for subscribers' markets. They both produce their own content, but they're professionals. Comparing The Daily Wire's new foray in film-making against the Netflixes of the world, DW is a rank amateur (except when it comes to internet marketing, which they are quite capable of making even the worst film seem like the best thing since sliced bread). So, are you suggesting that if a film-project is destined for a very limited release in a niche market that it should be treated as a product always... or potentially morph into its own standalone article if GNG passes after release? Platonk (talk) 06:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Platonk, I am not firmly decided. I believe that an upcoming film garnering popular excitement should be allowed an mainspace stub page and that excited new editors should not be sent to draftspace, even if details are scant. New editors need a mainspace talk page. On the other side, Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion of an upcoming film. I am firming on the notion of two independent reliable sources that report both principle photography and theatrical release. I don’t support your use of the word “always”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: The way you solve that is by creating a redirect in the upcoming film's name to an anchor in the article (say, film Terror on the Prairie (2022) redirects to anchor The Daily Wire#Terror on the Prairie). Then your "excited newbies" are able to find where the film is mentioned and they can edit it right there. And you make a notation in the redirect file that it may in the future be turned into a standalone article IF AND WHEN WP:NFF is satisfied. Platonk (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I like that for a film not for widespread theatrical release, where every source collected by the enthusiastic newbies relates strong to the production company. Can The Daily Wire be given a level 2 section “Works in production” which includes a level 3 section “Terror on the Prairie”? If yes, then it is a great solution. If no, then how would it work? SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

A developing idea for wording for #3 is: Two independent reliable sources report on both the commencement of principle photography, and the date of the anti payed theatrical release.

(I note that an awful lot of Wikipedians think “two independent reliables sources” is the GNG, so this should work for them). This weakens the standard required with regard to depth of coverage, or secondary source comment on the topic, which I believe has always been the weakened requirement for an impending film stimulating new editor activity. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft RFC

I have created a draft RFC, at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)/Draft RFC. I have written the language for Option 2. Someone who favors Option 3, maybe User:SmokeyJoe, should include the language for Option 3. When the language for the two alternate versions is ready, the draft RFC can be moved into this talk page, and the nowiki tags can be removed, which will bring the thing into robotic life when it is also signed. It will then run for 30 days. It should be advertised at the Village Pump and the appropriate WikiProjects. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

On your draft, you describe three states for films; I'll point out the first one "1. Those that have not begun production, which are not notable." I disagree that a film that has not been produced cannot be notable under the GNG, if the pre-production of the film (even potentially cancelled) is documented in-depth. For example, there is much known about Jodorowsky's attempt at Dune that if we didn't have the documentary about it at Jodorowsky's Dune, that an article about the failed attempt would be easily possible. I realize these cases are exception, and perhaps best considered as IAR (that is, no need to document to confuse matters), but to this end, I would not necessarily include "which are not notable" in that statement ,or restate it as "which generally lack enough information to judge notability". --Masem (t) 19:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Masem Okay. I will reword it. McClenon mobile (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I made a few changes. Changed the word "classes" to "stages" because we are talking about a sequence (where a film passes through these stages), rather than unique/distinct sets where something belongs to only one (and no other). I also tweaked it a bit, because you want all film projects to be somewhere on this scale (with no black holes or ambiguity — no dark corners where a film can fall unclassified, and no possibility that someone will be unable to tell which stage a film-project falls into). This first element of the RfC's Option 2 Language is about where a film falls in its production sequence. The second bit is about notability; I'll look at that next. Platonk (talk) 06:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Platonk - Thank you for the wording change. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Platonk - How do we reconcile your wording about Stage 1 with the observation by User:Masem about the rare case where a planned film that never is made becomes notable anyway? To be sure, in the example given by Masem, the documentary about the failure itself satisfies film notability, but there are other rare exceptions where a non-movie may be notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Currently, it is being suggested as "Films at Stage 1 are never considered notable enough to qualify for a standalone article.". Either one can evoke IAR to handle the exceptional films (which can lead to more fighting) or we can make that "Films at Stage 1 are commonly never considered notable enough to qualify for a standalone article." which leaves the door open for the odd exception. And if editors want to find and game the wiggle room, a footnote can be used explain what type of non-produced films would be expected to qualify. --Masem (t) 20:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

If there is any notion of exception, do not use “never”, use “not”, or “not usually”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I could not imagine how a not-film would ever become sufficiently notable as to ever have a standalone article. You're talking about "an idea for a film" at that stage. If you wanted to leave open the door a crack, I might suggest changing "Films at Stage 1 are never considered notable enough to qualify for a standalone article." to "Films at Stage 1 are rarely, if ever, considered notable enough to qualify for a standalone article." Platonk (talk) 02:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Stanley Kubrick's unrealized projects#Napoleon is a notable never made film. Note that WP:N does not require notable topics to have separate articles, WP:N does not limit article Structurism issues. There may be another that is not better merged into a collection. Stanley Kubrick's unrealized projects#Napoleon SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: And... it's not in its own standalone article for Napoleon (upcoming film), is it! This is the point of NFF: the question about whether an upcoming film can have its own standalone article, not whether or not it can be mentioned in another article. Platonk (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

SNGs and Sub-SNGs should not be worded “can have its own standalone article”, “can” should be “should”. These are deeply nested guidelines only, not absolute rules. My point is that it is conceivable, even if very unlikely. And it would not be titled “upcoming”, but “failed”, or similar. I point to the disambiguator being past tense. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Is there any constructive purpose for your nitpicking or are you just doing it to be tendentious? Here's an idea, B you should actually read WP:SNG: (SNGs) have been written to help clarify when a standalone article can or should be written. Platonk (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely there is good reason. RfC outcomes tend to be like they are written in stone, and the smallest thing stirs opposition. Watch out for absolute language that reads as to forbid exceptions. I’m not sure I’m talking specifically to you. No one wants an “almost consensus” outcome, where the problem is a lack of consensus in “the details”. SNG overreach can result in the SNG being labelled a pariah SNG and routinely ignored. Sorry about the number or words on this being excessive. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Masem: Please give me one example of a Stage 1 never-been-filmed & never-been-released film (a not-film) that has its own standalone article. Platonk (talk) 02:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I will still argue that well-documented efforts to make a live-action Akira adaption (which had gained a fair number of criticisms at times) clearly on its own passes the GNG bar without having ever been at a production stage (eg [5] before it was redirected). There are several third-party RS articles on documenting how many times and how many people have been involved in that effort. I also pointed to the amount of documentation around Jodorowsky's attempt to make Dune that, without the actual documentary, it could have its standalone article. There's also how much we knew about The Man Who Killed Don Quixote prior to the latest attempt to get it to film, which if that last step never happened, would have still made it notable enough for an article on its own. The problem is that NFF is used to bludgeon away any attempts to make these articles (The problem I had with the Akira one), hence why its really hard to point to any actual example that exists now. But any film project that spends time in development hell (and in fact, from that, I found Atuk as a standalone article about a non-film). --Masem (t) 02:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Masem: Then you should be working on the Option 3 language. The section was blank, but I put SmokeyJoe's latest language in there. Go massage that section and see if you can get it to match your idea/ideal of NFF. Platonk (talk) 02:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The answer, in my opinion, is to leave wiggle room, and the ultimate wiggle room is the passing the GNG that is usually a pass regardless of any SNG. I just have to note the frequent contention on whether sources meet the GNG, where I note that many go very weak on the “independent” clause of the GNG. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

My read of Option 3 from the above is to loosen any requirements related to notability for films that meet the NFF "documented that the film has entered production" (to contrast with the Option 1 of do nothing and Option 2 of make it stricter with regards for notability). All I am pointing out is that are few-and-far-between edge cases that maybe we don't have to say anything about if we accept IAR, or if there's a feeling that NFF will be used as a necessary requirement regardless of how well the GNG is otherwise met for non-produced films, then making sure the small amount of wiggle room is present in Option 2. I personally don't think the cases I'm talking about fit in Option 3 at all. --Masem (t) 02:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Well maybe we should get someone working on Option 3 language so we can see how close or far apart it is from Option 2 language, and then work on making sure we have no 'holes' for exceptions to fall through in both versions. Platonk (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Option 3 Language

I have reviewed the Option 3 language several times, and I don't think that it reflects the intention of the proponents of Option 3. It says that the film is notable if principal photography has received significant coverage by reliable sources. But that is what the Option 2 language also says. I am an advocate of the Option 2 language, but I don't want to see an RFC that doesn't present the choice between the options clearly. With the current language (2 November 2021), there is very little difference between Option 2 and Option 3, and it won't resolve the controversy. Can someone who thinks that the standard for notability should be eased in Stage 2 try writing language that says that? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Of course it matches closely. That's because no one was working on any Option 3 language, so I added some (by duplicating Option 2) so that they could/would change it to match what they thought it should say. So far, all we've gotten was edits to Option 2 when those edits should have been made to Option 3, and oppose-!votes even though we haven't yet launched the RfC. I gave up. Yes, proponents of 'the other viewpoint' should edit Option 3 language. Platonk (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, User:Platonk, it appears that you made a good-faith mistake in trying to get Option 3 started. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

User:SmokeyJoe - Why don't you provide the Option 3 language rather than just complaining about it? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

User:SmokeyJoe - What are you opposing, in an RFC that hasn't been launched, and that I intended to be still being worked on? Are you opposing the fact that the Option 3 language hasn't been written, or are you opposing the concept of the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Two Versions of the Thing

Now we have two versions of the draft RFC, one in project space, and one in project talk space:

• Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)/November 2021 Draft RFC
• Wikipedia:Notability (films)/November 2021 Draft RFC

As if things had not been confused already. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Option 2 is so incomplete it's a non-starter. Why don't you make your Option 2 look reasonable?

Maybe you have spent too long in AfC where they don't use talk pages like the main community.

The thing of substance goes on the main page, and discussion about it goes on its talk page. Changes to the thing of substance can be found in the edit history. On the talk page, every post is signed and dated. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments to User:SmokeyJoe

User:SmokeyJoe - I initially thought that User:Platonk was being harsh in asking whether there was a constructive purpose for your nitpicking, or whether you were just being tendentious. I now will ask almost the same question. Are you trying to slow-roll the resolution of the issue of the film notability guideline, or are you being insulting for a personal reason, or are you just being passive-aggressive, or have you forgotten that Wikipedia is an electronic workplace, or what? On 29 October, I suggested that either you (SmokeyJoe) or someone else who favored Option 3 might write the language for Option 3. On 2 November, you made a non-constructive 'Oppose' comment in the draft RFC, and I asked why the Option 3 language was almost the same as the Option 2 language. In other words, after four days, you had only made a non-constructive comment. Only after I asked again about the Option 3 language, you created a separate copy of the draft RFC, without explaining here what you were doing. Then, when I asked why we had two copies of the RFC, you chose to insult me, rather than just saying at the time that you thought the draft RFC should be in project space rather than project talk space.

The reason why I composed the draft RFC in project talk space is that I compose draft RFCs on a subpage of the page where the RFC will run. This RFC will run on the film notability talk page. That is why. I don't know why you waited to raise the issue about location of the draft until after your creation of a second draft was challenged. The RFC will still be active on the film notability talk page when it is active. RFCs are almost always published on a talk page (an article talk page or a project talk page).

The version of Option 3 that you have written is structured in a significantly different way than I had drafted for Option 2, and I will review it in more detail in order to have Option 2 and Option 3, which are the two main alternatives, parallel. As it is, your structure is awkward, because you have put the assumption of large budget in front of the question, so it needs work. I will take another review of your draft within 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I consider the structure of your Option 2 to be worse than useless, that it will cause the RfC to make negative progress. The devil is in the detail.

I have structured Option 3 to match the structure of the status quo. I suggest that you structure Option 2 to match the format of the status quo.

If you are going to edit Option 3, I want to be able to find your edits. This is why I have put it on the front side of the subpage.

The status quo is Option 1. I would have preferred to call it Option 0.

The question could be put in very simple terms: For a file after commencement of principal photography but before general theatrical release, should NFF modify the expectation of compliance with the GNG to be: (a) a strict reading; or (b) the standard reading; or (c) a tighter reading.

However, even with a simple question, the devil is in the detail and the detail has to be available for perusal. An RfC to a vague undefined outcome is a poor RfC, because it will discourage participation from all who are not already invested.

-- SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

More Comments About the Revised RFC

I have changed Options 1 through 4 to Options 0 through 3 to satisfy User:SmokeyJoe. I don't think it mattered.

I agree that the devil is in the details.

The purpose of the RFC is to change (or leave unchanged) the wording of the notability guideline. As it is written by User:SmokeyJoe, the Option 1 version begins with statements of assumptions. These assumptions will precede the Introduction if Option 3 is approved. Is that what is intended, or should the policy issue included?

SmokeyJoe says that present Option 2 language would be worse than useless. Why? Does he have any specific criticisms, or suggestions? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Status quo being option 0 is my preference, and I agree it is not very important, except that I think it is easier to be understood as the default by people arriving cold to the RfC.

Option 1 assumptions are good, nicely concisely written, but I think there needs to also be the text that would be implemented if Option 1 receives strong support. “Worse than useless” was a loose reference to the idea that Option 1 might receive support, but then it can’t be implemented because adding the detailed text later reveals devil in the details. I suggest writing the version consistent with the assumptions given in Option 1. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The "worse than useless" comment seems to be a case of I don't like it, because the text in Option 1 is the text that is being proposed to go into the guideline.

Option 2 (former Option 3) is preceded with a statement of assumptions that are not integrated into the proposed language. If Option 2 is supported, it is not clear where the Assumptions should be put into the guideline. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Treatment of not-notable films

Is there any guidance on how to treat a film that is unlikely to make the notability criterion, but nevertheless has some prominent contributors? Case in point: Barbarians (2021 film) a low-budget directorial debut but with some notable actors. Apologies to all concerned, but things don't look promising for WP:NOTE for the film.

So how to treat? Do we have red links on all those contributors' pages? Can we tuck some info on the film in a disambiguation page? Or can the notability become apparent because of the participation of the already-notable actors? Guidance here would be welcomed. It is quite right that Wikipedia has a 'frontier' as determined by these Notability criteria. How to cope when there are multiple things pointing to the same place beyond the frontier? Chumpih. (talk) 12:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Language for Options 2 and 3

User:SmokeyJoe – I didn't think that the Option 2 language needed to be revised. However, I have revised the Option 2 language in the draft RFC so that it is ready to be posted as an RFC, and is ready to be inserted into the guideline if it is approved. I am waiting for the Option 3 language to be ready to go into a live RFC. User:SmokeyJoe – You are correct that often the devil is in the details. The details have been addressed in Option 2. I expect to be tweaking the language, but consider it ready to be activated as a live RFC.

The Option 3 language has the following issues:

• It starts with assumptions that, if moved into the guideline, will be dangling.
• It does not state that it will replace the existing section.

Do you plan to remove or move the misplaced assumptions? I don't want to try to clean up Option 2 because you didn't like it when User:Platonk put placeholder language in it when they and I were waiting for you to do that. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon, where you write “2”, do you mean “1”, and where you write “3” do you mean “2”? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon, Option 1 looks properly formatted to replace Option 0. Option 2 requires a copy-edit, fold the hanging assumptions in, remove the working formats, underlining and highlighting. Please allow a bit more time. I’m not sure what annoyed me previously. It is preferable that someone who supports Option 2 does the copy-editing of Option 2, but I don’t object to anyone trying. I was hoping to hear more opinions from others on Options 1 & 2. — SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I am aware that I sometimes misnumber the options. I originally called them 1 through 4. Then you changed them to 0 through 3, and I am trying to accommodate to the change, but I sometimes forget. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Epidemic of upcoming film articles

This whole upcoming-film-gets-standalone-article is an epidemic. A search for "upcoming film" and a year returns 738 articles for 2023 and 3,973 articles for 2022. Sure, some of these aren't standalone articles for upcoming films, but you get the picture. We need to get WP:NFF settled. Platonk (talk) 20:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I have improved the proposed Option 2 for the RfC.

The "upcoming film"s that our search link returns includes a lot of justifiable articles. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh really? How about this one: Nastik (upcoming film). Was to be filmed in 2017, never released, still marked as upcoming in Wikipedia, the IMDb link goes elsewhere, there is no entry in IMDb for a film called "Nastik" in the 21st century, and the citations are just basically press releases... oh except for the one about fining an actor for smoking at the train station. By allowing non-notable wishful-future-notables to have articles created, we have to deal with cleanup in Wikipedia for years. It would be much better if these articles remained as drafts UNLESS AND UNTIL they are finished and became notable. Platonk (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I have proposed for deletion Nastik. I am skeptical that the upcoming 2023 films are in production yet. However, User:Platonk has also raised the issue about articles listing films that were upcoming in the past and are still nowhere.

We have needed to get the future film guidelines resolved since 2008. There have been editors who have said (1) it is clear that upcoming films should have articles; (2) it is clear that upcoming films should not have articles; (3) the guideline is not clear. They can't all be right. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Nastik (upcoming film) Would fail Option 2’s NFF#2 “Reliable and independent sources confirm the intention for cinematic theatrical release, and the approximate time (month) of that release.“ SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

As User:Platonk said, many of them are unjustified articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Nastic would pass the historic liberal reading of NFF, and my option 2 is a tightening of that liberal reading and would see it fail, due to having no idea of “when” is to be released. I think this criteria will be really useful at culling these one, without getting into tedious GNG arguments over running news stories on crowding at film shoots and the crew being cited for smoking.

I think the point of an SNG is easy evaluation, and that it is a cop out for an SNG to just point back to the GNG. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

RFC on Future Films

@SmokeyJoe and Platonk:

I expect to be moving the draft RFC onto this film notability talk page in about 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok good, thanks. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe and Robert McClenon: I am making some changes. The RfC will come out as a level 2 heading. The other headings are annoying and will encourage (wrongly encourage) respondents to insert their comments willy-nilly. I especially think the "contributions by" sections are annoying, and see no reason for them. Please let me make a few formatting changes and then see how you like it. Platonk (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Platonk - I concur, and have broken the Discussion into the two parts that I usually use for RFCs. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I have worked some of the preamble language to make it easier for a newcomer (someone newly seeing this RfC and not previously involved in the arguments) to be able to understand how it goes. I would like the internal bits of the collapse-text sections to be something we just replace NFF with (if that's the result of the RfC), therefore I need to remove the preamble at the top of 'Option 2 language'. But I also need to ensure that those situations (that are described in that preamble) are actually covered in the Opt2 (which I haven't yet read in detail). Onward ho! Platonk (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Do you have any "such as" examples we could add to the end of the Option1 sentence They may qualify if production itself satisfies general notability because production has received significant coverage by independent secondary reliable sources, such as... [list a few samples of what would contribute towards notability of a production phase]? Our problems so far have been that most of the 'coverage' of an upcoming film are basically press releases churned from one outlet to another, and people think this makes it notable. Notable production phase to me would be like the shooting on the set of Rust last month, or coverage of certain special effects that are being deployed for the first time, or... I dunno... I'm not in the film biz. But coverage of actors getting tickets for smoking on railway platforms or the film crew coming to a small town and creating a buzz... those aren't notable. We have to give people some sort of guidance, like we do in the sentence that follows ("The following do not contribute towards notability of a film: coverage of plans for the film; announcements of the cast and other personnel; interviews with filmmakers and cast members; and trivial mentions about the production of the film such as reports that filming has started or completed.") Any ideas what we could use for a few short "such as" examples? Platonk (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I think I need to check Option 1 language and pull some from NFF to flesh it out. As you recall, your original/starter Option 1 was two sections: one to put before NFF and the other to put after NFF (rather than a full block of replacement text). So the language about setbacks and no-sure-thing is now missing from Opt1. I will re-eval and probably make more changes. Platonk (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Platonk - I may come up with the examples in 24 to 48 hours. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Okay. What do you think of the threaded option blocks? If it looks okay, then we can go ahead and make changes to text. (And I'm glad you're postponing it just a little longer.) Platonk (talk) 05:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing RM discussion at Talk:The Noble Family

I started an RM discussion: Talk:The Noble Family#Requested move 16 November 2021. It's been relisted twice. George Ho (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Should we replace the NFF policy with new text?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion is a close call, which may favor the status quo (no consensus). In addition the opinions for option 0, there are also two opinions for option 3, which is a concern about instruction creep. Given a choice between 0 and 1, I expect these editors would prefer 0, which is less "creepy" than 1. Therefore, the result is option 0, no change. Jehochman ^Talk 21:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

---

Should the policy on notability of future films be replaced with new text? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Background: Since 2008, the policy governing future films has been ambiguous, with two predominant and conflicting interpretations of the policy. This has resulted in frequent unresolved arguments during deletion discussions where one camp believes a standalone article on an unreleased film is premature and should be deleted, while the other camp believes a standalone article is beneficial and should be retained. This RfC attempts to clarify and present the two positions for discussion and community consensus.

Question: Which of the following should be done to the policy "Notability (films) § Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films"?

• Option 0 – No change. Leave it as it is.

Text of the current NFF policy

Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films Further information: Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Future films, Wikipedia:Planned films, and WP:FUTURE Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun. In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced. Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines. References

• Option 1 – Swap it out with new language that clarifies that unreleased films can only have a standalone article if they receive significant coverage of the production phase of filmmaking and that the production phase is generally notable.

Sample text to replace current NFF policy (Option 1)

Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films Further information: Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Future films, Wikipedia:Planned films, and WP:FUTURE Films in the development or pre-production stages are rarely, if ever, considered notable enough to qualify for a standalone article. Content about such films may be included in other articles, such as those of the film's director, producer, lead actor or actress, or studio. Budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date, and no assumptions should be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Films in the production or post-production stages normally will not qualify for standalone articles. They may qualify if production itself satisfies general notability because production has received significant coverage by independent secondary reliable sources, such as broad coverage of accidents on set. Sources must be provided to confirm the start of production phase has begun. The following do not contribute towards notability requirements at this stage: coverage of plans for the film; announcements of the cast and other personnel; interviews with filmmakers and cast members; and trivial mentions about the production of the film such as reports that filming has started or completed. In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced. There is no prohibition against starting a draft article on a film in anticipation of passing notability after it is released and distributed, and non-qualifying standalone articles may be draftified. Films that have been released and distributed are no longer future films and so are covered by the guidelines above. Films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have standalone articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines. References

• Option 2 – Swap it out with new language that eases the guidelines for notability for unreleased films, and allows for standalone articles sooner than option 1 would.

Sample text to replace current NFF policy (Option 2)

Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films Further information: Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Future films, Wikipedia:Planned films, and WP:FUTURE Future films that have commenced principal photography and have a scheduled theatrical release, may be allowed a standalone article despite not meeting a strict interpretation of the WP:GNG. It is to be expected that a future film, despite intense popular interest, is unlikely to have reliably published commentary that discusses the film directly and in depth. The expectation is that the film is large budget, requiring creditors, and involves notable stars, and a notable director, and that on release, the film will certainly be notable. Content still must be based on reliable sources. Speculation about the future film is not suitable for Wikipedia. Trivia about production is discouraged. If there are few reliable and independent sources, the article should remain as a stub class article. Principal photography has commenced, and general high-profile cinematic release is anticipated, the requirement for multiple sources to meet all clauses of the WP:GNG is lessened. The criteria are: WP:NFF#1 Reliable and independent sources confirm the start of principal photography, after shooting has begun. WP:NFF#2 Reliable and independent sources confirm the intention for cinematic theatrical release, and the approximate time (month) of that release. Animated films. In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced. Subscriber-only released films. Films that are produced for subscriber-only release, without general cinematic release, do not meet the expectation for wide, high-profile release, and instead should be treated under WP:CORP as commercial products of the production-subscription company. References

• Option 3 – Other. Please specify.

Enter Option 0, Option 1, Option 2, or Option 3 (with details), followed by a brief explanation, in the Survey section below. Back-and-forth discussions between editors go in the Threaded discussion section below.

Survey

• Option 1 - Clarify that film notability normally comes when the film is released, not when it is produced. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 0 Whether a film has been released has no bearing on whether it is notable to have its own article, for WP:GNG always applies. NFF is a useful additional restriction on top of GNG that prevents projects that already meet GNG from having their own articles because many reported projects never go into production. So Option 2 is out of the question, but Option 1's distinction between coverage of the production itself and of plans is also pointless and impractical micromanagement. An upcoming film should be able to have its own article once filming has commenced as long as the project is notable, regardless of whether the shooting alone has received significant coverage. Nardog (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 0 - No change. This is to help editors dealing with upcoming releases, and in this day and age, if a film has begun filming (or animating), it's likely going to get a release, in theaters or on a streamer. And if for some reason that isn't the case, then the article would kick back up to GNG to determine if there is enough notability on the production process to warrant a mainspace article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 Far too many film articles without evidence of notability are created just on news of production. While production within the US or European film markets is usually an assured sign the film will reach GNG quality notability, this is not true around the globe. It is better to demand more than just assurance of production but that there has been independent attention to the work. --Masem (t) 19:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 0. I don't think this RFC is necessary. I think the nominator is confusing Wikipedians having different opinions as due to the policy being phrased poorly rather than Wikipedians having a mess of semi-contradictory opinions being the normal state of affairs. Since I'm arguing it's the normal state of affairs, adding more text to the essay won't actually help. See WP:CREEP. SnowFire (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. If it is true that wording in the guidelines is the source of contentious interpretations, the greater specificity in this wording seems benefitial. I don't see why we need to have premature film articles based just on filming, so I like this option. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 20:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 - My own experience in numerous AfDs is that WP:NFF has been sufficiently ambiguous to cause argumentation. Comparing how notability concepts have been implemented in other [non-film] topics, the majority of standalone articles for future (upcoming) films would not be allowed to remain standing. FANCLUBs interpret NFF as "anything that has started filming and has a handful of [churned] press releases gets its own article". NFF's ambiguity has allowed that viewpoint to prevail at AfD over otherwise-non-complying articles. If NFF weren't ambiguous, the argumentation would stop. Therefore, Option 1 is preferable over Option 0, because Option 1 delineates clearly when a future film can get a standalone article. Keeping the status quo (Option 0) is not a workable option. Likewise, Option 2 (relaxing GNG for these cases) is contrary to so many other Wikipedia policies on notability. Perhaps my strongest objection to standalone articles for unfinished films, is that they are not films unless and until they are completed (and usually released). Without viewing by the public, it's just "film in the can on a shelf in a closet" and is not a product. Up until release and distribution it is a project, a work in progress, and isn't even an asset for its company or creators. How can something that "isn't yet" be notable? Such articles are the epitome of What Wikipedia is not. However, if production itself is notable, then it can fall under WP:Notability (events), such as the shooting incident on the Rust film set last month; that's an event. I haven't seen any books get standalone articles before they are published, so why would films? Platonk (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Not Option 0, Leaning Option 1, Would Accept Option 2 - Clarity is important, and it seems clear that the already overloaded AfD process is weighed down by this ambiguity. A change must be made, and honestly, I can see arguments for either option, although Option 1 does align closer with GNG. I would accept Option 2. I don't think Option 0 is tenable, however. The process of AfD needs all the help it can get. Fieari (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Returning to add, Not Option 3. More specific policies and guidelines in areas that warrant them are not WP:CREEP, but in fact aid everyone in working together to improve wikipedia. Fieari (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3; nuke WP:NF, per WP:CREEP. For a film to be notable it should have to meet General notability guidelines, period. Whether it’s in production, in post-production, released, or just a fantasy, should not be a consideration. All that should matter is whether the topic is treated as a notable by reliable sources per GNG, full stop. Generally, WP articles summarize what RS say about a topic, and should exist for any sufficiently notable topic with sufficient RS coverage for such a summary to be written. I don’t see why films should be treated any differently. If a film project about which there was significant coverage during production, and so an article was created, is scrapped, and all coverage and page views dwindle to nothing, it becomes an Afd candidate on the same notability grounds as when it was created. C’est la vie. —В²C ☎ 12:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 per В²C. NF generally duplicates other policies and guidelines, and so doesn't warrant a standalone existence. BilledMammal (talk) 05:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 0 per Nardog, who knows what they're talking about. The current text clearly indicates that WP:NFF is on top of WP:GNG, which is appropriate for future films. We have to determine whether to create standalone pages, and a film merely in development is largely insufficient for having a standalone page on Wikipedia. (If some sources are writing about such a film, it is likely due to some notable connection(s), and if needed, the film-in-development can be mentioned on these connections' articles.)

Now, if a film is in production, but per WP:GNG (which WP:NFF references), there is not coverage from multiple reliable sources about it, it is not notable. There is a whole spectrum of future films and the amount of coverage related to it. We can have a Marvel Cinematic Universe film in production that everyone will closely track and write about (easily notable), and we can have a film that some film production database indicated to have started filming, with nothing else written about it (not notable). In between, we have different kinds of films, and we simply consider the amount of related coverage and the start-of-filming threshold. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1. Obviously it can't be an absolute rule that films are never notable in advance of release — nobody would ever seriously argue that an upcoming Marvel or Star Wars film, which is highly anticipated and gets a lot of coverage throughout the production process, isn't notable just because it's still in production and hasn't already been released to theatres yet. But the problem is that some people act as if NFF essentially means that every film that enters the production pipeline at all is automatically entitled to have an article the moment you can source that principal photography has commenced, without regard to whether the film actually clears WP:GNG or not — but if you interpret NFF that way, then that literally renders NFO completely unenforceable. I've long believed, and have stated more than once, that NFILM needs to better clarify the relationship between NFO and NFF, precisely because the most popular interpretation of NFF treats it as a bypass of NFO, such that the moment you can source that principal photography has commenced the film is immediately exempted from ever actually having to clear NFO or GNG at all anymore. That simply can't be the rule. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

The current language has resulted in controversy for more than a decade and should be clarified. Option 1 clarifies that films normally become notable when they are released and reviewed. Option 2 would introduce too much crystal balling in trying to predict what films will be notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I am inclined towards interpretation that aligns with general notability and leaves less wiggle room for wikilawyering. It might make it easier to choose one of the listed options if the differences between them were highlighted. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

It got rather complicated and then we tried to simplify it. The options are the two basic viewpoints represented by Option 1 and Option 2 (as above):

• "Option 1 clarifies that unreleased films can only have a standalone article if they receive significant coverage of the production phase of filmmaking and that the production phase is generally notable."
• "Option 2 eases the guidelines for notability for unreleased films, and allows for standalone articles sooner than option 1 would."

Platonk (talk) 05:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, where did the proposed alternatives come from? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: From several threads above on this talk page, as well as the draft page Wikipedia:Notability (films)/November 2021 Draft RFC, and I think one earlier one (that got renamed or copied from). A few of us have been working on the suggested language so that we could present the options to the community. Robert McClenon and I have been the main ones working on Option 1, and SmokeyJoe the main person working on Option 2. There may have been others earlier who dropped out. Platonk (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Pbsouthwood - There has been discussion at this film notability talk page off and on for a year. Option 1 is a combination of my work and the work of User:Platonk. Option 2 is the work primarily of User:SmokeyJoe. The difference has to do with films in stage 2, that have begun principal photography or animation, or completed it, and have not yet been released. Option 1 is intended to align with general notability, and most films that have not yet been released do not satisfy general notability. Option 2 eases general notability for some films; one of its advocates can probably explain in more detail where the difference is. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

These two viewpoints were the predominant ones that appeared over and over and over again at AfD. Some AfD results swung in the direction of option1 viewpointers and others in the direction of option2 viewpointers. Because of the constant bickering about the interpretation of the current NFF policy wasting everyone's time, it was deemed necessary to reword NFF. However, there was no prior community consensus on which of the two viewpoints NFF was meant to mean. Each person was convinced that their version was the correct one and no meeting of the minds (in multiple discussions) seemed possible. Hence, this RfC — no matter how imperfect it might be — was our way of getting a discussion going with the community at large. Platonk (talk) 05:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Platonk and Robert McClenon: Thanks for the response. I was bot-called, and have not been following the prior discussions, and there may be others in a similar position (community at large). Based on general principles of notability and verifiability, I would support clarification via option 1, or equivalent, unless some fairly convincing arguments are presented for other options. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

To clarify: I can imagine occasional cases where the making of a movie is sufficiently notable to have an article even if the movie is never released, but that would be exceptional. Content on movies that did not make it to release may be sufficiently encyclopedic to be included in related articles (with whatever redirects may be useful), without a stand-alone being necessary or desirable. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the example I chose to mention in Option 1 for that scenario is The Fantastic Four (unreleased film) which had been produced and, though ready to release, was pulled and never distributed; quite the controversy about motives ensued. Platonk (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• I would like to ask any editor who !votes for Option 0, such as @Nardog, Favre1fan93, and SnowFire: how an AFC reviewer should assess films that have begun or completed production but have not been released. At present, these films often result in contentious AFC discussions, followed by contentious AFD discussions. Should a reviewer normally accept such films, or normally decline such films as WP:TOOSOON? There have been two different interpretations since 2008. Who is right? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I will point you to Erik's response above, because I think his response covered this all really well. An AFC reviewer should look at where the production start info is coming from, and it wouldn't hurt to take into consideration the type of film it is (is it a big tentpole or small indie film etc) as well as the additional material on the article to see if GNG is also met. For AFD reviewers, more or less the same thing, but if someone is requesting deletion with the sole reason that the film hasn't release yet, that shouldn't justify a deletion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
    • In regards to Erik's response, which is on spot, we still have the problem with editors ignoring the GNG aspect (or at least showing the trend to meet the GNG) and creating film articles on the first mention of production starting but without showing anything GNG-like in coverage. I have a feeling this is because within the NFF section itself, there's no connection to other notability principles, and novice editors are assuming NFF == notability guideline. That I think is what needs to be fixed, as leaving it alone (option 0) will allow these problems to continue. --Masem (t) 05:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Masem, in the general sense, there will always be people trying to create non-notable articles even though WP:N has existed since time immemorial. I don't think there is any more wording to be added to WP:NFF that will take care of the issue. WP:NFF itself says, "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." That wording covers the matter, and the problem to me is enforcement. I don't know who the editors creating new articles are, but if there are clear individuals, they can be encouraged accordingly. It seems like the comic book movie editors figured out a way to manage film-related content in the draft space before moving it to the mainspace. Should draftifying be encouraged (if that makes a difference)? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
        • I always encourage the creation of articles in drafts to develop them. Though as an editor mostly working on the MCU films, I will say that those films (and other franchise ones) probably meet GNG long before they start filming, but editors still wait until filming begins because nothing is guaranteed. Drafts would still be helpful I feel for your typical drama/comedy/indie films, even if they don't have as much sourcing compared to a franchise film by the time filming begins. it still allows editors to create an actual article for the film through filming up to release to get it to meet GNG as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
          • Perhaps then what is needed is for Option 0 to include something like "Consider using draft space to start articles on films that have yet to meet NFF and notability guidelines as to collect appropriate information until the film can have a standalone article." or something to that extent. --Masem (t) 16:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
            • Something such as the following would be beneficial: Articles for future films can first be created in the Draft space until such time that they can be moved into the mainspace as defined above. "as defined above" will cover all of NFF, as well as the part at the end that touches on notability guidelines needing to also be satisfied. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Aaaannnndddd... the failed-NFF articles continue to pile up at AfD with a dice roll as to whether each one gets deleted, draftified, or kept — including this one, this one, and this one.

There's even a category for upcoming films with hundreds of articles already present. There are hundreds of film articles for 2022 releases, about 30 for release in 2023, and 2 in 2024. Many of these films haven't even reached the production stage; some were filmed a year or two ago and aren't due for release for another two years!

This tells me that Articles for Creation reviewers or New Page Patrollers either (1) don't know about WP:NFF, (2) misunderstand it, or (3) these articles are somehow slipping through the cracks. I suspect mostly a combination of 2 & 3. I suspect that the WP:NPP backlog is allowing these pages to be created directly (not draft-to-afc) and they aren't getting reviewed for months. Then when they are reviewed the article has accumulated a lot of WP:FANCRUFT and churnalism from press releases that obscures the ability (of someone pressed to get through a backlog) to see the notability (or not) in the dozens of citations present.

I perused through the category of upcoming films, and I found huge amounts of fancruft in some article with nothing about notability in production, and in some cases filming had not even started. All of the fancruft could get deleted if or when these films release and become notable, and nothing of value would be lost from the article. Huge paragraphs about how so-and-so acquired a script, how they got their financing, this or that actor/actress wiffle-waffled on whether to do the project. Come on! Tell me something about the film!

My point here is that NFF needs clarifying so there's no 'interpretation' needed by AfC or NPP reviewers. Then we need to take that version and disseminate to the reviewers to ensure that we don't have to waste community time on scores of AfDs every month. Most of these failed-NFF articles should have been draftified as soon as discovered, with instructions for the creator/submitter to correct the deficits before reapplying. Platonk (talk) 06:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Platonk, the first film you link, We'll Meet Again (2002 film), is not a future film, so why link it?

Of the many unjustified future films you have reviewed, how many pass Option#2’s NFF#1 and NFF#2? To make it easier for NPP, there needs to be simple objective criteria. If the NFF just sends you back the the GNG, then it doesn’t help, because in practice the GNG is hard work to evaluate, and most do it poorly. In particular, most don’t test sources for containing transformative information on the basic facts.

I am considering adding an Option 4, like Option 2, but without any suggestion of weakening of the GNG? What do you think? SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Shut In (2022 film), I would have it failed on failure to have a reliable source giving a date (month) for general theatrical release. This is far easier to evaluate than that the three sources contain no secondary source information. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Oops on the 2002 film. I've looked at so many my eyeballs are crying uncle. I probably 'saw' 2022. Platonk (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any evals based on your Option#2 because I completely disagree with it — lessening GNG to allow TOOSOONs to proceed, just doesn't sit well with me. I have no idea how your Option#4 would pan out, because the primary thing I see in your Opt2 is that GNG is lessened. Please don't add an Opt4 at this late date. The primary reason (at least for me) in helping produce option 1 and getting this RfC finally off the drafting table, was so that I could get a feel for what the community feels about how articles on future films should be evaluated. As to your comment on Shut In, if you think only checking for a release date should be an easy-free ticket for AfC/NPP reviewers... fuhgetaboutit. I've read their instructions; they need to evaluate articles to ensure that the subject of the article is notable (even if it's not represented in the current version of the article). Platonk (talk) 07:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC) I need to quit for the day since I clearly cannot read straight. I'm guessing your main concern/point was "not theatrical release" (Shut In). Platonk (talk) 07:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I've seen you mention 'theatrical release' before, and my concern there is that we have mainstream streaming video companies such as Netflix and Disney+, so we cannot limit film article criteria to 'theatre' releases. See Film distribution article. But sure, I see a major difference between a Netflix film and one for subscriber-only release on a limited platform like Daily Wire who is just beginning their foray into filmmaking. I mean, there's quite a distinction between film festivals such as the "Big Five" (Cannes, Venice, Berlin, Sundance and Toronto) and some podunk town with a 200-seat cinema putting on a 1 day 'film festival' showing 5 films and attended by 50-100 people. I mean, getting to show your film at Cannes is an honor and might contribute towards notability of that film, but showing it in Nowheresville would not. Taking that analogy back to the issue of the DW films — getting one's film released in hundreds of cinemas means people in the know have previewed your film and they think it can make money. On the other hand, financing the making of your own film and allowing showings to your own subscribers skips the entire evaluation process. I'm sure even Netflix has a whole crew of people evaluating whether a new film will enhance their stable of films or dilute it. When we see the phrase that a film has been released, it carries with it the connotation that it is broad, it is anticipated, it might well be a good flick, and that it is not a B-rated movie. Self-financed limited audience films don't give me a lot of confidence and cheapen the concept of "release". It's not just the DW films, but almost any films that are put together and distributed by any advocacy group — films that never made them any money nor gotten any [seriously independent] reviews and which now languish on their websites, free for anyone to watch (were never notable). Platonk (talk) 07:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

If the film is straight to subscribers only, even Netflix, then I don’t think it should be considered a film, but a company product, and covered by WP:CORP. Paying to have it shown in general theatres, or a festival, means it has passed a critical review test. Internal reviews by Netflix staff for Netflix release, that is very non-independent, and very much a WP:CORP product story.

Requiring theatrical release (independently sourced) gets rid of the low budget stuff where principal photography was cheap. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I dunno. I can see that viewpoint for cheaper almost-homemade movies. But if you look at Netflix § Expansion into international productions (2018–current) there are some pretty high-budget film deals in there. If they make a deal with a filmmaker to "buy" exclusive showing rights, does that turn the film from a "was going to be a general cinematic release film" into a company product? Then reading just the lead paragraph of List of Netflix original programming it mentions things like "include continuations of cancelled series from other networks", "commissioning", and "licensing or co-producing content from international broadcasters for exclusive broadcast in other territories". It's getting pretty complicated, Smokey, when we were just trying to figure out where to draw the line in the sand for future film articles. Platonk (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The case for Option 2

All options share that future films that have not started principal photography should not have their own article, except for exceptional cases, and that exceptional cases are justified via the WP:GNG.

On Future films that have commenced principal photography, Option 1 tightens the language, but it does so by throwing back exactly to the WP:GNG, and thus fails the purpose of an SNG in predicting whether the future film is likely to meet the GNG. It does not make any decision easier than simply working from the WP:GNG. Therefore, it does not assist in assessing future films, and will not help the noted problem of an avalanche of future films.

Option 2 is written (by me SmokeyJoe (talk)) in recognition that in practice NFF has been read to make it harder to pass prior to principal photography and easier to pass post principle photography.

Option 2 does not repeat the clauses of the GNG, because if needed, the GNG is the source of the GNG clauses, and the GNG can always be argued at AfD. Instead, Option 2 gives two predictors (labelled WP:NFF#1 and WP:NFF#2) of whether the future film will be notable on it imminent release.

In favour of Option #2:

• It makes it easy to get to a quick yes/no for a future film.
• It avoids the current messy practice of fluffing the GNG with sources for the future films production, which results in future films that nominally passed the GNG being a collection of production trivia. In general, a future films production details are not covered by sources that are all of (1) Reliably published; and (2) Independently sourced; and (3) contain secondary source comment on the topic. In general, it is (1) gossip/blog; or (2) based on press release or inside-information; or (3) is a report of facts without meaningful transformation of the information. Ignoring the requirement for all three of these GNG clauses results in unreliable, or promotional, or production trivia fact lists, being the basis of the content. The answer is, as per Option #2 for a future film post principal photography, for it to be by default a WP:STUB. That is, for the title to exist in mainspace, for their to be a talk page to discuss sources as they arise, and for a single page for attribution purposes.
• It is motivated by not burning enthusiastic Wikipedia newcomers, by deletion of their contributions, which they make because they see the future film as a missing article on Wikipedia. It does not accept that newcomers should be sent to draftspace, because draftspace is a horrible place for newcomers, it not being the Wikipedia community proper. It is in response to the observed tendency for newcomers to repeatedly make content forks, in all of mainspace, draftspace, userspace, in response to NFF deletionists cutting off the buds whenever they find them.
• Option 2 is squarely meta:Eventualism, which I think is well justified by the imminent to be released film being an attractor of new editors, and justified by it being a brief transient state. It is for future films that will sure be notable on the day of release (the day when the first reliable and independent reviews appear), and if it is not notable, it will be deleted with proof that nobody cares about it.

Option 2 also introduces an objective new criterion, WP:NFF#2, in response to the developed problem of low budget films that are not for theatrical release. The NFF controversies have been over low budget films that were able to claim "principal photography commenced", and NFF#2 is the realistic expectation that an imminent to be released major film will have a reliably sourced scheduled theatrical release. Option 2 also improves on the long standing version by introduction into NFF language the GNG-required "independent" clause for notability-attesting sources. Principle photography being verified by press release, or twitter post, is not good enough for Wikipedia. It was always assumed, unwritten, that verification is independent, but in messy squabbles over not-quite-notable future films, it was really hard for the newcomers for the independent clause to not be in NFF. Regardless of the outcome of Option 0 vs 1 vs 2, this language should be improved for the benefit of the audience of this guideline. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• The thing about Option 2 is in how you put it above, it is more like an SNG criteria (creating a presumption of notability that if independent sourcing has noted both production + release date, it will likely get more sources, which is a fully acceptable approach). This could be seen to either diminish the need for NFF by merging this into the current WP:NFO list. But then we can still say that an article thus should not be created for a film unless it meets Option 1 (incorporating the GNG), or meets any of NFO and production has been confirmed by an independent source, with the IAR allowance for clear GNG-meeting failed/development hell films. --Masem (t) 01:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  The point of NFF, as I have remembered it seeing used successfully at AfD, is that the threshold is reduced in the period between principal photography and release. Yes, it could be considered "other evidence of notability", but only for this transient period, but I do not support this interpretation. This evidence is only transiently applicable. I prefer the interpretation that notability is a guideline to be treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply, and that if WP:NFF#1 and WP:NFF#2 are met, it is a good predictor that the film will shortly meet the GNG. This is a case for exception to the GNG (specifically is it an exception to demanding depth of comment directly on the topic, as the topic is under wraps). I prefer this "exception" argument to the practice of "bending the GNG" using non secondary sources for primary source information, casting decisions, filming dates, and production trivia. So I recommend Option 2 to remain as a separate section, and to not fold it under WP:NFO. -- SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The case for Option 3; nuke WP:NF

Whether a topic is notable should be decided by RS, not by WP editors. The only issue about notability that WP editors should ever have to consider and debate about any topic’s notability is whether it’s treated as notable by RS per WP:GNG. If there is significant RS coverage about a topic then readers are likely to look for an objective summary of what those RS say on WP. We need to have something there for them. Where a film is in terms of production should be irrelevant. Films are not a special case warranting notability considerations distinct from non-film topics. —В²C ☎ 12:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

... Wikipedia-notability is a notoriously complicated complicated concept, not reducible to simply the GNG, which itself is not reducible to “RS”s. WP:NF is a fifteen year old page held in high regard. Even the first version was well written and worth review for context. “Get rid of the SNGs” is a ridiculously simplistic knee jerk reaction only ever proffered by people who don’t understand notability and AfD. NF, and the good SNGs (basically, the remaining ones) are extremely important guidance for editors both in decisions of article creation and deletion. This RfC is focused on an extremely focused issues, films between principal photography and theatrical release, and the notion of deprecating all of NF is not just out of scope, but is plain stupid. — SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

LOL, that’s all you’ve got? An ad hominem attack logical fallacy? Tell us how you really feel, Smokey! I obviously struck a nerve. Thank you for strengthening my point. Yes it’s complicated, because of unnecessarily complicated, vague, and contradictory guidelines like this one. There is no good reason for this manufactured complexity. You didn’t address my main point: it’s level of usage in RS, not our own criteria, that should decide notability. Inclusion is cheap and rarely problematic, especially in the area of films. If it’s notable enough to be written about in 2-3 RS, we should have an article about it, because people will be looking for one. KISS. —В²C ☎ 04:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post RfC. New text for the NFF notability sub-sub-guideline

Thanks Jehochman for closing the RfC.

Following up from Platonk (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

It's getting pretty complicated, Smokey, when we were just trying to figure out where to draw the line in the sand for future film articles.

I’d like to return to ideas from progress that might be agreed.

A future film is presumed to be not (yet) notable if either and of the following conditions are not (yet) met:

(a). Reliable and independent sources confirm the start of principal photography, after shooting has begun.

(b). Reliable and independent sources confirm the intention for cinematic theatrical release, and the approximate time (month) of that release.

And I propose an option addendum to (b): This is intended to exclude subscriber-only releases. Subscriber-only releases, never to be release in theatres anywhere, should not be considered under NFILM, but as commercial products of the distributor company, covered by WP:CORP.

My comments: These criteria are intended to assist with easier decision making both for deletion and creation, AfD and AfC. Reviewing recent cases, especially the ones mentioned in the RfC, the failure to meet (a) and (b) correlates extremely well with an article being draftified citing “WP:TOOSOON”. The explicit inclusion of “independent” is intended to exclude company press releases and social media sources, which I note, when these are the *only* sources for principal photography it bodes poorly for the article. The above deliberately makes no mention of the GNG. The GNG can always be used, but a proper GNG analysis is quite onerous, which is why simpler objevitive indicators, (a) and (b), are desired.

— SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the idea of subscriber-only releases (I assume we're talking films on Netflix etc.) is not quite right. I agree that for where the service itself is also paying for the production, as the case for many Netflix Originals, that's a case of avoiding excessive promotion and would require independent sourcing (which some do), but we have cases of films that were produced and later the service bought the rights, eliminating the theatrical aspect, (eg The Mitchells and the Machines, produced by Sony Pictures but bought by Netflix and presented there due to COVID); while that case itself is sorta covered as it was intended for a theatrical release, its the point that purchased distribution rights would not necessary make the NCORP issues a problem. --Masem (t) 01:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

So, Masem, would you say, that the independent publication of the release date is sufficient? SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)