Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

RFC: Rewrite Guideline on Future Films[edit]

{{rfc|policy|media}}

Which of the following should be done with respect to the guideline on future films, for films that are in or have completed production but not been released?

  • Option 1 – No change. Leave as is.
  • Option 2 – Language to clarify that such films are only notable if significant coverage of production itself satisfies general notability.
  • Option 3 – Language to ease the guidelines for notability of such films.
  • Option 4 – Other. Please specify.

Please specify 1, 2, 3, or 4 in the Survey with a brief statement. Back-and-forth discussion may be conducted in the Threaded Discussion.

Option 2[edit]

Add the following language at the start of Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films (NFF): 

Films may be divided into three stages:
   Stage 1: Those that have not yet begun production (principal photography or animation).
   Stage 2: Those that have begun production, but have not been released.
   Stage 3: Those that have been released.

And replace the last paragraph of this section with the following language: 

Films at Stage 1 are rarely, if ever, considered notable enough to qualify for a standalone article. Films at Stage 2 may qualify if principal photography has received significant coverage by independent secondary reliable sources. The following do not contribute towards notability of a film: coverage of plans for the film, and trivial mentions about the production of the film.

Discuss Option 2[edit]

Option 3[edit]

See Wikipedia:Notability (films)/November 2021 Draft RFC#Option 3

Discuss Option 3[edit]

Survey[edit]

  • Oppose

    "Films at Stage 2 ''may'' qualify if principal photography has received [[WP:SIGCOV|significant coverage]] by independent secondary [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]."

    This is a re-statement of the GNG, and if met, it means the future film's principal photography itself is notable. And linking to the essay Wikipedia:Trivial mentions provides no clarity of what a trivial mention is and creates a circular referencing, which is worse than useless. Ridiculous. Who is suggesting this? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded Discussion[edit]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk%3ANotability_%28films%29%2FNovember_2021_Draft_RFC

Leave a Reply