| Revision as of 22:12, 20 December 2024 editRusted AutoParts (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers138,139 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit |
Revision as of 22:29, 20 December 2024 edit undoZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,153 editsNo edit summaryTags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web editNext edit → |
| Line 13: |
Line 13: |
|
*::What opens the door towards "Tom Cruise's untaken roles" is reliable outlets taking "Tom Cruise's untaken roles" up as an in-depth subject. I.e. sources, and sources only - but the sources have to handle the untaken roles as an entity. Standalone articles about individual scrapped projects can't be synthesized to a Misplaced Pages article per ]. An article about a director's turned-down or walked-over direction opportunities survived AFD not too long ago. ] (]) 10:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
*::What opens the door towards "Tom Cruise's untaken roles" is reliable outlets taking "Tom Cruise's untaken roles" up as an in-depth subject. I.e. sources, and sources only - but the sources have to handle the untaken roles as an entity. Standalone articles about individual scrapped projects can't be synthesized to a Misplaced Pages article per ]. An article about a director's turned-down or walked-over direction opportunities survived AFD not too long ago. ] (]) 10:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
*:::And in my opinion it probably shouldn’t have. Clearly, what constitutes “unrealized” currently is too broad and thus it has entitled editors to include all these different projects that really don’t fall under “unrealized”. A lot of these articles have sections where it’s just like a sentence or two, and it’s about the director being “offered”, or being “considered” to direct something they never did. Or projects that were announced once and never discussed at all again, or even projects they’re verifiably still attached to and working on. That to me just makes these lists become flashy tidbit factoids that if the project was actually seen through with someone else it can just easily be noted in the film’s article, or the directors article. A whole article dedicated to mostly unproduced films with no notable production history is superfluous. ] 14:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
*:::And in my opinion it probably shouldn’t have. Clearly, what constitutes “unrealized” currently is too broad and thus it has entitled editors to include all these different projects that really don’t fall under “unrealized”. A lot of these articles have sections where it’s just like a sentence or two, and it’s about the director being “offered”, or being “considered” to direct something they never did. Or projects that were announced once and never discussed at all again, or even projects they’re verifiably still attached to and working on. That to me just makes these lists become flashy tidbit factoids that if the project was actually seen through with someone else it can just easily be noted in the film’s article, or the directors article. A whole article dedicated to mostly unproduced films with no notable production history is superfluous. ] 14:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{collapse top|title=Offtopic fightpicking.}} |
|
|
{{collapse top|title=Offtopic fightpicking.}} |
|
|
{{collapse top|title=Offtopic fightpicking.}} |
|
|
{{collapse top|title=Offtopic fightpicking.}} |
|
|
{{collapse top|title=Offtopic fightpicking.}} |
|
|
{{collapse top|title=Offtopic fightpicking.}} |
|
|
{{collapse top|title=Offtopic fightpicking.}} |
|
|
{{collapse top|title=Offtopic fightpicking.}} |
|
|
{{collapse top|title=Offtopic fightpicking.}} |
|
{{collapse top|title=Offtopic fightpicking.}} |
|
{{collapse top|title=Offtopic fightpicking.}} |
|
*::::"In my opinion"... Misplaced Pages is not about opinions, son. Quit while you're ahead, you're just embarrassing yourself at this point. "Power trip", good description to whomever said it. ] (]) 22:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
*::::"In my opinion"... Misplaced Pages is not about opinions, son. Quit while you're ahead, you're just embarrassing yourself at this point. "Power trip", good description to whomever said it. ] (]) 22:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
*<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the ]. ''']''' ] ] 02:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)</small> |
|
*<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the ]. ''']''' ] ] 02:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)</small> |
With a recent expansion of what is considered "unrealized", it's really gotten to a point I have realized these articles largely stand to be rather WP:TRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT. As higlighted by @Erik: at Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects, "if a so-called "unrealized project" is not talked about in retrospect, it has little value", and as per WP:IINFO, ""To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Just a contemporary news article about a filmmaker being attached to so-and-so, with no later retrospective commentary, does not strike me as discriminate encyclopedic content to have". I no longer see these pages being of note, and is just a trivial list of several projects, whether they were notable or not, that never came to be, their development or attempted production not being of vital note. Rusted AutoParts 20:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)