It still doesn't quite william address @ NinjaRobotPirate : concerns though. I'm not trying to avoid that, i'm just really tired right now. deathawk ( talk ) 11:23, (UTC) In my opinion, the most important bit is the first sentence. The second sentence is good to have as an example of what we're trying to avoid. And, i think the third sentence helps to address Erik's concerns from the prior discussion, in that we were telling them what not to do without any help on what they should. So, i think this is pretty good. Certainly, we could tweak it further, but this is good enough for.
Obviously i kind this is a rough version and I do want to tweak it up, before going forward. deathawk ( talk ) 03:13, (UTC) This is pretty good, and i agree with it; however, it avoids all mention of proseline, which is something I would have explicitly mentioned. Leaving everything to editor discretion is how we ended up with long, overly-detailed casting sections written in proseline. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk ) 06:34, (UTC) @ NinjaRobotPirate : @ deathawk : What can we do about that? The production will need a lot of work and we should have at least a trimmed down casting sub-section without clutters. BattleshipMan ( talk ) 01:28, writing (UTC) @ BattleshipMan : Casting sections should focus mostly on the casting process and not necessarily casting news, although in some cases these may overlap. For instance listing "On X date y joined the cast" For every major character, in most cases, would lead to a very repetitive section, instead it would be better to explain what qualities the director saw in the actor that brought them aboard, or how. I'm sure we can tighten the wording on that section, and make it more clear why some dates would be valuable, but that's honestly my basic feeling on how it should be handled. I'm open to suggestions though.
Maybe we do not need the new passage at all, but I think it at least helps frame the "Production" section, like to show that the first actor did not join until a year after the film began development. The problem with the proseline clutter is that sentence after sentence is just tacked. The content has to be revisited after some growth to determine a cleaner way to present at's the suggestion he came up with. BattleshipMan ( talk ) 18:21, (UTC) @ BattleshipMan : I'm in favor of doing that for movies where the production section is already written however I think moving forward we can give a bit more guidance. What I want to say is something to the extent of " the goal of the production section is to establish the story of how a movie came together, this is different from a news site like the hollywood Reporter or Vanity fair which reports. For instance a location scouting excursion may not be appropriate for a wikipedia article, however if a significant story change was made because of the location scouting than that would be appropriate. Editors are encouraged to evaluate the stories coming out to see if they contribute in a significant way to the story of how the film came. " and then let the editors make the call.
SparkNotes: Where the, red, fern, grows : Summary
On December 12, 2013, a new actress courtney eaton joined the film as a lead actress, she will be playing the role of zaya, a slave girl who is cursed by set. On January 30, 2014, future Chadwick boseman has signed on to star in the film as Thoth, the god of wisdom. On February 19, 2014 Élodie yung joined the cast of the film as the goddess Hathor. On March 20, all other cast was also revealed as filming began, which includes Bruce Spence, bryan Brown, Emma booth, Abbey lee kershaw, rachael Blake, robyn nevin, paula Arundell, Alexander England, goran. Kleut and yaya deng. After: Actor nikolaj Coster-Waldau was cast in June 2013.
Gerard Butler, geoffrey rush, and Brenton Thwaites joined the cast toward the end of 2013. Chadwick boseman and Elodie yung joined the cast at the start of 2014. Here, i excluded the character names since they can be seen in the "Cast" section and excluded actors who did not receive billing (the last sentence). I identified the first person to join the cast, then I grouped those who joined later that year. I also mentioned another group that joined at the beginning of the year. I applied WP:citebundle here as well to avoid multiple footnotes at the end of a sentence.
I think "on date, source confirmed that actor joined film" is poorly written trivia. If it's salvageable, i rewrite. If not, i remove. To me, salvageable means that there's more information than dates and names. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk ) 15:39, (UTC) @ NinjaRobotPirate : hey, look. Erik came up with a solution to settle a compromise, which i at much agreed.
This is what he said in a previous discussion which is now archived. I agree that the proseline clutter needs to be addressed. The details do not necessarily have to be removed entirely, but at least compressed. Here's an example of what I did at Gods of Egypt (film) : Before: On, actor nikolaj Coster-Waldau has signed up to star in the film as Horus, a god of the sky. On September 24, 2013, gerard Butler also joined the film's cast to play the role of Set, a god of the desert, storms and foreigners in ancient Egyptian religion. On the same day geoffrey rush also closed a deal to join the epic fantasy gods of Egypt for Summit, he'll play the role of ra, a god of the sun and also father of Set and Osiris. Later on 7 October, summit added Brenton Thwaites as a lead actor in the fantasy film's cast, he will play bek, a human thief.
Where the, red, fern, grows : Wilson Rawls
Overall I'd like to guide users more than tell them "have this, don't have that". I'd more like it to be "These would make for a good section, these may make for a cluttered section." and then kind of let users make there own judgement. Deathawk ( talk ) 03:17, (UTC) deathawk way : maybe. But I want to make sure some things about production sections have some necessary consensus. Cast members who joined in any movie should be kept there without any unnecessary clutter and such. Erik : previously came up with some suggestions about that as you know that. @ Marnetted @ Betty logan @ NinjaRobotPirate : and others should state their opinions to these suggestions. BattleshipMan ( talk ) 04:27, (UTC) I guess it depends on what you mean by trivia and clutter.
We also need make sure we check out the sites first that have that filming information first before adding references. What we need to do is set up some consensus to include some news and references about some actors who joined some movies without making too much clutter. The details should be compressed to avoid removing entirely removing sourced information about that stuff like. We should only add any actor who have first joined any movie, any actors who are top listing ones, anyone in the billing bulletin list or named magazine in theatrical posters and any recurring actors who appeared inany film series should be included with reliable sources. That's the suggestions I can come. Any one else who add some suggestions to it, i'm all ears. BattleshipMan ( talk ) 20:41, (utc. BattleshipMan : While i concede that for certain movies casting sections are important, i wouldn't feel totally comfortable with a hardlined rule that when top billed signed on must be included. For every doctor Strange and deadpool there are hundreds and hundreds of smaller movies where including this information would be negligible at best.
talk ) 07:38, (UTC)The discussion. WT:mosfilm can be revived (e.g., pinging involved editors). We never really finalized the wording. Discussion can be seen here. Erik ( talk contrib ) ( ping me ) 17:57, (UTC)Production sections can be difficult to do without adding any trivial stuff. Here's some suggestions I can come. We need to make sure we add any necessary production information without adding any trivial stuff and make sure any source is reliable. Filming sections should have only any necessary filming information on locations, which actors that they are seen in pictures of filming and make sure there is nothing too trivial about.
None of these actions I would say really add up to anything in that essay they don't really present the story of how the film came. The traditional view of many wikipedians seems to be that if it's sourced information no matter what information it is, it should stay, and that leads to some bloated production section, that like i said don't really accomplish the goal of wikipedia. I dunno maybe i'm crazy to think like this. Could we maybe try to say something in the manual of Style for film aricles about this? Deathawk ( talk ) 05:39, (UTC). Yes, it's a form of trivia that seems unique to film articles: overly detailed proseline sourced to press releases. It's tedious to rewrite these sections, but i've done a few. I guess the best thing to do is suggest wording to be added. Mos:film, then hold an RfC to get it added.
Where the, red, fern, grows FanFiction Archive
Contents, production section problems, it's a new year and I think we should finally tighten our production section guidelines this year. This is something i've been trying to bring up in various ways off and on, but I feel the new year it would make sense to actually. Right now my major issue is that it seems there is no formal agreed upon "house" style for production sections. For older films this isn't really a problem so much, but it's really hurting new film articles. Often times you end up with report people putting in every little piece of news that comes out into these articles. So you often end up with bloated production section that list, who the screenwriters are, when the cast joined, when locations were scouted but in the end it doesn't really add up to anything. Look at the current page for The conjuring 2: The Pre-production section lists A) when cast members were announced B) When they were confirmed C) When location scouting occurred, and when actors visited the set.