Jump to content

Talk:Doctor Sleep (2019 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oversectioning

[edit]

Here I reverted the unnecessary addition of subsection headings per WP:OVERSECTION, "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." It is possible that these headings will be acceptable, when the content exists to flesh out the given subsection. It is unnecessary and sloppy to implement a structure with the expectation that it will be filled out. The structure needs to be implemented as it is filled out. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example of oversectioning to avoid. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proseline

[edit]

Per MOS:FILM#Production, "A production section should provide a clear and readable narrative of how the film was developed, setting out the key events that affected its production, without detailing all of the day-to-day operations or listing every piece of associated news and trivia. Try to maintain a production standpoint, referring to public announcements only when these were particularly noteworthy or revealing about the production process. Focus on information about how plot elements or settings were decided and realized, rather than simply repetitively listing their dates. Add detail about how the actors were found and what creative choices were made during casting, only including the casting date (month and year is normally sufficient) where it is notably relevant to the overall production history." We do not need to engage in proseline as seen here where we have one sentence after another saying this person and that person joined on this date and that date, which is against the aforementioned guidelines. It is simple enough to mention the starring actor joining and to indicate that the rest of the cast was filled out as typical. There is nothing unusual to warrant naming all the secondary roles being cast and when that was done. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 06:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TheMovieGuy, ten citations at the end of one sentence is too many. I get what you were trying to do, but I can't see a good way to do a citation bundle since some of the citations are being used for other details too. How about we just have the earliest and the latest citations there instead? I'll change the latter one to reflect November. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Production companies

[edit]

A couple of IP editors, likely the same person, are trying to add "Intrepid Pictures" as a production company. The only basis I can see for this is rooted in the producers involved, as it says here, "Flanagan's Intrepid Pictures partner Trevor Macy will produce along with Vertigo Entertainment's Jon Berg, and Goldsman is executive producer." I cannot find any mention of Intrepid Pictures on its own and am not finding that the aforementioned sentence means that the production companies are Intrepid Pictures and Vertigo Entertainment. It seems likely, but it seems more appropriate to simply list the producers now and see about the companies later. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source that was less ambiguous in wording. Not sure if that's what the "studio" param is intended for, and whether or not Vertigo and Warner Bros should be included as well. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you revert back? It seems fine. I don't know enough about producers and their company to make that assumption about a producer's involvement meaning that their whole company is involved. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted back because I saw after my edit that the page had just been protected, and decided that I didn't know enough about film infoboxes to jump into this disagreement. The source I found is this one. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's less ambiguous in wording. I never found it outright unlikely that Intrepid was involved, but it seemed like a step too far to assume that Macy's involvement confirmed Intrepid was for sure a production company for Doctor Sleep. Another tack to take is that it's not very important, either. It has hardly been mentioned in recent sources, probably because Warner Bros. is both producer and distributor (as studios tend to be with mainstream movies) with some help. If the trailer drops and shows Intrepid and Vertigo and whoever else, we could probably include them. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References to use

[edit]

References to use. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to make an article for Roger Dale Floyd, this is a good source. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Starring

[edit]

Since there may be some disputing about which names to show as starring and how to order them, we need to follow rules of thumb per WP:FILMCAST. Here are the rules of thumb that we have:

  • Trailer shows "Ewan McGregor / Rebecca Ferguson / Doctor Sleep / and Cliff Curtis"
  • YouTube page says, "'Doctor Sleep' stars Ewan McGregor ('Star Wars: Episodes I, II & III,' 'T2 Trainspotting') as Dan Torrance, Rebecca Ferguson (the 'Mission: Impossible' films, 'The Greatest Showman') as Rose the Hat, and Kyliegh Curran, in her major feature film debut, as Abra. The main ensemble cast also includes Carl Lumbly, Zahn McClarnon, Emily Alyn Lind, Bruce Greenwood, Jocelin Donahue, Alex Essoe and Cliff Curtis."

The "and Cliff Curtis" bit seen in the trailer, in billing-block terminology, means "such words tend to be used when a major star has a small but significant role". See breakdown. This is further confirmed by Cliff Curtis being at the end of the sentence in the YouTube page's description. The official site is not launched yet, so I think it is best to follow the YouTube page in listing McGregor, Ferguson, and Curran as starring, especially for infobox purposes. The rest of the names are grouped in their own sentence in the lead section. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The official site is now up, and it repeats McGregor, Ferguson, and Curran together twice here:

  • "Ewan McGregor, Rebecca Ferguson and newcomer Kyliegh Curran star in the supernatural thriller, directed by Mike Flanagan, from his own screenplay based upon the novel by Stephen King."
  • "'Doctor Sleep' stars Ewan McGregor ('Star Wars: Episodes I, II & III,' 'T2 Trainspotting') as Dan Torrance, Rebecca Ferguson (the 'Mission: Impossible' films, 'The Greatest Showman') as Rose the Hat, and Kyliegh Curran, in her major feature film debut, as Abra. The main ensemble cast also includes Carl Lumbly, Zahn McClarnon, Emily Alyn Lind, Bruce Greenwood, Jocelin Donahue, Alex Essoe and Cliff Curtis."

Cliff Curtis is not mentioned as starring and is instead mentioned at the very end, which fits the billing-block terminology. So the trio of McGregor, Ferguson, and Curran is the appropriate rule of thumb to have when writing about who is starring. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not how I remember the consensus surrounding when this issue arose with The Martian in regards to Donald Glover being decided. It was decided to go with the credits of the billing block. In this films case Curran is not there, Curtis is. If we are to use the official websites synopsis, I see the other cast members are in that synopsis too. So they should be added. If not the trailers billing block with Curtis should be used, regardless if he may only be a small part. We haven’t seen the film, we can’t speculate the extent of his involvement. Or we can just include both Curran and Curtis. Rusted AutoParts 17:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall anything about The Martian. I don't think it makes sense to add Curtis at all in the top three or four when he is clearly listed after Lumbly, McClarnon, Lind, Greenwood, Donahue, and Essoe. If anything, I could see a case from dropping Curran because she wasn't in the trailer's credits at all, leaving only McGregor and Ferguson. I just find the official YouTube page and website's grouping of McGregor, Ferguson, and Curran as explicitly starring actors to be the rule of thumb to use. We can get a third opinion via WP:3O and WT:FILM? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
here was The Martian discussion. Rusted AutoParts 17:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The final trailer here has the same billing-block information with McGregor, Ferguson, Curran, and Curtis and the same description that says the film stars McGregor, Ferguson, and Curran, with Curtis placed after six other actors' names. Notifying WT:FILM for additional opinions based on the sources. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand the problem, he’s in the billing block of the trailer. This is the exact same thing we had about The Martian but in reverse. Curtis is listed, so he should be listed, 'period. Rusted AutoParts 03:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also I thought we always followed the billing block anyway, not descriptions. Rusted AutoParts 03:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We traditionally follow the billing block because it is often the best approximation of what goes in the "Starring" field in the film infobox. It does not mean it overrules everything else all the time. The official website and the trailer web pages explicitly write that the film "stars" McGregor, Ferguson, and Curran. We have that in the lead section as a result, and the infobox should also use that for accuracy and consistency. Curtis comes at the end of the full set of actors' names in all cases. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still don’t see the issue. Even if he’s not listed in the first half of the description he’s deliberately included in the billing block. Exceptions were made before. Why can’t the infobox cast just be a combination of the description and the trailer billing block? Including Curtis affects nothing. Rusted AutoParts 15:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Erik: our earlier discussion about this in June died as you never responded back to my points. I’d like a response here. Rusted AutoParts 15:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The {{Infobox film}} template says: Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release." The poster only includes McGregor, Ferguson, and Curtis, but not Curran. Would there be an objection to removing Curran from the infobox per the infobox template? The lead would be a separate issue and I don't see any issue there, since it often includes more cast names than the infobox. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Erik and Rusted AutoParts who were involved in the previous discussion. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Curran is in the actual billing block shown on the official website. Image can be seen here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm fine going with that. Thanks for the link. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extraneous details about Kyliegh Curran

[edit]

I recently removed extraneous information about Kyliegh Curran that was contained in a note in this article. Curran does not have an article on Wikipedia, and this seems like a clear case of WP:COATRACK. It is not appropriate to use an article with a non-notable actor to fill in biographical details that are not at all relevant to the article topic. I could understand discussing Curran's prior work in the production section, for example, if an article discussed a producer choosing her for the role because of a prior work they had seen her in. Without some relevance to the actual article topic (here, a film about a King novel), then any article about a film could have multiple notes about every non-notable person involved (or for that matter, notes about all the notable actors and their prior work). However, Wikipedia is not a repository of information. I am instead posting the material from Erik here to the talk page for reference when Curran becomes notable enough for her own page.

Curran played Young Nala in a Broadway production of The Lion King in 2016. She also appeared in the 2017 independent film I Can I Will I Did.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Staff. "Kyliegh Curran". Playbill. Retrieved October 30, 2018.
  2. ^ Romano, Nick (August 30, 2018). "Doctor Sleep casts a 'shining' young star as Abra Stone". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved June 15, 2019.

Following WP:ONUS, I think a consensus should be built that this information is significant and relevant to the article subject per WP:DUE before it is restored. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COATRACK does not apply at all here. Did you even read it? The nutshell is, "Articles about one thing shouldn't mostly focus on another thing." This is a footnote. Not to mention that it's an essay. If you want to cite something, cite WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Even so, this is a starring actor whose background has been conveyed in reliable sources when they discuss the film. She is top-billed. This isn't a footnote about "Robert Longstreet as Barry the Chunk" (to pick an actor and their role from the "Cast" prose). In lieu of her own article, it is not at all problematic to have a brief mention of a starring actor's background. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 01:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the reliable sources writing about Doctor Sleep that talk about Kyliegh Curran's background that Wallyfromdilbert does not want to have anywhere on Wikipedia:
Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 01:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please refrain from restoring the disputed content during this discussion and instead see what the consensus is here on the talk page per WP:ONUS? Also, calling me an "idiot" is unhelpful [1]. For the content you want to add, why do you think the previous roles of Curran are relevant to this article (as opposed to "anywhere on Wikipedia")? If you want to start a draft article for Curran, I would be more than willing to try to help you develop it. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Erik, what if I add a "casting" section to the production details? I think the information about Curran would be appropriate there based on the sourcing you have provided, and it would make a connection with the article to show its relevance while avoiding the note in the cast section. Would that work for you? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter. I researched the topic again and found more new sources and wrote Draft:Kyliegh Curran and will have it moved into the mainspace. The point of outlining the above reliable sources is that they are providing background context for a new actor. Of course the other actors with no blue links do not warrant context. However, she was one of the stars of the film. Reliable sources saw fit to provide some background, and Wikipedia should too. The lack of a blue link does not mean we must then hide any biographical information about the person. Notes can be used to this end, not just biographical information, but other kinds of information that can be tangential. MOS:FNNR says among items that can be included, "Explanatory footnotes that give information which is too detailed or awkward to be in the body of the article." Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Doctor Sleep (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Doctor Sleep (upcoming film). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doctor_Sleep_(2019_film)&oldid=1206995436"