Talk:Halloween (franchise)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Not really a remake

According to [1], Rob Zombie's film will not be a true remake, but rather a "reimaging." I will update the article accordingly. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Re-imaging is a roundabout way of saying remake. It makes people that get upset about their favorite films being remade consider seeing it. While it may not be a word for word remake like the Psycho remake was, it's still a remake, like the 2003 Texas Chainsaw Massacre was. JohnBWatt 16:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I'm just going by what the article says. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 21:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Stupid Opinion

"A fan reviewer said The first time I saw it, I kept waiting and waiting for Michael to show up. The next thing I knew, the credits were rolling, and still no Michael."

What's that about?? Who cares if some kid had the wrong expectations? That's not relevant!

You've got to be kidding me

Oh my God. There are NOT two freaking continuities. Just because H20 ignores the events of 4-6 DOES NOT mean that it's a different continuity. They don't contradict. And don't throw Mr. Akkad's quotes at me to try and prove it, because what he said was taken way too literally. Yes, he said they ignored the others, but he didn't say they were a brand new continuity. Jesus, when are people going to understand this?

Acoording to the official halloween webstite ,Halloweenmovies.com, there are ,in fact two continuitys. 76.221.223.250 15:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Where on that website does it say that 4,5, and 6 are in a different continuity? I don't remember seeing anything their that states that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red VonMunster (talk • contribs) 03:53, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say that anywhere on the official site. It's one continuity, except for Zombie's attempt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.90.14 (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Any good images for this article?

I would be delighted if someone could add some appropriate images that are allowed to be used in this article. It's currently lacking in that department. Gary King (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

GA on hold

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

The article is very good, but it NEEDS images if it is going to pass. Current ref. 18 is dead, and needs to be replaced. I will give the article a week and check back then. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 23:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ref fixed. We (the primary editors of this article) aren't sure what images we could add. Most of the ones available are fair use, and since there is no actual box set or anything similar of these films, there isn't much we can add to illustrate the article. Suggestions? Gary King (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Limetolime, images are not a requirement. The criteria is that IF there are images are they being appropriately used. Frankly, we can do without the Zombie, Faeg, and Mane image in the Development section and the article will be fine. I'm personally working on a new reception section with actual reviews; I'm just busy in real life right now to finish the work in my sandbox.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ignore that crossed out bit, I thought I was looking at Halloween (2007 film). The rest still applies. Images are only to be used where appropriate, not simply because the article doesn't have any to begin with. There are other means to "dress up" an article. As Gary mentioned, and as you can see above, the discussion of simply throwing images in for the sake of having them is not appropriate.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Before considering this article further for GA, a thorough copy-edit is a good idea. I've flagged it accordingly.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you give some examples of what is awkward.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bignole. I didn't know this, so I've replaced the neg. tag with a N/A. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 13:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's some examples of issues in the Overview section that shouldn't exist in a GA article —

• Inconsistent present "fiction" tense: "The original Halloween (1978), written and directed by John Carpenter, revolved around Michael Myers stalking and killing babysitters on Halloween night. The film begins ..."
• Pronouns & clarity: "Michael follows Laurie to the local hospital, where he proceeds to murder everyone that gets in his way of finding Laurie."
• Typo: "where Loomis causes an explosion as Laurie escapes ." (space before period)
• Clarity: "Michael stumbles out of the room, engulfed in flames, toward Laurie before finally falling to the floor dead." How about, "Michael, engulfed in flames, stumbles toward Laurie before falling dead."?
• Inconsistent tense (again) and word choice: "The third Halloween film, subtitled Season of the Witch (1982), had no connection to the previous two Halloween films. Season of the Witch followed the story of Dr. Challis (Tom Atkins) as he tries to uncover the mysterious murder of a patient in his hospital.
• Preposition use: "He, along with the patient's daughter Ellie (Stacey Nelkin), travels to a small town in Santa Mira, California. (I'm assuming Santa Mira is the town).
• Article use: "The pair discover that a Silver Shamrock Novelties, ..."
• Clarity: "While being transferred back to Smith's Grove, Michael overhears that Laurie Strode, who died in a car accident, has a daughter, Jamie Lloyd (Danielle Harris). Michael comes out of his coma and heads to Haddonfield in search of Jamie. (Does Michael hear while in the coma, or is sentence sequence incorrect?)
• ???: "Picking up directly where the previous film ends, Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989) has Michael (Don Shanks) surviving the gunshots, and the fall down the mine; he stumbles upon a hermit who bandages him up." (Verb tense, passive voice and joining the hermit to that sentence with a semicolon.)

Yes, these examples are relatively minor problems and are quickly fixed, but that is exactly the point. They need to be and should be fixed before the article is listed as GA. Relatively minor problems, but that doesn't mean they should be in a GA quality article. It's also perplexing that these examples come from just the first three paragraphs of the section; the rest of the article contains a similar level of problems.
Jim Dunning | talk 19:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, it seems the Lead should be more comprehensive in its summary of the article. Mention of the films', novels', and comic books' reception is missing (other than box office gross), as well as a treatment of the franchise's legacy (I've started a paragraph to address this, but just barely). The Reception section certainly could expand in its coverage of the films, and it fails to address critical and fan reception of the literature and merchandise.
Jim Dunning | talk 19:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Jim, what is the significance of having the image from Halloween III? I think stating "views a commercial with a mask on" is evident enough that we don't need an image to help a reader better understand what is being said, per WP:NCC #8.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I was going back and forth on it, and your question swings me back to not including it. Agreed.
Jim Dunning | talk 20:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Citation issues

I removed the sfgate cite in the Reception section because it does not support the several assertions made in the first paragraph. It does reference misogyny, but specific to H2O, not to the franchise. Consequently, sources are needed to replace the Fact tags. I also temporarily removed the ref linked to the Amazon page for Going to Pieces: The Rise and Fall of the Slasher Film, 1978 to 1986: I'd feel more comfortable if specific page numbers could be provided for the material. If anyone can provide them, that would be great. I'll keep looking.
Jim Dunning | talk 23:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Two refs in the Development section have also been removed because they are to a fansite. One had been listed as citing Fangoria, but the referenced interview is only mentioned on the fan website. Perhaps someone can find the Fangoria article and cite it directly. Maybe this site is a reliable source (although the writing isn't always the best). It does a fairly good job of mentioning source articles, although it would be nice if it cited the article dates, titles, and authors. Anyways, it would be better if the source article were reffed directly. Does anyone have concerns about using this site as a source? It appears to fall into the category of "self-published".
Jim Dunning | talk 03:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:CITE, "It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source." Consequently, I changed a ref's identity from Entertainment Weekly to Halloween Movies.

I was under the impression that HalloweenMovies.com was actually the official website owned by the original production house. Looking at the website credits, they state that Malek Akkad (one of the exect. producers) is one of the site producers. Other than that it doesn't specifically state "this is THE official site of the Halloween films".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

GA fail

I have waited for more than a week, and my concerns were not fixed, so the article cannot pass. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 23:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been only four days according to my computer. Gary King (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Citations issue, again

This GA nominee should have no maintenance tags especially {{Citation needed}}. I removed those contents that need sourcing.

Removed here: Yablans explains, "I was thinking what would make sense in the horror genre, and what I wanted to do was make a picture that had the same impact as The Exorcist."

Removed here: Critics have suggested that Halloween and its slasher film successors may encourage sadism and misogyny. Others have suggested the film is a social critique of the immorality of young people in 1970s America, pointing out that many of Myers' victims are sexually promiscuous and substance abusers, while the lone heroine is depicted as chaste and innocent. While Carpenter dismisses these analyses, the perceived parallel between the characters' moral strengths and their likelihood of surviving to the film's conclusion has nevertheless become a standard slasher movie trope. Critics credit this film as the first in a long line of slasher films inspired by Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (1960).

Thank you. --Efe (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Halloween (franchise)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Well done.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Does Reference 27 cover all this ---> "Music remained an important element in establishing the atmosphere of Halloween III. Just as in Halloween and Halloween II, there was no symphonic score. Much of the music was composed to solicit "false startles" from the audience. The soundtrack was composed by John Carpenter and Alan Howarth, who had also worked on the score for Halloween II. The score of Halloween III differed greatly from the familiar main theme of the original and its first sequel. Carpenter replaced the familiar piano melody with a slower, electronic theme played on a synthesizer with beeping tonalities"? Is there a source available for the first two paragraphs in the Merchandise section?

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The references have now been added. Gary King (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to Gary K. for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge comic book page

I'm am proposing that we merge the comic book page into this article. From what I can gather, there is nothing more on that page than plot summaries of the comics, and that is a no-no. They also seem to fail WP:NB (Notability for books), which is an important reason why I am proposing we merge the page. Right now, we basically already have brief summaries of the comics on thise page (though, I'm not positive if we have every one, we'll have to do some checking if we don't).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PLOT. The comics are already covered at the franchise page.  Paul  730 01:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• • A month has passed and no one has voiced any valid opposition to the merge (none at all actually), so I redirected the page here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge Smith's Grove and Haddonfield

I am suggesting that the articles on Smith's Grove Sanitarium and Haddonfield be merged into this page (I picked this page because it's the only one that covers all the films). Both pages fail the general notability guideline, as well as WP:FICT. They also appear to be primarily plot descriptions. I originally prodded them for deletion, but I am not proposing a merge and redirect since the prod was removed. The articles both seem to use a bit of original research to tie in elements of the film. Being "major setting in a major fictional series" DOES NOT imply notability. Notability is only implied through "significant coverage from sources independent of the subject" (per the notability guideline).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support per above reasoning.  Paul  730 01:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• • A month has passed and no one has voiced any valid opposition to the merge (none at all actually), so I redirected the pages here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Halloween

I think this article could be well supported by Wikiproject Halloween (covering all types of celebrations that occur on October 31) concurrently with WikiProject Horror. I would considering proposing such a project if there exists interest on certain strategic pages, such as this one. Anyone interested in the idea should feel free to talk to me, so I can determine if it's worth trying at this time. Thank you.--otherlleft (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge game

I'm proposing that we merge Halloween (video game) into the merchandise section of this article. The game page does not indicate any real notability, and whatever "controversy" the game may have caused is not only unsourced but not that much information that it couldn't be covered easily on this page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support merge - No reason for separate article, the video game can be covered quite sufficiently on this page.  Paul  730 00:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I went ahead with the redirect since there was no objections.  Paul  730 03:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic?

The poster for the film was released. It is the first big thing for this movie and what I mean by that is it's the first piece of the new film or production. Not encyclopedic though? It is a part of the new film or future film. So it's easier to say it's the first part of production, although it is not an official one it is the announcement. It should be there (I'm not putting it back in) because It is the first poster released. Released by Rob Zombie too. I left a link to it because it didn't go in with the franchise page and I don't know how to put it on. Sorry if I'm sounding like a mean person (which I'm not). I'm just tired, and then I see not encyclopedic and well. If it was, is there a way to make it fit for Wikipedia? It wasn't bad it's just Wikipedia. Things get edited. How would it be though (Wikipedia fit).--VampireKen (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The poster is not free, thus it has to meet the fair use criteria, which means that there needs to be critical commentary on the poster itself. There is none, thus we cannot use it until we can justify splitting the article to its own page (which won't be for awhile, and we may have a different poster by then). Your link was removed because Wikipedia isn't here to advertise or promote other products.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Halloween II and H2

First I want to start off with we don't know anything about H2. Except cast and where it starts. And release (working release). Someone wrote that Rob Zombie said that H2 will not be like the original sequel. Before anyone deletes it I think it should stay on there for a few reasons. 1. It can't be a remake because Universal(and Laurentis) owns the rights to the story of Halloween II and III. So it would be copyright infringement. 2. It lets people know that for now H2 will not be a remake of Halloween II. Now, production of the remake of Halloween changed very much since it was announced in 2002 or 2003. This may happen again. As of H2 (the title). H2 is the name released by Rob Zombie. So until it is officially announced as Halloween II (apparently this is a part of the copyright thing as well). I remember getting this from Halloween movies. I could e-mail them and ask for a better explanation of the copyright thing. What I'm saying is leave the not a remake part alone(for now). and just call the film H2. Everyone probably knows this already but I'm just getting this down here. H2 won't be out until Halloween 2009 (won't Saw VI come out then?!) so it's still a while off.--VampireKen (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I don't know if you said this yet, but are trailers included as still does not mean film will be made or does that go under production. I know it's a stupid question but for future refrence.--VampireKen (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's a teaser trailer that does not actually show the film, then you cannot say that the film will be made. They have had teaser trailers and teaser posters before when a film never actually got made. Once production officially starts, then we can usually say that the film will get made (though, there are exceptions to this, as Jason X was made in 2001, but sat on the New Line shelf for 1 year before they ever released it). If production starts, but we don't have any information to report on what is going on, then a separate page is not warranted. If we have a lot of information being reported (and with Zombie we just might), then we can create the page before the film is officially released.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

When is this film getting released?

I first want to note that the edit that exists now to the future section has some confirmation but something little. Production has started but on wardrobe and the mask has been created and photos of it have been released by Rob Zombie. When is this film coming out though? or when is is said to come out? A note on the mask, it's not painted. Which means it isn't complete. I don't think this can be used but is Rob Zombie's myspace photos of H2 production allowed to be refs? That's for future reference. but when is the film supposed to come out? August or near Halloween?--VampireKen (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Photos are generally not allowed as sources.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

ok, thanks. what about the release date? Is it Halloween 2009 or August?--VampireKen (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've read both dates. I'm not sure which source is more reliable for it though. At the moment, I say we stick with the Variety source, for the moment, as it is a trade magazine which makes it more reliable of a source than a general website. At the time it was based on a specific convo with Zombie, while the recent source is with the studio (but no name is actually given as to whom they spoke with).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If it is at comic-con or similar

If the trailer for H2 is shown at comic-con will it be able to get it's own article? Similar to Friday the 13th.--VampireKen (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Friday the 13th didn't get an article because the trailer was shown. Friday the 13th got an article because it had 15kb of information on it, which was becoming a bit too large for the franchise page. This franchise page is no where near the size of the Friday the 13th page, and more importantly we don't have enough information to warrant splitting the article. We don't even know the official title of the film, as "H2" was just something Zombie did when he created that teaser poster (he owns no rights, thus he couldn't put "Halloween 2" or anything similar since it would violate the trademark of the company that owns Halloween II. Since he doesn't have a completed script (as far as the last interview goes), he could actually have a completely different name ready for it. We just need to wait and see what happens, and not worry about whether the page should be split after every new interview.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah Universal owns the rights (and Dino De Laurentis) to 2 and 3. They could sue zombie and Dimesion to have the film be prevented from being released or something. Going off subject for a second. when I mentioned F13 if you know they were not allowed to use the same storyline or even the title I believe. Then after paramount jumped in they were able to make the upcoming F13. This may happen to H2. I just wanted to check in case they actually show a release date or trailer. Thanks.--VampireKen (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No, they could sue Zombie for illegally marketing a title that they own, but they cannot sue him for pitching a sequel to his own movie. New Line has always owned the Friday the 13th title (since they bought the series), they just elected never to use it. Paramount didn't give them permission for that, they gave them permission to use characters (which they eventually decided not to use). Anyway, right now there isn't enough information to split the section to its own article. A trailer won't add any information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Official website

The website is up but it's not complete yet. Zombie released the teaser poster on his myspace and on The Halloween Movies myspace and the website is on the poster. This is not a promotion it's a good source (even though it ain't up yet). Here it is: http://www.halloween2-movie.com/ --VampireKen (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Due to an edit I have to say that this does not go on any articles. Not one. This is not to promote the film. Only for information on filming and similar things. NO ARTICLES!--VampireKen (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Media franchise infobox

Would anyone object (BIGNOLE, VampireKen?) of me adding a Media franchise infobox like Indiana Jones (franchise) and Saw (franchise) has? I think it would add lot to the article. Thanks. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 21:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, primarily because those infoboxes are laregely irrelevant and redundant. We have no need to list the films given that they appear in the section directly across from the infobox where they reside. That media infobox is like having the franchise template that's at the bottom of the page placed at the top. An infobox should summarize key points, not provide a dozen or more exits away from the article. It's not a necessary, or warranted infobox like it is with films, TV shows, etc. Franchises are a different beast.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand it doesn't suite all articles. Thank you for your time in answering me. :-) --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 03:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment

I'm requesting additional opinions at Template talk:Halloween series#Where to link?, as there is a debate about where to link a particular page within the template itself. Additional opinions are really appreciated, as I don't believe that many people actually monitor the template in questions.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The storyline image.

User:Bignole Removed it straight away saying it was confusing, but I need more convincing than that to let it go without a fight as I put a lot work into it. The image is here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Halloween_storyline_continuity_histogram_by_film.svg I've already had someone tell me they finally understand how the sequels relate to each other because of it, it's not confusing, the actual order of the movies are confusing, this is the best way to make the story clear - in an image rather than forcing people to check every single article scanning down the page to find out which story line it follows. I've seen similar things for long lasting film series. I'm sorry but I'm going to revert your edit. The LMOE (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

First, please read WP:BRD. You were bold in your edit, and it was reverted. The next step is what we discuss it and then put it back in if it's decided upon by consensus. We don't put it back in and then have to decide if we're going to remove it. Second, it's a user created image, not something officially done. We are not here to promote editors' creative works. Third, why do we even need a visual image in the first place. The prose itself clearly identifies when the continuity has been retconned or simply restarted from scratch. Lastly, when looking at the image, it's simply confusing to try and piece together a bunch of numbers and see which ones go to which films. Again, the prose on this page clearly identifies retcons. There's no scrolling necessary. It's all here. What featured or GA film series articles are using images like this to identify the continuity of a series? 05:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason I think it's needed is as you said, it's hard to piece together a bunch of numbers, when the article says H20 is ignoring events from 4 and 6, it's easier visually see that this implies it is a continuation from number 2, when it says resurrection continues from h20, you get stopped dead in your tracks when trying to figure out what sequel does that actually make it, you have to recall it takes from h20 that's total of 2 films, which skips 6, 5, 4, and all of them skips 3, and there are only 2 left so it must be the 4th film i.e. third sequel. How is seeing an image that tells you that straight away not useful? It's just slightly easier to comprehend, and if it improves the article why remove it just because it's user created?

There is scrolling necessary, you need to read the entire Films Overview section to get the gist of it, and fine combing of it for which ones are about Laurie. In regards to promoting creative works, that's why I attempted to make it as bland as possible, but maybe this is not to the standard. The one similar to it I was referencing was on a batman related page, but I've failed to locate it at the moment, I'm pretty sure I've seen one for resident evil too but that may have been more focused on actual characters timelines.

Perhaps a compromise, such as a less outright position, smaller thumbnail, closer location to the bottom of the article, or a change in the image itself to reduce your confusion like removal of either the numbers or colors, or removal of films taking continuity from themselves? I won't bring it back again until we can agree, thank you for your time. The LMOE (talk) 07:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No image is needed for any of that. First, H20 is the 6th sequel, no matter how you slice it. Just because it negates 3-6 does not mean that it automatically becomes the 2nd sequel on that point. Yes, you need to read the overview section to understand that H20 comes after II continuity wise, because it says it verbally. Your image is just a page filled with numbers. If you don't understand what the numbers are representing (because the image doesn't explain itself other than "this is the continuity") then the image isn't actually making anything easier. It's actually making it more difficult to understand because you're trying to scan through a ton of numbers, which are crammed together, and figure out what each represents and where it goes. Prose is much better at explaining such things. I've searched through dozens of film series pages and none have them. I've worked on many horror series pages and none have them. I don't think this page needs it at all. Since you and I have a difference of opinion, I'm deferring until more people come and voice their opinions on the subject because two people really cannot decide anything unless they already are on the same page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I support Bignole on the removal of the image. Yes, Halloween continutiy is convoluted, but I don't think we need a graph/chart to explain it, it can be explained well enough in prose. Personally, I think the article already sufficiently explains the split timelines (sentences like "The events that transpire between Halloween 4 and Halloween 6 are effectively ignored in 1998’s Halloween H20: 20 Years Later" are pretty clear). If some readers are too dumb to understand that, then they obviously can't read. Secondly, I don't find the chart remotely helpful in understanding Halloween continuity; it makes it seem like there are 10 timelines when there are only four (4-6, H20-HR, III, and RZ). All the numbers and colour coding is just extra confusion, and the random Laurie note is biased (who cares if she's the heroine, what does that have to do with continuity?). So, no, I don't think the image is at all suitable for the article, sorry.  Paul  730 16:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I came to this page to see if I could make out how the continuity of the storyline in these films goes. I could never make it out because each film seemed to have a different storyline and they're not all related to each other etc. On seeing this picture in question I could immediately work out what I came to find out. I think it's a very well done image and puts the films continuity in lamens terms for those who do not understand it. I don't see why it cannot be used. Dylan (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You couldn't make out the statement, "Halloween H20 ignores the storyline from Halloween 4, 5, and 6"? The doesn't put the film's continuity into lamens terms, because there are no terms in the image. It's a picture of numbers. That are confusing to try and follow. But, you're more than able to do a request for comment to bring in outside opinions.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I only just realised that each separate paragraph deals with a different movie and that it is stated at the beginning of each paragraph where the film is in the franchises timeline. I didn't notice this before as I thought the whole piece simply summarised the franchise as a whole rather than film by film. Seeing this I also agree the picture is unnecessary. Dylan (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Box office sub-section

Could someone please explain to me where the figures are coming from for the prose piece at the start of the 'Box office' sub-section? Checking out the references given for these figures the numbers given on the website do not match up at all with those written on the page. It seems as though the editor added the actual gross box office take with that of the average box office take for each film (the site gives an average box office take for a film in a series). It says that the Scream franchise has accumulated $400,000,000, whereas the reference given states that the franchise has accumulated $293,553,139. Can someone rectify this or am I myself wrong ? Dylan (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read a little more carefully. What it says is, "adjusted for 2010 inflation". Which means that we took how much each individual film made and used an inflation calculator to determine what that would equate to in 2010 dollars. For example, Friday the 13th made about $30 million in 1980. If that movie was released today, and received the same amount of ticket sales as it did in 1980, that would be equal to about $100 million in revenue. This is because of the inflation in ticket prices over the years, and what the US dollar is worth now compared to then.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see that part Dylan (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. It's a lot of numbers to digest, so it's understandable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to update the figures to 2010 rates? I tried using the application cited as a source but it would not work for me. Would you be able to do it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123dylan456 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm at work now, and it takes a bit of time to do all of the movies. So, if it can wait till either later this evening or sometime over the weekend, then I'd be glad to update it. I'm looking at the other pages, and I'll have to go through and update the info for each of the other franchise articles as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, tell me if its a lot of work/you want help and I'll try and help. Dylan (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. It's cold in my office, so I think my fingers are going to fall off from all the "CTRL+C/V" I was doing. LOL. The only films to change significantly were the ones who had new films come out in the past couple of years since they were not included in the original calculations. Only two ranking changes as well. Everyone else actually slipped in amount earned because the US dollar isn't worth as much this year as it was last year.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It might be purposely cold to discourage workers from going on Wikipedia in the office lol. Ok well I'll keep an eye out in case any more movie changes pop up. To my knowledge Scream 4 isn't due until 2011, and I dunno if any other franchises are releasing, so it shouldn't be too much work. Dylan (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I meant my office at home. LOL. Even when Scream 4 comes out, I only suspect that it will only rise in number and not actually change places. Given that Saw has a new film coming out here soon, that will solidify its place ahead of Scream, even with the latter releases its new film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm I'm not so sure. Scream fans have been waiting 10 years for an addition to this franchise comprising of only 3 movies. Yet with 3 movies released it is already one of the top contenders of the list in question. The Saw franchise however seems to be pregnant with sequels, spewing out new movies each year yet it only tops out Scream by 6.2 million. With reports stating that the newest Saw baby (LOL) may be the last due to falling box office takings, I think Scream 4 may revive the franchise and push it further up the list. Dylan (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

We're getting a little off topic on here (can continue on my talk page if you like), but I will say that with the dissappointment over the third film and the fact that it felt "jump the shark"-ish, I don't believe this next film will make that much money. Plus, the fact that Saw 8 will probably be coming out around the same time - giving it potentially two movies worth of gross to compete with. At the most, Scream and Saw will be trading places back and forth. Neither is going to come near Friday the 13th or A Nightmare on Elm Street'. Based on average revenue so far, Saw would have to produce 5 more films just to catch Nightmare and about 10 more to catch Friday the 13th (assuming neither made another film itself). Scream would have to do about 2 films and 3 films (maybe 4), respectively to catch those top two (that's based on the assumption that the films makes 90 million+ domestically, which I don't believe it will).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I realise we're gettin a little off topic but it has been stated that Scream 4 may be a revival to another Scream trilogy, which, if your calculations are correct, may be enough to "catch those top two". At any rate I myself agree that it would be a stretch to think that Scream may catch up to such horror behemoths as Nightmare on Elm Street or Friday the 13th, time will tell. Dylan (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Layout

I tried to restructure the page [2] to give a clearer overview of the progression of the films, much like the Batman in film or Superman (film series) page, but my edits were reverted. I feel that the main problem is that giving an overview of the plot of 7-8 movies with no break as the first section leaves the reader a little bewildered, and it is difficult to find one's place. The point of breaking it down gives a clearer path and structure for the reader to follow. It would be nice to see a clear chronology and I felt that section breaking was most appropriate. What do others think? Rob Sinden (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

These pages were based on Friday the 13th (franchise), which has gone through extensive reviews (GA, FA, Peer Review) and the format has stuck through all of those. I personally prefer this format because it keeps everything neat and to the point. I don't think readers need their hand held when reading the most basic of plot summaries when we have the individual film pages that they can read longer versions of each. To argue that the plots need to be broken down would be like arguing every section needs to be separated by film (Developement, Music, Box Office, etc.). I think there is too much push to try and make things "easier", and I think that "easier" really is about editing and not about reading. It might be difficult to edit this type of page because you have to scan through all the plots to find the one you want to fix, but that's just the price of admission IMO. People have also suggested just breaking the films up by paragraph, and to me that leaves these weak looking paragraphs. Batman in Film and Superman (film series) are different types of pages. I'm not sure if I agree with their layout, but for the most part none of those films really co-exist. Superman and Superman II, sure. But the other films, and the other Batman films typically have indepedent stories. Halloween, Friday the 13th, Nightmare often have storylines that extend across multiple films (especially for Halloween and Friday the 13th) and to me it makes better sense to blend those connections then simply put in 10 subsections and unnecessarily extend a page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

A couple of points:

1) How are Batman in film and Superman (film series) "different types of pages"?

2) Each film in any of the series you mention are self-contained stories. It is not the case they "have storylines that extend across multiple films" as there is no continual pre-planned narrative throughout the series, just successive sequels based on each film's success.

Rob Sinden (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rob that the films are self-contained, but I would rather see the Friday the 13th (franchise) approach applied to the Batman and Superman pages. After all, much has happened in between each films, especially the long development history. I do have to agree with Bignole, though, that a paragraph for each film seems weak. I do think that the films could be listed in one go, though... readers cannot gather all the films in their minds until later in the article. Could we do a bulleted list before "Overview", or even list the films on the right side? It would help list them chronologically, and we don't need to link to the films in the overview. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

(If my comments just stop abruptly, it's because I had to finally leave for work) Batman in film and Superman (film series) are pages devoted specifically to just basic understandings of each individual film. They don't cover the overall production of those series. In other words, the focus is on the individual films that were and never were, and less on what went into making a franchise. In addition, the overall structure of those films is an eyesore. I find it harder to stare at these tiny subsections within a section that give the briefest of information. The horror franchise pages are far more fulfilling, both as they are structurally and with the type of content they contain. As far as stories go, Halloween has 3 distinct storylines that cross multiple films. Those storylines are continuations of the previous films events. It flows better when you're writing a summary of Halloween 4, 5, & 6 then separating by subsections. With Friday the 13th, the same is true. The first four films all take place within the same couple of days. Then Part 4, 5 and 6 are all one giant storyline involving one character (other than Jason). The only films that are unique stories are Jason Goes to Hell and the ones that came after. Nightmare on Elm Street shares storylines among multiple films as well. Part 3, 4, and 5 are all tied together into a single storyline.

To Erik, I figured a list of the films to the right of the plot would just be redundant because they're all listed in order in the CREW and BOX OFFICE sections.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I know, but these sections are later, and it seems appropriate to gather the films in the "Overview" section somehow. It's just a matter of how much linking we should do. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It certainly would seem prudent to have a linked chronological list of films somewhere earlier in the articles than the "Crew" and "Box office" sections. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Without wanting to discuss too much here about the Batman and Superman pages, I would argue that they discuss more about making a franchise and the overall development than these pages do, but that's by the by. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to side with Bignole on this one. There are basically five narrative threads in the series: the first two Laurie Strode films, the Jamie films, the retcon strand, the remakes and Halloween 3. I think splitting the article into little self-contained sections about the films is quite a generic and limited approach, although I concede it is prettier. The article presents the different narrative strands of the series, and since this is an article about the franchise it is probably a superior approach. The little self-contained sections about the films are redundant at a certain level because readers can go to the main articles and read about each film. Maybe we can explictly list the films before launching into the overview so that the films are clearly identified before the narrative structure of the series is discussed, but beside that I wouldn't make any major alterations to how it is written. Betty Logan (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I see Erik also mentioned the possibility of listing the films before the overview too. It could easily be solved by taking the table in the "Crew" section and putting it at the start of the "Overview" section before the text. Would that work? Betty Logan (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why not. I wouldn't call it "Crew" though, just leave without a header under "films" and would suggest that it is properly linked (and maybe remove the column and row-spanning to make it easier on the eye?) Rob Sinden (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this what you're suggesting?? I'm not sure I'm entirely against such a move, because it would certainly satisfy Rob's concerns without really changing the page, though I would disagree with the removal of the col/row spans. It's a standard procedure when the same person works on multiple, congruent films. Otherwise, you'd be listing the same names repeatedly. I don't think it's confusing to see Rob Zombie stretched across writer and director, between two back to back films that he made.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that looks fine Bignole; there may be some value in having a column for the year of release too, but by having the table first we get all the main information about the films before the discourse. I don't have an opinion on the row/column spanning thing. Some people like it, some don't, I don't care either way personally, but it's an aesthetic decision so unless MOS has some guideline for it then I'd just go with a vote on what people prefer. Betty Logan (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much. I'd either lose the numbering, or put in a separate column, and as per WP:REPEATLINK, would like to see the table fully linked. With regard to the row/column spanning, I think for clarity this should be avoided, but yeah, it's just aesthetic. I think it works fine for actors (as at List of Harry Potter cast members) but is less useful here. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

All of the films have their years next to their names in the overview. Is it necessary to put them in the crew table, the overview, and the full releases in the box office? As for the row/col, if we're going to leave it as a personal preference "vote" then I would argue that the vote be for people who edit the page regularly since they're the ones that deal with it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. We were asked here to comment on a specific aspect of the article so I have no intention of telling you how to write/stucture the article beyond the input you've asked for. If you and Rob are ok with the general outcome it's sorted as far as I'm concerned. Betty Logan (talk) 05:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As this table is meant as an introduction, would see no harm in having the years included also, maybe in a third column. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay - Ignoring redlinks and the fact I haven't filled in all the years - How about this? this? Aesthetically, I think this is the most pleasing, alternatively this. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think we need special columsn for the numerical position or the years. Numerically, it's just an unneeded column, as the numbers look nicer just resting next to the titles, instead of having them in a tiny column sectioned off by themselves. The same for the years. The years I don't think we need at all because they're already in the overview and the box office section. That particular data is largely extraneous when it comes to what you're just trying to accomplish, which is just a list of the films in plain sight. But, if the consensus is to include them, I think they're better off just next to the titles as well. It just seems weird to have a column just for a year, and not a full release date (which is already present in the Box Office section, a more relevant place for it).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to have numbers at all (and I don't personally think they are necessary), then they shouldn't be in the same cell as the title (and to my mind they certainly don't "look nicer"). I'd say either a separate column, or not at all. As far as showing the year for each release goes, if the purpose to give an overview of the films, then I'd argue that these are very relevant to illustrate the chronology. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the box isn't to give an overview of the films, the purpose of the box is to just provide a quick chronology of the films. The release dates have no bearing on anything related to just the title or who worked on the film. The release dates have bearing on box office information (which is why they are there). I don't think we need to start repeating the same information over and over in every section of the article. As for the numbers, I don't understand why they need to be separated by a column. Personally, I think the average reader can count to 10 rather easily, and probably doesn't need numbers to assist in that process. I mean, we're not talking about a huge list of films here where you'd have to scroll just to read every title.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

How can you have a "chronology" that doesn't show a time scale? The release date is relevant in an "at-a-glance" list of the films, probably more so than the producer. If you are to number the films, then this should have a separate column. This is the conventional way that tables work, and these numbers shouldn't be in the same cell as the title of the film. However, I'm not saying that they need to be numbered. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No-one has actually made a case for retaining the numbering, so unless someone does it can probably just be pulled. As for a column for the years, my suggestion was based less on a need for a "chronology" (which I incidentally agree is probably not essential for just identifying the films) but more of a pragmatic suggestion to cleaning up the table. Four of the ten films are already accompanied by years next to the titles to differentiate the originals from the remakes, but "Halloween (1978)" isn't actually the title of the film, it's just the disambiguated name of the article about the film; so my reasoning was to separate the title from the years so the title would be explicit, and just extend what is already present for half the films in the table. If it's an issue for some of the editors though, it's not that big a deal. Betty Logan (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

What do we reckon to this? Rob Sinden (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it looks any worse or any better without the numbers, so I'm cool with that. But, to me the mini column of just years looks odd. It seems so out of place with columns full of text to be infiltrated by arbitrary numbers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

How do we feel about the years in parentheses after the films' titles? Rob Sinden (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm ok with that, because it doesn't seem as weird as having a lone column just for a year when everything else is text.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay - updated. Although personally I think I prefer a separate column for the year, but no big deal... Rob Sinden (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we need to discuss further. Despite agreeing to the above, you seem to have made further changes. Firstly, I see you unlinked the tables. Whilst I see your point on the redlinks, as most of these are not likely to have articles created, WP:REPEATLINK states the exception that links should be repeated "where the links are in a table, as each row should stand on its own", so please do not revert this. Also, you seem to desire the cells to be merged, much like they often are for actors in film series. I do not think this is a good idea, and don't think they can be treated in the same way. Aesthetically it makes the table a mess, but more importantly it also confuses the information, especially when some individuals span different roles, and some span over the film sequence progression. I have reverted your changes (except the redlinks). Rob Sinden (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I've put back the col/row spans because that is a preference of the editors who regularly edit this page. There isn't a guideline for such a thing, and is always left to editor preference. Your personal displeasure of that is noted, but not something I agree with. I find it unnecessary to say the same name 3 separate times when it's the only one in the row. The same when it comes to being the only one to write and direct back-to-back films in the series. I don't believe it is confusing in the least. I can follow it just fine and neither I nor you can assume that the reader isn't intelligent enough to understand what is being presented unless there are numerous complaints about it. There haven't been. You're actually the first one to try and change it since it was instituted.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, please read my original statement about the row/col spans above: "Is this what you're suggesting?? I'm not sure I'm entirely against such a move, because it would certainly satisfy Rob's concerns without really changing the page, though I would disagree with the removal of the col/row spans. It's a standard procedure when the same person works on multiple, congruent films. Otherwise, you'd be listing the same names repeatedly. I don't think it's confusing to see Rob Zombie stretched across writer and director, between two back to back films that he made."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact remains that you agreed to the previous template. In any case, while I can see the point of the same role being spanned across multiple films, the arbitrary order of director / producer / writer should not be spanned - look at Sean S Cunningham on the Friday 13th page or John Carpenter & Debra Hill on the Halloween page. Let's discuss further before you keep reverting. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agreed to the template being moved. I agreed to the removal of numbers and the years in parenthesis. I didn't agree to removal of col/row spans. Read my comments above. Again, they were there first, and as I said it should be a discussion for regular editors of the page, which you are not. Even Betty agreed that it is a decision for those who regularly edit this page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It should not matter if the person has worked on the article substantially or not. We're all looking at it and evaluating it for the best presentation, whether or not we have history with the article. My take is that no spanning works best because it is easier to track the names with one's eyes. With the spanning, it feels like jagged consistency with the names. We should compensate for overlinking, though, since it's not too big of a table. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

See, I think that the spanning compensates for the overlinking because it removes unnecessary names. I'm fine with Rob's recent change of "by film" instead of "by role", because it still serves the same purpose. As for the "working on the article", Erik you know as well as I do that when you have put forth all the work in an article to reshape it and someone who hasn't done that wants to make nothing more than aesthetic changes to it that you don't care for, it really isn't the same as "improvement", because it's a subjective change.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Any reason why you're shortening the film titles? Rob Sinden (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Because it was throwing off the columns on my screen.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Then why not set the width? Rob Sinden (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

And are we headed towards ownership territory? Rob Sinden (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The width should be set on all of them? At least, it was when it was part of the "Crew" section. As for "OWN", you cannot tell me that there are not articles you are protective over. If there aren't, then I'd have to assume there aren't any articles that you've had to basically rewrite from scratch because there were the epitome of worthless Wikipedia trash when you found them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Nope - just checked the Halloween page, and width isn't set now, and wasn't when it was a crew section either. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

And, for the record, I'm sure you've done a great job on these pages. Coming to these pages with fresh eyes, I felt there was a way that the information could be presented in a more useful manner, so, as usual, I guess we're all fighting for the same thing esssentially :) Rob Sinden (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Back to the spannning / linking thing though... Rob Sinden (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Policy pretty much takes care of the linking dispute. WP:REPEATLINK clearly states only the first occurrence should be wikilinked, but tables are given as an exception to this rule: "where the links are in a table, as each row should stand on its own". If this were a table without any row or column spans, the first and second columns would have to be wikilinked since they all contain the first occurrences within each row. However, in the "Writers" column of the first row, only Debra Hill would need to be wiklinked because it is the first occurrence of her name on that row since John Carpenter would already have been wikilinked on that particular row. In the final column, neither Hill's nor Carpenter's names would need to be wikilined. On the second row, both Debra Hill and John Carpenter would need to be wikilinked in the "Writers" column since the wikilinking of the first row has no bearing on the second row; again it would be unnecessary to wikilink their names in the fourth column. In the case of row and column spanning some "over-linking" in the first and second rows of Hill and Carpenter can't be avoided due to the rowspans having to accommodate the first occurrences of their names in the second and third rows. I believe Wikipedia's policy on wikilinking tables actually obliges us to make it look like this in its current form: [3]. Here's the diff between the two versions: [4] Betty Logan (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Still not happy about the spanning really, I can see the point on a page like the Saw (franchise), where there are few changes throughout the series, but when there are multiple writers, producers, directors it gets messy. In any case, if we must have spanning, then I think that this should be restricted to span the films only, as the roles are in an arbitrary order, and the table would look different if the writer and producer roles were swapped (see Sean S Cunningham in Friday the 13th (franchise), or Rob Zombie in Halloween (franchise). Rob Sinden (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Future section

There is disagreement over where the "Future" section needs to be placed. In my opinion, it does not make sense to put information on a film yet to be made in the middle of information about films already released. If nothing ever comes from this potential film then the information will eventually be scrapped because there is nothing noteworthy about a film that was "talked about" and never actually made. Films are talked about and even written all the time and nothing ever makes it to film. For me, the proper place is after all the information about the films that have already been released. That's all the way after "Box Office" information. Because to me, that's a natural chronological order of events.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Make it a sub-subsection ("===") under development or break out the Rob Zombie versions into an entirely different sub-subsection. Sottolacqua (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's a few examples where the future film sits immediately after the overview / development of the films, and before the box office figures (agreed, some could use work!):

• Ghostbusters (franchise)
• Rambo (film series)
• Alien (franchise)
• Transformers (film series)
• American Pie (film series)
• Terminator (franchise)

Personally, I think it follows the chronology of the development better to have the "Future" section immediately after the individual films. Even if a film isn't made, but then the franchise is picked up again later on, these failed films should sit in the middle to show the whole process - see Superman in film or Batman in film.

I think this article, the A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise) and the Friday the 13th (franchise) could be improved by following the lead of other franchise/film series articles by moving "Box office" to a "Reception" section and adding a "Critical reaction" section. Agreed, some of the other articles have plenty of room for improvement too. Shame Wikipedia:MOSFILM#Film series is blank! --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

But "future" has not certainty. This is very true for horror film franchises that get "sequels" that never get made. We don't know if "Halloween 3" will get made, or if it was still a sequel to Rob Zombie's films. It is unprofessional to have a single subsection. When doing outlines, the rule is that if you have an "A" then you must have a "B". So, single subsections are look unprofessionally organized. As for your examples, the Ghostbusters page is horrendous so I won't even comment on that. With regard to the reception sections, please explain how you can accurately report the reception of films like Rambo, Alien, and Terminator through a Rotten Tomatoes rating when that rating does not reflect the opinion of those films when they were actually released? That makes no sense whatsoever. Not to mention that limited number of reviews that are listed are not even a good sample size to generalize from. Seriously, 42 reviews is the sample size for the first Terminator film? Of those reviews, most are from within the past 5 years. So, how does that reflect that opinion of the film in 1982? It doesn't, that is why there isn't a Rotten Tomatoes section on Friday the 13th, Halloween, or A Nightmare on Elm Street, because only the most recent couple of films have accurate sample sizes. I'll also point out that out of all of those pages, Friday the 13th has passed a GA review and only failed an FAC because of copyediting issues. No issues on page structuring or lack of a Rotten Tomatoes box. Your examples would have a hard time passing a simple GA review.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

I did point out that the articles needed improving! However, you've not really addressed the point regarding chronology of the development of the series, which is what this discussion is about. Really any current developments should sit in chronological context with things that have happened or may happen in the future. See Superman in film or Batman in film of good examples of this. Say that this third in the reboot series never gets made and is officially cancelled, it would still be worth mentioning in the article that there had been plans to make it. However, it would no longer belong in a "Future" section. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I addressed it originally. It's not part of the chronology of the series unless it's made. If the film never gets made it's just another "what if", that would ultimately be deleted as not being noteworthy. Superman in film and Batman in film discuss each movie from an individual perspective, not from a franchise generality. That's the different. You cannot compare Tim Burton's Superman Rebirth to Halloween 3 because Tim Burton's film had garnered 10 times that amount of coverage, they actually had everthing in place to begin filming (cast, crew, locations, etc.) and then the plug was pulled at the last minute. That is not the case, so far, with Halloween 3. Right now, we have "talk" and a potential script. That amounts to nothing because scripts are a dime a dozen and this one has already been rewritten like 3 times. No one even knows what the focus of the film is going to be because it hasn't been decided yet by anyone of consequence. When the film is made, then it naturally makes sense for it to be in the "Development" section because that section is about the development of the franchise. "Future" merely discusses what might happen and to cut through information about already established films makes no senses whatsoever. Especially if the film is never made. It becomes an afterthought. Why would an after thought be placed in the middle of information about already released films?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

If a film is planned, or enters pre-production but is ultimately never made, it still deserves a sentence at least in the chronology of the development of the series, as it is part of that process. Hence why I believe that a future film forms some part of that chronology. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

A planned film has no notability. A film that enters pre-production (pre-production is more than simply writing a script because anyone can write a script) has more notability, but not necessarily enough to warrant a mention. It always comes down to how much coverage it is actually getting. A few news sources saying "They are going to make 'Halloween 3'," does not equate to actual coverage if the film is never even taken beyond a script (which has happened in the past repeteadly with this franchise, and several others). It might be something to mention if they make a film later down the line, to point out that there was once talk of a film years prior, but if they don't then it's irrelevant to the franchise as a whole. Regardless, you're trying to plant potential information in the middle of already established information. The chronology right now is based on films that were made and released and how they performed. Logically, talk about a potential next film is more suitable after you've discussed the films that already exist. If you've ever read a news report on a film franchise, they typically cover the whole franchise and then at the end go, "there is currently another film in development...."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm a big stickler for WP:NFF, so I'm with you on the notability issue. Yes - "Halloween 3D" (or whatever) is NOT notable. However it is worth mentioning if a film goes into development, because, if it isn't included here, some bright spark will try to create the article page. We're not talking about the notability of this film, but where to position the information regarding the current status of the franchise (which you accept does belong on this page). To me (and to Sottolacqua), it logically sits at the end of the essay on development of the franchise (which is not in the middle of established information, but a continuation in a relevant section). To you it does not. It seems a little bit out of place stuck out on its own after discussions on the music and box-office results, as I feel that these sections are complimentary, appendix-like information. It seems that there are as many articles with this included in the development as not, so no established consensus as to how to play this. So I'm not going to push the issue - this is one to discuss when the MoS is written. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If it actually enters real development, then that's something to discuss. Right now, it hasn't entered anything. Unless you're trying to say that "development" is someone writing a script, then you might as well include a "future" section for almost every film under the Sun, because people write scripts for sequels all the time and nothing ever amounts to anything for most of them and we don't report on them and people don't create articles for them. People wanting to create an article for Halloween 3D right now is because it's a recent buzz about the script. That's it. If nothing changes, then the buzz dies and there isn't an issue anymore. If it does change, and they actually start working on the film then you have an argument. Until then, we're talking about a crystal ball effect here, where you're giving weight to information that basically says very little.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, lookin deeper into the information, I'm wondering whether it even merits its own section. How would you feel if a short sentence was added to the end of the development section mentioning that a release date has been set but there is no film, and leave it at that? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It's still crystal balling. You're playing the information like it's definitely happening. That film has had previous release dates, previous directors, and writers. If you recall, we were reporting on a "third" film way back when Halloween II came out in 2009. We removed that information because the potential release date (October 2010) came and went. As of right now, what you want to say is that "A film is wanting to be released on October 26, 2012". We're not a news source. We're supposed to be reporting from a historical perspective. Why are we giving any real thought to this in the first place is beyond me, but "Future" in a franchise article should mean the future of the franchise itself. That could include future documentaries, future comic books, future anything. Just, at the moment it's not occupying anything other than a potential film that has been "in talks" for the past 2 years.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, to be honest, I have not been following the news story, was purely getting involved in this on a matter of structure rather than content. Having looked at the source (and other news articles that I could find), there is very little firm information - it is all up in the air. I guess we need to leave something on this page though (as other editors will soon add it ad infinitum if it is removed). Leave it where it is! --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Critical reaction

Just wondering, what do you guys think of putting in a critical reaction box under "Films." It's the reception of the films as much as box office, no? - Enter Movie (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

If there are actual reviews discussing the films as a whole, or basic summary reviews of all the films, then that's probably fine. If you're talking about a table that has Rotten Tomatoes figures or something, then it would be inappropriate to have considering that most of the films were released before RT was even in existence and any reviews it currently has would be modern reviews and not a representation of how the films were viewed in their original release.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

"[A]ny reviews it currently has would be modern reviews..." Have you actually clicked on the reviews and looked at the dates? For instance, MetaCritic takes in original reviews from the theatrical releases. - Enter Movie (talk) 04:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have. Here is Rotten Tomatoes for the original Halloween. It contains the same reviews listed at MetaCritic. Look at the dates, as the oldest is from 2000. The same for the original Halloween II. For a movie released in 1978 or 1981, I don't think the reviews of people from the past 10 years would be a reflection of how it was viewed 30 years ago. You're link to MetaCritic does not extend to films that were released before the public consumption of the internet. Today's films do keep the original reviews, but it is difficult to acquire 30 year old reviews for a film when they never posted them online. Looking at Halloween on MetaCritic, what I see are primarily reviews from the past 10 years as well. They do manage to have Gene Siskel's original review, but that now taints your data as you're including a review from 30 years ago in your calculations that are primarily based on recent reviews. That is not accurate information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think those dates correspond to the dates on the actual reviews; those are probably the dates when the reviews were added to the site. I just looked at Roger Evert's review for Halloween, and RT said "October 23, 2004," but he reviewed the film on 1979. - Enter Movie (talk) 04:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Then they are intermingled, as 3 random reviews I clicked yeilded dates from within the past 8 years. So, that goes back to my last statement that is taints the data because you cannot mingle reviews from 30 years ago and reviews from 10 years ago and make any claim that they somehow are a reflection of the film's critical reception. They are...just from 2 different points in time. Not to mention the limited number of reviews (ignoring the obvious issue of having 2 different generations of critical reviews existing in the same sample set) does not create a representative sample size that can be generalized back to the critics as a whole. Halloween has 44 reviews on RT (only 4 Top Critic reviews). So, to attribute significance to a percentage of "85%" when it's based on a small sample size (again, one that contains mixed decades) would be placing undue weight on the figures. So, I revert back to my original statement that if you're talking about collecting actual reviews and providing a very brief summary of them for the franchise (and possibly finding a source that can actually provide commentary on the overall reception of the original films when they were first released - e.g., A critic commenting on the scale of approval when it was originally released) then that would be appropriate. I do not buy into this idea that we need tables to collect data figures from aggregate sites that don't contain enough reviews to reliably generalize back to critics as a whole.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

So first you say that RT or MetaCritics don't represent the critics well because most of them are modern, and when I provide evidence that there are original reviews that date back to "how the films were viewed in their original release," you still say they don't represent the critics well because... old and new reviews shouldn't be "intermingled?" The hell? This may be a misunderstanding, but I thought the whole point of your argument was that there weren't any old reviews. And now you're saying that even if there is, the score is skewed because it contradicts with the modern reviews? That's completely absurd! What you're essentially implying is that RT or MetaCritics shouldn't put up new reviews from younger critics of old films because they would skew with the reception of the film in its original release, yes? Hopefully, I've got your point-of-view straight. RT and MetaCritics are review aggregators of films from critics in general; I don't see how the date the reviews are published matters. It shouldn't matter, because a reputable critic's opinion of Halloween today should be as credible as one from 1978. I mean, does that mean the Citizen Kane review of the Pulitzer Prize-winning Roger Ebert shouldn't be part of the Tomatometer score all because he wasn't part of the generation that saw and reviewed it in its original release? And "enough reviews" is somewhat arbitrary. It may not compare to Transformers 3's 235 reviews, but 44 reviews is a lot to me. - Enter Movie (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Most of the reviews ARE modern. Go through each one and count them up. Just because Ebert and Siskel's original reviews are there does not mean that the other people's were from 1978. They weren't. The reputation of a critic today is not what I'm saying is skewed. I'm saying that you cannot discuss the critical reception of a film using those figures when the film is this old because the figures are not a collective representation of critics from that era. Does it give us an opinion of critics in general, sure it does. Is it accurate, no it isn't. Having a couple of reviews from 1978 and then the rest from 2000 and beyond gives us a representation of critics feelings more TODAY than YESTERDAY. When you have 44 reviews, if say 5 of them are from 1978 and the rest are from 2000, you cannot generalize critical opinion back to the 1978 release. Thus, readers would get inaccurate information as they would assume that RT is calculating critical reception from release, when it isn't. It's just collecting (hence the name "aggregate") all reviews it can find and just putting a score on them. When you're talking about films this old, RT and MetaCritic are not truly providing research based analysis. If we were talking about 50 reviews from 1978 compared to 50 reviews from today, then you'd have a point, as we could compare critical reception from then to now. But mixing them makes the overall opinion skewed. For example, how Friday the 13th was viewed in 1980 is very different from how it is viewed now. Then, almost every critic hated it with a passion. If you read Rotten Tomatoes, you'd think it was a mixed bag, with a 60% rating. If you read Crystal Lake Memories or The Legend of Camp Blood, the 2 documentaries on the series, you'll find that the films were met with almost complete hatred from critics (411 Mania makes note of this). So, if I went my RT, my interpretation would be that, in fact, it was slightly in favor of a positive when critics reviewed the film. That's not accurate and that's because it's a mixed bag of reviews. The same is true for Halloween and all the other franchises that are 30 years old. It's simply not an accurate representation, as opinions of newer generations of critics change and thus you cannot generalize back to a film like that. If you were talking "this is how it was viewed then" and "this is how it was viewed now", then that's fine. But you cannot lump them together and say "this is how it was viewed completely". Not when you're using an aggregator where most of the reviews are from more recent years. It sways the opinion to one direction. That makes it unbalanced, and that makes it ungeneralizable. This is about statistics, which I have done for countless researches.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

But then it all comes down to the very definition of "critical reception." From what I've looked up, it's "a manner of being received" by critics. Is there some hidden meaning that says critical reception must "generalize critical opinion back to the [original] release" of said film? The reception of a film can't evolve and change as decades pass? How do you know "readers [...] would assume that RT is calculating critical reception from release?" You're so caught up with your statistical experience and all that you don't realize others don't always think the same as you. RT and MetCritic gather reviews from different sources, and the date shouldn't matter, because they work with what they have. Critical reception doesn't have a definite time window of when a product must be received by critics. If it's such a big deal to you, there could always be a little footnote saying that most reviews are modern reviews. - Enter Movie (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the point. If you want to use an aggregate percentage then it needs to represent the information accurately. RT and MetaCritic do not differentiate between decades of reviews, they just collect them all. You cannot claim that a film has an 85% approval rating when you're using reviews from multiple time periods and it is NOT an even balance. If we were talking about 100 reviews and 50 came from 1978 and 50 came from 2005, then you're fine. That's because it is a balance and we can assess a film over the course of its lifespan. If you're talking about 40 reviews from 2005 and 4 reviews from 1978, then it's inaccurate to say that the film has an approval rating of 85%, because you're not including countless reviews from the original release, yet you are insinuating that the overall reception was positive. Maybe it was, or maybe it wasn't. Critical opinion of films DOES change with time, and what was once viewed negatively can be viewed more positively in hindsight. The best example would be The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, which was panned as nothing more than exploitation, yet today it is viewed as one of the foundations of true horror and there is greater respect for it. The RT and MC scores for that film would not be an accurate representation of its reception, because that film went through a transformation of approval as time went by. We no from reliable sources that the film received mixed (almost completely negative reception), yet RT scores would suggest that there was almost universal acclaim for the film. That's NOT an accurate representation of the film's reception. That shows you what critics think TODAY (though, like Halloween, there are some original reviews scattered in there, the majority are from recent years). Thus, it is undue weight being placed on reviews of TODAY when you create those tables for RT and MC. Hence, why I said that prose summary of the reception from before AND the reception of today is what should be done. Tables are the poor man's excuse for doing research. If you notice int he box office section, the table contains the "literal" figures, while the prose expands with inflation figures so that readers can see what the franchise was doing in updated dollars. Both sides of the world.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet when one looks up at all the Halloween films pages, they mention the RottenTomatoes score with no acknowledgement that the majority of the reviews on the site are modern. In fact, I look at 99% of film pages made 1980 and before, and miraculously, they mention the RT score! If your logic was correct, then most Wikipedia pages of films more than 30 years old shouldn't mention scores from these review aggregators. For instance, how can the Halloween (1978) page claim that "Critical response to the film was mostly positive" when there's just no reliable source to prove it? Critical reception is proper to let the reader know the manner a particular film is received, and RT and MetaCritic are the most popular sites that gather this data, whether they're old or not. If one wanted to know more about the film's critical reception, he or she could just click on the article itself and read it in more depth, or maybe even move his or her mouse over the reference, click on it, and look through the reviews on the RT/MetaCritic website! - Enter Movie (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't mess with the original Halloween pages, and just because they don't do it does not mean that they are right. There is a lot of stuff claimed on the original Halloween page that is either misrepresented information, or completely unsourced information. That was why it had its FA status revoked. Interesting that you point that quote out, as I'm curious if you can tell me what is wrong with this statement: "Critical response to the film was mostly positive. Although Halloween performed well with little advertising — relying mostly on word-of-mouth — many critics seemed uninterested or dismissive of the film." - Seem a little contradictory to you? How exactly can a film have "mostly positive" reviews and yet "many critics seemed uninterested or dismissive"? Ignoring that obvious issue with weasel words, that statement does not seem to reflect upon itself with any form of accuracy. I would imagine that is because people are basing the first part on the RT score, and then the second part on the source that comes later. That said, I never claimed that Halloween was not generally well received...by comparison to Friday the 13th it was an Oscar winner. As for the other pages you say you monitor, I don't monitor "other pages", so if I'm not watching it then I'm not actually holding it to any form of standard and neither is anyone else. What I can tell you is that I put Friday the 13th (franchise) through the ringer of sourcing information and reviews, and never once did I have someone say "hey, I thik you need a RT table showing the percentages". I disagree with any form of RT or MC table, or even citing those percentages when it comes to a page about the FRANCHISE. There should be prose information discussing how the franchise was viewed (both originally and today). If a reader wants to know some RT score, they can go to the respective film pages to see them. Most readers don't come here first anyway, as the first connection to appear in the search when you type "Halloween" is for the 1978 film. You can see that in the page view history.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but other readers, like me, would prefer to see the critical reception of all the films side-by-side to compare. Why else does any film series page have a table of RT and MetaCritic? And where better to do that than on the Franchise page under FILMS? Sure, I shouldn't base my argument on other pages, but I see other Features Articles of old films that give "undue weight" to critical reception by your logic, yet nobody argues with it (notably Halloween II). And, yes, I admit that your Halloween point is correct, but like I said, if one wanted to to know more about the critical reception of each film, all he or she would have to do is click on the page or the reference link. A table would merely be available to provide the reader with a comparison to how each film was received as the series progressed. After all, what would be the point of the box office table if the reader can simply "go to the respective film pages to see them?" - Enter Movie (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

First, the fact that Halloween II is stil FA after 5 years only means that no one has bothered to review it since then. I guarantee that it would not pass current FA standards. Regardless, again I do no watch those pages and don't battle for standards there. It is no doing a service to any reader to present some tabular formatted critical reception where the data collection is not accurate to what is being presented. Even just looking at it from your point of "it's all reception", you're still looking at sample sizes that cannot be generalized because they are too small. Just on RT alone, the original Halloween only has 44 reviews, part 2 only has 31 reviews, part 3 has 15 reviews, part 4 has 22 reviews, part 5 has 21 reviews, part 6 has 28, H20 has 55, and resurrection has 57 reviews. It isn't until Zombie's films that we get more than 70 reviews. Half of the films in the series barely have any reviews, and most of the films could arguably not even have enough to generalize back. Sorry, I don't find 50 reviews to be a generalizable sample. So, pick your poison. The aggregate figures are both small, and for the early films a misrepresentation of the reception of the film. Yes, reception can change but you cannot put both receptions together and call it a day. That's grossly inappropriate. So, to be honest I don't care that "other pages" do it, because they shouldn't be doing it and if people held those pages to any form of real standard then they wouldn't be there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean an article shouldn't have Featured status after a particular number of years? 'Cause that's just absurd as well. Besides, looking at the history of Halloween II shows that there have been a fair amount of edits this month. You say that it's inaccurate, but I argue that there is no such definition of "critical reception" that says it must "generalize critical opinion back to the [original] release" of said film. If one wants to know more about a film's critical reception, he or she can click. And "not enough" is arbitrary. I mean, I think it's enough. Besides, like here, the number of reviews is usually listed beside the score, so that the reader is aware of it. A table allows the reader to see a comparison of the ratings, and a footnote like I suggested earlier wouldn't hurt, either. - Enter Movie (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what good it is to talk to you, because you keep trying to straw man any point that I make. I didn't say that we should delist FA articles after a few years, but they need to be reviewed and I can tell from that page that it has not been reviewed in 5 years and that the standards for FA status have changed since then. I can all tell from lookin at the page that it would fail a few criteria. But that's neither here nor there. I also did not say that you "must generalist back to original release". What I said was that you CANNOT generalize the reception when you collect reviews from two different eras, because when it is not BALANCED you get data that is skewed to one side. Since we know that favoritism of films DOES change in the perception of critics as new generations come, it is inaccurate to say that the critics of today represent the ONLY opinion. They don't. That said, I think we need both sides of the story. That's why older films, when they go up for review, usually get hit if they only contains current reviews, because it isn't a representation of how the film was originally viewed. And Wikipedia values the HISTORY over the most current perception. That doesn't mean that we ignore current, it just means that you need to do your work and not try and cut corners by putting these gastly tables on older films which contain data that is NOT a representation of the film's history. Do the work, don't cut the corners. As for Spider-Man, you cannot compare the two series. That series was started in the past 10 years, and RT has almost beeen around as long and thus has collected the appropriate sample size and it's all from 1 generation. Should we look at that series again in 20 years and see how reception has changed? Absolutely, but that's not possible right now. Sample size is also important. For example, a film with 20 reviews cannot possibly contain real information as to how a film was received. Case in point, let's look at The Dark Knight Rises: 96% approval based on 23 review. Some might call that "universal acclaim" or some crap like that. I'd call that a small sample size and not represenative of how the film is being received. Let's fast forward to today. Now we have 87% based on 275 reviews. That's a 10 point drop, and now it's a far cry from the "acclaim" some people thought it had when there was only 23 reviews. That's what small sample sizes get you, skewed numbers and inaccurate information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Straw man? I respond to your points, sometimes to the point of quoting you. "When you have 44 reviews, if say 5 of them are from 1978 and the rest are from 2000, you cannot generalize critical opinion back to the 1978 release." Since when has "critical reception" ever been required to have "old reviews" in order to be considered so? And I've said this over and over: if one wants to look at the critical reception in depth (perhaps the history of it), then he or she can click on the article itself. Like the box office section doesn't talk about how each film did on their opening weekends, a critical reaction one wouldn't need to talk about how each film has been received over the years. The websites itself aren't favoring current reviews; they're just working with what they have. For instance, your Dark Knight Rises example: the film, at the time of that edit, did receive "critical acclaim," but as you admitted, "[c]ritical opinion of films DOES change with time." Those editors worked with what they had. And my bringing up of Spider-Man was merely to illustrate that the number of reviews can be placed beside the score since you pointed out there weren't enough reviews; a reader can look at the number of reviews and decide for him or herself about that issue and click on the link to further his or her interest in the subject. I never meant to compare the reception of both series. - Enter Movie (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You quote a specific point but miss the explanation that follows. That's using a straw man argument. If you look at the history of TDKR, you'll see that there was a regular battle about not using RT when such small figures are being used to create the percentage because it's not a large enough sample size to say that a film has any level of approval. We know that Halloween (any of them, from the original to the most recent ones) was reviewed by countless critics. When you can only find 40+ reviews to cite that is not enough to be able to attribute significance to any percentage of approval. My issue is that the approval ratings are based on all reviews collected, which is a combination of old and new. In most cases we're talking about a very small size (15 - 20 reviews for those middle films). I do not think that just because you can put "15 reviews" next to something means that we should be using. Again, just because it exists does not mean that it is appropriate for use. There is no actual information being presented. You CANNOT say that a film with 20 reviews has a 75% approval rating, because we don't know that for sure. If you have to say, "It's 75% of 15 people" then you're not really telling us anything as evidenced by the Dark Knight fiasco. That film never had critical acclaim. What it had were critics who had not uploaded their reviews yet. In the case of older films, it's less about critics uploading reviews and more about RT not having access to the older stuff because the internet was not being used for that at that time. Thus, the information you have is limited and not a real representation of the information it is trying to convey. Like I've said many times before, and I'm not going to drag this out any longer, if you're trying to show what the reception of a film is then you need to be accurate with it. You cannot lump things together simply because it gives you a pretty table to look at. Halloween III through VI contains half the reviews of any of the other films and thus do not give you even the remotish of information about their reception. Halloween I and II are so old that most of the reviews are from recent years, which would not be a probably if they were not lumped together with some older reviews. The reception for those films cannot be generalized to "it's lifespan" if most of the reviews are coming from a different era. It's very simple. If they were all from current years, then you could say this was the reception for current times. You cannot put 2 generations together and say this is the "overall reception" because that's completely wrong and it misinforming readers as to what those figures actually represent.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

1) Place a footnote atop or below the table indicating that most of the reviews aggregated by both sites are modern, and thus, may be leaned more towards them than reviews from the time of the films' release.

2) Put the number of reviews counted by each website beside their respective score, so that the reader is aware that such or such film has a little or a lot of reviews by their standards. (You saying 20 reviews is too small a sample size does not make it so.)

Obviously, we're not getting anywhere, and I don't want to drag it out as much as you, but my two suggestions I said before would resolve the issues you have with it. Every Halloween film article mentions the RT score, and it would service some people to see a comparison of such scores. - Enter Movie (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

1. A footnote trying to explain the situation with the reviews doesn't change the fact that they are not an accurate representation of the critical reception of the film.

2. Statistics say that you cannot generalize small sample sizes to larger interpretations, and 20 reviews is damn small and that's an opinion shared by many film page editors. Venture over to MOSFILMs and ask.

Personally, I don't think that your suggestions resolve issues, they simply ignore or mask the issues. That's not resolution. The fact that every film page has the scores, regardless of if the should, does not mean that we need to provide some "comparison table" for them to view them. It takes a grand total of 2 minutes to go through all the pages and see the scores. I'm not sure that readers come here just to compare scores anyway, but still. If people need a comparison, RT compares them for you: Here they all are.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I never denied that it wouldn't change anything; it'd merely explain the "issue" you have with it. How small or large the number of reviews RT and MetaCritic collects is is not up to you, me, "film page editors," or whatever MOSFILMs is. That's why you put the number of reviews next to the score, so that the reader can determine and analyze the information for him or herself. And I'm not saying that this article has to have a comparison table; in fact, you don't have to have a lot of things in the article, but then it wouldn't be what it is right now, would it? The article doesn't have to have a box office comparison chart specifically when one only has to go on BoxOfficeMojo and look up that info in less than 2 minutes, but it's there, nevertheless. You know why? Because it's convenient, services the people who want to know a comparison of the grosses, and improves the overall reading experience about the franchise, as opposed to your suggestion of a Halloween search on RT that provides scores of only 5 of the 10 films in the series. - Enter Movie (talk) 05:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the sample size IS important, and WE do care about it. Just because other film pages do not does not mean that we shouldn't care either. Per WP:MOSFILM#Critical reception regarding the use of RT and MC: " (Caution: reliable review statistics may not be available for older films. Appraise the sample size in conjunction with other reliable sources, using best judgment to determine consensus.)" - So yes, sample sizes are important and it's part of our guide for film articles. It's not about simply creating "convenience", it's about using accurate, reliable information. As for the link of all the films on RT, you needed to click the "more films" button at the bottom of the list. They're all there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we out the number of reviews beside the score just because other film pages do it, nor that it is unimportant. It makes sense because how small or large the sample size is is somewhat arbitrary. The readers appraise the information for themselves when they are aware of the number of reviews beside the score. Can they not do that or something? Oh, and yes, I see that all the Halloween scores are all listed there now, but it's not organized in an easy-to-read chronological manner. - Enter Movie (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, it comes down to the size not being a representative sample for detailing critical reception. It doesn't matter if some reader may or may not care about the number of reviews. This is about the integrity of the information we present, not about allowing a reader to "decide for themselves". If you disagree with that notion, you are free to request an amendment to the guideline that removes the statement that sample size is important.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Sir, you keep coming up with the argument that it's too small of a sample size to be representative, but then it all comes down to how small is "not enough?" Are you the one person that gets to decide this? Because I clearly do not see anything on MOSFILM that indicates a specific number of reviews must be collected in order for a film to have "enough" of a sample size. - Enter Movie (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to ask them for clarification. I'm pretty sure that 20 reviews IS too small, and IMO 40 reviews is as well but others may disagree with that specific one.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You going with your gut feeling and being "pretty sure" does not make it so. I personally have no problem with "enough," as I feel the readers can decide that for themselves when they see it next to the score, so I don't want to waste my time asking. - Enter Movie (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, since the guideline actually mentions that sample size is important, I think that we're at a crossroads here. Seeing as you think any number is fine, and I think that there should be more than 40 (bare minimum definitely more than 20), then it appears that someone should ask the MOS what a good figure would look like and get more opinions on the matter. Seeing as the guideline already states that there can be "too few", and you don't think that such a concept exists, maybe you should ask what "too few" actually looks like. I'm thinking that even if they say that 40 is ok, half the films won't qualify and thus you're only able to compare "some" of them, and that makes the table useless.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Your wish is my command. By the way, the below table is for reference of what it would look like, more or less, for anyone else reading about this debate.

Film	Rotten Tomatoes		Metacritic
	Overall	Top Critics
Halloween (1978)	94% (47 reviews)		85 (10 reviews)
Halloween II (1981)	29% (45 reviews)	20% (5 reviews)	44 (19 reviews)
Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982)	33% (15 reviews)
Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers (1988)	23% (22 reviews)		43 (5 reviews)
Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989)	14% (21 reviews)
Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers (1995)	7% (28 reviews)	0% (6 reviews)
Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998)	53% (55 reviews)	50% (10 reviews)	52 (20 reviews)
Halloween: Resurrection (2002)	11% (57 reviews)	13% (16 reviews)	19 (17 reviews)
Halloween (2007)	24% (109 reviews)	16% (19 reviews)	47 (18 reviews)
Halloween II (2009)	21% (70 reviews)	17% (12 reviews)	46 (15 reviews)
Average Ratings	30.9%	19.3%	48

- Enter Movie (talk) 04:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

UK Twitter controversy

The UK media has been in a lather over a threatening message on Twitter sent to Member of Parliament Stella Creasy.[5] It clearly shows Michael Myers, but where is it from? It is not from the original 1978 film (I have a copy of this) and appears in this 2010 blog post, so it is not the cyberbully himself, as some media coverage has claimed. At the last count there were ten films in the Halloween franchise, so I had to admit defeat. Can anyone give a source for this image?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Should the section about past plans for "Halloween 3D" be titled as "Future"?

There is a a section of this article about how in the past there were plans to make a film called "Halloween 3D." That section, even though it is entirely about past events of 2011 and 2012, is for some reason titled "Future" here in the later months of the year 2013. I have twice changed the name of this section to "Halloween 3D," since the section is about "Halloween 3D;" however, another editor named "Bignole" doesn't like my name for the section and keeps changing it to "Future." So, what does anyone else think? Would a section about how there were plans for a "Halloween 3D" film in the past be better titled as A) "Halloween 3D" or B) "Future"? - Racing for the Universe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Racing for the Universe (talk • contribs) 07:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The section is entitled "Future" because it is being used to catalog all future plans to make a sequel. It just so happens that most of those talk about a film that "may" have been titled "Halloween 3D". It was never official, so it is not appropriate to name the section that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the section is labeled "Future" but contains nothing but information about the past. Since we can agree that the section is about plans to make a sequel, but we disagree on whether those are past or future plans, I'll just change the heading to "Plans for another sequel" in order to remove the disputed time element. - Racing for the Universe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Racing for the Universe (talk • contribs) 20:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not "future" information, about the "future of the series". All films use the "future" tag on the franchise pages. We chronicle everything from a historical perspective, which means that all plans are "past" plans, unless they are currently making the film. If anything, all of the information probably needs to be archived for possible use later, because they clearly are not making any film anytime soon.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I see how this seems to be also used on other horror movie series pages. I can see by all your comments here that you've done a lot of work on this article, and I don't mean to disrespect the work that you've done, but can you see how that is confusing to a reader to see a bunch of information about "past plans to make a sequel that have been scrapped" under the heading "Future"? Racing for the Universe (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I can see how it can be confusing. At one time (like when Halloween II came out) it was accurate to how it was being reported. The reality is that nothing has come from all these "talks" since 2009, so when we say "future" and we only have information from years ago (or rumors from a few months ago that amount to nothing) it does sound confusing. It is meant to encompass all future possibilities for the franchise (not anyone one film, as it was never clear if they were going to do a sequel or start over again). Like I said before, it seems like we should remove it completely, because nothing has happened in all of these years. We can move it to the talk page as archive in case something does happen, and then bring it back as development information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Halloween (franchise). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090211201608/http://forum.newsarama.com:80/showthread.php?t=145520 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=145520

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Halloween (2018)

A draft for the upcoming film has been created. See Draft:Untitled Halloween film. DarkKnight2149 22:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Halloween (franchise). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.halloweenmovies.com/filmarchive/h1bts.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.halloweenmovies.com/filmarchive/h1bts.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509162614/http://www.theofficialjohncarpenter.com/pages/themusic/h3strk.html to http://www.theofficialjohncarpenter.com/pages/themusic/h3strk.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.halloweenmovies.com/filmarchive/h1bts.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080629024718/http://www.halloweenmovies.com/kellyorourke_lobby.html to http://www.halloweenmovies.com/kellyorourke_lobby.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080226022015/http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/6765 to http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/6765
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.halloweencomics.com/titles/sam.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Boilerplate "compared to high grossing horror franchises"

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Boilerplate "compared to high grossing horror franchises" jnestorius^(talk) 11:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Halloween (franchise). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120629171559/http://www.halloweenmovies.com/filmarchive/h2bts.htm to http://www.halloweenmovies.com/filmarchive/h2bts.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120906130444/http://www.halloweenmovies.com/filmarchive/h3bts.htm to http://www.halloweenmovies.com/filmarchive/h3bts.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130103001924/http://www.halloweenmovies.com/h9/zombierelease.html to http://www.halloweenmovies.com/h9/zombierelease.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130103080749/http://www.halloweenmovies.com/h9_lobby.html to http://www.halloweenmovies.com/h9_lobby.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120629171600/http://www.halloweenmovies.com/filmarchive/cast/ah.htm to http://www.halloweenmovies.com/filmarchive/cast/ah.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.halloweenmovies.com/filmarchive/h3soundtrack.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060102165258/http://www.theofficialjohncarpenter.com/pages/themovies/hw/hw.html to http://www.theofficialjohncarpenter.com/pages/themovies/hw/hw.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081109080843/http://www.monstersatplay.com/review/dvd/h/h25doc.php to http://www.monstersatplay.com/review/dvd/h/h25doc.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Halloween (franchise). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705202128/http://www.hitsquad.com/news/blog/the_halloween_soundtrack/ to http://www.hitsquad.com/news/blog/the_halloween_soundtrack/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.halloweenmovies.com/filmarchive/h3soundtrack.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Film table

I have made some alterations to the current film table-chart, so as to separate individual inputs. Dividing up the separate information allows for individual columns as will be shown below. The edit follows the layout which has been done on countless other film series' articles, and keeps the table from being bloated with multiple chunks of information in one cell (as it currently is formatted). A discussion regarding these edits has been ongoing on my talk page. I am bringing it here so as to properly go about making the changes once more on the article. My suggested format is as follows, though it can be tweeqed. The important part of the table is the column title/headers, and the row title/headers. Formatting within each cell can be adjusted later.

Films

Film	Release date	Director	Screenwriter(s)	Story by	Producers
Halloween	October 25, 1978 (1978-10-25)	John Carpenter	John Carpenter and Debra Hill		Debra Hill
Halloween II	October 30, 1981 (1981-10-30)	Rick Rosenthal			Debra Hill and John Carpenter
Halloween III: Season of the Witch	October 2, 1982 (1982-10-02)	Tommy Lee Wallace
Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers	October 21, 1988 (1988-10-21)	Dwight H. Little	Alan B. McElroy	Alan B. McElroy, Danny Lipsius, Larry Rattner & Benjamin Ruffner and John Carpenter, Debra Hill & Dennis Etchison	Paul Freeman
Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers	October 13, 1989 (1989-10-13)	Dominique Othenin-Girard	Michael Jacobs & Dominique Othenin-Girard and Shem Bitterman		Ramsey Thomas and Rick Nathanson
Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers	September 29, 1995 (1995-09-29)	Joe Chappelle	Daniel Farrands		Paul Freeman
Halloween: H20 - Twenty Years Later	August 5, 1998 (1998-08-05)	Steve Miner	Robert Zappia & Matt Greenberg	Robert Zappia
Halloween: Resurrection	July 12, 2002 (2002-07-12)	Rick Rosenthal	Larry Brand & Sean Hood	Larry Brand
Halloween	October 19, 2018 (2018-10-19)	David Gordon Green	Jeff Fradley, Danny McBride & David Gordon Green		Malek Akkad, Jason Blum and Bill Block
Remake series
Halloween	August 31, 2007 (2007-08-31)	Rob Zombie			Malek Akkad, Andy Gould and Rob Zombie
Halloween II	August 28, 2009 (2009-08-28)

My intention in separating the remake films from the rest of the list is that the movies were made specifically as a remake/re-imagining of the original characters/story. So that the average reader can distinguish this, that is why I separated them from the other films. Furthermore, unless the reader was a fan of the franchise, they wouldn't know this. Alternatively, a small, second table could be created with a section dubbed Remakes, as an indentation from the Films section (with my second example).

Films

<- Information regarding the original series and its table would be here. It would also explain that the franchise's continuity has always been non-existent (thus avoiding any argument that these tables are fanbased/continuity-based), but that the 2018 film is a direct sequel to the first film. ->

Film	Release date	Director	Screenwriter(s)	Story by	Producers
Halloween	October 25, 1978 (1978-10-25)	John Carpenter	John Carpenter and Debra Hill		Debra Hill
Halloween II	October 30, 1981 (1981-10-30)	Rick Rosenthal			Debra Hill and John Carpenter
Halloween III: Season of the Witch	October 2, 1982 (1982-10-02)	Tommy Lee Wallace
Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers	October 21, 1988 (1988-10-21)	Dwight H. Little	Alan B. McElroy	Alan B. McElroy, Danny Lipsius, Larry Rattner & Benjamin Ruffner and John Carpenter, Debra Hill & Dennis Etchison	Paul Freeman
Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers	October 13, 1989 (1989-10-13)	Dominique Othenin-Girard	Michael Jacobs & Dominique Othenin-Girard and Shem Bitterman		Ramsey Thomas and Rick Nathanson
Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers	September 29, 1995 (1995-09-29)	Joe Chappelle	Daniel Farrands		Paul Freeman
Halloween: H20 - Twenty Years Later	August 5, 1998 (1998-08-05)	Steve Miner	Robert Zappia & Matt Greenberg	Robert Zappia
Halloween: Resurrection	July 12, 2002 (2002-07-12)	Rick Rosenthal	Larry Brand & Sean Hood	Larry Brand
Halloween	October 19, 2018 (2018-10-19)	David Gordon Green	Jeff Fradley, Danny McBride & David Gordon Green		Malek Akkad, Jason Blum and Bill Block

Halloween (1978)

<- info regarding film ->

Halloween II (1981)

<- info regarding film ->

Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982)

<- info regarding film ->

Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers (1988)

<- info regarding film ->

Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Meyers (1989)

<- info regarding film ->

Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers (1995)

<- info regarding film ->

Halloween: H20 - Twenty Years Later (1998)

<- info regarding film ->

Halloween: Resurrection (2002)

<- info regarding film ->

Halloween (2018)

<- info regarding film ->

Remakes

Film	Release date	Director	Writer	Producers
Halloween	August 31, 2007 (2007-08-31)	Rob Zombie		Malek Akkad, Andy Gould and Rob Zombie
Halloween II	August 28, 2009 (2009-08-28)

Halloween (2007)

<- info regarding film ->

Halloween II (2009)

<- info regarding film ->

Again, my intentions are to improve the layout of the page. As-is it is incomplete. It doesn't have sub-sections for each individual film within the Films section. To complete the page I suggest starting with altering the film table-chart layout. The original editor who made the original film table didn't like my contributions and has requested I bring this information to the talk-page. Per WP:BOLD in a matter of time, I will once again add my edits - with the additional information/sections on the article regarding each film.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Why is there a section for everything on this page? We don't need the literal sectioning here (please add the code to hide sections, as it currently looks like in the TOC that there are several different discussions going on). First, we don't have subsections for every film because you aren't supposed to add subsections for short, single paragraph information. We're talking about film plots here which are likely 3 or 4 sentences of information. Per the MOS, that doesn't justify splitting.

With regard to your "restructuring", new films should not supersede placement of other films simply because of continuity. The current table, although one could possibly add a story by column (not sure I would, because most of the films don't have a separate credit for that), is set up to be objective (not subjective, by isolating out films of a different continuity). Readers aren't going to get confused by the fact that the remakes are listed there anymore than they are when they see "Halloween" with three different entries, one set separately and 2 that are not. That's why we have prose underneath them, so that they can read the article where it explains what is going on. Remember, Wikipedia is written from a real world perspective, that means we cover things as they come out, historically. We don't retcon film plots because later films change them, and we don't rearrange the films to meet continuity.

It's also best practice not to span roles of individuals. Yes, I'm aware that many of these tables are not set up to be sortable, but that doesn't mean that they cannot be or that they shouldn't. If a reader wanted to quickly look at who has written more films, or directed them, etc. then they should be able to do that. When you start spanning across rows and columns you inhibit the ability to do that. It affects accessibility.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bignole: - why did I know that you would be the first editor to comment...? haha. Your debates regarding why we don't have sections for each film discussing possible sections of plot, but mostly production information - doesn't really make sense. The article is about the franchise. Portions of the franchise are each individual film. These should each have a section. Sub-sections are meant to be small and so one or two short paragraphs are fine, and allow for explanatory information for the Halloween non-fanboy reader. This would eliminate the issue I have described with creating two separate film tables --- though similar form has been used on the James Bond in film page. Again - I am not pushing for some change regarding this issues simply based on continuity. I am pushing for the change as they are two separate film series. Lastly, the rowspaning keeps a table from appearing to be an information overload. Besides that, each individual member contributor should be acknowledged for what they did (i.e.: Story writing vs screenwriting can be two separate jobs).--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

You wouldn't put a section for every film and then treat everything individually on this page. This is a franchise page, thus any "production" related information should be very general and focused more on the overall franchise (ala Friday the 13th (franchise)). Each film has its own page, so we shouldn't simply be recreating that here. Again, you suggestion of subsections was under the film plot section, and they wouldn't be getting "2 or 3 paragraphs of information". Part of the MOS for sectioning also says not to over section things. They have chosen to write the Bond page very differently from most franchise pages, probably because there are 25 films and it's a lot of information to cover.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Haddonfield High School (Halloween) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Haddonfield High School (Halloween). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Halloween Ends

There is no policy or guideline dictating that Halloween Ends cannot be added to the table. Concerning films that have not gone into production, WP:NFF concerns only the creation of articles based on the films; that is, the article can exist in the draftspace until the film begins filming, after which it can be moved to the mainspace. Nor is there anything in WP:CRYSTAL stating we cannot add this film. CRYSTAL concerns: "unverifiable speculation or presumptions" / "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable" (The confirmation of the film is well sourced); "Wikipedia does not predict the future" / "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories" (Nothing is being predicted here, it is again well sourced, and not a theory or speculation but a confirmed event); "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." (This film is reliably sourced as a confirmed production as a sequel to an already-released film.) -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The film does not exist. It's merely stated that they want to make it. If you wouldn't create an article for it, why would you put it in a table for films that exist? You adding it to the table implies that not only does it exist, but that it will happen. Neither of which is true. We don't know that it will ever be created. You can look at the countless "future" sections on many franchise pages and film pages that detail films that were "going to happen" that never did. They won't put into tables for existing films though. That table is there to provide a quick reference of CURRENT films. That is not a current film. It hasn't even started production, has no script, has nothing but an idea and a release date that is reserved.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

"If you wouldn't create an article for it, why would you put it in a table for films that exist?" That's what you personally believe the table to be for. Get a consensus for it. Can you cite a policy or guideline for that? Halloween Kills doesn't exist either. If it does, can you tell me where to watch it now? No? What exists is the production of it. Not the movie itself. We have multiple sources stating that it is confirmed to happen, so yes, "it will happen" is valid and correct. Automatically assuming that it won't is a clear violation of CRYSTAL. You have nothing to back that up, and are going against multiple reliable sources. "You can look at the countless "future" sections on many franchise pages" - do you mean List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films#Phase Four and List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films#In development? Look at those tables for future movies that are confirmed and haven't started filming yet. Identical situation. Clear consensus for it. If you have a reliable source that states that Halloween Ends is a "[film] that [is] "going to happen" that never [will]", then please, provide a source supporting that. Until then, you need to gain a consensus to base the contents of this page upon what you personally think may happen over what is reliably sourced will happen. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

You have people saying it will happen and that makes it so? Tell that to the countless Friday the 13th sequels that were "happening"...stll are apparently...yet don't exist. Tell that to Halloween 3D that never happened was "going to happen". Even production doesn't guarantee release, but at least they've started something by that point. You're the one who is arguing that the table should be used for something that it has NEVER been used for before. We went through this with the first Halloween sequel McBride created. The only thing the sources say is that they plan to film it after "Halloween Kills"...Untill that happens, you don't have a film, you don't have production, you have NOTHING. Which is why NOTHING should be on the table. I'm not violating anything by removing a film that DOES NOT EXIST from a table about films that exist (at least in a production state...which historically, we aren't included either, but I'm not picking that fight).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it's better to wait until more concrete details about the film emerge and there is more certainty that it's happening. WP:CRYSTALBALL. Popcornduff (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this discussion regarding the table for the films in general or for the Box office section? El Millo (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

At the moment, it's about the overview table of the films that are out. The Box office table has typically not been too much of an issue because the film needs to be released to be relevant for that table. This is about whether we should be adding a film that hasn't been put into production to a table of films that are either released or at least being filmed currently.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps Halloween Ends should be added, but I would suggest adding a "Status" column as well clarifying that Kills is filming and Ends is in development. That's what's been done at the List of MCU films' Future section. El Millo (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Exactly what was done before. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen that there. To me, that was part of their tables of specifically about future films, not a table about their current films. We don't have a future film table, because at best we're talking about one film at a time, not half a dozen films planned over the next couple of years. That would be why I wouldn't subscribe that, because again it implies the films are happening when we cannot say that for sure. the MCU table isn't implying that a film will happen, or already exists, only to help you know what was planned. It's a difference in the intention of the table to me.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Continuing on your last reply to me... Are there reliable sources stating that the Friday the 13th sequels and Halloween 3D are no longer continuing on? Yes? Easy. Are there reliable sources stating that Halloween Ends is not continuing? No. There are reliable sources confirming that the film will happen. You are violating CRYSTAL by automatically assuming that it does not and will not/will never exist. You say "Even production doesn't guarantee release", but are happy with Halloween Kills being included. Double standards much? Halloween Kills doesn't exist. I asked you, if it does, can you tell me where to watch it now? You can't? Doesn't exist. Then you say "from a table about films that exist" - that's what you need to gain a consensus for. There's already suggestions here to expand the table with a status column, another editor that was already implemented that you continued to edit war against.

It's not a bold edit when multiple people have added the table. It's edit-warring when you're the only person who has removed the content eight times this month. It's irrelevant how experienced you are - face up to your actions.

@Popcornduff: What part of CRYSTAL? Please don't cite a guideline then not cite the parts of it. I've already covered its most important parts in my first post here, pointing out how it doesn't violate it. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Um,F13...no. Because they keep saying they're making a film. Halloween 3D...well duh, because McBride's film took that over. The point was that Halloween 3D was claimed to be "happening" until it wasn't.

Ironically, you keep harrasing me about "edit warring", but you're the one that changed a page during an active discussion. You're the one with 3 reverts inside of 24 hours (technically inside of 12 hours). Me removing a film that doesn't exist 7 times in a month is NOT edit warring. I'm not sure you understand what that term means considering how callously you keep throwing it around.

With regard to the suggested changed that was brought up, I'll point you to my rebuttle which is basically that the table is for current films, not planned films. That's what it's in front of the CURRENT films and not in front of FUTURE films. It's the reason there is a table in front of the BOX OFFICE section. They are connected to their topics. That's how tables work. I don't need to "get a consensus" for how the table works, because that's been the consensus for how the tables work. You're the one trying to change how they operate and using a baseless argument for it.

I also don't think you understand how "CRYSTAL" works. You cannot "violate Crystal by assuming it won't exist". I don't think you understand how that works. Crystal is a policy that states there are NO guarantees and one should not report on future events unless they are certain to take place. There are WAAAAY more examples of films "scheduled for release" that were never filmed and ultimately never made than what you are trying to claim. THat's why WP:NFF states: "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." Now, that's specifically about creating an article. My argument is, if we aren't even able to create an article, why the hell would we put a proposed sequel (that hasn't started filming and that we know absolutely ZERO about) into a table for films that exist (and at least are being actively filmed)? We shouldn't. We should wait until they actually start filming it, because at this time, the only difference between "Halloween Kills" and "Halloween 3D" is the fact that they have different titles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Does the next Friday the 13th film have a confirmed release date? No? Even easier situation! And we have reliable sources stating that Halloween 3D isn't happening. Good. Why would we add it to the table if we know it's not happening? Is it confirmed that Halloween Ends isn't happening? No. Is it confirmed that Halloween Ends is happening? Yes. Great! Sources ahoy.

You've removed the film eight times this month, and you are the only editor doing so, against multiple editors adding it. I said edit-warring, not 3RR. You can violate EW without violating 3RR, and doing so over the span of a month typically indicates some sort of knowledge of what you're doing.

And again, you say that "the table is for current films". That is, again, what you need to gain a consensus for. You say "that's been the consensus for how the tables work", and still, you're not able to back that up with anything but your own word. You have absolutely no support for it, essay, guideline, policy, discussion/RFC or editor-wise. That's your personal opinion on what it should be for. Now back it up with something solid and quotable, then we can discuss it further. What I can provide are examples of articles that support the addition of future films: John Wick#Films, Kingsman (franchise)#Films, DC Extended Universe#Future, MonsterVerse#Films, The Conjuring Universe#Films, Jurassic Park#Film series, The Matrix (franchise)#Films, The Lego Movie (franchise)#Spin-off films, The Purge#Films, The Fast and the Furious#Films. Halloween Ends currently has no box office statistics, hence its exclusion from that table. What it does have, however, is a confirmed release date and full crew, all reliable sourced, hence its inclusion in the films table. Cite this apparent consensus to me. I'll wait.

I've already quoted CRYSTAL and connected it to points as to how it does not violate it. You don't seem to be able to do the same. At this point in time, Halloween Ends is certain to take place. You have nothing backing it up that it is not certain. If it does evolve into a film that will end up as ""scheduled for release" that were never filmed and ultimately never made", then reliable sources will report that the film is delayed and it can be removed. Until then, we use our reliable sources. NFF is for the creation of articles, not the addition of table rows - unless you can cite the table rows section to me? No? It does say, however, "information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material" - that's exactly what we're doing here. The information is presented in tabular and prose format, until the draft for the film is moved to the mainspace once filming commences. "for films that exist" - you keep saying that. "at least are being actively filmed" - where does this "at least" come from? Who said it? No citable consensus again. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I cannot tell if you truly don't understand what you're saying, if you're being intentionally deceptive. You keep saying you're showing how CRYSTAL isn't violated, but don't seem to understand how it works. You seem to miss the point that I said "Halloween 3D" is an example of them saying it was coming, they had a date, and then they decided to turn it into McBride's "Halloween". With regard to F13, it's had dates of release before. We've removed them because they would come and go with no actual film. Release dates are just reservations. They DO NOT mean a film will be released. You don't seem to get that. Hell, Wonder Woman 1984 has had 3 different release dates, and that film is basically done. Just because other pages have done something does not mean that they should be doing that. The Matrix shouldn't be listing an "untitled film" that is nothing more than a discussion right now. It should be in their future section. I could never understand why people feel the need to jump the gun and start adding films to things that don't exist. We're not a news organization, we're an encyclopedia.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

"Halloween 3D" did indeed have a date and all. It even had an article. But once the film was reliably sourced to no longer be existing, we removed the article and took note that it was no longer occurring. Can you cite an example of a Friday the 13th film having a date scheduled, and the date coming and going without any sources stating that it's no longer being released? Is there an example where we removed a date solely because it had come and gone with no further comment towards the film? I see all of these examples and all of these apparent consensus, but no actual evidence of them. As for Wonder Woman 1984, it did indeed have three different release dates, and all of them are noted in the article, and all of them where noted in the DCEU article's film table individually when they were each the most recent release date announced.

Please do not link WP:OTHER without reading and knowing its true intention; OTHER concerns the existence and deletion of articles based on the existence and deletion of other articles, not the content of articles. Please read it. Per WP:Some stuff exists for a reason, an almost identical essay: "This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else." You're an experienced editor, you should know when and when not to use OTHER.

So, yes, I know exactly what I'm saying, but all we're doing here is back-and-forth. There's clearly never going to be any agreement. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You keep misrepresenting the spirt of the law as the letter of the law. The spirit of OTHER is that pointing to the fact that some other pages are doing something does NOT mean that it should be done. Many pages on Wikipedia do not follow guidelines or policies, but because we cannot police them all they continue to exist. If you look at the summary of "OTHER": "This page in a nutshell: A rationale used in discussions is that other, similar pages or contents exist and have precedential value. The rationale may be valid in some contexts but not in others: Other stuff sometimes exists according to consensus or Policies and guidelines, sometimes in violation of them." --- You'll notice that it says "similar pages or CONTENTS exists". Content is what I'm referring to, in this case a table on other pages.

As for Halloween 3D, it did not have an active page. It had a page that frequently created and then redirected back to the Halloween franchise page or the Halloween II page (ultimately). It wasn't an active page that was being used for readers, because it failed WP:NFF. You're trying to create a straw man argument to justify your actions. Even the Wonder Woman point you tried to misconstrue and say "they're still there". You missed the point. The point was release dates change. WW was an example of a release date changing multiple times. Nothing more.

This boils down to a simple understanding of 2 things. CRYSTAL/NFF and how the table within a Film Overview section is intended to work. CRYSTAL/NFF do primarily focus on creating over articles. To me, if a film fails to meet the NFF, then placing it in a position on a page as if it is guaranteed to exist is inappropriate. There are no guarantees in film, and there is no guarantee that this film will be made. You only have a proposed released date, 2 years in the future. Nothing more. Thus, we should not be including a film that has not started production on a table of films that are released or at least being currently filmed. The message to readers is that it's guaranteed to happen, and this is NOT true.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bignole: if your concern is that readers will think that it's guaranteed to happen or that the certainty of its existence is on par with that of the other films, don't you think that "Status" column mentioned above would be enough? That would clarify which films have already been released, which one is filming and which one is in development. As Alex21 said, there are many examples of this in other franchises' articles. El Millo (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree. A "Status" column should resolve any argument against it's inclusion.Rcarter555 (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I can appreciation you trying to find a compromise, but to me the compromise is placing undue weight on a film that doesn't exist. Your proposal is to create a column, whose sole existence is to account for a single film on the table. None of the other films need that column, because they are either released, or currently in production and going to the Halloween Kills film page tells you that. The entire point of a new column only benefits on entry, and that entry is a film that doesn't exist. Anywhere else, this thing would barely justify a single sentence acknowledgement (low and behold....that's exactly what it gets at Halloween Kills). Yet, for some reason there a desire to include it on a table filled with existing films. That makes no logical sense to me. Why should be place that level of importance on a film PROPOSED to be released 2 years from now?

Again, other pages doing this does not mean that they should. Sadly, most media related pages are governed by fans of said media, who allow their own biases to dictate how pages should be run. If you look at Alex's examples, you'll see that most of those are also tables of films in a "future" section, not a current section. Marvel's list is a list of phase 4 films, all of which don't exist. Thus a table cataloging them all and having a "status" can make sense when the purpose of the table is listing proposed filmed (not mixing proposed films with actual films that exist). The same was true for the DC example and Fast and the Furious, who break them off to a "future" section. The MonsterVerse isn't an example of anything, because King Kong vs. Godzilla is in post. The other examples, I would actually point out, shouldn't exist either. They include films that were literally just announced. You're putting the cart before the horse.

Here's a simple question: Why is it important to put it on the table, instead of waiting until at least production starts? If there's no rush, and no film is guaranteed release....why it is important to include a film that doesn't exist in any form (not one piece of celluloid created) on a table with other films that do?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Since the purpose of this talk page is to get consensus, the better question might be does anyone in this conversation besides yourself think the Status column should NOT be included, thus allowing the inclusion of films in development? I've seen no one beside yourself on that side of the argument.Rcarter555 (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. A consensus is clear here, and Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity, especially when only one editor disagrees. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

No. OTHER is about the existence of articles. It's not so much as the spirit of the law as you misrepresenting it to what you feel it should apply to. It even says: "This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else." Literally what you're doing right here. So, no, your link to OTHER is invalid, as is your argument for it. Please try with another guideline or policy; I'll wait.

The page for Halloween 3D existed between 24 June 2013‎ and 4 February 2014‎. That was an active article, I recommend you look at the history. Even with the Wonder Woman point you tried to bend to your own usage but failed, it doesn't matter it if was changed. When it was, the dates were updated in the DCEU's future films table, and the new date was added to the article. Every time. If the same thing happens with Halloween Ends, then the same thing will happen here. If a reliable source states that Wonder Woman is to be permanently taken off the slate, and not released, then we'll update that as well. Again: If the same thing happens with Halloween Ends, then the same thing will happen here.

CRYSTAL does not apply here, as cited, and NFF is about the creation of articles for future films, and hence does not apply to a table that only you believe should exist only for existing films. You even said that: "To me, [...]". "You only have a proposed released date [...] Nothing more". Incorrect, again. There is a proposed date and a full crew assigned to the film. "The message to readers is that it's guaranteed to happen": at the moment, yes, reliable sources state that it will happen. Are we meant to present it as if it will never happen? Do you have a reliable source that supports that? No? Easy.

Towards your second reply... Again with the "to me"... "whose sole existence is to account for a single film on the table" - two rows, get it right. "you'll see that most of those are also tables of films in a "future" section, not a current section" - okay, so you have no issue with future films being listed in a separate future films table. This is further supported by "Thus a table cataloging them all and having a "status" can make sense when the purpose of the table is listing proposed filmed". So, you would have no argument if they were included in a separate table? The separate MCU and DCEU future films tables both comprise of films that only have a crew and a date attached to them, nothing else. This situation is clearly identical. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Should I link Haddonfield to the actual town in NJ

Haddonfield is an actual town in NJ and it would give extra context I guess Wikipedia Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew T Coleman (talk • contribs) 16:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

No. Aside from having the same name, it has nothing in common with the fictional town of Haddonfield, Illinois. Rcarter555 (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Rcarter is correct.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It is actually based off the real town so yeahAndrew T Coleman (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't taken place in the real Haddonfield, New Jersey.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)