Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)/November 2021 Draft RFC

RFC: Rewrite Guideline on Future Films

{{rfc|policy|media}}

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

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

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

Option 2

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

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

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

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

Option 3

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

Survey

• Oppose

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

  This is a re-statement of the GNG, and if met, it means the future film's principal photography itself is notable. And linking to the essay Wikipedia:Trivial mentions provides no clarity of what a trivial mention is and creates a circular referencing, which is worse than useless. Ridiculous. Who is suggesting this? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I have re-written Option 3 at Wikipedia:Notability (films)/November 2021 Draft RFC#Option 3. More eyes and polishing is required. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

• Move this page to Wikipedia:Notability (films)/Draft RFC October 2021. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  Proposal options text is at Wikipedia:Notability (films)/November 2021 Draft RFC.

  Discuss the options and their text here at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)/November 2021 Draft RFC

  -- SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)