Talk:Hotel Artemis

Production section

Sure, it could use a rewrite but I adamantly disagree with stripping out the sourced content, as it leaves all the cast unsourced. This’ll also make the film fail notability guidelines without sourcing. Rusted AutoParts 22:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read why the RFC was updated in the first place. The production section should not be used to source the cast listing. If you want to do that add the sources to the cast section, however to include a listing of when every cast member came abooard is not the purpose of the production section. Per the guidelines "Add detail about how the actors were found and what creative choices were made during casting, only including the casting date (month and year is normally sufficient) where it is notably relevant to the overall production history." --Deathawk (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathawk: Not sure if it came up in the discussion about this but it’s a bit harder to detail casting and creative choices for films starting up production. Most of that comes later down the line or if the film achieves significant cultural status ala Star Wars or Marvel or Jaws where that kind of info comes up when celebrating their anniversaries. The production history should detail the Productions history, and that should when actors are added to the cast. Especially when it’s a lesser anticipated film that doesn’t have much coverage outside of when ones cast or when it starts filming. Rusted AutoParts 23:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If anything I feel this showcases the potential flaws in that new wording. When it says to try that’s to entail if it’s feasible to word a production section without it coming off as just listing off announcements. And ultimately try isn’t a definitive word where it’s mandatory. Rusted AutoParts 23:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing that is mandatory about listing casting news in Wikipedia, in fact the MOS states that it's explicitly not the correct forum to do that. This was done after a 30 day RFC and vote that you were invited to, by my recollection you did not show up and this concern was not voiced. If there are important points to be made about the casting process the MOS actually does actually prescribe a way to do this stating ". Add detail about how the actors were found and what creative choices were made during casting". --Deathawk (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t recollect receiving a message about the RFC. And I guess my main qualm was the outright elimination of the sources. They could be moved to the actors listing in the cast list. Rusted AutoParts 23:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked back through my talk page and I did get messages by you about the RFC. I was doing a bit of work in the Deaths section of the site so I must’ve missed it or forgot to respond to it. Rusted AutoParts 23:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) The invite is on your talk page here. The link does not work correctly since the discussion has since been archived. I don't think I sent you one for the final RFC though, because you did not participate in the first one and I did not want to spam you with requests for a discussion that you didn't want to be in. If you want to move the sources to the cast section, be my guess. I don't think it's necessary to get GA status (as the cast at a certain point becomes "Common knowledge" or at least is sourced to the film) but I don't really hang around those parts of Wikipedia. Regardless a messy production section should not hang around merely because it has sources that could be seen as valuable, the info is archived and if you wanted to you can go in and re purpose the sources. --Deathawk (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BRD

After a lengthy month long debate which took place in a variety of places, I decided to redo the production section. I guess you could call it a "compromise" as it includes materials that I had previously deleted although mostly in error. The debate kinda got side tracked over said mistakes, which is why I'm writing this "BRD" When I specifically asked about if it was ok to remove the casting timetables I got a "yes" everytime except from Rusted Auto Parts, which, to me shows that there is a small consensus for said removal.

I readded them. You’re still removing a lot of necessary sources. Rusted AutoParts 04:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are the sources that are necessary? The only thing I could think of that would warrant keeping would be sources for the casting which film articles don't need unless they're are a lot of changes. (Similar to the plot sections these would be "sourced" to the film itself.)

Regardless, though, there are better ways of keeping the sources, without restoring redundant production sections. A lot of editors, for instance, include the cast source next to the actor's name in the "cast" section. That seems like the solution here. Deathawk (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that’s how you feel it should be done, go ahead. Just don’t toss the sources out altogether. Rusted AutoParts 03:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the casting is common knowledge I would say that if you want to keep the sources the onus should be on you to make the change and not me. I currently have rocky internet so I am unable too, otherwise I would do it as a sign of good faith Deathawk (talk) 04:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you just went ahead and threw the sources out again anyway. Cool. Rusted AutoParts 05:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathawk: so your Internet is too rocky to move the sources to the cast section but not rocky enough to strip them off the article altogether? Is it selective connectivity in favour of your preferred version? Rusted AutoParts 05:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:The issue is that the cast is common knowledge, therefore external sources are not required. You obviously want to keep them and I have no problem with that. The issue is that moving the sources around requires a computer mouse, which I don't have access to at the moment. It is also a lot of work, for something that is largely unnecessary, which is why I said the onus belongs with you. Deathawk (talk) 05:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was your irritation with the casting news being in the production section, it’s your burden, but what’s done is done. And I too am not with mouse or computer. I moved them with my phone. And it may be common knowledge but it still needs to be sourced. Rusted AutoParts 05:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of this being an issue prior to working on this article, and I suspect both of our views our somewhat tainted based on the drama surrounding this article. I'm going off of what I see in practice, which is that most well developed film articles don't have sources on an individual basis for casts. Deathawk (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The film is out, those links in the Cast list are no longer necessary, redundant, useless cruft. The film itself serves as the source of the cast list and character names. Unless someone is going to use those sources to write a prose Casting section they should be deleted already. (Before the film was released links were justifiable to avoid it being unsourced speculation but the film is out that need is gone and those links should be too.) -- 109.76.255.192 (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why they’re in the cast section is because they weren’t wanted in the production section. Feel free to create a casting section, you’re perfectly able to. Rusted AutoParts 14:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is within the WP:MOSFILM guidelines to remove references for the Cast list after the film has been released. The references don't matter by themselves. They are only needed before release to stop editors from making speculation and crystal ball predictions. After the film has been released it is entirely different and it is up to Rusted AutoParts to show those references are still necessary, and to put them to use elsewhere in the article. Deathhawk can take start a discussion on the project film page and get plenty of others who will say the same. (On a fundamental level some sources are only used to WP:VERIFY and other sources are used to show information is WP:NOTABLE. Cast list references are the former and no longer needed after a film is released. Production section sources might be notable and be worth keeping.)

If you're going to argue on a Talk page about saving references or avoiding deletions, it is always a good idea to link the edit removing references to make it easier for others to look more closely at those changes, and easier to save and reuse those references, and potentially restore some of that information.

The casting information presented under the Production clearly section had its own problems. It was ugly to lump three citations within a single reference. The text of Production section was poor, although the casting of Foster seemed significant to getting the film made, the very terse mention of the rest of the cast made their casting seem so mundane and unimportant as to make it non-notable. Perhaps by digging further into those sources the article could be improved to say something notable about the casting process but as it stood I understand the urge to make the easy deletion instead of attempting the more difficult task of trying to improve the casting discussion into something worthwhile. -- 109.77.248.175 (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Country

The infobox lists the country for this film as United States but The-Numbers.com says it is (Production Countries:) United Kingdom , so which is it? -- 109.77.248.175 (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The main production company The Ink Factory seems to be based in the UK. -- 109.77.248.175 (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article now lists both United States and United Kingdom but no sources for either. It isn't clear why the United States was added without proper sourcing. -- 109.76.149.62 (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Easter Egg

Near the end of the film, when Bautista's character turns on the signage lights, there is a label on the switch that reads "COVFEFE", in the Cyrillic alphabet, i.e. КОВФЕФЕ. This is likely a reference to an infamous tweet by Donald Trump. Is this worth mentioning in the article as an easter egg? Njbartlett (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Easter egg, so I don't think there's any way you can find an excuse to mention it. It's a small detail but one reviewer at least spotted the joke. -- 109.76.149.62 (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring Production section

I saw that @Rusted AutoParts: boldly restored the production section without really adding any new arguments as to why this deserves to be this way. We had previously agreed to a compromise whereas the production section would remain clean and the cast list would contain the references. Rusted Auto claims that this was revoked because it was important to compile this information, and other film articles do this, however many of us are in agreement that these other film articles are in fact poorly written and, in fact, in need of cleaning up. I have restored the compromised version. If you have any new insight as to why this desperately needs reverting then feel free to make the argument. But lets not drag this argument back out again --Deathawk (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the old discussion was from before the film was released. After a film is released the cast list doesn't need references. Post release the edit seemed appropriate to me, because the Cast list is not disputed and the references aren't needed there but in the Casting section the references serve to support the chronology of casting and other minor casting details. (Also when bots make dumb attempts to fix missing references it is frequently a better idea to just revert.) Rusted Auto Parts can explain his thinking but I thought it was a reasonable edit. -- 109.76.239.128 (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]