Talk:Prequel/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Planet of the Apes (TV series)

I hesitate to mention this, but ... umm ... shouldn't the TV series also be removed from the list ? There's plenty to indicate that it's set in an alternate timeline to the movies (the presence of dogs, talking humans) and although it's been a long time since I watched it, I don't recall anything in the TV show which refers to the events in the original film. Barry Wom (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The TV series is set in 3085, while the movie was in 3978. So conceivably humans in that time could still speak. The continuity of other details is sloppy, but not too much of a stretch. Barsoomian (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Today we would probably call the TV series a reboot. I haven't seen it in a long while either, but I don't recall it referring to the 1968 film. The only thing it could have done is have its new astronaut characters refer to the missing Taylor's earlier mission. If they did, that would make it a sequel, regardless of what time the new astronauts arrived in.

Note the TV series entry on the Cross-media table has the wrong year - 1973 instead of 1974. I would fix it myself, but if I do anything, it would be to take it out. Gothicfilm (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course it refer to the 1968 film. (Hint: The title is the same.) They took care to state it was 900 years before the movie was set, so it was arguably intended to be in the same world. Barsoomian (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It refers to the original film by having the same title ? That's a bit weak. Your argument for the inclusion of Escape, Conquest and Rise is that not only are they set in an earlier time frame but they explicitly refer to the events of the original film. By your own admission, Battle doesn't count as a prequel because it is clear that the timeline has been altered. To repeat: there are no references in the TV series to the events of the original film. And there are many signifiers in the TV series which indicate that it is not set in the same timeline. Barry Wom (talk) 06:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. It most likely should be classified as a reboot, or possibly a sequel. I'm taking it off, at least for now. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Death Proof (2007) and Planet Terror (2007)

Both films were made and originally released together as Grindhouse (film). A prequel is made after the original work. And neither films' articles calls Death Proof a prequel. I'm taking it off. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; they were released as segments of the same film—The Gold Watch isn't a prequel to Pulp Fiction, after all. GRAPPLE X 00:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it shouldn't be on the list. But "Planet Terror" does take place after "Death Proof". Jungle Julia (the radio presenter) gets killed in Death Proof, and in Planet Terror on a car radio you hear a radio presenter talking about Jungle Julia's death. The cop from Planet Terror actually gets killed in From Dusk Till Dawn, but is alive in this film and Kill Bill. So if anything Kill Bill and Planet Terror/Death Proof are prequels to From Dusk Till Dawn because of the cop getting killed in that film. I'm not saying it should be put on the list, but it all all of Tarantino's films and some of the more recent Rodreiguiz films are supposed to be in the share the same 'universe'. Charlr6 (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand Spaceballs is also a prequel to Planet of the Apes. :D Not in RS though. Good call. JJB 16:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Apes source analysis

Here's an attempt to put a lot of data in one place, as to Escape, Conquest, Battle.

• Filmsite.org by AMC. Escape a "sequel and prequel", implying the others are also.
• Tor.com by Macmillan Publishing. Conquest a "prequel".
• Huffington Post, 2006. Battle a "prequel". (NEW)
• Yahoo interview with Daryl Gregory, POTA comic artist, 2011. His comics are a "new prequel" implying the prior films are also prequels. (NEW)
• Slotkin's book: "prequels" implying all 3; previously in article
• Also found but not really reliable: Youtube, IMDB, Amazon, Angelfire, Wikipedia itself.

Definitions:

• Filmsite.org: "the second or third film in a series of films that presents characters and/or events that are chronologically set before the time frame of the original movie". (NEW)
• Reference.com: "a literary, dramatic, or filmic work that prefigures a later work, as by portraying the same characters at a younger age"
• OED: "a book, film, etc., narrating events which precede those of an already existing work"
• MW: "a work (as a novel or a play) whose story precedes that of an earlier work"
• Numerous other sources establish the timeline to apply to the definitions; numerous other sources establishing that less-well-grounded movies are prequels.

Hmm. When mediating I try to look at matters as generously as possible for each side. To advocate for Gothic's side, I would first need to admit the weakness that there are zero sources for that side. So, admitting that, I review Gothic's latest statements for policy: the arguments given include prior consensus, tiny-minority status, previous partial compromises, argument from silence, errors in sources, and a promise to recontest the issue; I must, second, admit these arguments do not persuade me (WP:CCC e.g.). So third I ask: What would it take for Gothic's side to prevail and true consensus to be established on this page that these POTA films should not be included? It wouldn't be enough simply to say no significant sources have arisen, because if enough of them were found Gothic would be compelled to yield sooner or later. My answer is that Gothic would prevail only if we find a rough source consensus that "time-travel movies cannot be prequels", or that "sequels cannot be prequels", or that "prequels must lead up to prior work without inconsistency or time-travel", or that another such conclusion is true as Gothic has been asserting all along. But we have not found any such and have sometimes found the opposite.

I also found Barsoomian's sources to be more reliable than I anticipated.

I also added Castle Roogna in gray, which is a standard time-travel novel that reveals character backstories (and which might suggest from analogy that the Apes movies are all kosher). I don't know that anyone noticed that detail, but the fact that most of the entries here are both unsourced and unsorted suggests that undue weight is possibly being put on POTA prevention here.

Betty has basically built from policy and may conclude from the new sources above that this is not a "tiny minority" (or flat-earth view); it is easy to name (a couple) prominent adherents. This is not a <5% matter and, in fact, the articles using "sequel" or "reboot" do not contradict the possibility of being a "prequel", one reason being that a prequel is a sequel. If this is acceptable, it would be gracious if Betty made the first overture to enfold some of these sources into a table that includes the extra POTA films.

The question is why Gothic keeps asserting these three are not prequels when no reliable source says "they are not prequels" and several reliable sources say "they are prequels". At some point the burden of proof shifts, usually after multiple witnesses have testified. If the above is believed insufficient, it is hard for me right now to see an out that will protect Gothic from the charge of tendentious editing. We would also do well to refresh our memory by skimming that essay. Thank you for your consideration. JJB 08:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The question is why are you expecting me to prove a negative? Why are you starting yet another thread on this down here? It gives the effect of making it look like it's just me disputing Barsoomian, when he's the one who's alone in his position. All the other users who commented here and formed consensus against calling these films prequels have now been separated out.

Why are you doing this? I thought you're supposed to be the Dispute Resolution guy, and instead it appears you're drawing this out further... I see you closed the Prequel discussion at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Yet here we continue. It now appears you want to advocate for Barsoomian, override consensus and declare the last three of the original Planet of the Apes series films to be "prequels". He found a tiny number of sources that use that word, and - despite having it pointed out by Betty Logan that People who don't believe it is a prequel are hardly likely to describe it as "not a prequel", they are much more likely to describe it as something else, you want me to find sources that describe Apes films like Escape from the Planet of the Apes as "not a prequel". You want me to prove a negative. That's seems unreasonable to me. The fact that only a tiny number of sources have called Escape a prequel ought to be enough. WP:WEIGHT says Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.

As I explained in the extended conversations above at Talk:Prequel#Planet of the Apes series has no prequels and the following Talk:Prequel#RfC: Planet of the Apes prequels, I agreed with describing Rise in the article as a reboot film that a large but minority of sources imprecisely called a prequel. But I don't believe that's accurate for the original Planet of the Apes series sequels. I have read a great deal about them over the years, including looking back at contemporaneous articles. They were always called sequels, all four of them. Each film has characters moving forward in their own timeline from the previous film, and they discuss what happened in that preceding film. The narrative as well as the characters of those films continue forward in their own story in each one, even as they go back in time. For the three primary Apes characters, the events of the third film occur after the original narrative. Not before.

To again quote Betty Logan: In the case of the 70s sequels, there really isn't that much out there calling them prequels, just the odd source here and there, and for the most part they are usually regarded as sequels, so the question is whether there is enough opinion out there to warrant the claim that there is a significant view they are prequels? I generally think there isn't if I have to call it.

Again, consensus both here and at WT:FILM is firmly against listing any of the original Planet of the Apes series sequels as prequels. They were against including Rise as well, but I compromised and went along with listing it in gray shading because it's a reboot that a large but minority of sources imprecisely called a prequel. You may be able to find a small number of sources that have called some of the original sequel films prequels, but not enough to be notable. A very tiny number compared to those that called Rise a prequel. Usually when consensus is reached, it's done and we move on. It seems to me this dispute should be over. - Gothicfilm (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Gothic, thank you for your concise response, as I know it must be tough to deal with the difficulties I expressed. A couple big-picture points might help outline the position before we review the policy arguments.

• First, you recognize that DRN is a volunteer board; editors each have their own approach to resolution. On Talk:Prequel I have no authority but am just another editor, who is making an extra effort to see both sides of the question and to find incremental routes to agreement.
• DRN procedure, when not resolved quickly, is to ensure ongoing resolution exists. I closed the page because ongoing resolution attempts are occurring here, as I said there in the closing reason. There is nothing administrative about closing DRN threads, anyone can do it.
• Policy is that consensus can change, especially when new sources are added, which is why I had said I'd return to the topic after a source analysis. Sad to say, the results of source analysis pointed strongly in only one direction.
• The tiny-minority principle applies, as you hinted, to topics like Flat Earth. Articles that say "sequel" mostly are not considering the prequel question, so have no weight on either side. So there is no 95% bloc considering the question and voting no.
• If I wanted to advocate for a side, I'd step down and announce my decision to be partisan, and edit accordingly. Instead I have edited where it appears a compromise might be achievable; and a partial one was. You are the judge of where I may be biased.
• While comparisons are odious, it could be said that all three films have three sources now, taken from the above, while almost any other entry in this article currently has zero sources, a much tinier minority. The strong focus on a very high bar for one franchise is odd.

Now, given that background, it seems you've repeated five arguments I alluded to above as not yet convincing me, "prior consensus, tiny-minority status, previous partial compromises, argument from silence, errors in sources", and you have not said anything new in those arguments (though I grant the big-picture points are new). The answers from policy and logic are, in order, (1) WP:CCC. (2) If one believes current sourcing is "tiny", one would be compelled to agree that some theoretical number of sources would be "enough" and consider negotiating a compromise; yet you did not note my three new sources. "Work with me." What would constitute "enough" sources? (3) Partial compromise is evidence of good faith but does not mean no more compromise is needed when a dispute remains. (5) (taking "errors in sources" out of order:) Wikipedia does not get to judge that a source is in error without other reliable sources directly contradicting it. By Betty's consensus definition, a prequel is a sequel, so when a source says it's a sequel they cannot be used to say it's not a prequel. (4) So we need sources that have considered the question and rejected it. We have a form of one: from Silverblatt saying "leads up", Betty infers fairly that discontinuity may annul prequels in some POVs. The article now says so. So it's possible to find such sources.

All the same, please make sure you've read about tendentious editing. I much prefer when editors recognize and refactor their own behavior than when it seems to need being pointed out categorically.

One way forward might be to agree further on specific usage text. Below is some language that I thought editors technically agreed with, but that Betty replaced with clearer language about Star Trek to prevent contention: slightly edited.

The latter two three installments are sometimes called "prequels" as satisfying the definition of "prequel" in one way, but they are also sequels defined both broadly (as later installments) and narrowly (as continuation of the previously established storyline). .... Consistency with the dictionary definition and legitimacy of the back-story is often disputable such as if the reboot's narrative does not occur in the same continuity.

References

Did you agree previously that the three satisfy the definition of "prequel" in one way? And did you agree that dictionary consistency and backstory legitimacy was disputed? And do you agree with the article's current statement, that some reviewers' requirement is that a prequel must lead up to the beginning of its original work? Do you agree that Star Trek is a representative case for "time-travel films referred to as prequels but also with a more complex narrative"? Do you agree (on which you have been silent) that Castle Roogna is in the same class, considered a prequel by some but carrying a more complex narrative, and is appropriately grayed out as such? Option 1: If there is a problem (as yet unstated) with these views, we can analyze it as a test case (i.e., without invoking Apes directly). Option 2: But if you agree with all this, then we can (as above) seek more sources for the view that time-travel films do not lead up to their originals or are not prequels, or (maybe better) the view that the three movies do not lead up to the first two but to an undisclosed future. That just occurred to me. If the nub is that "these are not prequels because they imply a different future than the first two movies", we source that, as B has already sourced the view that they do not imply this but instead close a narrative circle that is perhaps paradoxical under some time-travel theories. My first search for support of this view was unfruitful as to RS, although I discovered an unnerving red herring described as "a prequel for an upcoming novel". Ugh (already dealt with by usage graf 1)!

Anyway, under either option, we have a path that will get us out of the rut. Let me know. JJB 17:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Random break

I don't have time to do essays on this. Especially when a lot of these "reliable sources" are making sloppy use of the word Prequel. I'll say I do not agree a prequel is a sequel, except in the most expansive sense, which is how Betty meant that. Elsewhere she mentioned that its definition is the opposite of sequel - it depends which one you use. I prefer the more specific one.

I've been told repeatedly that WP:Concensus rules at WP. Yet you go into WP:CCC - even though there's no sign of consensus changing anywhere. Only Barsoomian is trying to change it, with the help of you as his new advocate. If Barsoomian refuses to accept consensus, that doesn't mean this should continue. Not every one can be happy with consensus or every DR.

Why did you change the title of this section again? Planet of the Apes source analysis - dispute cont'd made it much more clear, but you changed it back to Apes source analysis, which is vague and not to the point. Only someone spending more time looking at the Table of Contents, etc. than they should need to would figure out how the discussion is moving around. It looks to me like you want to hide what you're doing here from those who contributed to the earlier consensus. Making them spend more time just trying to figure out how the discussion has traveled around before they can comment. I have a problem with that.

I believe one of the reasons for using consensus at WP is so disputes can be brought to an end. It is not reasonable to expect me to go on and on with this. I do have other things to do with my day. Consensus has been achieved. This should be over. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

@ jbb re: "these are not prequels because they imply a different future than the first two movies" -- This "circular timeline" question is discussed in the last batch of references I gave. It's debatable, but certainly many, including Paul Dehn, the writer of the films, say that all the stories are in the same timeline, that the events in the "prequels" actually created the world seen in APES 1. (See above, "(Conquest) would be the last so I fitted it together so that it fitted in with the beginning of APES 1, so that the wheel had come full circle", and the two published timelines.) You can certainly pick the story apart, but every film has continuity errors, logical gaffes, self contradictions; fiction can't be held to the standards of documentary. The basic storyline is clear. Whether this is the "majority" viewpoint is indeterminable. That it is a significant viewpoint expressed by reliable sources is not, and thus must be included in the list, as they are quite significant early examples of the "prequel" in movies. Gothic's sources amount to: absolutely none. His argument amounts to "I can get my friends to support me, so I don't need sources, I don't need to verify my beliefs, I will ignore any source that I don't like. So I win and you can go home." Thus his unease with the subheading "Apes source analysis" -- he doesn't want to analyse any sources, and has none of his own. This all is a gross violation of Wikipedia:Editing policy. Barsoomian (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Another blatantly false charge from Barsoomian. I am really tired of dealing with this guy. Where's my "gross violation of Wikipedia:Editing policy"? How would using Planet of the Apes source analysis - dispute cont'd, which is much more clear, over Apes source analysis, show anything more than my desire for clarity? So people can try to follow this discussion you've taken up and down the page. This demonstrates how hollow and ridiculous this guy can get.

And again, screenwriter Paul Dehn never called any of his scripts or films prequels, nor did he mean that they were. A time travel story with the same characters going back in time is not a prequel. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

On the general question of time travel precluding a work from being a prequel, I noticed an entry in the table "Etheria (2005) / Encantadia (May–December 2005)". This is a Filipino TV series. The "story plot of Etheria starts with the four elemental Sang'gres (Pirena, Amihan, Alena and Danaya) and Ybarro going back in time when Etheria was in its full glory". A naive Google search finds 222000 hits calling it a prequel. Seems to negate the "time travel means not a prequel" rule Gothic promulgates, I think. Barsoomian (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

re: "A time travel story with the same characters going back in time is not a prequel", no, but it doesn't prevent it being one. Being a "prequel" requires it to "form part of a back-story to the preceding work", as our article says.

"I am really tired of dealing with this guy." Well, if you hadn't kept slagging me off a week after I'd walked away, you wouldn't be. You kept addressing a strawman with my name here, and I was tired of you misrepresenting me. Barsoomian (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• (ec, glad to see you both here) Why did you change the title of this section again? provide a backstory to the previus work. As my edit summary said, I changed the title to make it easy to link from the previous talk section, where I posted a note to continue in this section. (I also don't personally like overformatted long titles.) There are several ways to organize long discussions, this is one. If you have a problem with your perception that I might want to hide something, please feel free to invoke dispute resolution yourself, which might work better.
• The editors involved are only myself, Betty, you and Barsoomian. The three of you have each made healthy adjustments in your position. I have also not pressed for my insertions, deciding Betty's were roughly equivalent or better. The other WikiProject editors have declined to join us. That is all evidence of how consensus changes: people are persuaded to make adjustments and grow. Rule by consensus is a living organism; it is not rule by referral to stale consensus.
• I believe there are ways everyone can be at least content. If we were to cast this as "G thinks it wrong to be in the table and B thinks it wrong not to be in the table", we'd have a yes-no situation without solution, and (at least) one party would always be left in the lurch. Therefore let's try it another way: e.g., go back to the usage section for another draft. Betty, let me ask if you can forbear for a moment and allow me to boldly go with a couple sentences more on Apes to see what Gothicfilm thinks of them. If consensus has been achieved that they are accurate, then there should be no problem inserting them. (Also, Betty, if you can comment on the questions about proposed text above and the resolution path, I'm sure it would be helpful.) JJB 04:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
• To Barsoomian, (1) I understand your sources, but I have an interesting view on "linear" vs. "circular" time-travel fiction that I will explain some other time. (2) I'm sure you know to comment on the content, not the person. (3) I also mentioned Castle Roogna in gray, which does much the same thing; but comparisons are still odious. (4) I'm more interested on your thoughts about the text I just added, which seemed not to be controversial when I proposed it previously. JJB 04:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Since you've invented the grey background to indicate works that aren't simple prequels, that should count as a middle ground, allowing the inclusion of such works along with some discussion in their footnotes.

re: "odious" comparisons? These are examples of usage, since we're talking about the definition of a word, and usage determines that.

re: Added text on the Apes series: "as satisfying the definition of "prequel" in one way, but they are also sequels" -- I ask why you have "but" -- why not "and"? The "but" implies a conflict between the concepts. The analysis at Sequel, for instance, includes prequel as a specific kind of prequel. Non-time travel works, such as The Godfather Part II also can easily be put under both labels. More generally, non-linear storytelling, such as the "flashback", gives backstory to an earlier part of the narrative, as a prequel does, but in the same work. A "prequel" has to refer to a different work, the "original" in the table. Whether the change of setting is accomplished by time travel isn't the issue. Barsoomian (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem or preference with but/and. I also neglected the intended target the second time I said "comparisons are odious": the problem with arguing from e.g. Etheria (feel free to gray that) is that even if it's accepted and if Apes is exactly the same in one person's eyes, it is not an advance until another person agrees with the consequences of admitting it as the same, viz., compromising. There seems to be a particular attention to Apes unlike any of these other (unsourced, alleged) prequels that is not manifesting. If Gothic felt that the nub was, literally, "A time travel story with the same characters going back in time is not a prequel", I would anticipate Gothic to delete Roogna and Etheria. Since this has been ignored, it suggests there is something specific to Apes; more experimentation might reveal it. JJB 05:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't grey "Etheria". I've never heard of it, but there seems a huge number of references calling it a prequel (I can footnote that if you insist) and to grey it in deference to the "time travel rule" that Gothic made up is premature, to say the least. I mentioned it not as an WP:OTHERCRAP argument, but because there are WP:RS that "Etheria" and Castle Roogna are commonly called prequels, arguing that the "time travel rule" has no force in the real world. I don't expect him to concede that just because it's documented, of course. Barsoomian (talk) 05:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on what you said, I figured acceptable sources would be easy to find in favor of my interpretation that it should be grayed (i.e. in deference to the fact that disagreement exists and the definition currently in the article for "gray media" is fulfilled). But back on point, I'd like to know whether Gothic thinks it true that Apes films have been "described as a reboot, remake, or sequel, but have also been regarded as prequels in a broad sense of the word." I thought Gothic thought so; but if so, why not put them in the table with the gray notation that indicates that?! JJB 05:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

As long is it's being greyed on the basis of "disagreement" from sourced commentary, not application of "no time travel", that's okay. I'm really not interested in studying up on that show, (and believe it or not, I don't give a crap about the Apes pre/sequels either, saw them on TV 30 years ago and no desire to do so again) so I'll take your word for it. Gothic's position on Rise was and still is that it is not a prequel at all. That's what he kept insisting here when he deleted my sourced references multiple times. He's kept busy deleting any mentions elsewhere. He only conceded here because there were people to enforce Wikipedia:Editing policy. Barsoomian (talk) 06:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"The other WikiProject editors have declined to join us. That is all evidence of how consensus changes: people are persuaded to make adjustments and grow."

So the absence of input implies a change of opinion ?

I've voiced my support for Gothicfilm's stance on several occasions now. He's correct in stating that this should have been settled by now. To date not one other editor has voiced any support for the opposing view.

And some of the citations provided are a bit desperate. A throwaway line in a Huffington Post review, written by a writer on Real Time with Bill Maher ? Please. Barry Wom (talk) 07:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it should have been settled when after being reverted and challenged I provided sources to support the edit. I'm sorry that you think the writer of the film explaining the story isn't relevant. Please, provide better countervailing sources. Please, explain how the definition does not apply. Please, argue on some other basis than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Barsoomian (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother repeating the counterarguments yet again. It's clear that you're going to continue to stomp your feet until consensus is ignored. Barry Wom (talk) 08:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I provide sources, you complain that's "stomping your feet". Clever counterargument. Barsoomian (talk) 09:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You have refused to listen to valid criticism of said sources. Feet stomping. Barry Wom (talk) 09:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Cut out the insulting characterisations. Cite your valid criticisms. (I hope you don't mean "This reviewer appears on HBO, so we should ignore him", which is all I've heard so far.) Provide some sources of your own that counter the ones you disparage. How can there be any dispute about whether a film set in the past of another film is a prequel? The question answer itself. Only a foot stomper could deny it. Barsoomian (talk) 10:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have a suggestion which may break the deadlock. Maybe this debate can be re-formulated: new text has been added to the prose describing the Ape films as prequels; now, even though I don't personally support their addition to table, by the same token I think it is absurd that if we have prose describing them as prequels in the introduction they are omitted from the table; readers are going to read that and wonder why they are not there. This debate has pretty much reached an impasse so perhaps we can shift it into the realm of WP:DUE i.e. if the inclusion of the prose in the introduction is considered to meet WP:DUE then we keep the prose and add the films to the table, if not we remove the prose and the films don't go into the table. So I suggest we take this edit over to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and get a ruling on it, and stand by the outcome either way. Betty Logan (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me if WP:NPOV is the criterion. Barsoomian (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Betty! Please let them know: the RFC technically remains open; the primary question is whether the original POV balance, prequel-or-not, is being handled neutrally; and that question would also affect the hot button of table entry. The reason for inserting the prose was to see if editors agree with it as being an accurate description, because as you say it naturally indicates an inclusionism position; it just makes our collective rationale for inclusion explicit. I thought Gothic agreed with that language, which is why I didn't understand why there was no relenting on the table there, as you have otherwise indicated comfort with.

Barry, thanks for returning, I don't think we've interacted much if at all. I came here from WP:DRN. I was primarily thinking of an editor who moved on after giving two cents, but whether or not the moving on is announced, it is true that WP:SILENT acceptance is (until noted otherwise) a change of opinion, from prior activity to present inactivity. I would also hope you repeat your own arguments for my benefit so as not to be thought silent now. As to RS, I understand there are generally looser requirements when it comes to in-universe analysis, and HuffPo is like 85 and a half on Alexa; generally, panning individual sources breaks down when there are many of them. However, the RS that are needed to affirm Gothic's position are those that say things like "prequels must lead up to their original works with sufficient continuity" (we have a source, Silverblatt, that says almost that but without the italics, but even so a little OR is still needed to close the circuit); or "a time-travel narrative is not a prequel" or "sequel and prequel are mutually exclusive"; or, of course, "Escape is not a prequel". No such sources have arisen (hmm), but quite a number of direct and indirect sources have arisen for inclusion.

Anyway, Gothic is admitting plurality of sources as to Rise and the question is moving on to whether the other three (which sat unmolested in the table for 3 months) are acceptable given that their best sources generally date from before widespread use of the word "prequel". Several arguments from analogy could be made. I think WP:NPOVN is a good step forward; it often yields a clear ruling. JJB 18:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the new inserting of the original 1970s Planet of the Apes series films as prequels in the "Usage" section - Betty Logan and I both agreed this should come out. She's the one who first put it in, and as she said, its principle is better covered by the bit on Star Trek. In fact, she made it clear on this Talk page when she put in the Star Trek text it was intended to replace the text on the Apes films. So why are you putting it back in? That gives too much WP:UNDUE weight to this.

You now want to discount the earlier consensus, and start all over again to override the previously established consensus from a week and a half ago. This is the new way to override consensus? Unless everyone comes back to comment again in a new section a week later, consensus is declared "stale" and overcome by the only guy who was against it and the DR guy who has now become his advocate? Though I note Barry Wom has come over here to comment on how you are ignoring consensus. Others have been discouraged from commenting here because of the way you keep shifting the conversation around. At least one from WT:FILM said he didn't know where to go in this morass. It started at Talk:Prequel#Planet of the Apes series has no prequels, then the following Talk:Prequel#RfC: Planet of the Apes prequels, but has since moved up and down the page in a manner one would have to spend a good deal of time to untangle. My attempt to make it more clear by using the section header Planet of the Apes source analysis - dispute cont'd, which is much more clear, over Apes source analysis was rejected, with a sarcastic comment I should take it to DR. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• I put it in to see if you agree with it or not. Since you are saying it's undue, it appears you agree that "its principle", like the same principle vis-a-vis Star Trek, is correct. So I don't understand why we don't have the forbidden Planet in the table.
• WP:BOLD is not overriding consensus, it's attempting other versions to see what happens. Nobody has reverted nor objected to the sources. If the issue is weight, why, adding the movies to the table instead would perhaps say the same thing with less weight, and would give more weight to your view because of the graying.
• Consensus does not override policy. I am still weighing the consensus argument against the policy argument. If there is a consensus to interpret policy as indicating undue weight, then that at least ensures the consensus argument builds on policy, and we can move on to whatever the sources indicate would be due weight. And yes, when people sit out of a long active discussion for a week or two, their input becomes stale.
• Sorry you thought I was sarcastic. If you have a problem with me, you should use a DR option, even though I came from another DR option. I think based on Betty's advice I'll try one now and go to WP:NPOVN. JJB 01:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Betty Logan replaced Apes with Star Trek in part in response to my unhappiness with the former. They are not equivalent. This was made clear on the talk page at the time. You keep wanting me to repeat or contest the same points over and over again, and if I don't you say it no longer counts, and you can go do what you want. Your claim WP:BOLD is not overriding consensus, it's attempting other versions to see what happens is spurious at best. Consensus was clearly against calling those Apes films prequels. It doesn't matter if you come up with another version of doing the same thing. You think it would fly if people came in on other pages with that, ignoring consensus by using BOLD? We're supposed to get a new consensus to counter every new version you try in your determination to have your way - against the previously established consensus? - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You can't deny 1) the definition being satisfied (the actual definition, not your definition) and 2) the sources that verify that, so you just repeat "I don't believe it". You could get away with that when there were no sources and cast the issue as simply a matter of opinion, but as more and more sources have been cited, you can't just blow them off the way you did my original arguments, when I naively believed that simple logic would prevail. Barsoomian (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Gothicfilm, hoping to invite you back into the discussion, I note that your concern about ignoring consensus by using BRD is legitimate; sometimes people think "I brought a new logical argument therefore I should bold again", which is often OR. However, the present case is different, because essentially each bold has occurred only after new sourcing was brought forward, not just rehashed argument; with new sources, bolding is often indicated.

Now, certainly Apes and Star Trek are not equivalent in storyline, nor in the likelihood of "prequel" appearing in their context. But the equivalence stated in the article is that time-travel plot is "much more complex than that of a typical prequel" and that some sources call the event a prequel. You accept Star Trek as a gray entry but not Apes, and the only distinction you make seems to be Apes doesn't have enough sources; but there are several more sources for each Apes movie than for Star Trek. You have then redoubled the logical argument by adding that these are a tiny minority, viz., that every "sequel" source should count as a "not prequel" source, though without sourcing this "should".

Now let's imagine that such a "should" source arises that says "sequels are never prequels". Even if one or two such sources appear, it doesn't convert all of the "sequel" sources into "not prequel" votes, since none of them considered the question of whether "sequels" are never prequels. In fact, every source that has considered the question, as far as I can see, has ruled that calling it a "sequel" is not mutually exclusive with calling it a prequel. So even if your sources arose it would not support a reading of a "sequel" source as a vast-majority opinion. This suggests another possible bold change that you might like; please take a look at Special:Contributions/John J. Bulten and let me know. JJB 18:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Now we're back up in this section? It keeps going up and down the page, and on to four other pages as well. Bringing in more sources making imprecise, sloppy use of the word prequel does not justify overriding consensus. See below, near the bottom of the page. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I try both to follow threads and to ensure everyone stays in the conversation, and this might've been the wrong section. However, the use of additional sources is to reevaluate consensus, not necessarily override it, and I trust you are reevaluating every time a new source appears. Yes, I will move my focus to the next section. JJB 05:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

OED discussion

Dictionary definitions are not sources. Now you're JJB is putting in things that are not backed up at all by the source he lists in his last edit. The Oxford English Dictionary does not list these films as prequels, yet he's using it as a ref? Betty Logan and I agreed The Godfather Part II as described in the "History" section was not backed up by a good source, and should be removed shortly if no one found one. You do not know what the first known use in film was for prequel, and you have no source for that. Just because a source speculates on it does not make it an encyclopedic fact. And you listed Thunderbirds (2004) as a prequel to Thunderbirds Are Go (1966), again using the dictionary as a ref. The former is a new version or reboot of the 1960s TV show, it was not made to be a prequel to the latter, the first film adaptation of the TV show, which acted as a longer episode of the show. - Gothicfilm (talk) 08:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Dictionaries are reliable sources for definitions. Better than the thin air you source your definitions from. And stop rewording other people and claiming they agree with you. They can speak for themselves. As for Thunderbirds, I never listed it anywhere. Why the hell are you putting that on me? It's mentioned in a quote in the OED, that's all. Presumably they marketed it as a "prequel". When the filmmakers call a film a "prequel" you have to take note, no matter what you think. (I wouldn't have called it a "prequel" myself.) The prose about "Godfather II" being called a prequel in its press pack was unsourced, and was marked . No idea why you bring that up, I didn't put it there to begin with either. It appears JJB has found a source, so it's moot. You really seem to be just throwing mud at random. Barsoomian (talk) 09:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should look at the list - Thunderbirds (2004) is now on it. And JJB seemed to credit you for the info in his last edit, so maybe you should take those complaints up with him. - Gothicfilm (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm taking it up with you. You're the one blaming me for things I had nothing to do with. "you listed Thunderbirds (2004) as a prequel" -- a careless mistake, or a bald faced lie. None of this crap has anything to do with the topic of this section either. Not everything in the article is related to "Planet of the Apes". Barsoomian (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I added "Thunderbirds" and the "Godfather II" link. In the first, there was a severe continuity problem, but I don't argue with the OED when they believe quoting a filmmaker is a valid demonstration of a shade of meaning of "prequel"; this is a great test-case for the graying functionality. (Interesting that it's the very shade of meaning we are wondering whether there's a source for!) The OED quotes were, yes, properly brought to Talk by Barsoomian, but there is nothing blameworthy about that. I have no doubt that the 2006 inserter of "Virgin Film" as a source for the "Godfather" quotes was in good faith. Also, in WP, "first known" is generally used as shorthand for "first sourced by us editors" because no other source has turned up to contradict it; but if you have better language go ahead. JJB 14:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The OED cites the Thunderbirds simply as an example of usage. It's not part of the definition, much less a classification of the film. But I think we can trust the OED to report a quote faithfully. It would be better to cite the actual quote rather than just the OED as source, so I'll modify it. Otherwise, there are numerous other sources for the Thunderbirds film being called a "prequel". Anyone who saw it would find that unlikely, but that's what it was promoted as. Here's a review in The Telegraph "By creating a prequel to the old series, with a new story about the coming-of-age of the youngest Thunderbirds character..." So there you are. You might imagine it set 5 years before the TV series if you wanted to rationalise it. Now it's sourced and we can just leave it in the grey area and move on. Barsoomian (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the Telegraph clarifies it, and switching from tertiary source to secondary while still saying where you got it is a hands-down improvement. JJB 16:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Now what

We've all said our peace (now 5 of us) on the NPOVN board and it is clear that nobody wants to take on our collective wall (8 screens) of text. There is a backlog of 3 weeks. I have also added Barsoomian's latest source for Conquest. Just to reopen the brainstorming session here's some options that might resonate with someone.

• Keep everything as is. Benefit: Apes is listed in text and there is apparent closure. Deficit: It might be considered in the same category as Batman, though the sources seem to treat it differently; and the closure might be agreed to only with hard feelings.
• Group the 3 movies. One WT:FILM commenter took the POV that Escape by itself is not a prequel but the threesome is. So we could list the three on the same line(s) with commas or create a Planet of the Apes trilogy link to treat them differently from the other entries. Benefit: Retains a difference from the others in addition to the graying. Deficit: It might be OR to group the three unless sources indicate there is a natural division there (time setting does not an automatic trilogy make); where would we link to?
• Add a graf to the end of the table. This could be a move of the current two sentences. Benefit: Gets them in the listing rather like a second table would have. Deficit: As it stands we'd kind of need to explain to the reader why they're in a footnote rather than the table, "These are not listed because ...", and I don't know what sourceable reason we could give: all reasons so far supplied that could finish that sentence have been unsourced except for the slightly-OR argument from Silverblatt.
• List all 3 straight as per last insertion attempt. Benefit: Sources are upheld. Deficit: Requires backing down from the POV that "not prequels" is a vast-majority testimony.
• Move venue again. There are several topic and template pages where this same battle has been fought (it's just centralized here), starting with POTA itself; another board might work too. Benefit: Perhaps opening it up at one of those would bring in fresh POVs. Deficit: Easy to get lost and to tempt some to accuse others, and may do the opposite of improving or advancing the discussion.
• Talk more. Benefit: Someone might make an advance or further compromise. B might find a way to otherwise respect the sources, or G might find a way to allow them more weight. Deficit: More walls of text (by which I mean most of us here).

I think while NPOVN stalls, "talk more" is the default or least worst. JJB 16:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Now there are good sources for all four films, I am less than ever inclined to accept that they should not be simply listed in the table. Grey if you like. But of course Gothic and his troop won't allow that. As for other venues, any film or POTA venue will be just the same crowd and exactly the same argument rerun. The only hope for change are third parties who don't care about film franchises, just what the definitions and sources say. People like that seem hard to find. NPOVN is dead. Issues are posted, no one responds, they're auto-archived.

"Talk more here"? Pointless. Gothic nailed his standard to the mast at the beginning and won't even look at anything that contradicts his belief. His buddies back him up. Barsoomian (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"One WT:FILM commenter took the POV that Escape by itself is not a prequel but the threesome is." -- that's pure WP:OR. From the quotes I gave from the screenwriter, they were written one by one. There was an intent to link them back to POTA, but they filled it in as they went.

"that "not prequels" is a vast-majority testimony"???? Not one WP:RS.

I proved the case. Cited. That should be it. Barsoomian (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Those are not good sources. As Barry Wom said well above, Some of the citations provided are a bit desperate. You have refused to listen to valid criticism of said sources. They are making sloppy use of the word prequel. You may be able to find a small number of sources that have imprecisely called some of the original sequel films prequels, but not enough to be notable. A very tiny number compared to those that called Rise a prequel. You are giving WP:UNDUE weight to bad information that's greatly outnumbered by sources that only called the 1970s films "sequels". - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This discussion should be brought to an end. Going over to yet more pages has very little chance of being useful. People are tired of this. It looks like the intent here is to wear down everyone who formed the consensus against this with endless discussion. As Barry Wom said to Barsoomian: I'm not going to bother repeating the counterarguments yet again. It's clear that you're going to continue to stomp your feet until consensus is ignored. He only put it that way because of this demand to keep repeating the same arguments. Bringing in more sources making imprecise, sloppy use of the word prequel does not justify overriding consensus. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Barry Wom is not a WP:RS There are now several cited sources, you don't agree with them, putting your own personal opinion above that of any published reviewer. You provide no countervailing sources, you just blow them off. Prior to 1979, no film review ever called a film a prequel -- disagree? -- cite one. So the "outnumbered" argument is bogus. It's also bogus because prequels are sequels anyway, as also cited. There is no contradiction. Not stating a fact is not equivalent to denying it. It's absurd to count all the sources that don't say something and say they contradict it. There are no sources saying they are not prequels. You give "undue weight" not to a "tiny number" of sources, but to non-existent ones. Barsoomian (talk) 04:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

While B's reply stands on its own, my interest is in the questions I asked at your talk just before you replied on this page. Simple question: Is Rise directly contradictory to Planet or Beneath, or is it possible the references to Icarus are harmonizable? Anything is possible in-universe; perhaps Rise really is set in the same imaginary 1970s that the unnamed spacecraft in Planet set out from (viewers only assumed it was the imaginary 2010s rather than a different timeline?); or perhaps the unnamed spacecraft in Planet need not be the Icarus in Rise. Not having seen them, I would think this should be a softball. Now, important question: In your view, is it accurate to say that the 3 films "have been primarily described as [sequels] in a vast majority of sources, but have also been regarded as prequels in the broad sense by reliable sources", or else what do you object to in that statement? Maybe you agree but you don't think that's enough for table inclusion. Maybe you believe that every one of the sources is unreliable per se (Sunday Herald, HuffPo, a dedicated POTA book, a POTA creator interview, and three dedicated film review sites), in which case we have another trek, to RSN this time? Or should "sources" be in the singular? Or maybe the sources are merely unreliable on the single point of using the word "prequel", in which case the burden is on you to demonstrate their unreliability with another source? That last is not proving a negative: surely there should be someone out there who agrees "sequel and prequel are mutually exclusive" or the like! Is there some third alternative other than framing a discussion that can achieve closure (such as RSN) or dropping it entirely?

We don't get to judge the 70s movies by comparing them with Rise. If you mean there's a tiny number of sources compared to Rise, that is not what WP:DUE is about. Ever since the Jimboquote of 2003, tiny minority has meant compared to those who have considered the question and stated otherwise. Is there a source that has considered the question and stated otherwise, besides the inference Betty made from Silverblatt, which is really not enough to hang a hat on? That sounds like the question currently buried under a 3-week backlog at NPOVN. (Note also, "we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." I trust you recognize the difference between your POV and the POV in B's reliable sources.) I appreciate your staying with the discussion, because sooner or later reasonable people find a way to frame the question to ensure the concerns of all parties are communicated clearly and dealt with. JJB 05:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Anything is possible in-universe is a very weak argument, and hardly worthy of justifying putting info in an encyclopedia. Obviously the people at WT:FILM don't agree with you. And why do you now want to change phrasing we earlier agreed on? Readers don't know what you mean by reliable sources. That's a term we use on Talk pages. It seems to give them authority they don't have. Leave it as Works with darker gray background shading have been primarily described as a reboot, remake, or sequel, but have also been regarded as prequels in a broad sense of the word. That works fine, and doesn't make it sound like reliable sources are calling these films prequels, and they're more reliable than the "vast majority of sources". - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, based on your answers, I don't know if Rise is continuous with Planet or not; and you confirm your objection is to calling the sources reliable. That makes this a question for WP:RSN#Prequel. JJB 06:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

As anyone can see, I objected to the implication they were more reliable than the "vast majority of sources". You'll take any excuse to draw this out further, and now take it to yet another page... Rise of the Planet of the Apes is not in continuity with first 1968 film, it makes winking allusions to it. If you haven't read the previous discussion on the Apes sequels and Rise being a reboot, you can do so at WT:FILM Escape from the Planet of the Apes - does going back in time make a sequel a prequel? Note a couple quotes:

Hold on, I thought we were talking about Escape. You're talking about Rise? Rise is a reboot. Have you seen the original films? They tell the whole story of the ape revolt: In Escape Cornelius & Zera travel back in time to the '70s & give birth to Caesar, the first ape who can talk; In Conquest, Caesar leads the apes in a revolt against humanity; In Battle, the apes & humans coexist in a world ravaged by nuclear war, until some radiation-scarred humans attack & Caesar established apes as dominant. Rise contradicts these 3 original films by portraying an entirely different origin story for Caesar, a different story of the ape revolt, and a different means by which humanity is mostly wiped out (a virus as opposed to nuclear war). Rise is, in every sense, a reboot of the franchise. It would be as if I made a Star Wars film depicting a completely different origin for Darth Vader than those portrayed in Episodes I, II, & III. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure Rise is a reboot of the franchise. That's not the question. Rise is also prequel to PotA (1968). Same as your hypothetical SW movie could be a prequel to "New Hope" while contradicting SW I, II, III. "Prequel" is relation between two works, not a statement of how a work fits into a "franchise". A single film or book can have many "prequels", completely contradictory. Why not? See the RfC for more details, I don't want to just repeat this over and over. Barsoomian (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

No, that's quite wrong. Rise of the Planet of the Apes isn't a prequel to the original Planet of the Apes, since it contradicts it where details of events before the rise of the apes are concerned. In the original Planet of the Apes, the Icarus is sent out into space in the early 1970s. In Rise, on the other hand, it gets sent out during the events of that film, and it clearly isn't set in the early 1970s. You can't reconcile them. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hope that makes it clear. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Late-inserted digression: It occurs to me, and I haven't mentioned, that sometimes movies are created with unstated hooks that permit later franchise expansion. Further, the 5-movie cycle, if circular, is open to a paradox dissected by Asimov (End of Eternity), viz., if the apes went back in time to seed their own past, where did they come from originally? Either the filmmakers intended to create the apparent paradox (the apes had a past that circularly eventually goes back to itself, no matter which start time you select, and there is thus an infinite past, contradictory to thermodynamic law); or there really was an original unseeded past that is then modified by the time travel into an alternate past (which can then be validly circular in a Hartree-Fock metastability). It thus seems eminently possible to me that the 2011 filmmakers might well later reveal that Rise has been, all along, the unseeded past necessary to retcon from the original 70s intent of circularity paradox to a noncontradictory sequence in which Rise precedes (and is a prequel of) all 5 original movies. There are two different Caesars in the same timeline of alternate universes, each one a product of his times but different from the other, and yet almost identical due to the great holistic harmony always observed among parallel sci-fi universes (Mirror, Mirror). But this is all OR, to be confirmed only by the rise of later, er, prequels. JJB 16:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you're referring to a predestination paradox. Very common in time travel fiction. Steven Moffatt does it quite a lot in Doctor Who. (e.g. [1]). But best not to continue this here. Barsoomian (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no. I meant that the original cycle may be an intentional bootstrap paradox (thanks WP), not a predestination paradox, which is not actually a paradox. The Novikov self-consistency principle, excluding bootstraps, is the physics reflection of what Asimov fleshed out in The End of Eternity long prior. My OR theory is that the directors permit one option being that Rise precedes the first two, which then lead to the next three in an alternate (non-Rise) present. This allows several natural spots for future additions to the genre, as the present directors hint. The 1973 director hinted that the intent then was a bootstrap loop, and that intent may be in the process of retconning out. Thus a future version of this article may show Rise as a prequel to Escape! JJB 20:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for repeating that, but if you reread you might see that it didn't answer the question for me last time. JJB 06:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC) I do appreciate your clarifying your inference, as I did not say, and did not intend to imply, "they were more reliable than the 'vast majority of sources'." Perhaps you're having difficulty with the idea that WP should be formatted in such a way as to reflect both camps of sources? We don't have to go to RSN if I can get my mind around what you're saying. WP is pretty set on the idea that a source is not unreliable just because it's in the minority! Sources that say "sequel" are reliable, and sources that say "prequel" are reliable, and the first is the majority. Is that accurate, and is that what WP should reflect? JJB 07:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

We have the director of Rise calling it a prequel. Hundreds of reviews. the title itself screams "prequel". The opinions of a bunch of anonymous editors on a talk page can't negate that. Continuity? PoTa was made in 1968, the ship launched in 1972. I.e. "4 years in the future". Rise was made in 2011, and also set maybe "4 years in the future". Anyway, they didn't state a year in Rise, and we never see the "1972" Earth Taylor came from in PotA, that is obviously much more advanced than the real 1972. Maybe Rise really is set in 1972 in the PotA universe. Who cares? That kind of thing happens all the time. Try to add up the dates and do a timeline for 24 or West Wing or Doctor Who (UNIT dating controversy) or any other long running series, TV or film. James Bond is always 35. Bart Simpson was 10 in 1987 and still is. Or for a laugh, look at any "biography" of a comic book superhero. "Now", "the future", "the past" is usually relative to when the work was made. Continuity in extended series in fiction doesn't have to add up and often doesn't. Barsoomian (talk) 07:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

And where is this "vast majority of sources" I keep hearing about"? There isn't ONE source presented that says any of these films are not prequels. They may say they're sequels, they may say they're showing at the drive-in on Saturday. They may say a lot of things. That they don't mention the word "prequel" doesn't mean they are part of a (wholly imaginary) "vast majority" gainsaying it. They're just part of the "vast majority" that have nothing to say on the question either way. Barsoomian (talk) 09:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please note that the sources for the Apes films "prequelness" were presented at WP:RSN#Prequel for auditing and most were deemed WP:RS. I have omitted the ones they had reservations about. So please no more citing each others' opinions that a source is "desperate" as a justification to delete it. Barsoomian (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

History of usage

Currently the "History" section of the article has the origin as :

"prequel" first appeared in print in 1958 in an article by Anthony Boucher in The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, and came into general usage in the 1970s and 80s.

And then:

One of the earliest examples of its use was in the original press pack for The Godfather Part II, where it is used to describe the sections of the film that take place before the events of The Godfather

(Godfather II was 1974)

However, there is no source stated for this latter claim. The Oxford Dictionary cites these quotes:

• 1958 ‘A. Boucher’ in Mag. Fantasy & Sci. Fiction Apr. 94/2 Year 2018!‥is the meaningless American retitling of James Blish's They Shall Have Stars‥a ‘prequel’ to Earthman Come Home.
• 1973 Times 4 Sept. 16/3 The Silmarillon [sic] is described as a ‘prequel’ to Professor Tolkien's trilogy The Lord of the Rings.
• 1979 Films & Filming Mar. 11 In this ‘prequel’ Tom Berenger stars as Butch Cassidy and William Katt as Sundance.
• 1988 Scotl. on Sunday 4 Dec. 13/6 The Rainbow (which Lawrence wrote as a sort of prequel to Women in Love).
• 2004 Impact Aug. 32/1 Working Title, Universal and I‥chose to make a prequel, something that took place before the Thunderbirds that everyone knows and loves.

I have not been able to find any examples of a film being described as a prequel before 1979.

I did find this This 1999 article in Salon which claims "Lester may also have locked up the dubious distinction of inaugurating the term “prequel” in 1979 when he directed “Butch and Sundance: The Early Days.”". So that puts 1979 as the date that "prequel" entered the film lexicon. Also all uses I've seen up to then had it in quote marks, indicating the writer thought it was a coinage his readers might not be familiar with.

Does anyone have any earlier sources? Barsoomian (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a source in history. I'll make a responsive edit. JJB 06:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess it's true, but nevertheless, it didn't seem to make its way into common use for some years after. A "press pack" is distributed to the press, it isn't published in itself (until it was put on the DVD decades later). So, the question is what's the NEXT time it was used? Preferably in the mass media, a film review or the like. As above, 1979 seems to be when it caught on with film reviewers. Barsoomian (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Making the list a separate article

Seeing this article just now for the first time I was quite surprised 90% of it consists of a massive lists of prequels, which is a placing undue weight on examples of prequels rather than the general concept. Now I understand there are people who consider these sorts of lists important and suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, so I will not start a pointless argument about removing the list. What I would like to propose instead is splitting it into a separate article called List of prequels. What are your thoughts on this? Lacking any response I plan to create the list article one week from now. Yoenit (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Please don't. Most of what discussion of the concept that is here now has evolved due to discussion (and argument, as you can see above) about the content of the list. You'll notice several references shared between the lists and the prose. Splitting the list to a separate article will lead to it being subject to much more random editing by people who see no guidance and definitions, as they do now. There is actually a good overview at Sequel, with a section Sequel#Prequel that looks like it could use some work if you want an article more concerned with the concept. Barsoomian (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

while it is nice that Sequel has a good overview, a reader who is looking for "prequel" ends up on this page, not on Sequel. Are you suggesting moving this article to list of prequels and redirecting "prequel" to Sequel#Prequel? Yoenit (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

No. That would lose all the analysis that's here. While pasting that into Sequel#Prequel would give that article a big overweight on "prequel", when there are far more sequels made. (A List of Sequels could never be completed.) I don't see how a reader who ends up at Prequel is disappointed by what is there now, myself. Definition, discussion, examples. They don't have to page down though all the examples. Barsoomian (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is one style guideline pretty much against the idea. The only contraindications seem to be (1) if the list becomes unwieldy, which it could double the current size and still not be; or (2) if there is consensus to move as-is to List of prequels (without cutting any text), which could be weighed by the requested-move process. Further, the text is essential to categorize prequels in a sourced way agreeable to all active editors and should not be lightly rearranged. JJB 17:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Renaming this article or making a separate article called List of prequels would be of no benefit to readers at all. Look at that. We've achieved WP:Consensus. So that should be it. But, of course, Yoenit can come back in a few days and try again, because according to the Dispute Resolution guy JJB unless the participants come back to comment again a week or so later, consensus can be declared "stale" and overcome by the guy who was against it (See well above). Odds are, however, in this case the same three will go to the trouble to shoot this proposal down again in a week or whenever. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)