Talk:The Inner Sanctum Mysteries (film series)

Cleaning

Did some copy editing and added some sources. I tried to clarified some information as some of it was cited from the Universal Horrors book and did not state what was there. This ranged from genre, production, and some other content. I've removed the Rotten Tomatoes list which was just a bit blank and replaced it with prose which gives context to the series as a whole over a bunch of Rotten Tomatoes link saying nothing. Updated some dates and prose that was also uncited or wrong and tagged some questionable sources. I am open to discuss any changes.Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: your edits on this article were strange at best. I have reverted where you removed entire sections of data, and had replaced them with a format that really didn't have a lot of reasoning. Your statements here regarding the need for additional sources is valid, but you should add sources and refs instead of deleting sections and restructuring the entire article. The critical information I would argue is insightful as well to the general reader, but I have not yet reintroduced that section.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I could say the same about your reverts @DisneyMetalhead:. You've re-added sections without sources. If you want to re-instate information, you need to find sources to back it up per WP:BURDEN. Could you tell me why you removed cited material and replaced it with different material that was uncited here? As for a long list of cast and crew being integral for the article, MOS:FILMCAST, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so try to name the most relevant actors and roles that are most appropriate for the film". In this case, I have listed already in the prose that Chaney shows up in each film and that bopping head. As these films have no interconnecting stories or changing cast members, we should probably only approach a cast list if there are interconnecting characters as a table will show it off in an easy to read-format. As there are none, I've left the prose and removed the list. This is also why I've edited the crew section, to show off any related major crew members. In this case, this only seems relegated to a cinematographer. If I'm missing out on key info, please bring it up here.

As this is an article about the "series" we should focus on reception as a series as a whole, not a bunch of Rotten Tomatoes links that don't even have overall reception. Who does this help? While I agree the lead should have been longer, I'm also curious why you removed this tag questioning a source.

I understand a desire to have consistency between film series articles, but re-adding unsourced information, extensive lists that can be summarized in a sentence does not make an article any better. Please feel free to edit the article, but re-adding unsourced material, removing maintenance tags, and removing sourced material is no way to make this a better article. Lets discuss other items like headers and titles if you'd like as that's a bit more subjective. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: removing the cast table purely based off of the fact that the movies are standalone, while good-intentioned does not follow the guides that you directly quoted. "...try to name the most relevant actors and roles that are most appropriate for the film". The actors that I had added in the film table were the primary cast for each individual movie. Directly from the statement you referred to ("most appropriate for the film") -- this is exactly what I did for each movie. Additionally, removing entire tables of information simply for the sake of including the recurring actor and cinematographer in prose -- not the best solution to your argument.

To answer the additional questions you had asked, I simply reverted the article to how it had been prior to your restructuring. The sources can/should be included, but I'd argue that they need to be added without removing large amounts of this article. I will look for a way to reinstate the previous data that you removed, while also including your refs.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you should try to explain why you the content is required. What information does an editor get seeing a list of a varied cast if they are not repeated in the roles? The series does not have a narrative continuation, so why bother? Or rather, pulled information from Rotten Tomatoes that just says "no information". I can't imagine anyone would find this useful, reader or wiki editor. Please don't dance around WP:ONUS, if you don't like people removing information that provides nothing to a reader, than don't add it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

As for the cast list WP:INDISCRIMINATE states that we shouldn't just list long lists of information. This exactly what we shouldn't be doing without any context. So this is why i'm saying no to the Rotten Tomatoes and Cast. They provide little information as the series doesn't have an ongoing characters. Just Chaney, and the floating head. So how does this cast list and RT table satisfy WP:INDISCRIMINATE? Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: You have done similar edits on various other articles, (see Talk:Universal Classic Monsters for reference). I will once again do my best to answer each of your questions. The content that was added when the article was created follows formatting and details that are within various other film series articles. The movies are released (decades ago), and each of the sections are added for the average reader to see the NOTABLE aspects of each movie. The cast is included (not for recurring roles, but for the PRINCIPAL CAST MEMBERS). This is notable for the film series as a whole -- each actor is notable, but keeping it to the primary cast (i.e.: main characters) is sufficient and keeps the table from being a long list -- as you indicated. Furthermore, the production crew is NOTABLE -- each of the roles included are notable, not only the returning roles of Cinematographer which you repeatedly revert. Lastly, once again the Rotten Tomatoes section is included for modern analyses. This should be expanded with various links/refs (details in prose as well) to modern critics to supplement instead of deleting a whole section. Rotten Tomatoes regularly updates. Though there isn't a current score for a movie, that can/will change over time; while an average reader can see what modern critics are stating.

It appears that you want to make a better article (WP:GOODFAITH) but your pattern of regularly deleting sections of articles, is frustrating to various editors. By having a variety of details, sections, information -- the general reader can/will get the fuller picture. Please let's be collaborative.

DisneyMetalhead (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, your callback to the WP:INDISCRIMINATE further supports the tables/data which were included before you keep removing them. See the "3. Excessive listings of unexplained statistics" section for further reading, where it states: "...statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context." The production details (i.e.: Crew and production details) are included for this purpose/intention). Additionally, for further context the section "1. Summary-only descriptions of works" also states, "Wikipedia treats creative works ... in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works." All of the details which I continue to try to keep you from deleting, fall within these guides. Keeping the sections (with tables and details) in addition to your prose summaries, would constructively build this page to be the better article. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but why repeat a cast and crew if there is no overlap of information? WP:FILM says it should covers the series as a whole, and as the only re-occuring score is Chaney, why not just his various roles. I did something similar at Dracula (Universal film series). Now my other issue is your edited removed source dand added unsourced information. This led to genres, description on how the films were based (I e: they aren't based on the books, they just share the title Inner Sanctum) and added a table of Rotten Tomatoes links that's say they have no reviews. What is the use?

I think anyone seeing unsourced information or information that says trivial details (i.e: not enough information) at a Rotten Tomatoes link,) or simply unsourced data would agree they shouldn't have been removed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead:, per your last edit here, you've added material that does the following.

• Removes sourced data, and add unsourced information (Country, genres, etc.). The material that is sourced to Weaver, Brunas, Brunas is not backed up by the source. and I checked this on my own.
• You removed information that cites what films are in the series, and replaced it without a source. Why?
• You changed the release date to "US Release Date" which is not backed up by any source, and removed sources in the film table, why?
• I know you seem fond of cast lists, and we can reach some sort of agree to disagree on this, but its also unsourced.
• There is information unsourced in your crew list, and the Weaver, Brunas and Bruans source has no info on distributors. Why are they listed?
• The "Critical modern analyses" section just lists blank Rotten Tomatoes links. What would anyone gain from this information repeated five times? Not to mention the reception above is also retrospective.

So in closing, that is why i reverted your information, it adds information not reflected by sources, introduces incorrect information, and introduces trivial data. I do not want to edit war and want to work to some sort of happy medium, but I don't think you intended to introduce that information. I look forward to your response.Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You are mistaken... this edit was not made by me @Andrzejbanas:. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Further more -- I have responded to each of your questions, which you have been instructed about on your own talk page. Surely you haven't forgotten. I furthermore answered your questions with direct links to WP articles that would help you in your ongoing quest. I didn't remove data. You are the one who continually removes portions of an article. I have also responded to your continued questions in the edit history, if you will read it. Here they are again, to each of your bullets: 1. I gave you instructions on the thread of my talk page as to how to deal with portions of an article that you feel like need a source (and it isn't to delete data). 2. I removed the introduction paragraph that you changed to simply list every movie in the film series (which isn't needed at all when the table/list of films is the very next section down). Instead, we have a summary of what the film series is as a whole. 3. I did not remove sources in the film table. The US release date is simply the format that it was before you removed masses of data and I reverted it to how the article was before. It's as simple as that. 4. The cast is notable, of each individual movie. I previously stated to you a couple of times that the guideline you listed about cast lists, does not in any way support your argument. Movies can be anthological in nature and still have notable, important casts. It isn't purely available for recurring cast/characters. 5. The information on the cast/crew and productions list comes from each respective movie article. That is where the attribution comes from. 6. Again, the RT table was included purely for the sake of a general reader (a.k.a.: Someone who is not a fan) can refer to a source that will show them details about the movie, and the critical/audience receptions there. Though a RT source may not yet have a score, there are still reviews on the page. As it continues to be reviewed, in the future it will generate a score.

I won't respond to these questions again, as I have done so various times now.

DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• "That edit was wasn't made by me".

You are right. That was me grabbing the wrong IP. On reverting my edits, you returned to material not sourced in the book.

• "I did not remove sources in the film table. The US release date is simply the format that it was before you removed masses of data and I reverted it to how the article was before. It's as simple as that."

You certainly did remove the citations. Here is the version I edited: here. Here is you after a series of changes. here. Where did the cast go?

Several information you restored is not backed up by the sources. This is why I removed the Weaver/Brunas/Brunas from the lead, as it does not say that in the book at all. Where are on earth are you pulling this information from? I've requested a quote.

". Again, the RT table was included purely for the sake of a general reader (a.k.a.: Someone who is not a fan) can refer to a source that will show them details about the movie, and the critical/audience receptions there. Though a RT source may not yet have a score, there are still reviews on the page. As it continues to be reviewed, in the future it will generate a score."

• Please assume WP:GOODFAITH that I want to play ball. I think cast lists need work in general for series articles, but the Rotten Tomatoes one currently offers no details. If it has a review of importance, pull it, otherwise, we might as well cite news sources such as a "no results found" page on CNN saying CNN had nothing to say about Inner Sanctum Mysteries. Please assume good faith that we can come to some mutual solution, because filling a lead with content that is not backed up by the source, removing cited material, and citing material that says nothing to a user isn't helpful to readers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  You are seemingly falling into "old habits", as your responses are lengthy and arduous. I have been the one stating that I am assuming WP:GOODFAITH all along, but when your patterns are similar to what has occurred on other articles it becomes increasingly more difficult to do so. I will not be responding to your same arguments that I have now replied to various times.

  1) "That was me grabbing the wrong IP..." where is the one you were referring to then? 2) The revert of your edits back to how it was before you deleted sections, is not the same as me taking out 'sources' as you claim. Rather, just re-add the sources instead of deleting sections. That is what the discussion has been from the start. 3)The RT scores were included to give modern analyses for old movies (which is notable). An alternative would be to keep the section, remove the table and include the modern reviews in prose instead.

  Again, I have repeatedly stated that I am assuming GOODFAITH and have implored you at various times to be collaborative. Your proposal for the cast list below is not a solution.

  DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I've written a proposal for handling the cast list.

Actor	Calling Dr. Death	Weird Woman	Dead Man's Eyes	The Frozen Ghost	Strange Confession	Pillow of Death	Ref(s)
Lon Chaney Jr.	Dr. Mark Steele	Prof. Norman Reed	David 'Dave' Stuart	Alex Gregor / Gregor the Great	Jeff Carter	Wayne Fletcher	[sources here]

And so forth with the other cast members if they show up more than once. I think helps more than listing one single cast member who shows up once in a series of films that aren't really narratively connected. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This proposal while good-intentioned, cuts out the vast majority of primary characters for each movie. The current format only includes the main cast of each movie. Each character is noteworthy and important, but I removed the supporting characters to only include the primary cast. Your proposal isn't a solution, but rather another way to have it the way that you are wanting it. Looking again at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film #Cast, we can see the following guidelines for cast tables: "Actors and their roles can be presented in different forms, depending on three elements: 1) the prominence of the cast in the film, 2) the amount of real-world context for the whole cast or its members, and 3) the structure of the article. Editors are encouraged to lay out such content to best serve its readers". Looking at the first consideration it states: "Casts vary in size and importance. A film may have an ensemble cast, or only a handful of actors. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so try to name the most relevant actors and roles that are most appropriate for the film..."

This is exactly what was done when the article was made, with intentions of 1) serving the average reader who looks at the page, and 2) includes the characters/roles who are most appropriate for each film.

DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not trying to downplay this, but how is "Each character is noteworthy and important"? Without context, its just a list of cast and crew that can be found on the individual pages. Per WP:LISTCRITERIA articles "should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of lists should be exhaustive." and what I believe is key, "one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles". In short, we can find the casts for individual films on their respective articles, so they really don't need to be repeated here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you in various locations and pages, this is an ongoing err in your ways. Cast lists or tables are used on articles which combine elements from various pages, that are related. This is for the average reader who pulls up related pages, who can compare and contrast the details therein. It's as simple as this. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)