Talk:Violent Night

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

First sentence

Per WP:LEAD, the first sentence of the lead section should identify the most noteworthy context upfront. That context is Harbour as Santa Claus, rather than the director and the writer, based on reliable sources headlining the starring actor. We are not required to name the director in the first sentence every time, especially when they are not household names or not being headlined. See User:Erik/Best practices#First sentences about films for more policy and guideline details. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rtkat3, see above. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is it that most other pages have their leads different from the way you want it as an anonymous contributor has mentioned in his edit summary? --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See my essay above. The long-running assumption on many editors' part is that we have to have the director and writers in the first sentence every time. It's likely based on the fact that the film infobox has these two parameters first, and that assumption has taken hold. However, WP:LEAD emphasizes putting the more noteworthy context upfront. Reliable sources writing about this film are far more focused on Harbour than the director, and Wikipedia can follow these sources in prioritizing that more noteworthy context and placing it more prominently than the director. It's not that the director is not noteworthy, he is simply less noteworthy in the scope of this film. If the director was Steven Spielberg or Christopher Nolan, they'd be in the first sentence easily. However, many films have directors that are not known, and there is no reason to have them in the first sentences of articles of films they work on. You can see examples in the essay. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would that category you gave an example of also include any movie directed by Jon Favreau, Frank Oz, John Hughes, and Dennis Dugan? --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would depend on the kind of films they have worked on. To use Favreau as an example, he has directed different kinds of films. I think it's more likely for the franchise elements to take precedence for the films Iron Man, Iron Man 2, The Jungle Book, and The Lion King. For the other films, it would depend. For example, for Elf, it may be better to open with "starring Will Ferrell" than "directed by Jon Favreau" (but one can check for how reliable sources have covered it at the time or in retrospect). Chef is very likely to include his name since he directs and stars in it. You're welcome to push back on this particular practice and argue something like it would be easier to just put the director in the first sentence every time. I think this practice meets WP:LEAD, and it also helps in search engine results where often the first sentence is visible. Like with Ticket to Paradise (2022 film), if the first sentence just said "directed by Ol Parker", and we searched for ticket to paradise movie in Google, a reader wouldn't necessarily be sure if that was the right film, especially with so many reliable sources highlighting Clooney and and Roberts. If a reader sees "starring George Clooney and Julia Roberts", that would be crystal-clear to them that it is what they're looking for. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

MOS:FILM#Critical reception says, "The overall critical reception to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources that summarize reviews; do not synthesize individual reviews. Avoid weasel words. If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly. Detailed commentary from reliable sources regarding the critics' consensus (or lack thereof) is encouraged." The Rotten Tomatoes critics' consensus qualifies as a reliable source that summarizes the review and is quoted in part as a detailed summary of the consensus. Seeing only the RT numbers upfront in many places is not in itself justification to perpetuate that, considering that only one or two editors repeat their same approach. In other words, other stuff exists, and no policy or guideline requires this. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just because they aren't required doesn't mean they can never be used. People always read the numbers first when it comes to critical reviews. You say that this article should have the consensus first, but millions of other articles have the numbers first. What makes this one so special, huh? What makes this the one where you say "You know what? I think my way is right and if anyone tries to do it any other way, they're wrong and should be penalized for it"? 2600:4040:12AA:7200:5093:806F:F610:2F9B (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"People always read the numbers first when it comes to critical reviews." That is a claim not rooted in anything. It sounds like you're basing this on the fact that a handful of editors have perpetuated the same approach across "millions" of film articles. It's self-defeating. When you open a book about films and read a chapter about a film and get to its critical reception, you're not going to read, "The film got X reviews with Y being positive with Z being the average score." It's completely okay for first sentences to be different (and better) than what seems like the norm. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel

A "Sequel" section had been started, but I removed it here with the explanation, "Deleted 'Sequel' section because the reliable source does not actually say that a sequel film is in the development stage. There's just 'a little bit' of ideas being thrown around, which does not warrant a standalone section or a lead-section highlight." The source here has these key quotes:

Director: "So we decided to trim down the details of the backstory, but if we’re lucky enough in the future to do another movie, maybe we can explore that again. Or we can just let the audience fill in the blanks."
Interviewer: "You just touched on it, but there’s already sequel talk. So have you guys thrown any ideas around yet?"
Director: "A little bit. It sounds stupid, but I’m a big believer in not jinxing anything. I’m like, 'Can we just wait a little bit?' But, of course the writers have talked about it, and I have thrown some ideas out there... So I really hope we get to explore it more."

None of the above to me indicates that there is anything concrete that warrants a standalone section, as I said in my edit summary. Expanding on this here because I suspect others may try to restore this information without really looking at it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality of production

Only production company listed is American. Canada was added with a national database source but that conflicts with their being no Canadian production company involved with the production. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]