Talk:Romería (film): Difference between revisions

This WP:BRD concerns my bold edits [1] [2], reverted by Asqueladd. I would like to first direct you to MOS:FILMRELEASE: Details about the release can include noteworthy screenings at film festivals and elsewhere, theatrical distribution and related business, setups (e.g. digital, IMAX), and significant release date changes, with sourced commentary where appropriate. Do not include information on the release in every territory

Next, here are samples from GA articles on films with international distribution. If the release of this film in other countries is notable, I could agree that this list of countries warrants inclusion. However, it is currently akin to list creep:

Further, my explanation as to why I called this content unencyclopedic:

• WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC: Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful. An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject

• WP:NOTDATABASE: To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

• As said by WP:SCOPE: Encyclopedias summarize knowledge, rather than try to contain all of it.

Regarding Critical Reception, it is not synth to group related talking points: Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. The current arrangement of critic reviews is 7 ungrouped sentences for 7 reviews, with quotes that summarize the author’s sentiments. This article could benefit from explicit thoughts about specific elements, grouped into a cohesive way. As this is only a Start-class article, I will let this lie. TheAlienAdventures (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAlienAdventures: WP:NOTDATABASE. Distribution was covered by third-party sources, not databases. Film distribution, as long as it is covered by reliable non-database sources (Screen International is a reputed industry source, not a “database”), is a relevant and perfectly valid feature underpinning a reasonable development of the release section (two paragraphs). In addition, even if I do not think looking at other articles is an end in itself, I regularly see U.S. distribution details in articles of non-US films, not only in the release section, but also in the lead section, and, wait for it… in the frigging categories (which are supposed to cover not simply relevant, but defining attributes, go figure!!). Take this as a “GA” example. So if we were to follow that GA example, international distribution is not merely a relevant detail, but defining enough to warrant a category. Blimey! Perhaps you are a bit US-centric in your approach (what you determine as “acceptable”) or you do not really grasp what “international” distribution actually means. Regarding reception, any edit entailing the drawing of interpretations from different sources (specially opinion pieces such as film reviews are), and discretionarily determining what they share in common, et al. is an attempt of original research. As there are no sources providing synthetic statements for the critical reception and you claim you are not asking for interpretations of the sources involving original research, if you are tagging the section solely because, well, critics’ takes on the film are separated in paragraphs (oh, the horror!), you may well deserve a TROUT WACKING, as you are killing fleas with sledgehammers–Asqueladd (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you speak to MOS:FILMRELEASE: Do not include information on the release in every territory? I hardly think I’m being US-centric when my primary concern is a long paragraph of sequential countries with parenthetical of their distributors, all with no additional commentary. That is the difference between this article’s inclusion of an international release and Parasite‘s; additionally, Parasite broke several records in international boxes offices, as detailed in Parasite (2019 film)#Reception, thus absolutely warranting the detailing of international distribution. Is there a similar case for this film?

As an aside, WP:NOTDATABASE concerns the content of Wikipedia, not the sourcing of that content.

If editor A and B both commented on aspect X, it’s not WP:OR nor WP:SYNTH to group those related thoughts together. I do agree though that my tag was not needed. There simply isn’t enough prose from those refs to be able to be rewritten. TheAlienAdventures (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILMRELEASE refers to the Template:infobox film: the infobox currently displays the festival premiere date, the theatrical release in the only production country with a confirmed date, plus the two “domestic” distributors (as it is a co-production between two countries), thus conforming to the guideline. In the template documentation you can read if other release dates are found to be notable, it may be appropriate to include them in the main body of the article.

Look, the reliable third-party sources on which film articles are based are mainly reports in specialised media (particularly for recent releases) and academic film studies and monographies.

It turns out that the reliable third-party sources we use highlight some excerpts of information and create a case of notability for such information, as opposed to, for example, supporting such information in primary sources or databases (which is not the case here). You generally can’t go wrong with sourcing content with reliable third-party sources. Then again, at some point we can evaluate sourcing weight and hierarchy depending on sourcing quality, but it seems to be clearly premature here, because we don’t have scholarly sources yet to begin with, and because ScreenDaily is actually perfectly fine in the current context. About your claim on sourcing versus content, yes, I do prefer indeed to focus talk page talk on sourcing and sourcing quality rather than on elaborating editing guidelines from the likes of the success of the subject I am editing (!?), which is clearly not constructive because it is one editor’s opinion against other editor’s opinion, and it leads to a fatuous exchange, settling ad-hoc thresholds that we do not have the capacity to settle as editors, and debating about irrelevant stuff (case point: Is there a similar case for this film?; → I don’t really care about those ad-hoc conditions; what if we let the reliable third party sources set the threshold?). It just happens that international distribution is a valid topic for both subjects (it is simply a valid topic for film articles, period) and that the content in both articles is adequately sourced.–Asqueladd (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is, once you have acknowledged that international distribution can be indeed a valid topic in a film article, why don’t you just trust the coverage of reliable third-party sources to settle its limits in a given article instead of your guts (because editors do not generally share and they don’t need to share their guts)?–Asqueladd (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]