Talk:Crocodile Dundee (film series)
Latest comment: 6 years ago by AlexTheWhovian in topic Hoax
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Page's title
editWhen I created the page, film series was the classification simply because it is the only related media. Franchises are usually something that has various mediums of entertainment in them. Shouldn't this still be Crocodile Dundee (film series)?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Moved -- AlexTW 18:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks! Definitely not a 'franchise' as the only media medium for the series' release is film. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Hoax
editThis is what happens when one relies on primary sources. I'll once again remove the improperly referenced content that doesn't belong - which is all content about the film that doesn't exist and thus is not a part of the franchise. Huon (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Your removal was a WP:BOLD edit without any full discussion here, so you need to gain WP:CONSENSUS for it now. The section clearly states that the movie does not exist and was created under the Crocodile Dundee name as a tourism ad, so an explanation should indeed be given on this article. Only the section is needed, however - the rows/columns in the infobox, cast and characters, production reception, they should be removed, yes. -- AlexTW 17:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- We need to establish a consensus to remove content that's off-topic? Sure, if you think that's necessary. I would argue that BRD works the other way around; someone added the content, I removed it, and then a discussion should have started to explain why it's beneficial. Please provide sources that say the hoax is a part of the franchise, or explain how mentioning this hoax here improves our readers' understanding of the franchise. Of the current sources, none says the hoax is part of the franchise; in fact they explicitly say it isn't. WP:RECENTISM applies, too: There's some news coverage of the hoax that was just discovered, but there's no indication that there's any lasting impact on the franchise. Huon (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Multiple editors have contributed towards the adding, and hence the bold edit was the one editor blank-removing all related content, hence the B in BRD does indeed apply to you. It's not off-topic, it was deliberately created to appear as part of the franchise, and as such, it needs to be listed with details of how it came to be. I myself came here to find out more about the apparent film, and it appears a number of other people have too: [1][2]. As per DisneyMetalhead's post in the above section, this page shouldn't even be disambiguated with (franchise), it should be (film series), as it is simply a list of films; as such, all related film content can therefore be listed. -- AlexTW 18:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see a source either associating the commercial with the franchise and/or the film series (the sources rather point out that it's not associated) or a source explaining how the hoax is significant to the film franchise. It's a WP:COATRACK and clearly gives undue weight when the hoax gets more space than the film series itself (excepting tables of data and plot summaries for individual films). A one-line passing mention might be appropriate, but no more than that. People might indeed mistake Wikipedia for a news site and try to find information on a recent event; that's irrelevant. Huon (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- I just noticed that you re-added the content you agreed shouldn't be there. I'll remove that again. Huon (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- It was initially advertised as a sequel to Crocodile Dundee before its reveal as a tourism ad, and while reviewing the sources, I do agree that more (or at least, better) sources are required. I'll tag the section. Undue weight would be giving it a section under the Films section; instead, it is listed as "Super Bowl commercial", clearly stating what it is. If you feel the films section requires more, then add it, though nothing more than a premise is required as they have separate articles. However, the Super Bowl ad does not have its own article, and hence the content belongs on this article (through it's barely much more; one extra line is nothing spectacular). -- AlexTW 19:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Giving the hoax a more detailed description than any of the films that actually are part of the series is clearly undue. From the point of view of the Crocodile Dundee series, the hoax is a side story, and while there's some media buzz right now, we cannot judge its significance for the suppoosed topic of the article. Personally I'd say that would require a source on the film series that mentions the hoax, not a source on the hoax itself. Huon (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Then give more detail to the films. Or are you above that and wish for other people to do it for you? This article was only created two weeks ago, and only became active three days ago, so no, it's not going to be perfect, and if you think that the article needs changing, then copyedit the ad section and give detail to the film section. Nobody is stopping you, unless you blank delete content; that's where editors have an issue. I'd say we require a source that specifically states it's a hoax and was never, at all, advertised under the Crocodile Dundee name to not be included here, but given that it was initially advertised under that title, I guess that's not happening. -- AlexTW 20:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Given that I wasn't above removing false information that you added to the article, you may want to think again whether the above tone is helpful. If someone creates a hoax advertisement about X and the hoax receives media coverage, that justifies inclusion in the article on X? I disagree and will request a third opinion on the amount of coverage that should be dedicated to the hoax in this article. Huon (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't add any false information. I reverted your bold removal, and that's as far as I needed to go with it. I wasn't required to do anything further. So, the above tone is the one I will use. Yes, that's what I believe - if it has been covered by reliable media, then it can be included, especially as it wasn't just "someone" who made it, it was deliberately made for the Super Bowl LII and intended to appear as a film. Hoax's are malicious in intent; this was not. I look forward to the 3O. -- AlexTW 22:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- You re-added "with a fourth [feature film] to be released sometime in 2018". Do you maintain that's correct? Or did you just not check what exactly you added back? Also, Adweek explicitly calls it a hoax. Huon (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't add any false information. I reverted your bold removal, and that's as far as I needed to go with it. I wasn't required to do anything further. I think that's as clear as it can be. -- AlexTW 23:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- You re-added "with a fourth [feature film] to be released sometime in 2018". Do you maintain that's correct? Or did you just not check what exactly you added back? Also, Adweek explicitly calls it a hoax. Huon (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't add any false information. I reverted your bold removal, and that's as far as I needed to go with it. I wasn't required to do anything further. So, the above tone is the one I will use. Yes, that's what I believe - if it has been covered by reliable media, then it can be included, especially as it wasn't just "someone" who made it, it was deliberately made for the Super Bowl LII and intended to appear as a film. Hoax's are malicious in intent; this was not. I look forward to the 3O. -- AlexTW 22:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Given that I wasn't above removing false information that you added to the article, you may want to think again whether the above tone is helpful. If someone creates a hoax advertisement about X and the hoax receives media coverage, that justifies inclusion in the article on X? I disagree and will request a third opinion on the amount of coverage that should be dedicated to the hoax in this article. Huon (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Then give more detail to the films. Or are you above that and wish for other people to do it for you? This article was only created two weeks ago, and only became active three days ago, so no, it's not going to be perfect, and if you think that the article needs changing, then copyedit the ad section and give detail to the film section. Nobody is stopping you, unless you blank delete content; that's where editors have an issue. I'd say we require a source that specifically states it's a hoax and was never, at all, advertised under the Crocodile Dundee name to not be included here, but given that it was initially advertised under that title, I guess that's not happening. -- AlexTW 20:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Giving the hoax a more detailed description than any of the films that actually are part of the series is clearly undue. From the point of view of the Crocodile Dundee series, the hoax is a side story, and while there's some media buzz right now, we cannot judge its significance for the suppoosed topic of the article. Personally I'd say that would require a source on the film series that mentions the hoax, not a source on the hoax itself. Huon (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- It was initially advertised as a sequel to Crocodile Dundee before its reveal as a tourism ad, and while reviewing the sources, I do agree that more (or at least, better) sources are required. I'll tag the section. Undue weight would be giving it a section under the Films section; instead, it is listed as "Super Bowl commercial", clearly stating what it is. If you feel the films section requires more, then add it, though nothing more than a premise is required as they have separate articles. However, the Super Bowl ad does not have its own article, and hence the content belongs on this article (through it's barely much more; one extra line is nothing spectacular). -- AlexTW 19:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Multiple editors have contributed towards the adding, and hence the bold edit was the one editor blank-removing all related content, hence the B in BRD does indeed apply to you. It's not off-topic, it was deliberately created to appear as part of the franchise, and as such, it needs to be listed with details of how it came to be. I myself came here to find out more about the apparent film, and it appears a number of other people have too: [1][2]. As per DisneyMetalhead's post in the above section, this page shouldn't even be disambiguated with (franchise), it should be (film series), as it is simply a list of films; as such, all related film content can therefore be listed. -- AlexTW 18:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- We need to establish a consensus to remove content that's off-topic? Sure, if you think that's necessary. I would argue that BRD works the other way around; someone added the content, I removed it, and then a discussion should have started to explain why it's beneficial. Please provide sources that say the hoax is a part of the franchise, or explain how mentioning this hoax here improves our readers' understanding of the franchise. Of the current sources, none says the hoax is part of the franchise; in fact they explicitly say it isn't. WP:RECENTISM applies, too: There's some news coverage of the hoax that was just discovered, but there's no indication that there's any lasting impact on the franchise. Huon (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I still maintain that there is (currently) no need to mention the advertisement in the article on the film series at all. If it is mentioned, however, it should be mentioned in an appropriate place and in proportion to the remainder of the article's content. As long as there is no section on "influences" or the like that summarizes what has been reported on how the series influenced the wider culture, I'd say the appropriate place is the lead, the only place of the article in its current shape that has content about the series as a whole instead of a collection of content on the individual films. A single sentence should suffice, like this:
- In 2018 Tourism Australia created an advertisement that took the form of a trailer for a purported fourth film in the series, shown at Super Bowl LII.[1]
That gives all the information relevant to the film series, and more. The additional details on the hoax have no place in this article and do not improve our readers' understanding of the film series. Huon (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Klara, Robert (February 2, 2018). "That Crocodile Dundee Reboot: Here's the Whole Story Behind the Movie That Wasn't". Adweek.
Mentioning the short-film/marketing trailers-advertisement isn't deconstructive to the page at all, as some editors are stating. On the contrary it's absolutely correct to be included as Australia marketed it as a full-length film. This lead to massive media coverage and even fan excitement. A short section explaining all of this isn't a bad idea, and also - in light of the positive response Chris Hemsworth has now stated he's open to making a movie out of the marketing advertisement here. This petty argument is quite ridiculous. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 Response to third opinion request:
|
| The purpose of aggregated Cast tables like the one in question is to list prominent cast members of serialized performance pieces (eg. film and TV series and related media). This advertisement: a) doesn't contribute anything to the film series in terms of plot (cf. web series, one-shots, spin-offs, sequels and prequels); b) isn't about the franchise - it's a cultural reference, nothing more; and c) isn't even about an actual film. Mention it in its own section, or a sidenote, or whatever, but don't present it as if it's a part of the series, because it's not. François Robere (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC) |
- So, its own section is acceptable, but we don't display it in the infobox, cast and characters, production, reception? Agreed. Thank you. -- AlexTW 17:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)