Talk:A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boilerplate "compared to high grossing horror franchises"[edit]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Boilerplate "compared to high grossing horror franchises" jnestorius(talk) 11:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Future?[edit]

How come there is no section talking about the franchise's future? There is information already in the article that another reboot is in the works, more information should be added on this in a Future section.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article structure[edit]

I have several times now, completely restructured this very messy and disorderly article. As-is it is in the form of some fan-page essay. As one editor keeps reverting them, I am now bringing this topic to the talk page. My arguments are these:

  • This article needs to have similar layout/format to other notable franchises. I used the MCU article as a reference.
  • The article (which is about a franchise), should be divided by its mediums of release, i.e.: Film, Television, Other media.
  • Each movie is notable enough that it should have its own sub-section detailing its plot and/or development. It shouldn't all be relegated to a massive section titled "overview".
  • The argument that Rotten Tomatoes scores don't matter on films that pre-date its release are ridiculous. The source is referenced retro-actively for critical reception, which has been done on various other articles.
In summary, this page is a mess. I have spent too much time trying to expand it and make it a good article... but it keeps getting reverted. Additionally, sections such as "Main cast and characters" in a table was my next planned addition. We need various editors input on this, as I personally don't see what the opposition is to reverse every expansion. Perhaps a ping to all editors who have contributed in the past.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is based on 2 other GA articles about horror franchises. It does NOT NEED to be based on other articles that you simply like. It doesn't make sense to base it on the MCU, which is significantly larger. Even the MCU page doesn't break every single film into its own subsection, which is needless separation. Notability does NOT determine how you section information off. Relevance and the amount of information determines that. These are plot summaries, and we aren't writing them for the length that you would find on their respective pages. That's why it doesn't make sense to break them up. That said, IT IS divided into different mediums. It clearly has "Film, TV, and other" separated.
As for RT, please read these two pages: WP:MOSFILM#Critical reception and WP:ROTTEN. Yes, it does matter that most of the films pre-date RT, because if you look at the reviews they are not from the time of those films' release. Additionally, you're trying to show a comparison of films with 160+ reviews with films that have 30 reviews. That's not a comparable figure. It's misleading to a reader, just as using film reviews from the last 15 years on films that were released 30+ years ago is misleading. This page is nowhere near "a mess". To me, structurally and visually what you changed it to looked worse.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bignole: once again - RT scores are relevant. Your issue with the fact that a different number of critics have reviewed each release is irrelevant. This is the case with every franchise and/or film series. Furthermore, a simple use of a hatnote describing that these are the modern-day reception of older films would suffice. You are basing your argument off of what you "think" looks better. You just stated it in your comment. Each film absolutely is noteworthy enough to have its own subsection. It needs expansion to include a more detailed description than...the back of the home vide releases(?) as it currently seems to be. Having one giant overview section does not take the reader to anything remotely helpful. The details of each film are brief and grouped into one giant section structurally makes zero sense. To get some actual input, need to ping all editors who have contributed to this page within the last year. Cheers m8!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"it does matter that most of the films pre-date RT, because if you look at the reviews they are not from the time of those films' release." Sorry, but you can not exclude reliable sources because they are not old enough. We are not attempting to depict how the films were viewed when originally released, but their reception over a number of years. Our reception articles on novels and other works follow this pattern. Dimadick (talk) 04:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disney, there isn't "expansion" for each individual film plot. THis isn't the place to expand the film plot section, that's why having individual sections for every film just to have 3 sentences on what happens in the film is needless and poor structuring. Your argument about having a single overview section not allowing people to go to specific places is irrelevant when you have a table with ALL the films immediately above it. Another reason you wouldn't break it out.
Dimadick, I didn't say you wouldn't include the reviews, I said presenting them in a table gives the impression to the reader that this is how the film was viewed at the time, not to mention that we have guidelines and essays (which are referenced in the guide) that say not to do that. To quote the MOS: "Caution should be exercised when using aggregator scores that combine original reviews with reviews from later dates. Also, the data from these websites is potentially less accurate for films released before the websites existed; therefore, care should be exercised in determining whether to refer to them." Secondly, what should be done is 2 sections that focus on the historical view of the franchise and a modern view of the franchise. The individual film reviews should be on the individual pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Conversation[edit]

Seeing as there are not many editors contributing to this talk page in the last year, I am going to go back further in order to reach a consensus on the topic. 3 years will suffice, as even then there are not many editors who have contributed to the article. Pinging users: lowercase sigmabot III, PearBOT, WOSlinkerBot, Mika1h, Ffl0216, Dimadick -- please review the above discussion and voice your respective opinions.

Editors who have contributed to the mainspace article, users: Charleealex, 89.164.149.56, BlossomTreenade, Harun akbulut, Spinningspark, Lovetravel86, 2603:6010:622:E34C:18DC:7B00:BAF:CF54, Vodkasosa, Scammanders, Amapires, LeninVtumane, Larry Hockett, ScottSullivan, 213.205.192.5, 24.45.62.21, 2404:C801:C13:9574:2A0:A7FF:FE4C:28BC, Neils51, NinjaRobotPirate, IamDjKhaled305, 158.140.204.36, NeoBatfreak, 2600:1702:4990:B40:A136:801B:4E01:A11D. I did not include the blocked IPs. I may post this discussion elsewhere for editor input. If done, I will note so hereafter.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that a quick look at the edit history, seemlingly shows that User:Bignole reverse the majority of all edits on this page.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want input, then it should go to WP:FILM and WP:FILMMOS talk pages, not specific random users some of which are actual bots.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Nightmare_on_Elm_Street_(franchise)&oldid=1197183536"