Talk:Choose Love (film)

Reception in lede
This discussion was created per WP:BRD to find consensus and avoid an edit war.

has removed mention of the film's "generally negative reception" from the lede, leaving this edit summary: "Removed 'and received a generally negative critical reception' from the end of the introductory paragraph. This statement isn't needed because it's duplicative of the Reception section. It also isn't usually included in the introduction for other movies with a generally negative reception (see example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best._Christmas._Ever.)." The entire purpose of a lede on Wikipedia to be duplicative of the below article's content. And the article Best. Christmas. Ever. is by no means a standard. Plenty of GA film articles like Everything Everywhere All at Once and Avengers: Endgame provide a sizeable summary of the reception in the lede; that's what a lede is for. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk &#124; edits) Feel free to ping me! 18:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the additional discussion on this. I chose "Best. Christmas. Ever." as a representative example because these are both Netflix original movies with a negative reception and short Wikipedia page. The examples you gave are for movies with a positive reception and long Wikipedia page. Overall my point is that it seems excessive to call out this movie's negative reception so prominently, based on what I've seen of the pages for other similar movies. 98.117.209.4 (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * How does a negative reception and a shorter article warrant entirely excluding the reception from the lede? The purpose of a lede is to repeat the below article's contents in summary style, and the below article has quite a sizeable and well-sourced reception section. An undue weight argument like yours might apply if the lede rambled on and on about the reception and would otherwise be far shorter, but the content you removed was only one sentence long. How is it excessive to write one sentence in the lede to summarize an eleven-sentence section? I would also like to say that it reasonable to expand the lede's coverage of other information, as doing so would make a sentence about the reception appear less prominent, and right now it only mentions one cast member and not very much about the plot; you are of course welcome to do that. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk &#124; edits) Feel free to ping me! 17:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Right, that's what I meant by excessive: undue weight due to prominence of placement at the end of a short lede. I think the lede is already a good length, based on the rest of the article and the movie itself, which is why I made the edit. 98.117.209.4 (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you respond to my argument? You said "Right, that's what I meant" as though something I said supports your argument. That was not my intent, as I believe that undue weight apply here because the content being discussed is so short. Right now, the lede contains a bit of information from § Description, § Cast, and § Release. The only sections not represented are § Production and § Reception, both of which I believe deserve at least a few words. Even Best. Christmas. Ever. 's lede (which again I do not consider to be any sort of standard) mentions the director and writers, so I doubt you'd have a problem with the former. When you said "undue weight due to prominence of placement at the end of a short lede", are you suggesting that the content is made more prominent because it is placed at the end rather than somewhere in the middle? Because that makes no sense. It is customary on Wikipedia, as seen in the above-mentioned articles, to place reception information at the end of a lede. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk &#124; edits) Feel free to ping me! 13:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)