Talk:Mike Flanagan (filmmaker)

Frequent collaborators section
This has been deleted & added back with many reversions over the years. Isn't such edit-warring supposed to result in a discussion in the talk page? 67.176.136.52 (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There has been some discussion on the user page of one of the participants, but none on the talk page for this article specifically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Indopug#Deleting_material_vs_adding_%22citation_needed%22 67.176.136.52 (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * We run a movie/tv group with a few hundred people and this list has been shared a few times over the years. It’s interesting and noteworthy enough to keep + someone went to a decent effort to do it up.  I can’t see why anyone would vote to remove it 14.203.50.57 (talk) 11:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "interesting and noteworthy" is not a reason to keep something on Wikipedia. You need to have independent reliable sources discussing Flanagan's propensity to repeatedly work with the same set of collaborators. Otherwise it's just an indiscriminate collection of information.
 * Here's an archived version of the page that has the deleted table if you want though. (Nothing on Wikipedia is truly deleted; archives are stored in the history)—indopug (talk) 12:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It has now been added back with citations and a couple quotes from Flanagan (responding to an interview question that references this very section of his wiki page). Unfortunately, Flanagan specifically references recurring crew and while older versions of the table did include them, the most recent one does not. 2601:244:200:2680:CD82:7AEA:AB07:88CE (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat what I said on my talk page:
 * My issue with Frequent collaborators sections isn't just that they are not referenced, it is that they are entirely trivial, UNLESS you have multiple reliable sources that specifically discuss the collaborative nature of a director, and who he collaborates with frequently. (Even then, it's probably best to discuss this stuff in prose rather than an ugly table with dozens of names.) Because otherwise you can just as easily make sections with endless lists of "Frequently used filming equipment" or anything else for every director; but it doesn't make them encyclopedia-worthy.

—indopug (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's trivia policy "does not suggest removing trivia sections" and "does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information", with issues of inclusion instead determined by content policies. Are there any content policies violated by that section? If not, how can the information be presented in a style appropriate for Wikipedia rather than edit-warring over deleting & re-adding it? 67.176.136.52 (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * You need to have independent reliable sources discussing Flanagan's propensity to repeatedly work with the same set of collaborators. Otherwise it's just an indiscriminate collection of information.—indopug (talk) 12:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)