Talk:Side Effects (2013 film)

Durham University
Jude Laws's British psychiatrist character is described as having been educated at Durham University. An interesting piece of trivia is that this would be impossible: Durham has no medical or psychiatric department. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.204.126 (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Music
An editor removed the music section saying it wasn't notable enough. I'm not sure how to judge which soundtracks are notable enough to be included in film articles, so maybe someone who knows better might be able to restore and improve the section.

Without a Music section it didn't make any sense for the External links to include a link to a review of the soundtrack so I removed it. Even if the music section was restored the review shouldn't really be in the External links section anyway and instead should be used as a reference somewhere in the Music section.

Looking back through the edit History a review of the soundtrack was heavily quoted but that was removed for WP:COPYVIO and also Examiner.com isn't usually considered an acceptable source for Wikipedia articles anyway. Another review was also removed for Copyvio.

Maybe the soundtrack just isn't notable enough, but if anyone thinks it is and want's to try improving the article then hopefully they'll see that they don't need to start from scratch and that there are 2/3 reviews they can start with, so long as they don't quote too heavily and avoid Copyvio. -- 23:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.225.37 (talk)

Soundtrack
I quote WP:FILMMUSIC:


 * "WikiProject Film consensus is against having cover images in the album infoboxes in the film article. The poster image in the film infobox is sufficient for identification of the topic, and having cover images in the film article's album infoboxes is considered extraneous. If an album is notable enough for a stand-alone article (see notability guidelines for albums), one should be created, and an album infobox with a cover image can exist in the new article. For collections of prerecorded songs, a track listing can be presented to identify the songs and their artists. The Track listing template can be used for this presentation. Track listings for film scores are generally discouraged since the score is usually composed by one person and the score's tracks are generic descriptions of scenes from the film. Noteworthy tracks from the film score can be identified and discussed in prose."

So we are now doing two things which are discouraged by the Wikipedia film project guidelines. Arguments, please. Popcornduff (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The cover image is absolutely fine so there's no need for that to be removal, As for the tracklisting ... readers are obviously going to want to know what's on the soundtrack so removing this is a detriment to our readers, It may be best to start an RFC as unfortunately I don't think we can come to an agreement on this, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 12:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment
Should we include the soundtrack album cover and tracklisting in the article Side Effects (2013 film)?

This is discouraged by WP:FILMMUSIC:


 * "WikiProject Film consensus is against having cover images in the album infoboxes in the film article ... Track listings for film scores are generally discouraged since the score is usually composed by one person and the score's tracks are generic descriptions of scenes from the film."

See also previous discussion above. Popcornduff (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Include - Keeping it short and sweet I personally think removing the image and tracklisting would be detrimental to our readers - Some readers may have come to read the film and others may have come purely to read the soundtrack content but anyway that's my 2c, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 14:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Having read the comments below I do agree the image is identical to the one in the infobox and as such it doesn't exactly improve their understanding of the subject so I agree with removing the image however IMHO the tracklisting should still stay regardless of what NSONGS or whatever it was states, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 13:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Why should this article be the exception to the guideline? Popcornduff (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Because I believe the content is encyclopedic and us being an encyclopedia we should have content like this - If the content was a long list of tracks with not much else then I'd agree get rid but there's only about 10% of the article focusing on the soundtrack whilst the 90% focuses heavily on the film, I never disagree with MOS but in this case I do and I will go as far as to say it needs to be updated or changed however that discussion is for another day, IAR should be invoked here IMHO. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * To me this sounds more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you have an issue with the guideline you should get the guideline changed first or provide a more clear reason why this film's tracklisting constitutes an exception, in my opinion. DonIago (talk) 05:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Include -- Yes, keep it short but include it. More information is always better than less when the information is well sourced and accurate. People using Wikipedia are looking for information, it should be provided when relevant. Damotclese (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The guidelines explicitly say not to include album art and tracklists in film articles. What is your response to this? Popcornduff (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose inclusion – I don't believe the image qualifies under fair use. WP:NFCCP#8 states that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This might be true if the article were a standalone soundtrack article, but it forms the sub-section of a film article and the CD art is virtually identical to the film poster art, which already exists in the infobox. In other words the soundtrack is already identifiable from the main infobox image which invalidates the fair use IMO. For fair use to hold in this case it would need to be substantively different. As for the track listings, I tend to take this on a case-by-case basis. Obviously they are important for musicals but not so much for generic scores. If secondary sources identify pieces of music from the soundtrack then it might make sense to document the tracks in such cases, but I don't see the argument for doing so in this instance. Yes, people come to Wikipedia for information but its purpose is to provide them with encyclopedic information, not consumer advice. Betty Logan (talk) 12:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose album image and tracklist.  The project guidelines seem clearly against this, and I haven't seen a reason given to make an exception here. --SubSeven (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose album image, it is the same as the infbox image and serves no purpose (the reason for the guideline being as it is). Don't really have an issue with the rest of the section, even though FILMMUSIC discourages track listings. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose soundtrack cover image per the guidelines. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of free content, so non-free content must be limited. If the soundtrack is not notable enough to stand alone, it does not warrant its own image, especially when the image is just like the film poster. As for the track listing, the point of not including them is that it usually does not impart any encyclopedic value unless the soundtrack was covered enough that multiple tracks were discussed. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)