Talk:Tenet (film)/Archive 3

Rfc about science fiction genre
Should the opening sentence of this article mention the "science fiction" genre? Debresser (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes as nominator. There was a previous consensus to revisit this issue again after the film came out. The science fiction genre is well-sourced. I think this article would be lacking information that an encyclopedical article would be expected to have, were this to be left out. There is no reason based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines not to have this. One editor is posing himself as gatekeeper for this article, so an Rfc is the only option left.
 * "There was a previous consensus to revisit this issue again after the film came out." See the section above, including my comment and Facu-el Millo's comment.
 * "The science fiction genre is well-sourced." "Christopher Nolan’s original sci-fi action spectacle" (on the official website of the distributor, Warner Bros.), "Tenet takes the director back to the realm of science-fiction", "his science fiction thriller, 'Tenet', "Christopher Nolan’s frosty espionage sci-fi", "'Tenet', a clever blockbuster that slips between espionage and science fiction", "Tenet, a forthcoming science fiction thriller", "TENET is a sci-fi thriller" and many more. It has been mentioned in the discussions above that the director, Nolan, has called this film a "spy" film, with the implication that other genres would therefore not be applicable. First of all I think that implication is incorrect, and the fact that the director sees this film foremost as a spy film, does not mean that it doesn't contain important elements from other genres that are dominant enough to mention in this article. Secondly, on Wikipedia we go by reliable sources, and the particular vision of the director, who per definition is about the least neutral person possible, is not very relevant to this discussion.
 * "I think this article would be lacking information that an encyclopedical article would be expected to have, were this to be left out." Obviously the genre of a film is something that should be mentioned in the lead of an article. This is also stated in WP:FILMLEAD: "The lead section should introduce the film and provide a summary of the most important aspects of the film from the article body. At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the following elements: the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified... Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources."
 * "There is no reason based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines not to have this." Two arguments have been brought against this edit: WP:FILMLEAD and WP:SEAOFBLUE.
 * WP:FILMLEAD on the contrary says that "The lead section should introduce the film and provide a summary of the most important aspects of the film from the article body. At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the following elements: the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified." That sentence makes it clear that the lead must contain information regarding the film's genre. Somebody tried to falsely argue as though this sentence means only one genre can be mentioned, but that is obviously a mistaken conclusion, since the whole purpose of the sentence is to say what the minimum requirements for a good lead of a film article are, and says that at least one genre should be indicated. Nothing there to preclude more than one genre, if relevant (like in this case). If anyone would like to argue, erroneously, that the single "genre" means as well that only one genre should be added, then I would, just as erroneously, argue that the next sentence uses the plural "genre classifications".
 * WP:SEAOFBLUE says that "When possible, avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link (a "sea of blue"), as in  (Irish Chess Championship). Consider rephrasing the sentence, omitting one of the links, or using a single, more specific link instead (e.g.  )." The guideline itself already says that this is only "when possible". In addition, with all due respect, but two links is not yet a "sea of blue". Even the examples in the guideline consist of three consecutive links. As a last argument, I'd add that a guideline regarding presentation of information should never override content considerations.
 * "One editor is posing himself as gatekeeper for this article" Eleven editors have added the science fiction genre during the last month, including three (actually four) times today only: Jacobus.nl, Azim Abou-Khalil, me , Okiegolf55, Starship.paint, Alvrix3108, Hjlgsdyjm ppljgff, an IPv6 editor, 90.248.72.163, Cardei012597, LizardKing007 . Added after the start of the Rfc: Dicklyon. The addition of the science fiction genre has also been strongly supported on the talkpage by four additional editors who have not made the edit (at least this last month): User:Mclarenfan17, User:Facu-el Millo, User:Blacktargumby and User:72.184.60.96. From the discussions above and the edit history it becomes clear that the main opponent of the addition is User:Cognissonance, whom three editors (I, Mclarenfan17 and Facu-el Millo have accused previously of WP:OWN issues with this page. User:77Survivor also opposed the addition in the section above, but a look at his edit history shows that genre removal is a bit of his favorite thing, so this discussion might actually force him to change that. User:TropicAces has reverted the addition a few times, because of the previous consensus mentioned above (although one time he removed another genre but left the science fiction genre in place), and his point of view on the issue is not clear. Debresser (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Notified WP:FILM and all editors mentioned above.


 * Yes much like Nolan's Inception is listed as a "science fiction action" film, I think it’s important to include. Simply putting "spy film" would lead one to imply its in the realm of James Bond, which is clearly not the case with Tenet. I think it’s not excessive to include both, essentially "what kind" of spy film it is. TropicAces (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)tropicAces
 * Yes per nom. I see it to be beneficial to include science fiction as a primary genre alongside it as a "spy film" as it describes the overall type of the film in-line with Nolan's prior works while contrasting it from standard films in the spy genre. I'm not worried about the back-to-back linking as long as it is only two and not exceeding that count, given it is minimal to what is necessary here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe as not all sources call it sci-fi. I tried putting "spy film with time travel" but that got reverted, too.  Something in the lead to indicate a relevant subgenre indicating sci-fi or time travel seems like a good thing here.  Why haven't opposers been here to say why they object?  Dicklyon (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Depends, only if the genre/sub-genre isn't stretched. The nominator of course will favor the addition because he's still unable to process it that I am NOT against the parent genres. I just wanted the lead to be simple and even agreed the genres action and sci-fi are absolutely correct. The nominator believes we're just against the addition of the genre because we think it's not sci-fi, which isn't the case and it hurts to explain ourselves again and again. It IS indeed sci-fi and action, but according to the Wikipedia defintion, spy film is another sub-genre apart from superhero film and sci-fi action that combines the two parents genres. So does hoping for a simpler definition make me and User:Cognissonance villains here? Just like Debresser, User:Mclarenfan17 kept on adding sci-fi thriller without a consensus and I simply restored it to action thriller (the first thing I remember it being listed as). That makes it my favorite thing, as per the nominator. I kept on saying to list the genres in infobox if it's such a big deal, but no one agreed to that. For the last time, we're NOT calling any genres long. We're only choosing to list a sub-genre that encompasses the parent genre without prompting other editors to shove in more genres. I have no problem with sci-fi; we can list the film as sci-fi action. But sci-fi spy is a little difficult for me to process because that contradicts with the definition on the spy film page and would make it redundant to list a parent genre and its subgenre together at the same time. I'd say if spy film is incorrect, irrespective of what the director says, we should list only sci-fi action and no third genre. And the nominator, we're sorry we failed to explain ourselves better and it made you accuse us for things that don't even have a relevance in this particular article. You had to write almost a whole page about our deeds, even after two discussions. "this discussion might actually force him to change that"... Change what, exactly? I didn't want to say this but if you can please visit the talk page of The Terminator (sorry it's going out of context, but is necessary to clear some air), I fought a similar battle against some editors resorting to WP:OWN against listing sci-fi action. One of them was so adamant on listing only sci-fi that all my arguments were put aside. To this date it remains listed as merely sci-fi, and I felt the same as Debresser did, so it's my humble request not to accuse me for things I don't like to do. My asking to end this debate soon was not meant to force my opinion but avoid The Terminator-like conditions. So, my stand on this remains unchanged. List sci-fi action or spy film or an espionage sci-fi action. Do anything but only as long as everyone agrees. I have said this before that my vote goes with what majority says. (77Survivor (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC))

Sorry, but I must ask the nominator to explain this:

"We have so many editors who have added this, that there is obvious consensus for this, even though two editors pose themselves as policemen and try to prevent this necessary addition for no good reason."

Then what exactly is the point of this debate in the first place? The nominator can accuse us for things, set up a debate to publicize that and at the same time believe the consensus is created as long as I and User:Cognissonance don't respond with our arguments. The explanation given for the edit itself is ridiculous. The nominator has made this into a personal edit war and is resorting to making decisions like this without consensus for the second time. The editor did the same for the previous discussion (see here). We never opposed any of the genres, but the nominator clearly fails to understand this. Sorry, this is completely out of hand now and this is the third debate in a row that is not going to work as long as such edits calling us names keep happening. (77Survivor (talk) 04:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC))


 * No. Debresser's strategy is to tire out the opposition until he gets his way. He lost the argument twice and is now appealing to majority rule, which is not how one builds consensus. In keeping with WP:FILMLEAD, the genre must "represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources". Thriller is next in line. As such, action-thriller is the objective primary subgenre. It doesn't breach MOS:SEAOFBLUE, which says, "avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link". I've been open to numerous proposals in previous discussions, including no genre at all; however, Debresser has a single-minded obsession with adding science fiction. Cognissonance (talk) 08:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "Debresser has a single-minded obsession with adding science fiction." I have a lot of things I do on Wikipedia. Trying to make good edits is the rule. Adding the science fiction genre to the Tenet (film) article is a far second. :) Debresser (talk) 02:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * No, because spy films often include action and science fiction elements. Perhaps the nominator is unfamiliar with genre conventions/hybridity? 99.99% of all spy films can be decribed as either an action or thriller film. It's redundant to list of every genre when one encompass them all (spy, science fiction, adventure, thriller, dystopian, drama etc.) The creator of the film has on many occasions stated that this is his take on the "spy film" genre. Sammyjankis88 (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Spy films include action, as a rule, but not science fiction. Which is why that genre needs a separate mention. Debresser (talk) 02:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not correct, there is no "rule" saying spy films must include action. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and The Constant Gardener can't be classified as action films. Tenet is a spy-fi, a subgenre of spy fiction. Sammyjankis88 (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Then we should say so. I have no problem with writing "spy-fi" instead of "science fiction spy film". Debresser (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As long as it's reduced to one link, I don't have a problem with it. Cognissonance (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I prefer the solution below, but I'm fine with this as well. Sammyjankis88 (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I also prefer the solution below. Cognissonance (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

On RFC Process: Generally, an RFC is to bring in fresh viewpoints who can help understand the arguments made by the editors who haven't found consensus on a point they're arguing. It doesn't really help if the RFC is filled up with accusations and counter-accusations and references to past arguments and behaviors. It works much better to just state your cases and let other look and weigh in on the issues, leaving past behaviors out of it. There are no bad guys here. Is it possible to recover this RFC back to such a state? Dicklyon (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No. I retract my prior message after reading posts made after it. It appears to me that there is much debate on the perception of the genre from the audience, the director, and reliable sources. I'm not outright opposed to including "science fiction" as a genre to list it as a "science fiction spy film" given the time travel aspects heavily featured in the plot (though I cannot see justification in including any mention of time travel in the lead as a genre itself), but given most modern depictions of films in the action, thriller, or spy genres included some aspects of science fiction within them, it may not be as notable with this film in particular as it is with something like The Terminator due to, from my perspective at least, the time travel inversion is used more so as part of an action thriller piece within the spy genre than a full-on science fiction film. Nolan himself has called it a spy film while most reliable sources, as listed above, have referred to it as an "action-thriller", so I'm leaning more in support of using that and "spy film" than the latter with science fiction. "Action thriller spy film" does seem wordy to me, but as long as it is contained to two links; a link to action-thriller (albeit a redirect to Action film, though I don't think that's much cause of concern) and a link to spy film as is here: action-thriller spy film, it would be able to work within SEAOFBLUE as it is only two links and not three, despite its length, while still conveying the type of film in a general scope; "action-thriller" also utilizes the hyphen to conjoin the two genres "action" and "thriller" into one world, one link, with "spy film" being another. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say unless you put something unlinked between them, two links still look like one link. Cognissonance (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Which is something we do a lot. Just two consecutive links is not what WP:SEAOFBLUE is about. All the more so if there is good reason top have them, like in this case.Debresser (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:SEAOFBLUE is there to avoid putting links next to each other so that they look like a single link. Cognissonance (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That can easily be worked around if we list it as an "action-thriller and spy film" in a similar way to how we list Titanic (1997) as an "epic romance and disaster film"; linking to two different genres with a common verb "and" in-between them. I think this would be a pretty reasonable way to go about this to cover both sides' concerns, especially if we are to go by the inversion as more thriller than science fiction. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be a good solution. Cognissonance (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this is a reasonable compromise. Sammyjankis88 (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Combining the two solutions into "action-thriller and spy-fi film" would make us reach a consensus, having incorporated all concerns while still abiding by WP:FILMLEAD and MOS:SEAOFBLUE. Cognissonance (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that works for me. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For me too, although I insist for the record that 2 consecutive links is not yet a problem with WP:SEAOFBLUE. But various workarounds are possible. Also for the record, this is an Rfc, so we shall have to await how it will evolve for its duration (a week minimum) and how it will be closed by an uninvolved editor, although I have no problem with the fact that in the interim the edit has been made already. Debresser (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, because the sources say so, as Debresser provided above. No prejudice against any other genres being mentioned.  starship .paint  (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes according to the links put forward by Debresser, "science fiction" is at least a common designation, or maybe the single most common one. Something like the earlier proposal of "action-thriller and spy-fi film" definitely makes sense. Talrolande (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes to "science-fiction action film." It's certainly categorized as a science-fiction film in industry trade sites and publications, which speaks to how the filmmakers themselves market it and, by extension, how audiences consume it.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

"Spy-fi"
Guys: we can't call it a "spy-fi film" if we don't have sources calling it a spy-fi film. This is the wrong call.

WP:FILMLEAD specifies that we use "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". Not only do we have three genres in the lead right now, the primary genre used by sources is certainly not the faintly ridiculous niche concept "spy-fi". Popcornfud (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, I just combed through every source currently cited in the reception section to see what genre descriptors they used. Discounting cases where there didn't seem to be any clear genres identified, and articles behind a paywall, here are the findings:


 * Variety - spy thriller "with expanded science-fiction parameters"


 * Guardian - action thriller


 * Rolling Stone - sci-fi thriller


 * Reelviews - Science fiction/action


 * Toronto Sun - thriller
 * Chicago Sun - sci-fi thriller


 * LA Weekly - thriller


 * rogerebert.com - Thriller, action


 * Hollywood Reporter - sci-fi thriller


 * Chicago Tribune - thriller

Based on sources currently used, to me the clear common genre is "thriller" and therefore this is the "primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified" per WP:FILMLEAD. Action and science fiction elements can be described in the lead, but I'd vote to omit them from the lead sentence in the name of keeping things simple. Whatever we do, please let's remove "spy-fi" as it isn't supported by sources. Popcornfud (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but there are plenty of sources for the science fiction genre, as you yourself have shown, and there is a clear consensus above that it should be mentioned as one of the primary genres, along action-thriller. The spy genre is here because some editors insist that since Nolan mentioned it, we must too, and because of the fact that the protagonist is after all agent in some organization. I have stated above that I have no problem with "spy-fi" as a compromise, but I would be equally happy with "science fiction spy", if "spy-fi" is impossible because of a lack of sources for that term. My reason for starting the Rfc was to add science fiction, which has clear consensus above, and as long as that is clear, I care less about the spy part. Debresser (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel like I'm having one of those Wikipedia days where everything is backwards... appropriate for this subject.
 * Surely I don't have to point out here that Wikipedia claims must be cited? "Spy-fi" is not cited! Editors who believe "since Nolan mentioned it, we must too" are incorrect - WP:FILMLEAD explains how we determine genres for the lead sentence and "what the director mentions" is not the criteria. Did Nolan even use the term "spy-fi"?! The term seems to have been plucked from the ether by an editor in the discussion above. Popcornfud (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If there are no objections then I am going to remove "spy-fi" as it is totally unsourced. Popcornfud (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I object. The discussion has resulted in a consensus. You can't just come out of nowhere and change it. Cognissonance (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do you support the inclusion of uncited information? Is everyone involved in the consensus aware that it's completely against Wikipedia policy? Popcornfud (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It is one thing to debate whether a sourceable minority genre such as "science-fiction" should be included, but quite another to include one that is not backed up by sources at all. WP:V is a policy and a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not trump it. Betty Logan (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand that there is a desire to include "science fiction" here. As I said above, by my understanding of WP:FILMLEAD, that is not the primary genre identified by sources so we don't need to include it. If the consensus is to include it anyway fine, I'll just have to suck that up, but "spy fi" is not the solution. Per my findings above, sources used in the article call it sci fi, but no sources call it "spy-fi". Can we find a new solution please. Popcornfud (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I did propose simply calling it a "action-thriller" film as those seem to be heavily cited the most, whereas science fiction and spy come secondary from my perspective of the sources commenting about it largely because a spy film can have a number of differing genres in it so action-thriller is more specific to this piece and because it seems the science fiction elements on display in the film are used to convey more of a thrilling effect for the action rather than a huge science fiction piece. My initial proposal was adjusted to include science fiction" if some felt it was necessary to establish a consensus that would work for most involved and given it is heavily sourced but not as much as "action-thriller". I could go either way here and side with 1.) just label it as an "action-thriller" film for simplicity with FILMLEAD as the main genre given my reasoning above with its implications and address the science fiction aspects in "Reception" if need be or 2.) list it as an "action-thriller and science fiction" film but exclude "spy" or "spy-fi" from it given that genre is already being covered in more detail by "action-thriller" an "spy-fi" is not discussed by any sources in the article. I am more preferable to the first option but see either one as a feasible solution. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I prefer option 1 but if we don't add science fiction we won't hear the end of this discussion, and I want it to end now. Tired of this shit. Cognissonance (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "but if we don't add science fiction we won't hear the end of this discussion" That is probably correct. And for good reason. In any case, the only thing I don't understand is why you had to make this edit, and the previous one, before the Rfc is closed. This is really typical WP:OWN behavior... Debresser (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't have to wait until this RfC is closed to remove uncited information from the article. There is no ambiguity around that imo. Popcornfud (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't have to wait until this RfC is closed to remove uncited information from the article. There is no ambiguity around that imo. Popcornfud (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

(Pinging some of those involved or of interest ) I have recounted this genre situation yet again and I feel it is of our best intentions to resolve this and find a common ground to build a consesnus off of. We know it is widely regarded as a spy film by Nolan and the press, as well as a thriller film and science fiction piece in reports. "Action" isn't used quite as much and is closely regarded within the spy genre, so I feel we can go away with that. We should avoid calling it a spy-fi film directly in the lead given that is unsourced, but I do feel going with "science fiction-spy thriller film" or "science fiction spy-thriller film" would be the best option to describe the film and wouldn't be too much cause for concern given it addresses the main and well-regarded and sourced genres in an easy-to-read format of two words; I'm not too concerned with where the hyphen goes for those and would agree with either one. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I oppose any solution that includes more than the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified, per WP:FILMLEAD. I think this guideline is incredibly sane and would, if we actually bothered to follow it, 1) resolve this debate and 2) make the lead sentence nice and simple.
 * I have already provided an assessment (above) of what genres sources used in this article describe the film as. Based on this, "spy film" is clearly not the primary genre described by sources so we should drop the entire "spy" thing right there. And we should just call it a thriller or (if you want a subgenre) action thriller. That's it. Popcornfud (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I do feel calling it a spy film is notable for it given it is quite so much in the spy genre, even though reliable sources fail to cover it mainly. Science fiction I'm fine with not including, as I've said above I do feel it can already be covered by spy thriller given its use of the sci-fi time manipulation elements. You do agree with action-thriller, which I do believe would work on its own, but can be chopped up and is one of the reasons why we are having this discussion. Action is more of a baseless term that holds no merit and isn't as descriptive, nor heavily sourced as thriller or sci-fi are, though we shouldn't include sci-fi as I've already mentioned. Spy is much more of an appropriate and descriptive genre for this film given Nolan described the films of the spy genre as the primary influence for the film, and despite it not being as heavily sourced as the rest, I do believe dubbing it a "spy thriller" film would make the most sense given all sides considered. Spy thriller is a singular genre and can work within FILMLEAD as the primary genre given it is like, and more accurate, than action-thriller is. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If it's not the primary genre described by sources then we can't use it. On Wikipedia we go by sources. Nothing else matters. Popcornfud (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If it's not the primary genre described by sources then we can't use it. On Wikipedia we go by sources. Nothing else matters. Popcornfud (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The director Christopher Nolan did state this: Interestingly, this is one of the first films I’ve ever made where we didn’t do any screenings [...] And the reason was, I think we all have the spy genre so in our bones and in our fingertips. I actually wanted to work from a memory and a feeling of that genre, rather than the specifics. (per this ref) He goes on to state in the same ref, It’s totally in my bones. I don’t need to reference the movies and look at them again. It’s about trying to re-engage with your childhood connection with those movies, with the feeling of what it’s like to go someplace new, someplace fresh. It actually has to take them somewhere they haven’t been before, and that’s why no one’s ever been able, really, to do their own version of James Bond or something. It doesn’t work. And that’s not at all what this is. This is much more my attempt to create the sort of excitement in grand-scale entertainment I felt from those movies as a kid, in my own way. It appears that this is Nolan's attempt at making a film like a James Bond spy feature, but not replicating what that is and making it his own. There are also two more articles that are used on the page and use "spy thriller" (Mashable and Digital Spy), both of which emphasize on the spy thriller elements being conjoined with the time travel elements of science fiction that is used for the thriller effect, as I've stated earlier. "Thriller" is used the most at 11, "science fiction" at 5, spy at 4, and action at 3. "Spy thriller" and "science-fiction thriller" seem to be the most common instances when conjoined together, making up the first three most used genres in the sources. I feel we can safely ignore action as a genre given it is less sourced than spy is, which already covers action as part of the genre itself. Based on these usages, it appears that calling it a "science-fiction spy-thriller film" would suffice to convey the mainly sourced genres for the film. It does include the genres that have been adamantly expressed for inclusion (science fiction as a primary genre from Debresser and other editors; thriller as another primary genre from Popcornfud; spy from other editors). Per WP:WEIGHT, "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." The action genre falls under the third point with the least sources backing it, thriller is the majority genre sourced and indefensibly applies as the primary genre. As I've said above from what FILMLEAD says, the primary genre or sub-genre can be included if they are "verifiably classified". Spy thriller does qualify as a sub-genre of thriller and is reliably sourced 4 times. Science fiction is also sourced in the majority 5 times, as a sub-genre, as well. The majority of reliable mainstream sources use thriller and science fiction to refer to and define this film, and those should be used per WP:WEIGHT. Based on this analysis, I find it is of best interest to label it a "science fiction thriller film" or a "science-fiction thriller film"; the latter including a hyphen between "science" and "fiction" would identify it as a singular link per MOS:SEAOFBLUE to have only no more than two links visibly clear as to not confuse the reader. I am fine to not include "spy" as a part of the genre, though if some do feel it to be necessary, as it is sourced in a prominent minority, usually with thriller", than we could just link it as a "science-fiction spy-thriller film" to follow SEAOFBLUE and still maintain the main genres on display here and those that are the majority from reliable sources. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am fine with the present version, but I would also be fine with adding spy film. As long as we have scince-fiction, I don't care. :) Debresser (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is it your priority to include science fiction when it isn't the primary genre cited by sources? Popcornfud (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is sourced in multiple reliable sources, so we should have it. Since it was absent, that is why I came to this talkpage in the first place. Debresser (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * But other the other genres are cited more by the reliable sources in the article. And yet you say "as long as we have science-fiction, I don't care". This suggests you are editing based on your own personal feeling about what genre the film is, rather than going by what sources say. Popcornfud (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Whatever you think it suggests, and however that may be... It does not matter what is more in sources or less. That is your mistake all along. As long as it is present in many sources, it can (and must) be used. Debresser (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, that's not how WP:FILMLEAD works. There is no requirement to include every genre mentioned by every source. You have invented that. Popcornfud (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * been there, seen that. Sorry, but you are at least partly wrong. I agree that WP:FILMLEAD doesn't say to include every genre that has been mentioned, but it is likewise clear from WP:FILMLEAD that if there is more than one genre that is important to the character of the film, that it must be mentioned. In other words, there is nothing there that says only one genre can be mentioned, and that assumption is frankly speaking not realistic. Debresser (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * it is likewise clear from WP:FILMLEAD that if there is more than one genre that is important to the character of the film, that it must be mentioned No it isn't. You have completely invented that. In fact it says Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources. "Science fiction" is not specified in the majority of sources used in the article, as I have shown above. Popcornfud (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That is precisely the line in WP:FILMLEAD from which it follows that more than one genre is completely acceptable. If the majority of source use either action thriller or science fiction, then we should have those two. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Putting everything from the past few paragraphs aside and any claims of ownership or biases, I feel that this discussion has gone on for quite a while now, and that it is in our best intentions to listen to one another and find a common ground at which a consensus can be built upon. We should listen to what each other has to say about the sources (what ones are in the article about the genre topic and what should be included about it), which genres are the most relevant and reliably sourced for this film, and how do we display and link it so it complies with WP:FILMLEAD and MOS:SEAOFBLUE. Debresser appears to believe in using science fiction along with other genres best suitable for it, while Popcornfud appears to believe in using a singular genre that is not spy in favor of using the primary one per FILMLEAD. According to FILMLEAD, the lead should include the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified. [...] Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources. Going off of this alone, "thriller" is used in 9 of the articles provided above (Variety, Guardian, Rolling Stone, Toronto Sun, Chicago Sun, LA Weekly, Rogerebert.com, Hollywood Reporter, and Chicago Tribune), "sci-fi thriller" is used in 3 of said articles (Rolling Stone, Chicago Sun, and Hollywood Reporter), "action" is used in 3 (Guardian, Reelviews, and Rogerebert.com), "science-fiction" or "sci-fi" is used in 5 articles (Variety, RS, Reelviews, CS, Hollywood Reporter), and "spy" is used in 2 (Variety and Toronto Sun).
 * I've officially re-edited the genre link to science-fiction spy-thriller film, per your suggestion. I believe it beautifully and succinctly encompasses everything the film is genre wise. Azim Abou-Khalil (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your kindness and care is noted, but we are not to go along with it before others weigh in with their opinions first to see if a consensus to use it can be reached. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right. Apologies for my cavalierness. Azim Abou-Khalil (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I will never support a solution that includes three different genres in the lead sentence. The reason is that the lead sentence should be a concise definition of the article subject in the most basic terms. Call it a science fiction film, call it an action film, call it an action thriller, call it a spy film, call it a thriller, just pick one genre or subgenre supported by the majority of sources and keep it simple.
 * If everyone else thinks we need all three, or four, or five genres in the lead sentence then great, the consensus is against me, but it will never get my vote. Popcornfud (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm genuinely perplexed as to why the Trailblazer101 (talk) suggestion doesn't assuage you considering it manages to be simple and concise whilst being more comprehensive. Regardless, you're entitled to your opinion and I have no wish to fight you or anyone else any further on this matter. Azim Abou-Khalil (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I was wondering, if you don't mind explaining, as to why it is that you do not wish for there to be more than one genre? In my latest proposal, there are two main genres that are all reliably sourced: science fiction and spy thriller. I know you don't want "spy" to be included in it and have expressed your opinions on this matter endlessly, but for the sake of allowing all of us to hear each other out in the best hopes of reaching a consensus or some form of conclusion on this month's long discussion, I think it is best if we all cast our views and then proceed to find what works best with our beliefs and what the sources and policies say, whether that be what you believe in, what someone else believes in, my proposal, or something else entirely. But we'll only be able to find that if we all talk things out rather than bickering and debating non-stop. The floor is yours if you'd like to share. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Because I believe in clear, concise prose. As I said above, the first sentence of the lead should express the basic definition of the article subject and no more. I do not believe that we require four or five genres to offer a basic definition of the subject of this article. We have an entire lead section (and then an entire article) to discuss the various elements the film encompasses so there is no need to squeeze it all into the first sentence. The usefulness of the lead sentence decreases, not increases, the more stuff you add to it. Popcornfud (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Because I believe in clear, concise prose. As I said above, the first sentence of the lead should express the basic definition of the article subject and no more. I do not believe that we require four or five genres to offer a basic definition of the subject of this article. We have an entire lead section (and then an entire article) to discuss the various elements the film encompasses so there is no need to squeeze it all into the first sentence. The usefulness of the lead sentence decreases, not increases, the more stuff you add to it. Popcornfud (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Breaking from the current conversation for an alternate proposal: I believe the easiest way to cover this would be by removing the genre from the first sentence and instead adding information about the variety of genre inspiration included. An example:

"'With a story combining elements of a variety of genres—including spy films, thrillers, action films, and science fiction films—Nolan took more than five years to write the screenplay after deliberating about Tenet's central ideas for over a decade.'"

This is far from perfect, but incorporating the disagreement of genres into the lead is itself valuable in my opinion. In this example, we'd limit the first sentence to simply "Tenet is a 2020 film written and directed [etc.]" and address the complicated genre later on in the lead. If this overcomplicates things, it won't hurt my feelings to be shot down. Sock  ( tock talk)  00:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I do feel this would be a reasonable and useful approach, though I also do feel at least including thriller as the primary genre in the lead would work given it is the most sourced and lots of the elements of the other genres as presented in the film can fall under that thriller element. By far, I feel this is the most we've come to a conclusion. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is exactly what I've been advocating for the whole time. Popcornfud (talk) 10:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The first sentence should include a main genre or the main genres. That is the whole point of WP:FILMLEAD. A proposal to do without that, will not receive my support. I see nothing wrong with two genres, or even three if need be. If that is what is needed to do justice to the film, then so be it. Debresser (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It does appear we are in agreement to note the varied genres in the second paragraph, so next up is figuring out what primary genre should be in the beginning of the lead. Should it be a "2020 thriller film" as that is the most reliably sourced, or should it be the minority sourced "2020 spy-thriller film". I feel we could simply list thriller at the beginning as that and all other genres would be discussed below, so I don't have much concern about that, if at all. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Use the genre most mentioned by sources. So thriller. Why would we use the genre least mentioned by sources? Popcornfud (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * No, we are not in agreement. The genres must be in the lead. All relevant ones.
 * I am getting the impression that you are ignoring the very extensive discussion that took place before you came along. You are only a few weeks late... Debresser (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't have to include "all relevant" genres in the lead. Sock is proposing that, because there are so many genres that are relevant to this film and that are reliably sourced varied, it is best to list them in the second paragraph while still being part of the lead. I suggested to add onto that, that we should at least use the mostly sourced genre, in this case "thriller", in the top of the lead to convey it most accurately in the beginning, before explaining all of the varied genres that constitute the film. We're not deciding which genres to run with or ignore, this way, we're highlighting all of the genres noted by reliable sources and listing the genre that is most sourced in the beginning as the primary genre; that can't be disputed, given it is the most sourced. If you have concerns with this approach, you are welcome to explain them rather than letting your impressions of another sway from the discussion at hand. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the invitation, which is completely unnecessary, since I have done that already. A few times, as a matter of fact. This "invitation" is just a case of you not being here. Debresser (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I voluntarily joined this discussion after reading through the months long back-end of messages. I have read everything said from all sides. I am merely asking why you oppose the current proposal from Sock. Not anything from the past. Please don't make this more difficult by not cooperating with the discussion at veering away from attempts at reaching a consensus. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And I really meant it when I said that you can go over my past posts here. I have explained my point of view many times, from various points of view. Basically the idea is that an opening sentence that doesn't explain what kind of film the article is about, including foremost the main genre or genres, is lacking in information. That is also what stands behind the guideline at WP:FILMLEAD that mentions that the opening sentence should at least include a main genre. Against that argument, I see no reason whatsoever to move genres to another paragraph. If, and I stress that word, there would be an explanatory paragraph about the various genres in the film, I might have agreed with that proposal, but since we are talking about a mere mention, the place for a mere mention is in the opening sentence. I would also like to remind you that this has been discussed already, agreed upon, and the change made (even before the Rfc was officially closed), so I hope you understand that most editors have already moved on and are, frankly speaking, not interested in going over all of this once more. Debresser (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand. Quite frankly, I am totally fine keeping the page's genres how it is without this sudden change and move of the genres. After thinking about it more last night and into today, I find it is best if we put this to rest and leave it with what the page currently states. I see that there is no point in carrying this out any further as it would really deconstruct the prior consensus and has no need to be altered to such an inconvenience in placing the genres below. If other editors want to try and push for another change, then so be it, but I am fine with leaving this page's genres how it is, given that is the mostly-approved consensus and no other options have gained as much support as what we currently have set for it. Thank you, Debresser for your explanation. This has opened me up to see that this has already been concluded, and that this most recent discussion is waiting it out longer than is needed. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Plot
The plot section is insanely over the 700-word limit of WP:FILMPLOT. It's more than 960 words long. If the equally labyrinthine Inception, among other mind-bending, plot-twisting films, can be given a 698-word synopsis, so can Tenet.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a clearly stated exception in WP:FILMPLOT for films with a complicated plot. Your "argument" above tries to circumvent that exception. I see no reason to do so, as this is clearly one of those cases intended in that exception. Debresser (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong disagree. I have worked on hundreds of plot summaries and I have yet to find one that can't be summarised in fewer than 700 words. This summary is overwritten and should be trimmed. Popcornfud (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Feel free to give it a try. But at the same time please understand, that whether you like it or not, the exception exists in the guideline, and this is a classic case for it. What I mean to say is that if attempts to shorten the plot section will remove more than they should, those edits will be reverted. Debresser (talk) 12:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

DVD release
It was just confirmed that the film is releasing on DVD in December. PinpointJoker57 (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And?Robbmonster (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

World War III
The synopsis the the protagonist is attempting to prevent World War III. Seemed to me more like he was trying to prevent total annihilation, no war involved. Can the synopsis be revised, or am I simply way off base? It sure was one heck of a confusing picture.Robbmonster (talk) 03:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. The protagonist is told that he is to prevent "something worse" than WWIII. "World war" implies a fight among the national militaries of various nations. I have changed the wording to "global catastrophe". (Heroeswithmetaphors)  talk  18:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Not worse than WWIII, but worse than a nuclear holocaust. Barbara specifies it is to prevent WWIII. Cognissonance (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Barbara does indeed say it is to prevent WWIII, but she doesn't appear to be privy to what is ACTUALLY at stake. There is little indication in the story itself that a 'world war' is going to be the actual outcome of events. And it seems someone has gone back and restored WWIII. It might end up being one of THOSE edits...Robbmonster (talk) 04:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Are the article's filming dates off?
The article's lead states that the film's "principal photography lasted three months in Denmark, Estonia, India, Italy, Norway, the United Kingdom, and the United States, from May to November." Does this seem off to anyone? The time from May to November is clearly 6 months. The article's production section also states that filming began in May 2019, and concluded on November 12, 2019, which is around 180 days, but states that filming concluded after ninety-six days. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I just followed the sources. The making-of book says it took 96 days, so I wrote that. They must have spent 3 months from May to November on principal photography and the rest of the time on other things. Cognissonance (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Page is protected
How long will this page be under protection from vandalism? I wanted to edit the box office section. PinpointJoker57 (talk) 08:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The protection expires 12:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC). If you want, you can post the proposed change here, and editors that can edit the article will do so for you, if the proposal seems good. Debresser (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

"science fiction action-thriller film" or "action-thriller and science fiction film"
has repeatedly reverted "science fiction action-thriller film" back to "action-thriller and science fiction film" by claiming there is consensus for this wording at Talk:Tenet (film)/Archive 3. While the consensus does seem to be to keep those genres, I do not see consensus for that keeping the word "and", and would like to open a discussion on whether to include the word "and" in the film's lead when describing its genres. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's weird having "and". It is not the solution. Popcornfud (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My point precisely, as I said in the edit summary of this edit: "The consensus is have both [genres]. The order or addition of additional words between them, is solely you insisting." Cognissonance was the one in the now archived discussion who insisted that per the recommendation in the WP:SEAOFBLUE guideline (not policy), that that is what we should do, and he actively enforces his opinion. I argued then, and still do, that two links is not yet a sea of blue, that there is ample precedent for two consecutive links, that the recommendation clearly says that it is only a general recommendation to which exceptions exist, and that the construction with "and" looks not natural in English. Unfortunately, Cognissonance is not afraid to edit war for his opinions, and sees himself as the police officer assigned to this article (as in having WP:OWN issues), who comes by once or twice a day and reverts everything he doesn't like. If we research this articles history, we will find that many editors have made the edit which is now officially proposed by Wallyfromdilbert, and despite this clear sign of consensus, Cognissonance has reverted them all. I am sorry that my reply had to address not just the issue, but in order to understand what is going on here it is necessary to address at least in part the problems related to the editor as well. Debresser (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd be fine with "action-thriller-science fiction film" or "science fiction-action-thriller". The issue was always that two links look like one link, which MOS:SEAOFBLUE guides people to avoid. Why are you talking about policies like you didn't keep citing WP:FILMLEAD in the last discussions? Cognissonance (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no good way to get round the MOS:SEAOFBLUE problem if we're going to provide multiple genres in the lead sentence. This is part of why I still favour sticking to one genre. Popcornfud (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Then we could just go with science fiction film. Cognissonance (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't really care too much about the particular genre, since several seem to be used in the sources, but I'm not understanding the need for the hyphens. I think a primary genre is normally preferable, but I don't really think there are SEAOFBLUE concerns with two genres considering that is a pretty standard practice for films with many different applicable genres. Do any other editors share the same concerns as Cognissonance about "science fiction action-thriller film" or think it would need hyphens? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not going into a whole new conversation about how to interpret MOS:SEAOFBLUE, there are just different opinions on it. I chose science fiction since that's the genre that started this whole discussion, so we'll go with that. Cognissonance (talk) 03:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The two genres stay, since that was discussed at length and has clear consensus.
 * I do not see a problem with WP:SEAOFBLUE, at least not a problem that means that "action-thriller science fiction film" should be replaced by awkward English. Also, let's not forget that WP:SEAOFBLUE is only a recommendation in a guideline (not even a policy). Debresser (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Plutonium 241 is not weapons grade
I was puzzled why they were after plutonium 241 thinking it's probably a script mistake, which was confirmed, when they called it weapons grade. In plutonium bombs the chain reaction is triggered by neutrons, which split (fissions) atoms, which releases more neutrons and so on. To get a high yield, plutonium 239 is compressed to a strongly supercritical state with chemical explosive and then a neutron generator starts the chain reaction, which releases lots of energy and causes the nuclear explosion. However, plutonium also fissions spontaneously, releasing neutrons that can trigger a chain reaction. When this happens soon after the compression achieves criticality (slight critical), the nuclear explosion expands the plutonium to a subcritical state before much of the plutonium has fissioned and the chain reaction stops and only relatively little energy is released - the bomb fizzles. This is always a risk, but the chance of this happening is higher, when the frequency of spontaneous fission is higher. Plutonium is created in nuclear reactors when uranium 238 captures a neutron without fissioning and then decays to Pu-239. If the Pu-239 stays longer in the reactor, some of it captures neutrons and turns to Pu-240 and Pu-241, which have a higher rate of spontaneous fission and therefore makes it difficult to make bombs with a high chance of not fizzling. Weapons grade plutonium is Pu-239 with only low contamination by Pu-240 and Pu-241. It is obtained by leaving uranium only for a short time in the reactor and extracting the Pu-239 before significant quantities of Pu-240 and Pu-241 build up. Therefore, in the film, specifically looking for Pu-241 is wrong, as it is about as bad for bombs as it can get.

I'm not sure what to call a section of mistakes in movies. We could write there "Pu-239 is weapons grade and Pu-241 is not." I also can't believe this was made intentionally to keep someone from making nuclear bombs, because everyone who has even the slightest chance of doing so knows this. Darsie42 (talk) 06:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Are there any reliable sources that discuss this aspect of the film? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't recall anyone in the film talking about 'making bombs' (which isn't to say it didn't happen). Perhaps the 241 was in some way essential to the (largely unexplained) time travel aspect of the storyRobbmonster (talk) 07:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Me neither. But there is talk about an arms dealer, bombs and "weapons-grade plutonium". Darsie42 (talk) 06:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

If you watch the movie, they don't actually use or pursue Plutonium 241. It's later revealed that the 241 that they were after is actually 'a device' which is a part of 'the algorithm'. They were never actually after Plutonium 241. Well they were, but the Protagonist didn't know what it actually was. Ackner2 (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2020
In the "Bibliography" section, would appreciate it if you could please add the first published academic article on the film "Tenet." Below is how the entry should read:

Belluomini L. (2020). "Tenet as Philosophy: Fatalism Isn’t an Excuse to Do Nothing," In: Johnson D.K. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Popular Culture as Philosophy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97134-6_99-1 Online ISBN 978-3-319-97134-6 CobbisDreaming (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌. Why? We're not using it as a reference. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 14:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)