User talk:Bignole/Archive/2018/May

Marketing
Hi Bignole, I don't want to just revert your edit or start a big deal, but the marketing issue you brought up has been discussed before and there has never been consensus to change it to the way you have. At the moment the reception section has two subsections, and since one of them does not have a subheading it goes before the other regardless of chronological order. I don't believe that violates the MOS in any way. If we get consensus on a new format to be widely implemented then I would be happy to work on implementing that at other pages as well, but at the moment I do not see why this article should be different from any others. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I know there was never a full consensus on the ordering of Marketing, but given that you can't have a single subsection, it's best to have it come first. There's no other logical place to put it when your release section is sparse of both content (it's literally just the date of release) and a second subsection. Given that the release is just basically a single sentence, it doesn't need an entire section devoted to it, which is why it is better served under Reception, where it's actual content directly impacts both box office and critical reception.


 * I'm not sure what you mean by " At the moment the reception section has two subsections, and since one of them does not have a subheading it goes before the other regardless of chronological order. I don't believe that violates the MOS in any way" - I haven't said anything about that section. There's nothing wrong with the REception section when it comes to organizing the content. It is following the MOS on page organization and basic professional organization rules for sectioning article content.


 * The whole "single subsection rule" is standard across all of Wikipedia, not restricted to just the film pages. If you see other pages doing that, it should be fixed. Now, in some instances we can find that second subsection header to keep it as such. In others, it should be separated completely when it can't. In this case, you have a fully fleshed out marketing section and a single sentence for release of the film. Not only do they not actually impact each other, but I go back to how it was being organized. This isn't a new consensus that needs to be formed. Single subsections are a no-go. What you are arguing about is placement of marketing, but given that you don't have something else to go under "Release", it really isn't something that can be argued at the moment (especially when the MOS for film says that Marketing can be a stand alone section).


 * Technically, just following the MOSFILM guideline, music should be under Production, not its own thing.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I mean release section in that comment you picked out. Since the release section has two subsections. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I thought maybe you meant that, but also thought maybe I said something to make you think I was going after the REception section. THe release section does NOT have two subsections though. Having content under two areas does not constitute 2 subsections. You have a line of statement and then a subsection devoted to Marketing. That line is not a subsection. It's technically classified as the lead-in information for the following subsections (which is why I moved it under "Reception"). It's the information that would be part of the overall main section, with smaller, more defined sections (subsections) acting as focal points for distinct areas of information. You don't have that here (yet at least, not saying you couldn't eventually develop that).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it isn't that. It is a second subsection. That is why there was some discussion on potentially recommending the use of a "Theatrical release" subheading or something along those lines, but a decision was never actually made. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * THat's not how subsections work. You cannot call information a "subsection" if it doesn't exist as a subsection. It makes no sense to have a section title "Release" with a subsection titled "Theatrical release" (for a single sentence mind you) and another section title "Marketing" (which has nothing to do with the actual release of the film). You're stretching an argument simply because you're used to the notion that it should look that way. The MOS says that marketing can be a lone section. As of right now, that's what works best because your "release" information is a single statement about when it came out.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you feel that way then why not restart the wider discussion and push it until there is some actionable consensus? Making your preferred change at lots of random pages and having big discussions about each one isn't going to be enjoyable or helpful. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Push for a wider discussion of what capacity? The MOS already says that Marketing can be its own section. So, I don't need to argue for that. There is also an MOS on basic page structuring that says you can't have single subsections. So I don't need to push for that. The only argument here is you trying to redefine what a "subsection" is, but that's on you. Subsections are clearly defined. I think we even have a page that tells you what they are. Your description of text under a main section (but without a secondary header) is NOT a subsection. It doesn't meet the definition of a subsection. You have to have a subheader to be a subsection. We also have an MOS that identifies that single sentences should not be their own subsections, as the entire point of a subsection is breaking off more detailed information that falls under an umbrella topic. So, I'm not sure what exactly I need to get a wider consensus for, because every action I took is already supported by both the FILMMOS and the overall page MOS that Wikipedia has.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have a link to the policy that states subsections are treated differently on Wikipedia to everywhere else? Because subsections absolutely do not require subheadings. To have a subsection, you simply need to divide a section in some way. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

MOS:GOODHEAD - you'll see how a "subsection" is defined as a having a level 3 heading (or three = signs on either side). You'll notice that here it points out that short paragraphs or single sentences do not warrant their own subheading (aka a subsection). You'll see that it also states that "sections" are the areas under just 2 = signs, while subsections are three of them. That means the information under a section, but not under a subheading (3 = signs) are not classified as subsections. You're literally debating the definition of a subsection right now, when the reality is that none of my changes go against any established consensus or MOS.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That page just explains formatting, it doesn't define anything. I am seriously sick of this stupid conversation. A subsection does not need, and never has needed, a heading, it simply needs to be a section within a larger section to meet the inherent definition of the term "sub-section". That is why, if you still feel that all articles like Deadpool 2 need to have marketing separate from release, you need to start a community-wide discussion about it. Because as far as I can see, the standard formatting does not violate the MOS and until there is consensus that it does I don't feel the need to agree with your change. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You are the only person in my 15 years of being on Wikipedia that I have ever seen debate what a "subsection" is. Subsections are created when you have a subheading. If you don't have a subheading, then it's just a section and NOT a subsection. I have never seen anyone else debate such an obvious fact in my existence. It's up there with people that think the Earth is flat.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I am equally bewildered, because basic logic tells me that if you divide a section into two smaller areas then they are both subsections, regardless of their formatting. That is just common sense. And you edit warring at the article rather than follow any standard procedures (WP:BRD, WP:STATUSQUO, etc.) is just not a good look. If you are so confident that you are right, then why won't you just discuss it? Why start an edit war and do everything in your power to make me assume bad faith when you could just make your case, form a consensus, and then implement it the right way? I know you know better than this, which just makes the whole situation worse. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you divide into smaller areas then you need to differentiate those areas....ala a header. I am going to discuss it, but at the FILMMOS. I've pinged you there. Feel free to bring your understanding of "subsections" to the wider film editor population. As you pointed out, it was not going anywhere here. Ironically, accusing me of just edit warring when you basically decided you had had enough of the conversation and took it upon yourself to revert the page back.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)