Talk:Freaky Friday (2018 film)

Songs?

Do we really care about the songs? Do they merit their own section? Do we care if they don't even list the performer?... We certainly didn't do that with Descendants (2015 film). I say we cut this section (as basically WP:TRIVIA)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

As the one who inserted the table, I actually really don't have any strong opinions. (I meant to add one to Zombies, but never got around to it.) However, by that same logic, shouldn't we remove the "Music"/"Songs" sections of Austin & Ally and Liv and Maddie? Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Pulled... And no for removing from the series – it's a little different for the music-based TV series. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Ratings

Hello Amaury, I'd like to point out that WP:BLUE is for patently obvious things, and a blanket and definitive statement like "the lowest ratings ever...", frankly isn't patently obvious. A couple of other things I'd like to point out, as well. There's quite a few "N/A"s in that list article you pointed at. Besides that, as you likely know, Wikipedia is not a WP:RS. Thanks for your time. Waggie (talk) 06:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The statement likely is true. But I can't find any RS to confirm it. (Disney certainly won't be bringing that up in the press release!) One of these days, somebody will look at the ratings for all 100+ DCOMs, and when that happens this one will certainly be at the bottom. But, until that happens, the statement probably needs to stay out... However, I'm thinking that a statement like "...making it the lowest-rated DCOM of the last decade." probably is supportable as per WP:BLUE or WP:CALC... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Amaury's BRD request

@Amaury:,

1. First Twitter is a (limited characters) blog thus not a high RSource. Second it is duplicate to the Deadline source over the premiere date of the show on the Disney Channel as explained to you in an edit summary. There is not much more information in the support texted.
2. What is your need to remove sourcing that indicates Disney Theatrical Production (DTP) and Bad Angels Productions, Ltd. as production companies and that it is DTP and the Disney Channel's first work together?
3. The deadline article covers the casting and staff in the production section thus the Disney-ABC source is duplicate and should not be used per RS.
4. Minor support cast are trivial. # Minor support cast are trivial. Unexplained removal of this is appropriate since it isn't sourced.

Spshu (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

1) The Twitter is a verified Twitter account and is therefore reliable. 2) Those come from the film's own credits and do not need to be sourced per WP:PRIMARY. 3) There is nothing wrong with using more than one source to source a single statement, and Disney ABC Press is a perfectly reliable source. 4) IJBall agrees with removing non-notable cast; however, it was sourced by the film's own credits. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

In addition, your #2 is not lede-worthy – in the 'Production' section is fine, but it doesn't merit being in the lede. And the sourcing for that should be in the prose, not in the infobox (as per MOS:INFOBOXREF). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Amaury, yes but there was another source and Twitter is the least RS source, per PRIMARY they are not "perfectly reliable source". Fight against removal of another source is not constructive and not a reason to start an edit war. 2) WP:PRIMARY does NOT allow you to not indicate what your source is, you are violating WP:Verifiability. Once removed, you must WP:PROVEIT. 3) You then allow people to "snow" you (WP:OVERCITE - I know it is an essay) - basically create more work for you. I could understand if it was establishing notability, but primary sources don't do so. I have editor(s) drop multiple former "mini-major" studios into a list of them with multiple sources. So I had to hunt through all the sources they put in there to confirm that no they were never considered mini-major. Given its primary source status, it should yield to a news source because a) better per RS b) likely Disney-ABC doesn't make it possible for their pages to be archivable (archive.org) and gets rid of the pages as they want you to see more current works that they pushing. Thus making using them almost as bad as a TV schedule, no one would be able to confirm what you saw. 4) Another reason for not using primary for cast is the fact you run into making an indiscriminate list (WP:CASTLIST).

IJBall, Disney Theatrical's and Disney Channel's first work together falls into "explain why the topic is notable" at MOS:LEAD. Should be DTP's first film too, but the source doesn't support that. No, MOS:INFOBOXREF states that if it is not sourced in the body then a ref/cite in the infobox is appropriate. Spshu (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

You were the one edit warring and being disruptive, not us. After the very first revert, you should have raised the discussion then, not waited until you were right at the border of 3RR, as the onus is on you. I have no idea what you're talking about, but film credits fall under WP:PRIMARY, and as such don't need to be sourced, and using two sources to source a single statement is hardly over-referencing. The production company in turn doesn't need to be sourced in the infobox, even though it's not mentioned in the body, since it's covered by WP:PRIMARY. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

If Spshu wants to mention this production info "partnering" stuff, that should be mentioned in the 'Production' section, and it should be sourced there (not in the infobox). That part is fine. But it should not be mentioned in the lede – none of that is what makes Freaky Friday (2018) notable (itself) as a TV film... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, to be clear, I agree with Amaury: there is absolutely nothing wrong with having both a WP:SECONDARY source and a WP:PRIMARY source to reference the film's premiere date – the latter does not need to be removed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I was typing here while the both of you were being distributive as you were removing information and trying to get a BRD for what I could explain in an edit summary. I have just pointed out that the onus was on you per PROVEIT, so you are the distributive one. Please stop making up what WP:PRIMARY states. Per WP:V/WP:PROVEIT, you must source it if you don't and it is removed then you must sourced it. Per WP:FACTS#Over-citing: "Citations should be evaluated on the qualities they bring to the article, not on the quantity of citations available." Two sources might not constitute over sourcing having two did not add anything to the release date, nor was a candidate for additional information. Read WP:CITATIONBLOAT.

" If Spshu wants to mention this production info "partnering" stuff, that should be mentioned in the 'Production' section, and it should be sourced there (not in the infobox)." What are you talking about, IJBall, I gave a correct to this perception already. If you don't understand what is going on then don't involve yourself. The partnering stuff is a "FIRST" partnering other wise, I would agree with you that it only belongs in the production section. O, but their is, too much primary gets you a hatnote (Template:Primary sources) that it is a problem. The article as you like it has 3 primary source to 3 secondary sources thus making it clear that it should be tagged with the hatnote as relying on primary sources. With my version, removing two primary sources allow a primary source only available information to be added back while reducing dependence on primary sources. Asserting both of these brings the notability of the subject into greater question. Spshu (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

And that's exactly the problem. You don't try to explain yourself with edit summaries as that is edit warring to try to push your way against consensus. You clearly have not read WP:BRD, a policy; otherwise you would understand why you're wrong. You were bold. Your edit was then reverted At that point, the WP:ONUS was on you to provide a reasoning and discuss why that content shouldn't be there, not mindlessly revert to try to force your point of view. And you're the one with no understanding of WP:PRIMARY here. If John Smith is shown as a director in a film's credits, the film's credits are a perfectly reliable source. We don't need to go and source that John Smith directed a film with some WP:SECONDARY. It is unnecessary. If you can't understand these simple concepts, then you shouldn't be editing here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

←No the problem is that you don't understand PROVEIT and PRIMARY. BRD is not a policy per BRD: "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus. This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy..." Second, I did explain in my revert, which then acknowledge then still demanded BRD for a legitimate removal of the lesser characters. I have shown that ONUS has been on you per PROVEIT. You are the ones mindless removing sourced information because you have some beef over a primary source in another part of the article. But your example of John Smith director is not the same as this issue. The editor should have at least looked for a secondary source before using a primary source. The situation is that a primary and secondary source were both included, sourcing rules indicate that primary are problematic thus secondary are the preferred source. You want to retain a source just because what and spend hours minimize PRIMARY to what you think it is then waste yours, mine and IJBall's time over it. It isn't like I am removing that John Smith as director. I initially remove Bad Angels Productions, as it was unsourced, then returned it with the only source that I could find for it, a primary source. Removing the primary source for the release date reduced the article's dependence on primary sources without leaving unsourced. Spshu (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

If you think that following WP:BRD is optional, then you really don't understand how Wikipedia works. As such, no, the onus is not on us to prove the sources are reliable, it's on you to prove why they're not reliable. And I've explained to you before, the production company is not required to be sourced since it's in the credits and is covered by WP:PRIMARY, regardless of your misunderstanding of that. If you can't understand that, that's your fault. I'm done discussing this with you. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)