Talk:Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects

Italy Low‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

What constitutes "unrealized"

Carrying my post from the dispute resolution board here as it wasn't the right location. @ZanderAlbatraz1145: @R.A Huston: @Nils2088:. Will also be posting to the WikiProject Film talk page.

So recently, on not just this page but other pages as well, projects that Guadagnino is still currently attached to and working on have been getting listed on this page. The assertion being that since they haven't yet entered production, it counts as unrealized. I firmly disagree. It's outlined clearly in the lead sentence that the criteria is "unproduced". Steven Spielberg's in more detail explains "never progressed beyond the pre-production stage under his direction. Some of these projects fell in "development hell" or were officially canceled, some were turned over to other production teams, and still others never made it past the speculative stage". This is to explain that those projects would not be produced, or would go ahead without them as the director. The two specific projects in question here are Sgt. Rock and American Psycho. In the case of the former, development news was issued not even a month ago. In the case of the latter, casting news was announced just yesterday. How exactly does this entail an "unrealized project"? An argument was made readers would be "hurt" by them being removed. How? The projects are currently detailed on Luca's page, both have respective draft articles that are being worked on while they wait to meet standards for mainspace inclusion, so no the reader is not being "hurt", the information can still be found in the appropriate locations. It's in essence acting like a crystal ball to include them here. For all intents and purposes Guadagnino currently plans to work on these, they are being regularly updated, they are not unrealized and thus should not be listed here. Rusted AutoParts 06:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

While I do agree it's odd to add these projects in " Unrealized films" because they're in active development the alternative would create a mess in the directors' main pages, since it would mean to add all projects that are not officially cancelled. For instance, in the case of Luca Guadagnino and as of today, he has around 9 films in active development with talent attached and it's hard to catalog what's actually unproduced. For example Luca's The Lord of the Flies is officially in development as of 2023 but there's been no develoments since 2020. So I think that, for now, this is the best we got. Also, I agree this should be arbitrated at WikiProject Film main page, this could be a landmark for style guidelines Nils2088 (talk) 06:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we do have an upcoming subsection on Guadagnino’s main page with a few brief lines about it, I don’t feel it makes a big mess. Them being housed here however is misleading. Because “unrealized” is to mean they never came to be. Or if they did, Guadagnino’s version never did. To list two projects that are getting recent updates here as if they’re unrealized is silly. I’ll wait for two more days for a full week to pass but since this discussion has not generated anything, I’ll remove them from the page to restore status quo. Rusted AutoParts 17:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's now what unrealized means, it just means that, to the current date, actual production (filming) hasn't begun on the film. And it's hard to label which projects are actually death and which ones are still comming. I'd advice you to keep in the way it is until a general concensus is reached, since this not only affects this page but dozens with a similar style. Nils2088 (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not at all the purpose of these articles, they are a catalogue of all the projects the filmmaker didn't do. As it stands Sgt. Rock and American Psycho are intended to be done. We have had updates on the project have been made in the past month. The onus is on editors to get consensus to expand the meaning of "Unrealized", as that was not was the intention of these articles was. So I will be removing Sgt. Rock and American Psycho in two days. Rusted AutoParts 19:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An intention it's not an action. You might has well remove all the projects announced in the last 5 years, as they are officially in develoment and some of them keep getting updates. And I may have missed the part where it's stated that the page for unrealized projects was for what you say it is. Keep the projects there for now and wait for what the higher ups say, otherwise you're invited to modify all the articles that break this rule Nils2088 (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"You might has well remove all the projects announced in the last 5 years" Those ones qualify for listing because nothing has come out about them in that time. It's at best a dormant project. A project with development news within a month is not dormant, not unrealized. It does not qualify for the page. This is explained in the lead sentence, more better built on on article like Spielberg's list as stated above. "never progressed beyond the pre-production stage under his direction. Some of these projects fell in "development hell" or were officially canceled, some were turned over to other production teams, and still others never made it past the speculative stage" that's the qualifier for the page. We are jumping the gun by listing projects still in a recent cycle of development here, and is dishonest. So they won't be retained unless the definition is expanded on to include stuff they're still actively working on. Rusted AutoParts 20:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like we have a lot of these articles, as reflected here: Category:Lists of unrealized projects by artist. It seems like we need more than local consensus on how to handle these. I do see a couple of cases where things changed:

What comes to mind is that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, so if a so-called "unrealized project" is not talked about in retrospect, it has little value. If a biography about a filmmaker talks about unrealized projects in retrospect, though, these could be included, though perhaps in the filmmaker's career section is most ideal. WP:IINFO needs to apply: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Just a contemporary news article about a filmmaker being attached to so-and-so, with no later retrospective commentary, does not strike me as discriminate encyclopedic content to have. Perhaps we need an RFC to see if these unrealized-project articles are ever warranted, and if they are ever warranted, what should be included in them. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)}

Hello. I feel it should be noted that the article you mentioned, that of 'Michael Cimino's unrealized projects' is an example of one that was deleted carelessly. Despite discussion and voting at the time, no one sought to find references that mentioned the projects retrospectively as you said, despite there existing three to back up the reasoning for having an article on the subject. One of the overlooked references, while in French and using a Wayback Machine link is still published by an official source, Sofilm and thus still counts. I plan to recreate that page, using two additional references from the LA Times and Variety that, again, discuss the 'unrealized projects' retrospectively. All this to say that this carelessness and counter productivity that has been going on with regard to these pages has been ridiculous. I feel as though I am one the one practitioner who is actually taking after this subject, and understands the definition of unrealized projects and everyone else either wants to delete or erase these pieces of cinema history that there seems to be an immense abundance of. I keep finding more and more information. I already have several other pages cued up in my sandbox that I one day plan to publish as Unrealized Project articles.ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that without a guideline, the definition of "unrealized projects" is open-ended, like whatever a filmmaker says or hopes. If such a project is discussed in retrospect, it has more weight than if not, though that does not immediately guarantee inclusion. WP:NOTEVERYTHING says, "Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful. An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." WP:INDISCRIMINATE says, "As explained... above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." We need to come to a wider consensus about these articles and follow that outcome. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all good points. I'd have a hard time not concurring with any of that. But unfortunately this does not bode well for the work put into the pages of so far. Not just from me, but from everyone's contributions. While I understand both points, I look at/see the subject in a different way. For instance, a filmography page, must or should be a complete compendium of that director's work. Well, essentially, I don't understand why the same can't be true of a director's unmade films. Everything should be included. So, in essence, if those rules do not apply to a filmography page, why should they apply to an unrealized projects page? How else should these pages exist? Because there has never been an article, ever to my knowledge, that has adequately summarized EVERY unmade project by a film director or artist. There are always articles that miss or fail to include some of them. Not because some are more noteworthy than others, but rather because there are usually pulled and tied together carelessly and to publish as something official. The point of Wikipedia, is to be there to improve something, to keep adding to it, so it is never quite fully 'finished' or 'complete' as new information could always come to light. I point to an addition I made to the William Friedkin page a little over a year ago, which you can find in the edit history; I added a table compiling a number of his Unrealized Projects. A week later he died, the trades published their respective obituaries and then came an article published by IndieWire that took every project included on the table I added and published it as one article. That information was not got nor included anywhere else but Wikipedia. Subsequently, I found additional unmade films of Friedkin that I had forgotten to include that are not present in the IndieWire article, and that they failed to add or research further. Had I included them in the article at the time, they also would have been included in the IndieWire article. See what I mean?

Additionally, just as a career bio is taking bits and pieces of information from various sources to sum up a person's career, one is taking various pieces of information about films/projects that were unproduced and compiling them together. A career bio, should include information from that person's career, and ideally, if their a filmmaker, have a note or background on every film they made. This is true of most articles. Every film is listed out and explained in order. So therefore, for a page which Unrealized Projects is the main subject, everything should be included that is KNOWN. Just as with a career biography. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the page to the status quo, and have raised the issue at WikiProject Lists to help get firmer consensus. Rusted AutoParts 19:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZanderAlbatraz1145: and you reverted again. I was under the impression you didn't care. Even then, I stated on this talk page I would be restoring the page to status quo days ago, I can't help you chose to ignore it but then still decided to keep reverting edits. The status quo is to maintain what the actual intention of the page was for, not the one you're trying to enforce. I do not consider you a person interested in being helpful at this point given your continued reverting when asked not to. Rusted AutoParts 20:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You saying that you will make an edit to a page days prior does not excuse the edit altogether. It has not been agreed upon, at all, by anyone. The discussions are still going. User:Erik and I seem to be the only two actually having an intelligent discussion about this. And, also, no where have I said that 'I didn't care'. If you are referring our last interaction, I was saying that I don't care if you 'escalate the issue' and to 'bite me'. Clearly you are in the wrong otherwise I would have been repremanded at this point. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]