Talk:Bikini Moon

RFC: Should first sentence include 1994 Academy nominee status of Director?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Currently the first sentence is this:

Bikini Moon is an upcoming 2017 film by Academy-award nominee Milcho Manchevski.

I don't think Academy-award nominee is necessary. First off, its only a nominee-ship. There are other things to tout for Milcho than a failed Academy chance. Second, its from 1994. Isn't there something more relevant that Milcho is known for? I think the first sentence should be

Bikini Moon is an upcoming 2017 film directed by Milcho Manchevski.

As this is clear and to the point, without trying to impute some goodness upon the film by virtue of the director being a 1994 Academy Award nominee. I think of it as reverse Poisoning-the-well, attempting to influence how a reader will perceive something, and that is not neutrality, not balanced editing. Lastly I appeal to what other things are. Consider The Force Awakens or The Bridge on the River Kwai. They do not say "created by Award winning director…" even though David Lean won 2 Awards for best director. If other films don't start off praising the director in the very first sentence, why should Biki Moon? L3X1 (distant write) 21:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC) pinging involved editors Antonioatrylia Narky BlertBgwhite 21:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support The sentence needs to stay. In response to rfc creator question isn't there anything more recent he is known for? He said 1995. So do you object to the fact that it was a 1995 Academy Award nomination? You ask of something more recent he is known for? An academy award nomination is not a FAIL. Antonioatrylia (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose We simply, as a matter of course, do not do "Award-winning" or similar formulations in the lede sentence of an article. See WP:FILMLEAD: Avoid using "award-winning" and similar phrases in the opening sentence to maintain a neutral point of view and summarize the awards in the proper context in a later paragraph of the lead section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• A neutral pointer to this discussion has been placed on the talk page of WikiProject Film. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:FILMLEAD. We do not play up films or their directors here. If a reader wants to know about the director beyond this particular film, they can go to the director's article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose He wasn't even nominated for this film so it's irrelevant. Betty Logan (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose too promotional for an opening sentence. As previously noted, the nomination wasn't even for this film anyway, and WP:FILMLEAD discourages such phrasing in opening sentences. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose promotional. Popcornduff (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose just not an encyclopedic way of referencing such a figure in an out-of-hand context. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per FILMLEAD/all of the above. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Wow. What everyone else said. Although this would mean I won't be able to go to each of Anthony Coldeway's films and add 'written by the 1928 academy award nominee' which is kind of disappointing. Scribolt (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose As WP:MOSLEAD says, "The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, in the lead (but not by using subjective 'peacock terms' such as 'acclaimed' or 'award-winning' or 'hit' "). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenebrae (talk • contribs) 18:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per everyone else, this is the stuff of bad press releases who can't find anything good to say. Pincrete (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• I've been bold and made the change, based on the above forecast. Feel free to revert if this needs to be kept open... Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 14:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

For the benefit of all involved AN/I regarding RfC closure. Yes, they can run for 30 days. But SNOW allows changes to be made and the RfC to be closed long before a "minimum" time period has elapsed. I could have NAC SNOW this on the 23rd, but seeing the AN/I fight, I decided not too. The reason I ignored User:Ad Orientems not then spoken advice In general RfC's should probably not be opened until after reasonable efforts have been made to reach consensus locally, that is to say on the relevant talk page. is because I dislike content disputes and their resulting EW. I open RfCs when I know their SNOW outcome to save time, breath, and the feelings of those involved. L3X1 (distant write) 18:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Theatrical Poster "Bikini Moon".jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)