This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize alllist pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit theproject page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to thediscussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofYears on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears
I've started going through the trouble of removing the genre columns from the articles forAmerican films of 2019, as well as2020,2018, and2017. More than one of these edits have been recently undone byMy7thsecret, who offered the following explanation: "GENRE IS NECESSARY so people would know right then and there what they are gonna watch".
As I already briefly explained in my edit summaries, I feel that genre columns are unnecessary for these articles. There are numerous inconsistencies that are present and questions that arise in regards to what should be counted as a genre (the article for 2017 American films in particular stood out to me, which hasThe Girl with All the Gifts listed as "Post-apocalyptic, Zombie"), what genres are/should be linked (many instances on the aforementioned articles and others like them include the use of the genre "Family", which is otherwise a very uncommon classification on Wikipedia), and how the text is/should be formatted (should a given film's genres be listed as "Science fiction, horror", "Horror, science fiction", "Science fiction and horror", "Science Fiction, Horror", etc.?).
Genres are a tricky enough subject as it is. They should already be verifiably sourced in article leads (seeWP:FILMLEAD), and sometimes there isn't consensus on what genres a film should be classified as. TakeFight Club for example. The first sentence in the article forFight Club doesn't provide a genre, since no primary genre has been established despite much discussion. Should the article forList of American films of 1999 just leaveFight Club's genre box empty? Keeping genre columns in articles for lists of films by country and year adds unnecessary clutter, opens the door for superfluous arguments regarding genre classifications, and creates a need for further sourcing (even though these articles have references that reach into the hundreds as it is). Finally, if people want to "know right then and there what they are gonna watch", they can just click on the films' titles for more information. –Matthew -(talk)00:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For me, genre is necessary. Many would agree that it is. You see, some people would always look for the genre first before clicking on the title. For people who doesn't like horror, they would ignore those title and proceed to the next, because it's already written in the table. Without the genre, they would have to click each title to know what the genre is.
I am talking about user experience here. As an IT, it is important that we remove processes so that users don't have to click as many links. We want them to have everything on the table so it would be easier for them to browse what they wanted to see. -My7thsecret (talk)01:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove genre column Genres are problematic at the best of times given their subjectivity. Just take the first entryEscape Room as an example: The genre is given as "psychological horror" at the article but "Horror, thriller, mystery" here. The mismatch between the list and the article is confusing. Also, genre bloat seems to be a particular problem in this table:The Lego Movie 2 entry on this list has eight genres listed in total. How is this helpful to readers? Wikipedia does have genre specific lists for common genres such asList of horror films of 2019 andList of science fiction films of the 2010s which allow readers to search for films of a particular genre and this is a much better way of providing the information IMO. Even if the genre information here was sourced, consistent and not indiscriminate then I still think the existence of genre-specific lists makes including the information here largely redundant.Betty Logan (talk)10:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can always correct those information. Genre needs to be there. You need to think of others who would like to browse for movies that they wanted to watch. Having a single page for everything gives them less of a burden of clicking those titles one by one.
Take grandpa for example, he's on this page looking for films suitable for young audiences to watch together with his grandkids. By just scrolling through the page, he is able to find the movie that they'll watch together. Removing the genre, you're giving grandpa a headache. This is about user experience.
Wikipedia is not a film recommendation guide, it is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles are not automatically improved by stuffing as much information as possible into them. Genres are already well served in a far more economical and effective way by dedicated lists and also the categories if that is the information you seek.Betty Logan (talk)08:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a convincing point whatsoever. Without genres, the list would still feature "classification". The films are ordered by release date, and further identified with titles, production companies, and principal members of the cast and crew (all of which are, unlike genres, objective and almost always indisputable). —Matthew -(talk)21:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would try posting another message at the Film project page because there isn't a consensus either way as yet. If that doesn't raise sufficient responses then you will need to elevate the discussion to an RFC. If you go down the RFC route I recommend you wait until January because if you start one now it will die over the xmas period.Betty Logan (talk)22:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Remove genre columns: As I stated in aprevious discussion, I feel that genre columns are unnecessary for such lists. There are numerous inconsistencies already present, as well as questions that arise in regards to what should be counted as a genre, what genres are/should be linked, and how the text is/should be formatted. Genres are already a tricky, subjective matter as is. They have to be verifiably sourced in article leads (perWP:FILMLEAD), and sometimes there isn't consensus on what genres a film should be classified as (seeFight Club for an example). Keeping genre columns in such lists like these is not only redundant due to the existence of genre-specific list articles, but it means keeping unnecessary clutter, and leaving the door open for superfluous arguments over what genres should be listed and why. —Matthew -(talk)04:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Genre listings are rarely encyclopaedic, often squabbled over, and never cited as frequently or clearly as we should require them to be. If a given film's article wants to discuss its genre it has plenty of room in prose to do so but tables are not a good place for them.GRAPPLEX10:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Agree with the above. For a listing where you're trying to reduce ambiguities and only cite the minimal information, films genres clash with that goal. The amount of edit-warring and back-and-forth I see over film genres is something no article should deal with if we can remove that trigger for disagreement.Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk17:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per my stated rationale in the above section. This is secondary information and its subjectivity can created inconsistencies. It is largely redundant too because dedicated genre lists already exist on Wikipedia.Betty Logan (talk)00:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All the discussion about the genre being too difficult to make perfect seems to be missing the point that many find it meeting a real need, even in its imperfect state. I strongly urge you all to reconsider your positions!
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.
