Talk:The Matrix (franchise)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Close Discussion

GoneIn60 left me the following question on my talk page and I thought it helpful to respond here instead:

I appreciate your time in taking this one on. It was a lot to sift through for sure. Just curious if you can clarify the strong consensus you detected in your analysis. For the article lead and body, I agree that across the board a large majority supported it. However, for the infobox area, which was treated somewhat separately in many of the responses and discussion, consensus was more divided (15 vs 10). While it was still a consensus in favor of The Wachowskis, that portion wasn't exactly what I'd deem "strong". Also, I'm pretty sure WanderingWanda and others that supported option A wanted this RfC to extend beyond just The Matrix film article. As mentioned in the discussion, it was advertised to the other Wachowski film article talk pages. Not sure if you want to address that in the closing remarks as well.

I will note that when doing a close of this nature I make a spreadsheet to track the various pieces, including points made in any discussion which occurs. For this one I did note Infobox and Lead separately, but only a small number of editors supported A for the lead but a different option for the Infobox. In fairness this does mean that level of consensus for the infobox is much nearer to a "consensus" outcome rather than strong consensus as it was for the lead. I am hesitant to get too deep into the exact count I come up with because that goes against this being a !vote and a discussion based process - where that discussion was important in my finding there to be a weak conesnsus to include a footnote but not how to do so - but my count, such as it is, does not get to 15 v 10 for the infobox. But even if it had this would still be enough, given the policy discussion behind each side, to merit a consensus (but not a strong consensus).

As for the scope of this RfC, I will admit I phrased my original comment in the RfC in a more limited scope than the question was offered. This was not intentional - honestly I was not as careful with phrasing that scope as I should have been as my attention was on reflecting consensus on other matters correctly. I will need to review parts of the discussion again (for those who care when closing an RfC like this I read through the discussion in its entirety at least twice on two separate days and other parts of the discussion even more than that before writing a statement) and will modify my close accordingly. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Yes, we need to be careful of going against !vote and focus on the arguments themselves, so if I implied doing otherwise, just know that wasn't my intention. Ultimately, the outcome of this RfC isn't going to change in the sense of how it directs us to move forward. However, it does seem that for those supporting option A, they would probably appreciate some mention of the scope this RfC represents. That matters more than the "strong consensus" review. As I understand it, the outcome here pertains to The Matrix films and possibly other films from the Wachowskis. Thanks for taking another look. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

GoneIn60 I agree that the important issue was that Option A has consensus not what level but since I included a level it's important to note what it was accurately. I have, in rereading sections, decided that infobox has "only" consensus vs strong conesnsus. As for scope, there seems to be little discussion of that, outside of the sisters own article being different, and so I defaulted to the wording in the original question which was films/media they worked on before they came out as women. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment - I object to there being a "strong consensus" for Option A. The main consideration of this debate was about the infobox and/or the lead, not the whole article. Barkeep49 admits some version of this above. Many agreed with the principle that as this is not a bio article, the guideline we should be following comes from Infobox Film: Credits in the infobox should not be retrospectively altered to accommodate name changes at a later date. A person should be credited by the name they were using professionally at the time the film was made. That means if "The Wachowskis" is used, the lead and infobox also need to say "Credited as The Wachowski Brothers". The original and still-standing credit - which the Wachowskis have not asked to be changed - needs to be maintained where people will see it. Encyclopedias need to respect history. Already one user has hit all the Wachowski articles and removed all mention of the original and still-standing credit as if it never existed, claiming per new RFC. This is not settled, and consensus needs to be reached regarding the infobox and the lead. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Gothicfilm This RfC was a community process to establish consensus about how to treat these artists in the LEAD and Infoboxes of their work from before they came out as women - no more and no less. Well discussed RfCs, and this one would certainly qualify, may establish what consensus there is for a particular change. An appropriately conducted RfC, as this one was, is one way to formalize consensus for a set of articles, as in this case. In the comments of this RfC there were five courses various editors thought appropriate, some of whom felt a different course was correct for the infobox and for the LEAD. However, despite these varying opinions, including thoughtful reasoned policy based reasons for why a different course was the correct one of this set of article, the community came to consensus. As such it is generally considered appropriate for an editor to implement the outcome. I'm sorry that the community felt differently about this than you and I am happy to answer questions you might have about my close, as I did above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

This should not have been done without a clear option for some version of "The Wachowskis, Credited as The Wachowski Brothers". Some examples from the votes above:

Copy/pasted !votes

Mostly A. The standard way of referring to a credit under a previously-used name is "Current Name (as Old Name)". For the Matrix films, this would be "The Wachowskis (as the Wachowski Brothers)". This conveys to the reader everything they might need to know, and is concise enough to fit in leads and infoboxes.--Trystan (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC) Support A (vote changed) - State things straight to the point. Just go for something like "Wachowski brothers, later to be known as..." or "Wachowski sisters, then credited as...". All of this "gender diversity consideration" thing getting in the way of being able to write an article that reflects facts as they happened, requiring whitewashing of facts to avoid hurting people's feelings revolts me. Let's go to the Caitlyn Jenner article and delete she used to be a guy from there too. VOTE CHANGE: As I said below, I find it monumentally childish that we need to whitewash the fact that they identified as male and keep it hidden in a footnote, but whatever, guess I'll live as long as mention of it is made anywhere. --uKER (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC) Support A - While I sympathize with the points made by Betty Logan regarding retaining bibliographic accuracy (and, to a lesser extent, with others' concerns about removal or whitewashing of facts), I think that adding a note with the original credit is sufficient to address those concerns. disgruntledGM ❮talk / contribs❯ 05:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC) A, but with an exception: I do think we should acknowledge the name used in the credits once in the body of the article, with careful wording (e.g. not "directed by the Wachowski Brothers" but "directed by the Wachowskis, credited as 'The Wachowski Brothers'"), but in all other instances we use the Wachowskis. Unless we say "credited as" or some other similar formulation, we're not making statements about the words next to "directed by" in the credits, but about the directors -- people, not credits. The people who played the role are the Wachowskis. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no "strong consensus" for Option A without "Credited as The Wachowski Brothers" if you take into account what these editors said. They did not want the original and still-standing credit erased as if it never existed. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Gothicfilm Those thoughts, and others, were taken into consideration which is why I noted there was a consensus that that a footnote, done in a limited manner (e.g. only in the infobox or in the infobox and once in the LEAD) to their original credit is appropriate. There was no conesnsus around the right way to do that - as indeed the slight various in thinking above notes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

That means you agree some version of "Credited as The Wachowski Brothers" has to be maintained. There was no consensus it has to be a footnote. I would prefer "The Wachowskis, credited as The Wachowski Brothers" but that needs to be discussed. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree only that there is consensus to maintain a footnote acknowledging their original credit. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Gothicfilm can't restart an RFC immediately after it closes just because they disagreed with the outcome. Gothicfilm has been undoing edits to make the relevant articles follow the established consensus. From this thread it seems clear they are fully aware of the result of the RFC and are choosing to disregard it before any new consensus has formed. Continuing to do so will constitute edit warring and require admin involvement. Rab V (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Read the above. You removed the original and still-standing credit as if it never existed. That was not in the close, according to the closer. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Gothicfilm I only checked one article Matrix Reloaded before replying to your original comment and the change from The Wachowski Brothers to The Wachowskis as Rab V did was exactly what Option A suggests and was supported by the consensus of editors who participated in the RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The close said weak consensus for a footnote but the infobox has consensus for the credited name to be The Wachowskis. I fixed the credited name, as RFC asks for, nothing to stop you from adding another footnote (The Matrix article already had one btw.) Reverting the name to Wachowski Brothers is not in line with any part of the consensus of the RFC. Kindly stop doing that. Rab V (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You just contradicted yourself. I noted there was a consensus that that a footnote, done in a limited manner (e.g. only in the infobox or in the infobox and once in the LEAD) to their original credit is appropriate. There was no conesnsus around the right way to do that - as indeed the slight various in thinking above notes. Rab V removed the original credit. It is true others can add "Credited as The Wachowski Brothers", but normally wording is agreed to on the Talk page first. Gothicfilm (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I think as long as we are consistent across articles, someone can go and add the original credit now, either using Trystan's suggestion of the Current Name (as Old Name) format or through the use of a footnote. Then we can see what sticks. It doesn't need to necessarily be discussed first, as we can establish consensus through editing. Of course, we can always resort to another discussion if that proves ineffective (and hopefully it doesn't escalate to another RfC). --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49 This RfC was very long - no thanks to me and my long-windedness :) - so I know it took a lot of time and effort to close it. Thank you for your hard work. One small objection: you said There is consensus against referring to the writers/directors as Lana and Lily in the article. But there was very little discussion about this specifically. In fact I think SmC was the only person who said they would object to the Wachowskis' first names being used in articles? As I said, I personally plan to leave that hornets' nest undisturbed and am fine with the Wachowskis just being referred to as "the Wachowskis" in the article bodies, but I don't think it's correct to say there was any consensus one way or the other. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 00:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Footnote implementation

Let's talk about the best way to handle the footnotes with the original credits:

1. Style: The default style for an explanatory footnote is this: . As of now, though, the articles are using this more unusual and obtrusive style: . I prefer the default style, and its what the Manual of Style itself uses. (In the MoS, references look like this and explanatory footnotes look like this .) A footnote is supposed to be an out-of-the-way piece of optional information; a footnote that seems like its trying to call attention to itself is an awkward self-contradiction.

2. Location(s): There are two potential locations: the lead and the infobox. To me, the most obvious place for the footnote is the infobox. The lead is supposed to offer a broad and not-too-cluttered overview of the film; the infobox is the place for fussy technical information like the exact wording of the screen credits. A third option is to place the footnote in both the lead and infobox, which is what GoneIn60 and Gothicfilm have been angling for. But isn't it awkwardly repetitive to repeat the same explanatory footnote twice at the top of the article?

3. Wording: The wording I wish we could use is: Credited as The Wachowski Brothers. Simple and to the point. The trouble is, the Wachowskis weren't only credited that way. I looked at the end credits on the Wachowksi films I have access to, and it seems they would generally get executive producer credits, and sometimes producer credits, where their full names would be given. So I added their old full names. And then I decided, in the interests of completeness, to include their current full names too. Thus: Lana and Lilly Wachowski are credited as The Wachowski Brothers and as Andy and Larry Wachowksi in the screen credits.

Current footnote status: I'm about to switch the footnotes to the default style. I've already implemented the longer footnote wording. I tried to change the number of footnotes from 2 to 1 per article but Gothicfilm changed them back to 2. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 02:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything saying we have to use . For a long time the articles with footnotes used the style, most likely because this should not look like a reference that is easily skipped over by most readers. It should not have been changed without discussion. But once again you want to bury the actual credit on these films. A reminder - as this is not a bio article, the guideline we should be following but are now downplaying says: Credits in the infobox should not be retrospectively altered to accommodate name changes at a later date. A person should be credited by the name they were using professionally at the time the film was made. That means if "The Wachowskis" is used, the lead and infobox also should indicate credited as The Wachowski Brothers. Longstanding practice is the name in the infobox and lead should match. It's not awkward to have them both indicate the credited name. Many only see the lead (the phone app only displays the infobox if you tap on it), but the infobox also needs to give the correct credit. Certainly when I look at the lead and infobox of film articles, I expect to see the credits accurately represented. It is already a compromise to be relegating the actual still-standing early Wachowski credit to footnotes. It should be a parenthetical. The least we can do is make the footnote noticeable, by using the style. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with using a parenthetical notation i.e. The Wachowskis (credited as the The Wachowski Brothers). I don't see any consensus for removing the actual credit from the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Style: I would say the format should be used to help distinguish explanatory notes from citation references, as explained at Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: groups. Also, this format was in place at The Matrix with what I'd consider long-standing consensus. In other words, I don't see any editing history there (until now) that shows a desire to change to the format, and until consensus proves otherwise, that should be restored now.
  Location: I think it should be retained in both the lead and infobox for several reasons. First, there's MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE which states that the purpose of the infobox is summarize key facts (not supplant them) and that "an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored". Second, the lead section is not only the first thing most visitors see when visiting an article, but for many, it's the only section they'll read. It "should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic", and that also means standing apart from the infobox itself. If a key fact in the infobox is a key fact of the article, it needs to be in the lead as well. And finally, notes are not obtrusive. They take up very little space. I find it hard to agree with any notion that suggests it's harmful to have in both places.
  Wording: I think we need to keep this concise, a desire that has also been noted in past discussions. Since we already have a link to The Wachowskis that explains the duo in more detail, the note should be crisp and to the point. I suggest, "Credited as the Wachowski Brothers" only, because this note is being used to further explain the directorial credit, not other film credits (unless I'm missing something). --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

As an FYI, I've notified the relevant film articles along with WT:FILM, The Wachowskis article, and Template talk:Infobox film. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: Parentheses: Using parentheses would explicitly contradict the wording of option A, which is what the majority of people voted for by a large margin.

Re style: I'd like to see more examples of pages that use . I know The Matrix article used it but it still strikes me as very unusual. Template:Efn is the standard for non-reference footnotes ("efn" stands for "explanatory footnote") and is the default style for efn. WP:MOS has a lot of genuinely interesting and useful explanatory notes and doesn't feel the need to use anything more than to link to them. I'll also say that if the plus-sized footnote is used I think that eliminates any need to repeat the note. That is: if you want to argue for repeating the footnote, OK, and if you want to argue for a plus-sized footnote, OK, but both at once is a bridge too far.

Re wording: On reflection I also think we should switch back to a more concise style. However, there are some cases where the Wachowskis were credited as producers using their full names. (For example: V for Vendetta). I would be fine with, in those cases, a second footnote. That is, there could be a writer/director footnote saying Credited as The Wachowski Brothers and a producer footnote saying Credited as Andy and Larry Wachowski. (Here's an idea that I'm not sure we could get consensus on, but I'll throw it out anyway: the best way to handle producer credits might be to use the Wachowskis' current full names in the infobox. For example: Produced by: Joel Silver/Grant Hill/Lana Wachowski/Lilly Wachowski with the footnote Credited as Andy and Larry Wachowski)

Re "burying the credit": I was the first person to implement footnotes on many of the articles and if I really wanted to bury them, I would've tried mixing the footnotes into the articles' reference sections. Instead, for each article, I set the footnote off in its own section where it is easy to see. I think it's worth remembering that outside the Wikipedia bubble, editors at mainstream publications aren't arguing about how to include the credit "The Wachowski Brothers". They aren't including it at all. Instead The Matrix is presented as a film directed by a pair of talented women named Lana and Lilly. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 16:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

As I said earlier, we don't base credits off the prose of secondary sources. They are not equivalent to the WP Film Infobox. And what GoneIn60 wrote is worth repeating: the lead section is not only the first thing most visitors see when visiting an article, but for many, it's the only section they'll read. It "should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic", and that also means standing apart from the infobox itself. If a key fact in the infobox is a key fact of the article, it needs to be in the lead as well. And finally, notes are not obtrusive. They take up very little space. I find it hard to agree with any notion that suggests it's harmful to have in both places. The only reason to try to go against this principle is to bury the credit. And it is not necessary to mix footnotes and references to bury the credit as WanderingWanda claims. We all know most readers will skip over a one-letter footnote just like they would a one-digit reference. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I will go ahead and make the footnotes more concise, as I don't think this will be controversial. I won't make any other changes without further discussion. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 17:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

A WP:LOCALCONSENSUS doesn't trump policy. They are verifiably credited as "The Wachowski Brothers" on these works. So while there may be a consensus for identifying the pair as "The Wachowskis" in the infobox now, their actual creditation is still a verifiable fact and a local consensus cannot revoke that. Betty Logan (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

While I side with keeping "The Wachowski Brothers" credit in some capacity, verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion, so yes even in this case if local consensus formed to exclude a verifiable detail, then we would abide by that consensus. I seriously doubt that's going to happen, but policy would allow it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll wait for more editors to chime in before I comment further, but it's probably best to restore the status quo version of the footnotes for now per WP:BRD (The Matrix article for sure, since the one in the lead was based on past discussion). Consensus to change what we had in place has not yet formed and we're clearly divided right now. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a status quo to go back to, exactly. We're implementing something brand new here. But as a sign of good faith I will switch The Matrix article to the style. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 23:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate it. The Matrix article did have a status quo version in the lead. Only the infobox change at that article would be considered new. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) My opinion is that the film articles and franchise article should have a footnote in the infobox and lead reading: "Lana and Lilly Wachowski are credited as The Wachowski Brothers." As for the footnote's name, I didn't much care but the default is . If the reason being given for is to make it more prominent then that's nonsense; as WanderingWanda points out with the MOS, plenty of footnotes, no matter how crucial, use . — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 17:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Bilorv, in case this was lost in the wall of text above, I think it's important to note that the advice here points out that one reason is to separate citations from explanatory notes (one being shorter than the other makes this more obvious to someone skimming). Looking at what the MOS does isn't a good comparison either. An information page (MOS, guideline, etc.) isn't littered with references that are being cited to external sources like we find in the article namespace. Therefore, the distinction between a note and citation isn't really needed, and the alpha notation for a note works fine. When you're in an article with a lot of citations and maybe only a couple notes, it makes sense for these to stand apart from one another. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've misread the section of the how-to page you point me to, which is describing how to "separate explanatory notes from references", as you say, but the point is that it uses different note styles for references and for explanatory notes, not specifically that it should use the style rather than for explanatory notes. Either version suggested (or any other form of footnote) already follows this how-to guide, which is just saying "don't use for an explanatory note when is a citation". — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 21:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course it's not saying we should use exclusively, nor is it addressing the comparison of formats from this debate specifically. I never claimed either. However, the only example in that section has chosen this format to illustrate its point, despite the multiple formats available. Why do you think that is? The tone in this conversation from those opposed is that the long format is an uncommon, last resort kinda option, and using it to stand out prominently is nonsense. This example pokes big holes in that line of reasoning. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• This is an unusual situation in which a guideline we should be following is being downplayed: Credits in the infobox should not be retrospectively altered to accommodate name changes at a later date. A person should be credited by the name they were using professionally at the time the film was made. That means if "The Wachowskis" is used, the lead and infobox also should indicate credited as The Wachowski Brothers. Again, it is already a compromise to be relegating the actual still-standing credit to footnotes. It should be a parenthetical. This situation and the guideline above justify making the footnote noticeable, by using the style. If it's only one letter it blends in with all the references that most readers ignore, effectively burying it. The truth is many will still skip over the note even in the style. So at minimum that is what should be used. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to a parenthetical mention, but that would most certainly require a new RfC for approval. Although this last RfC didn't address it specifically, the one in 2016 did; the parenthetical option was shot down. Our best chance of avoiding another RfC is to agree that only a note should be used, and compromise on style, location, and wording. Seemed likely at first we'd be able to, but I'm not so sure anymore. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

We should be clear the parenthetical option wasn't used in 2016 because the actual film credit was maintained. We have already compromised - If we're going to use footnotes they should be noticeable, for the reasons given above. One could argue this whole RfC should be done again because the option for The Wachowskis (credited as The Wachowski Brothers) was not listed, so no one could vote for it. This despite it being raised as a viable option several times in the preceding discussions. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm with Gothic on this, and feel strongly enough about it (and am so strongly frustrated by the way the lead and infobox were combined into a single RfC without what I consider to be full consideration of the implications), that if the actual credit is relegated to a footnote, I would consider launching such an RfC on my own recognizance. Do we really think most readers tend to pay a lot of attention to footnotes, and are we really willing to say that how a film actually credited someone at the time is not worthy of recognition at least in the sense of historical preservation? DonIago (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I should have added more options but I suspect people would've called the RfC malformed no matter what I did, and the OTHER option allowed people to vote for and make the case for anything they wanted.

Re footnote style: Putting aside whether is too prominent or not, it's just, well, weird. I've seen all sorts of footnote styles in my reading, from numbers to asterisks to symbols like † or ‡. I've never seen a book with a footnote superscript that writes out "note". WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 05:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree it's weird, but WP could do / has done even worse: (they're rare edge cases, obviously, but) ~15 articles even use "[footnotes 1]", "[footnotes 2]", plural sic. :-O -sche (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Plural sic? That's it, I'm calling Jimmy Wales and getting Wikipedia shut down. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 15:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

it is already a compromise—it's no such thing. It's the result of established consensus. The aim here is not to satisfy everyone. It's to implement existing consensus. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 09:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Betty Logan, Argento Surfer, DonIago, Secundus Zephyrus, Erik, GoneIn60, -sche, DisneyMetalhead, Matthew J. Long, Markbassett, Flyer22 Reborn, Gothicfilm, Pyxis Solitary,Pincrete, Rab V, Trystan, SMcCandlish, uKER, disgruntledGM, Bilorv, Rhododendrites, Mooeena: The longest and most exhausting RfC of all time is almost behind us (well, hopefully :) but as you can see, we're still working out the details. Thanks as always to everyone for your input. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 05:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

This seems pedantic. Personally, I think in both parts of the article is a bit excessive, but I don't think it's unreasonable, and at this point it's really not worth the argument. If helps us come to an agreement about this closed RfC and get on with actually building an encyclopedia (which is what we all came here to do), rather than rehashing the same arguments and accusations we've been over quite thoroughly in the RfC itself, I think is perfectly fine. The discussion was closed in favor of "Reflect[ing] their preferred gender identity and avoid[ing] referring to them as “brothers” (except in footnotes and references)." Let's try to implement that as quickly and as civilly as possible, and then get on with something more constructive. disgruntledGM ❮talk / contribs❯ 06:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Amen, sibling. That said, I favor using ^[a], as ^{[Note 1]} is long for no real benefit. It is not necessary for the average reader to read this (or it wouldn't be in a footnote at all). It's just there in the interests of historical accuracy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

No real benefit? It's not necessary for the average reader to see the accurate credit? After The Wachowskis (credited as The Wachowski Brothers) was not listed as an option? We can't even get a noticeable footnote? If this is how it goes down I'll join DonIago in launching a new RfC. - Gothicfilm (talk) 08:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Forum shopping is disruptive. You can't keep starting RfCs until you get the answer you agree with. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 09:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The point is this was a flawed RfC that left out an important option, so no one could directly vote for it. This despite it being raised as a viable option several times in the preceding discussions. - Gothicfilm (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

RfCs are not decided by votes. They're decided by consensus. If you express an opinion or an argument in the RfC then the closer will take that opinion/argument into account when writing the closing summary. There's no need to "directly vote" for anything. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 13:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd just add that including the previous credit in parentheses was raised in the RFC. I'm among those who supported it, but it's clear that it didn't achieve consensus support. I, or anyone else, could have added it as a formal option at any time. That no one did is not a grounds for refighting this battle.--Trystan (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• I don't care whether the footnote style is or ... as long as readers are informed that a film now credited in Wikipedia as "The Wachowskis" is — in the film itself — billed as "The Wachowski Brothers", and this piece of information is verified with sources.
  Between 14-16 March 2019, three editors set their sights on Bound, and the footnote in the lead that explained the directorial credit at the time of release, which was supported with sources, was reduced to "Credited as The Wachowski Brothers." . This corruption of facts is a disservice to the purpose of Wikipedia. Pyxis Solitary yak 07:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't feel strongly about the wording of the footnotes, but I do think Bound's original footnote was, with respect, too darn complicated: The directorial credit in the press at the time of film release is: "Directed, written by Larry and Andy Wachowski",[4] and "The Wachowski Brothers".[5] The film poster billing is: "Written and Directed by The Wachowski Brothers".[6]. I would be perfectly fine with re-adding references to the note, though. In fact I'll do that now. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 18:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• I don't really have a strong opinion about this. Since pinged, I'll say that my weak preference is for just ^[a] pointing to 'Credited as "The Wachowski Brothers"'. FWIW I still don't oppose a single mention, in the body alone, of such a parenthetical, but not in the lead/infobox. That said, a new RfC would be obnoxious at this point, and I would oppose on principle. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Are you really saying that you would oppose an RfC simply because you don't like the idea of another RfC, regardless of any potential merit it might have? If so, why not just stay out of it entirely? DonIago (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    • There is no potential merit to relitigating what's covered in the RfC above. I'm responding primarily to the people who simply don't like the close or want to relitigate the content or wording of the RfC, a symptom of which seems to be edit warring over its implementation. If the next RfC you refer to is simply to determine whether it'll be ^[a] or ^{[note 1]} and where those should be, I'm indifferent (and if that's all that was intended, then consider my promise to oppose null). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• I would use "[a]", in articles where such a footnote is judged necessary. The other version is longer for no good reason, as SmcCandlish says; from the statements of some proponents it's an attempt to editorially emphasize the note, which seems inappropriate (POV). (As an aside, this discussion prompted me to take a look into how many other note styles are out there, whereupon I noticed that a few articles, like Druze, egregiously use "footnote 1" including for things which should probably just be {{Harvnb}} or {{Sfnp}} or the like...) -sche (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• “The Wachowskis”, in the infobox. I would have footnote in info box, and am mildly prefer it not also in the lead. What style, no opinion. What wording - “The Wachowskis” — I would prefer the historically used credit, but think it MUST follow the cites and a period cite to early or pre-Internet might be hard to get, so go with paraphrase on what cites are available. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• It feels like a consensus has emerged:
  • Footnote style: [a]
  • Footnote wording: Credited as The Wachowski Brothers and, where applicable, a second producer footnote that reads Credited as Andy and Larry Wachowski.
  • Footnote location: both the lead and the infobox.

I can live with this and am willing to stop pushing for a reduced number of footnotes. (And I've already given up the idea that the footnote situation might vary from article to article, with some articles not having the footnote at all.) WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 22:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it's closer to "no consensus" on style, but for the sake of getting this done, I can live with that. The comments from DisgruntledGM were right on the money. Let's get it done and move on! --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that's a wrap. Good job, everyone. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 17:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

"The Wachowskis" or "the Wachowskis"

Guess what, it's another naming discussion. Relax, this isn't about gender.

We should write "the Wachowskis", lowercase "the", not "The Wachowskis". See MOS:THECAPS: Do not ordinarily capitalize the definite article after the first word of a sentence. See also WP:MOSCAPS: Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. In English, capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, and for the first letter of a sentence.[a] Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia's own proper noun article has a good explanation: When the comes at the start of a proper name, as in the White House, it is not normally capitalized unless it is a formal part of a title.

This is consistent with:

• the White House
• the United Kingdom
• the BBC
• the Beatles (this is more controversial, but we had an infamous RfC about it and that was the result)
• the Joneses

Inevitably some credits, packaging, marketing materials and reliable secondary sources write "The Wachowskis". That's either the result of sloppy copyediting or some marketing decision about pushing the Wachowskis as a brand or whatever. It's not standard and not reflected in the majority of reliable secondary sources, and shouldn't influence how we write. Popcornduff (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in!! Agree that the "the" is not consistently capitalized in sources and would not have a problem with us switching to lowercase. But please, gods, let this not be another big kerfuffle. :) WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 05:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, no one seems to care about this, so I'm going to go ahead and do it. Popcornduff (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank God someone is making sense about this. I tried to do this a little while back and got pushback about the current consensus, which is to have "The Wachowskis" in the lede and even lower if it seems like an official credit. 71.198.89.109 (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Credits for young vesions of Thomas Anderson in Reloaded?

I've seen Reloaded y fair share of times and I don't recall seeing any younger versions of Neo. Off the top of my head, the only place I can think of these could be are during flashing scenes in the Architect's screens. If this is the case, given that they last for a couple of seconds at best, I find it pretty ridiculous to add them in the credits here. --uKER (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

If they're uncredited (I can't weigh in on that), then they need to be cited in any case. I agree that it seems silly to add actors who appear that briefly and don't even have dialogue, though. You have my blessing to remove, or CN tag if you're feeling generous and don't believe the film credits them. DonIago (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not a matter of believing. I do not doubt they are credited. The point is that they're probably on screen for two seconds in a screen that's part of a video wall, with no sound. Is it really worth crediting? See the scene in question here (link to relevant timecode). --uKER (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

No Matrix 4 article yet?

Matrix 4 starts filming next month and still no separate article for it? Come on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.186.220.57 (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Cast section amending for The Matrix 4?

It seems the convention is to list the cast when the movie enters production proper. Can we do that with The Matrix 4, even if we don't know the official title yet? Gistech (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

MOS:DEADNAME has an RFC

MOS:DEADNAME has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

"Turings all the way down" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Turings all the way down. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 7#Turings all the way down until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

"The Zion Archive" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect The Zion Archive. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 7#The Zion Archive until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

"Mega City (The Matrix)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Mega City (The Matrix). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 7#Mega City (The Matrix) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

"Le Vrai" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Le Vrai. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 7#Le Vrai until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)