Jump to content

Talk:The Mouse That Roared (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Mouse on the Moon

[edit]

Before we have any more flip-flopping on the position of the sequel info, can we come to a landing on it here? I'd suggest—in line with the edits of MarnetteD and Robsinden—that it should be lower down in the article, rather than up in the lead. There are two reasons for this: firstly the article is about The Mouse That Roared, not The Mouse on the Moon and secondly the lead is supposed to show only information contained in the article body (although it's a more grey area with such a short article). If this article is developed incrementally there is a possibility that it would remain in the lead, orphaned from the rest of the information and with no other reference (or source) attached to it. Aside from that, it's a one sentence paragraph—something that should be avoided where possible. - SchroCat (^@) 11:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated, we place sequels/earlier films at the end of the lead in lieu of preceding/following in the infobox - a situation from last year I'm sure MarnetteD will recall well. We were told putting it there was to provide easy navigation for readers since such info would no longer be in the infobox. The fact it's a one sentence paragraph in a stub article is typical and not a problem. You'll see it there in many WP film articles, whether extrensive or just stubs. It's supposed to be added to the leads of any films where it's still missing. - Gothicfilm (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We said that they "could go" in the lede not that they must. As can be seen here MOS:FILM#Lead section there is no mention that sequels must be mentioned in the lede, or even that they should be. Until you have changed the consensus there you should not claim that such a situation exists to be applied here. Next, this is not a stub article. I cannot understand this reasoning that readers can't or won't scroll through an entire article. It seems that current discussion is fine with the mention in a separate section. MarnetteD | Talk 15:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]