Talk:Rosemary's Baby (franchise)

Franchise status

Recently, there User:Andrzejbanas had an apparent issue with this article and its name (as we can see here and at length here). The user has taken various similar preemptive stances to delete information (examples: here, here, and here). There was additionally, further coaching and direction provided by User:Valereee, completed here where "Andrzejbanas" indicated that they understood and learned from their errors. Unfortunately, they continue scrambling through Wikipedia on a mass deletion mission. More troubling is their admitted reasoning that the work they had completed a Dracula (Universal film series) is a good example of a film series article, when there are other editors who would argue otherwise (i.e.: all those films are Universal Monster movies); while the user stated: "there is no wide spread coverage of it as that" here as well. The user repeatedly disregards sources that don't jive with their personal opinions.

As I have pointed out here, there are a number of reliable sources that refer to this IP as a franchise, including but not limited to: Sporskeeda, Cinema Express, Vulture. These are indeed reliable and notable sources, "Andrzejbanas" and they will be added to the article as such.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi DisneyMetalhead. I'll be brief as mentioned earlier, the Vulture article has no discussion on this as a franchise, the other two have brief, one or two sentences. I of course typed this Into a search engine as you did and found this. Expanding an article beyond what is here fails WP:WEIGHT and WP:SIGCOV. specifically as a franchise. Most of this article is currently regurgitating the individual reception of each film, but not as a series or franchise. Not to mention undue weight on In-uninverse information like cast and crew. This is my issue. I believe there is some sort of grouping of these, but what has been applied here is. it appropriate per the rules above. If you have issues with another article, please discuss it there, but there is signifigant coverage Dracula films from universal as a series. Academic journals, articles reviews spanning decades. Currently for this article, there is none. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas, could you maybe go back and edit this post? There are so many typos that I can't really understand what you're trying to say. Valereee (talk) 11:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

This is what happens when I write on my phone. Thanks Valereee, I've updated it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: the issue and pitfall you are having is that you are again stating the exact same opinions you had at Talk: Universal Monsters for nearly a decade which put that article into poor form. You are specifically wanting "academic journals" -- in each of the pages you are continuing to edit. That has been discussed ad nauseum. You may not like the formatting of a film franchise/series/etc. article -- but their purpose is to specifically to bring various recurring data to one page for the average reader. Vulture talks about Rosemary's Baby and its media are the opposite of other franchises. Read the quote: "In an age saturated by commercially safe franchises, Rosemary’s Baby represents the pinnacle of studio filmmaking."--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't really mean to be rude @DisneyMetalhead, but I'm really sure they are talking about the individual film there, not about it as franchise. This doesn't really address my other points. As for the other sources, WP:SIGCOV states that if we create an article about a topic it must "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." In this case, it isn't the main topic, but its a really trivial mention of a series in one or two sentences from each citation, there is no depth, explanation, or even commentary, unless you count the above, but I'm very positive they are only talking about the first film and I struggle to read that in any other way. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe you are being rude. I am trying to help you avoid what occurred on Universal Monsters as an example. In WP:SIGCOV it is stated "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The article is talking about Rosemary's Baby (the movie), but the sentence I referred to compares that the movie's franchise was significantly different. I will provide additional sources that cover the franchise as a whole. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a single line from an article is "significant coverage", these are three sources that state a franchise in about a single sentence with little prose to surround it. From this content we've established a "official logo" which appears to be only on the first film, the rest of the article is about sequels to a prominent novel and film, but not "as a whole". So this is why I feel like it fails significant coverage, we have trivial mentions in articles that are limited to a sentence, and then have material that is just regurgitating information from individual items.

This is why I'm saying it fails WP:SIGCOV, the individual items have significant coverage. I'm not doubting a series or franchise exists, I'm doubing there is signifigant coverage as a series as a whole, and even if we do apply those three sources, these definitely are minor references within articles about a poster being revealed, or a sequel being made. Compare this to the Sartana article here, which specifically goes into detail about a series/franchise/etc. of Sartana films. Pages and pages of it. This is what significant coverage is, there is actual discussion about it as a whole, not a one-off trivial mention with little analysis.

As WP:SIGCOV states,

• The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
• Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.

I feel like that's the issue here. Rosemary's Baby is definitely an interesting topic and its sequels are of interest on the strength and popular and film culture influence of the first film, but the franchise/series as a whole does not have the examination. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead:, while I appreciate your work such as this edit, there is very little commentary to pull from these sources. The Comicbook.com source lists films and tv series, The Guardian article is just about the development of the television series with nothing about the bigger picture. Similarly, the Screen Crush article is primarily about the announcement of the new film, and gives a bit more on other adaptations, but the article's headline and topic is primarily the new film announcement. As these are down to a few sentence in articles that are primarily about the new film, applying these sources or anything similar does not warrant any more stability to the article for passing WP:SIGCOV as it is one or two sentences from a topic that is about something else. I'm not advising you to stop your work on these articles, but adding four citations next to a word does not make the topic pass the previous rules. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

It's good that you're "not advising [me] to stop [more] work on these articles"... you wouldn't have a place to do so. As you can see in your previous responses, you are continuing to respond in gigantic overkilled posts. The sources I've attached talk about each installment in the franchise. Once the new movie releases, we will add additional sources. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had a lot of time work around so i'm glad you are willing to chat. That said, waiting for the film to release to hope sources may pop up goes against WP:NEXIST @DisneyMetalhead:, specifically that "The absence of sources or citations in a Wikipedia article (as distinct from the non-existence of independent, published reliable sources in libraries, bookstores, and the internet) does not indicate that a subject is not notable." so in this case, we need them now as the article has been made, not later. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

... The sources I have provided are about the franchise. I'm not "waiting for the...hope sources may pop up". They're already there. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

You said "Once the new movie releases, we will add additional sources", I apologize, but I do not know how you wanted that interpreted otherwise. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

On top of the previously identified source -- I will continue adding more until you see that there is significant coverage.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Because this list is quite exhaustive, I will compile them here instead (so that we don't overkill the references in the article).:

• Woman's World details at length the entire franchise. The history of the franchise, and various details about each installment.
• Mental Floss talks about the history of the original movie, and then details that there is a sequel movie, and a follow-up book by the original author.
• Collider talks about the TV-sequel movie, and the miniseries (in additional to the original and the upcoming prequel).
• Sportskeeda calls it as it is... a "franchise" while detailing the upcoming prequel.
• ComicBook.com also calls it as it is - a "franchise" and talks about the original movie, its TV-movie sequel, the upcoming prequel, the miniseries, and the novel.
• The Guardian talks about the original movie, the book, and the then-upcoming miniseries remake. It also talks about the Michael Bay produced "remake", which as we know evolved into this upcoming prequel...see the production development of Apartment 7A for reference (i.e.: It talks about most of the franchise as it existed at that point).
• ScreenCrush while announcing the prequel trailer, also takes the time to talk about the novel, the original movie, the TV-sequel, and the miniseries.
• Punch Drunk Critics also detail the original movie, its TV sequel, and the miniseries while discussing the trailer for the upcoming prequel.
• CinemaExpress keeps it simple by stating the poster is the for the installment in the franchise...and talks about the previous installments.
• Vulture states that Rosemary's Baby - "a shrewd, peculiar, and seemingly unmarketable excursion into the ghoulish human psyche that became a sensation" when comparing it to the "commercially safe franchises". It also talks about various unofficial sequels that Hollywood has made to the original movie.

There are certainly enough sources, with various details/coverage of the franchise to fulfill significant coverage.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to explain this further, but I'll try again.

The Woman's World article is a listicle listing trivial facts. about the original film, and then lists that there were sequels. It's not about the series/franchise as a whole. The Same goes for the Mental floss, Collider, Sportkeeda, Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The others, like the Comicbook.com one, The Guardian, Screencrush, are articles about the various sequels/ramakes, and then make mention of the one off adaptations.

These fails WP:SIGCOV. They are all predominantly about the individual sequels, but don't discuss it as a whole unique item. I've said this above, "addresses the topic directly and in detail". They go into detail about individual films/books/television series, but not much as a franchise as a whole. That is what the article requires, as currently, we have proof something exists, but not something that's talking about the subject outside a stray line, and then discussing individual films. You need it as a whole. Without it, the problem persists @DisneyMetalhead:. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: each of these sources detail the franchise. There are plenty of sources currently, and there will only continue to be more.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

They only briefly mention it as stated above @DisneyMetalhead, then predominnatly discuss films individually and are all in articles that are about individual films or series. I've made that clear above. They have to talk about the franchise as a "whole". Otherwise, this is great citations for individual articles. It does not solve WP:SIGCOV ("Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention"), in this case, the mention of a franchise is but one sentence if any as shown above. You need to it just broadly discussing all of them, not individual works. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I've also already stated/made it clear above that several of these do detail the franchise as a whole... one of those being the Woman's World article that you didn't like. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead, two points, its not whether I like a source or not, as that is irrelevent. The issues is that the sources don't really discuss as as a individual topic. They move from point 1 (the book) to the film, to the tv film, to the series. There is no real discussion of it as its own unique entity as a franchise. What i'm trying to say, are there any reviews of the franchise as a "whole" or it's production as a "whole" instead of individual works? Otherwise, along with the sigcov rules, the rest of the article falls to WP:WEIGHT issues "all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight." In this case, the budget, plot and financial information is all cited to appropriate sources, but there is no greater discussion of these from the point of view of this being a series. If there was more actual weight to the discussion of the franchise as a whole instead of individual works, then we'd be cooking with oil. Otherwise, we have proven that is a term used from reliable sources, we haven't found significant coverage of the topic as its own entity, as all discussion boils down to discussing the items individually. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

You quite literally have many sources above which cover the history of the IP. You then quite literally have others that call it as it is (a franchise). It's as plain and simple as that. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be better to focus this on the deletion discussion and try to stop attacking editors and talk about content instead. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be a two person discussion, if any progress is to be made you clearly need more opinions, probably from Wikipedia:WikiProject Film. This all seems to hang on the definition of significant coverage WP:SIGCOV. There is a clearly large quantity of incidental shallow coverage that mentions that the "franchise" exists, so it can be verified but that doesn't necessarily make it noteworthy. There is not a whole lot of deep coverage analyzing the franchise as a whole (it would seem as if no one is writing books about it). I would think that an encyclopedia article on a franchise should offer more than a redundant reshuffling of existing information into a pseudo list article and should have a depth of coverage and analysis, but even the article for The Godfather (film series) doesn't seem to manage to have any significant depth to it and might fail to pass that high bar. I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Film needs to collectively decide what they believe significant coverage really means for franchise and film series articles and if they want editors to keep creating more and more of these types of articles where there is no depth of coverage. Based on MOS:FILMSERIES "A film series article should only be created when the series encompasses at least three films" this article does not (yet) pass even that requirement and should not have been moved out of draft space until the third film was actually released. In my opinion many franchise articles clearly fail to have significant coverage _as a whole_, but other editors seem to have an entirely different interpretation of what is meant by significant. I think editors need to both answer this specific deletion discussion and address the overall issue of the prolific creation of franchise and film series articles. -- 109.76.198.63 (talk) 11:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the substancial response and the valid point that there are articles in place for the likes of The Godfather film series, that by the definitions of @Andrzejbanas: might fail to pass the requests that have been discussed. While this page is not a film series article, the details stated on "MOS:FILMSERIES" regarding 3 films has been talked about on other articles to where the discussions led to a decision that a third movie that is filming and/or in post-production was more likely to be released than when it is only in development. There are clearly disputations amongst some editors as to what is significant, and what is not. I like your suggestions for discussing this, and will joint the conversations there. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Sources Continued

In addition to the previously stated references; here are several more that have come up since the release of the third feature-length movie (Apartment 7A).:

• Past Magazine talks about each of the various installments (original/made-for-TV sequel/miniseries/sequel) while also repetitively detailing why each installment is inferior to the original.
• JustWatch talks about the entire franchise (chronologically) including the 3 feature films, while also referencing the miniseries.
• LitReactor -- also re-adding this source, as it is written by a notable writer/playwright named Christopher Shultz. This one details all of the franchise (prior to the sequel).

I don't see how these various sources are not sufficient enough.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you should try applying the information from these sources into the article to develop the article instead of having content talking about individual sources. I've given these articles a quick glance, and again, they talk about the individual works, very little about a "franchise" as its own unique topic. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)