Talk:The Red Virgin

Poorly written.

Maybe mention the movie is based on actual people and events. It is not until the reader reaches the end of page they are made aware Hildegart and her mother are not fictional characters. 63.227.244.48 (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just rewrote the lead section. Let me know your feedback. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know why the director was pushed back in the lede as well as other crew details. As whether readers needs to be spoonfed... it's a moot question, but let's say the "bAsED on a REal-Life story" tag might be added to the lead so they can be indeed spoonfed (who those Aurora and Hildegart Rodríguez women linked in the opening statement would be, after all? surely not real-life characters, right?) In addition, let's just say that the complete removal of the working title (used by sources) from the article is not an improvement. --Asqueladd (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot assume that the presence of blue links means that readers will know that these figures are real-life. What about using "biographical" somewhere? As for pushing back crew credits, there is no requirement by any policy or guideline to have them upfront every time. The presentation will vary by film. Some relevant guidelines to consider:

MOS:OPEN: "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it."
MOS:FIRST:

"The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where."
"For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence."

MOS:CONTEXTLINK: "The first sentence should provide links to the broader or more elementary topics that are important to the article's topic or place it into the context where it is notable."
WP:UNDUE: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery." (emphasis mine)

Lastly, I'm not sure why the working title is thought to be important? Per WP:LEAD, it should be "a summary of its most important contents". If the film was released as Hildegast at some point, that would make sense, but if it was a title that not even moviegoers ever see, it's not very important. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The YouTube trailer here says "based on the real story". The Amazon page here also says "based on a true story". There is merit in indicating the real-life relevance. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there is no requirement by any policy or guideline to have them upfront every time There is no requirement to. It is however highly conventional to include directorial and writing credits in the opening statements of most film articles (a noted exception to this can be MCU films and the likes with no directorial vision whatsoever). The based on a real-life story tag was already added. Are you arguing that crediting directorial and writing credits in this particular case are undue weight? "For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence." Care to explain this quote and your emphasis? Are you suggesting that this film is notable for one only reason and that you are the one determining that reason? Amusing...--Asqueladd (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it has been commonplace to always put the director and writer(s) upfront, but we do not operate on tradition. Depending on the film, the noteworthy context will vary, and the presentation can reflect that. Like sometimes a film is merely a star vehicle, and the director would be secondary to the starring actor(s). It's possible that the various contexts are fairly equal, but right now, the first sentence does not, to me, say anything about the film. I did not see the "based on a real-life story" bit added, so thanks for that. I still think it should be earlier in the lead section, or to have "biographical" somewhere. Historical and biographical films tend to have reliable sources explaining pretty upfront what the film is about. Do you think naming the director and the writers here are more important than contextualizing the film in the real-life story that it tells? (By the way, my emphasis was meant for the bolding, not the italics.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to adding biographical, even though sources are not unanimous on the matter, Prime Video pitched the genre as "historical drama, romance, thriller and a touch of true crime", the film is classified on the platform as "Suspense · International · Drama", while third-party sources often emphasize the story being a "sort of [Gothic] tale".--Asqueladd (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a pasttime, I have checked on a cursory search that the opening statements in recent biographical and para-biographical Academy Awards nominees based on real-life stories generally adhere to that conventional opening statement (director-> writing credits aside from the director->the rest). Those include: Tick, Tick... Boom!, Oppenheimer, Being the Ricardos, Spencer, Elvis, Blonde, Killers of the Flower Moon, and King Richard. Noted exceptions being Maestro and Nyad.--Asqueladd (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Asqeladd, whilst it can be useful to draw inspiration from other well-written articles, we should only draw guidance from guidelines. Just because something has been done in a certain way at another exemplary article does not mean that approaches that diverge elsewhere are wrong, or inferior. In this respect it is perfectly valid to not mention the director in the opening sentence, if the film primarily draws its identity from aspects. A common example I can think of is James Bond films, such as Goldfinger (film). It appears Erik re-wrote the lead in response to an IP editor, who felt that the biographical nature of the plot was an important element of the film. Do you disagree with this point, or is your argument solely that the lead should be written in a certain way because that's how it's been done at other articles? Betty Logan (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I try not to assume that pictures based on IP or on real-life stories are primordially about the IP or the real-life story and its characters in a way essentially different to, let's say, the way a non-biographical film with an original screenplay is about its original screenplay and its original characters, if that is what you are asking. On a first-derivative basis, those perks impact the identity of the story, rather than the identity of the film as a whole work. In the other hand, film certainly has the authorial imprint of its director. Besides that, perhaps someone is willing to discuss in depth about whether the relatively obscure lurid story of filicide in 1930s Spain is so bigger-than-life as the James Bond IP, in which ways is comparable to it and in which ways is not, and whether that impacts the film and its identity in what ways, but, to me, it seems something as fruitless as counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is poorly written. if you think the lead section needs footnotes you're missing the point of the lead section which is to summarize. -- 109.76.134.39 (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In general the working title of a film is a minor production detail of no great importance. I see nothing to suggest otherwise in this specific case. The working title is irrelevant and there is no need whatsoever to include it in the lead section.(diff) That it was formatted as a footnote only served to highlight how unimportant and irrelevant it was that it could so easily be hidden and nothing of value lost. The point that this film was based on a real life of person has already been clearly stated, the working title (Hildegart) is not important and adds nothing of value to normal readers. -- 109.76.135.102 (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]