Talk:List of feature films described as non-narrative

Kora

Sorry I'm Italian I would like to report the 2014 non-narrative film entitled Kora directed edited and photographed by Beau Kaelin original score composed by William Bryan Ragland. Thanks. --Marcello Di Fiore (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

To editor Marcello Di Fiore: Thanks for the advice! It looks like we don't have articles in English for that film or the people involved, and neither does the Italian Wikipedia. If either the film or the participants have sufficient notability (see guide for films and people), I'd encourage you to write articles about them! —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 14:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Move/Layout/Notes

Hello@User:Swpb, In your recent double reverts of my edits, one you find "ill-advised", you state: More citations are still needed, and use of row headers is a deliberate style choice allowed by the MoS

As for the row headers layout, you tell me it's deliberate and allowed. But do you think it is needed, efficient and elegant? I don't but won't insist any further on that point if you or other users really do.

As for the sources, I respectfully disagree but there again won't insist any further if you believe the tag is needed. The page is, for a list, rather well sourced. Do you wish to have all entries sourced by a note before removing the tag? What is the ratio that satisfies a reasonably sourced list, according to you? In general, the content itself of articles linked helps justifying the presence of their respective presence in a list. And we are here facing another, much more serious issue, which is either the notability or the erroneous title of this list.

Either the list corresponds to what you say when you moved page List of non-narrative feature films to List of feature films described as non-narrative over redirect Reverting IMO ill-advised move; even though the intro explains that the label is subjective, the article title should not suggest otherwise (emphasis mine), that is a list of subjective opinions on films, and then it should be deleted (I don't think so). Or the list is like any other list in Wikipedia: objective and reflecting a general assessment/definition of its content and is therefore acceptable; but then it should be named more or less as I had suggested (without "described as"). The intro says most directors didn't think of their films as non-narrative productions. Sure, maybe. But did all the Impressionists call themselves like that from the start, always? Did filmmakers categorised as part of the Japanese New Wave label themselves like that? No. Does that mean we should add in every title "described as" or something of the kind? No. Either those films are generally or by experts considered non-narrative or they are not. If they are, Wikipedia calls them "non-narrative" not "described as non-narrative". You are an experienced user, I see, and I am quite certain you will agree and proceed to the adequate changes accordingly. Thank you very much. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Just a point of clarity for anyone else reading: in this case, "double revert" means reverts of two separate, unrelated edits, not two sequential reverts of the same change in the 3RR sense (which I don't think you meant to suggest).

Re sources, I don't have an exact ratio in mind, but I do think 22-23 unsourced rows on a table this size amounts to an issue worthy of a global tag rather than inline tags, especially when the inclusion criterion for the list is as subjective as this one, which leads to...

Re subjectivity, I think you are presenting a false dichotomy. Inclusion here is subjective, in that it amounts to an opinion that often differs among experts, but that does not make the list unencyclopedic. If one or a few experts consider a film to be non-narrative, but they are in the minority, then we can say with authority that that film has been "described as non-narrative" in an encyclopedically significant sense, but not that it is non-narrative, without qualification. Even in the case of a particular movement like Japanese New Wave, Wikipedia acknowledges this subjectivity, calling that list Films associated with the Japanese New Wave (emphasis mine). And the nature and hallmarks of "non-narrative film" are quite a bit squishier than any particular movement, so the kind of expert consensus you're talking about is even less likely to be (near-)unanimous about any given film. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 19:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @User:Swpb for this reply (I amended the first point, indeed, my bad, again I apologise for the ambiguous 'double'). I for one, would tend to think that non-narrative films is a much more objective description than what you say, but fair enough, if that is what you think after all and if no one else thinks the qualification is undue, let's leave it at that. I believe most of the films that can be listed in this (notable) list should precisely have been the object of the rough consensus you mention I was alluding to and again, I would have much preferred another title. Thank you all the same for the creation of the page, for your work and concern, and your time and reply. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful comments as well. I'll just add that I think the subjectivity of this category comes from the myriad ways a narrative can be constructed. They can be nonlinear, symbolic, deeply metaphorical, incomplete, told verbally or visually, and put together from multiple perspectives with varying reliability (and sanity), etc. The point at which no narrative is decipherable is not simple to define. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 00:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)