Talk:Drive-Away Dolls

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Comedy

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Directing Credit[edit]

According to this Slashfilm article written by Jeremy Smith (https://www.slashfilm.com/1331627/ethan-coen-reuniting-with-joel-for-coen-brothers-project/, Drive-Away Dolls was actually co-directed by Ethan Coen and Tricia Cooke, but because of the Director Guild's rules on sharing credit, only Ethan gets acknowledged. There probably should be a note added to the director's section of the infobox mentioning this, but I don't want to make any edits without coming to a consensus? Ajack15 (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Release date[edit]

For visibility, I just want to make clear that I am under an editing restriction and I cannot undo others' edits, edit-war, revert, rollback, etc. So I have changed the release date to February 22 and included a citation. If anyone views my actions as edit-warring or a revert instead of a new addition, please feel free to undo my edit or ask me to do the same. I want to be respectful of the community's views and edit in good faith with others here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be cautious and ensure that I comply with the above restrictions, I have made a further change. Please note that there are other instances of pointing out the date (e.g. in the infobox) and the sources remain. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I explained the reasoning this was reverted in the my edit summaries. Sorry, I didn't see the talk page discussion until after. Mike Allen 16:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MikeAllen: I have multiple sources stating that it was released in the United States on February 22 (in addition to the fact that I actually saw it then). Please restore that date. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in the edit summary, Thursday previews is not the general release date. This is backed up by the official website, official Instagram post, Box Office Mojo, Rotten Tomatoes. Collider is a trash source that does not do reliable reporting and should only be used for interviews with filmmakers/actors. Their other article released the same day says February 23. Mike Allen 17:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mike about Thursday previews. I get the gist of the request, though. I think in terms of due weight, reliable sources predominantly use the Friday date unless the Thursday (or Wednesday) date is a full-fledged release of the film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD and WP:SPOILER issues[edit]

I wrote the plot section and included a summary of the plot in the lead, per WP:LEAD, which states that the lead should give an overview of the entire article. This was substantially cut by Jeffy7Jeffy to not be "too revealing" but WP:SPOILER puts out how this encyclopedia is not spoiler free and reads in part (bold in the original):

It is not acceptable to add "spoiler warning" notices or to delete information from (or hide it within) an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality (e.g., the lead section).

If I am reading this correctly, it is wrong to remove what you think is too revealing and the lead must have a complete plot summary, not just the barest premise of the film. Again, per the above, I cannot and must not attempt to undo/revert/etc. anyone's edits, so I am seeking consensus here to revert the lead back to an acceptable state. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right we can write "spoiler" content, but common courtesy would be not to add the main plot line in the lead. If readers want to know the plot more in-dept, they click the Plot section. Mike Allen 16:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it is unacceptable to remove things from the lead due to spoiler concerns that interferes with completeness. That's exactly what WP:SPOILER says and that's exactly what happened here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be about WP:SPOILER but the relevance of the information to the lead section. Generally speaking, we want to include the film's premise in the lead section, especially because that is the kind of thing repeatedly reported across reliable sources. We need to be wary of pointedly detailing an element of the film (may it be something at its end or something midway through) if reliable sources aren't focusing on that element. (Think of a controversial element, for example -- sources will cover it, and we want to define that element.) I think the more noteworthy a film is, the more likely that a spoiler-type element could be covered in the lead section (The Sixth Sense comes to mind), especially if it will be covered in the article body beyond the plot summary. For this one, I think it's too new and lacking in reliable sourcing focusing on the briefcase contents to warrant putting in the lead section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]