Talk:Blade Runner

Tech noir

The "softening" edit [1] is fine by me. I really don't like WP:REVTALK; it's more sensible to just get on a talk page. A lot of material juxtaposing "Blade Runner" with "tech noir" or "technoir" can be found easily [2], though is probably more helpfully confined to a Google News search [3] (still not all of which would be publications we care about). There are also books hits [4] which are likely better, but I'm not in a rush to spend more on books right now. Even the snippet bits that are visible there are pertinent, however. And there's journal material [5] but most of it will be paywalled. Anyway, the idea that this is just a random Game Rant writer's one-off opinion is clearly not sustainable. And I think that was really, really obvious if you know what tech noir is at all. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

You were right first time, this would have been better at user talk. As I apparently failed to convey, I do not dispute that tech-noir exists, or is notable, nor that BR could be categorized as such. What I challenged is how DUE providing much material on the sub genre is in the article about BR. BR is clearly an essential part of the topic "tech noir", being a part of the genre "tech noir" is of relatively minor importance of to the topic BR. And this is borne out I believe in the sources that easily available to us at this time. Your search above (in news) gives about 200 results (adding genre as a search term). Do the same with BR + cyberpunk + genre and it's almost 3000. Do it with neo noir, it's 800. Sci-fi noir and film noir also score higher. And yes, I'm well aware that tech noir could and is described as sub genres some of terms, or may be equivalent to them, but my point is that when people write about BR, they aren't usually describing it as a tech noir, they are calling it cyberpunk. Which, to get back to where we started, is why I removed it from the lead after you added it there, and didn't remove from the impact section (although I don't think it really benefits the article). And I stand by what I said, that when you look at the millions of words written about this film, "next to no" sources are choosing to use the genre tech-noir, indicating that the genre itself may be niche or specialized. I'm sure there are some better sources that say it founded/inspired later films in the genre, and it's probably true, so go ahead and find them and add them if you want.

Lastly, you might want reflect on your communication style in this exchange. Using ALL CAPS in edit summaries when telling someone they were making a "pointless revert" (they weren't, although the edit summary could have been better) when making a not such a great edit yourself. When I offer an opinion that it may not merited in the body but to go ahead if you want you claim that I don't think the genre's notable & completely ignore the request not to use a poor source for what you added to the article. And the last two sentences here left me fuming yesterday. You make a vague claim about my views on the random GameRant writer (what do I think is only his opinion exactly?), and then seem me either accuse me of being willfully obstructive or just unqualified to have this discussion with you. I honestly don't know how else to interpret it. Adding SMILEY FACE at the end may have been an attempt to soften whatever it was you actually meant, but honestly just comes across as smug. I've seen you be thoughtful and kind elsewhere on this project so I'm guessing you didn't do it deliberately, but that's honestly how it comes across. All I did was remove or change what I believed to be bad while explaining why, and although you seem to agree that it's better now, you've tongue lashed everyone along the way. Scribolt (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't have any issue with it being removed from the lead, just not suppressed out of the entire article. As for the rest of this, I'm sorry I rubbed you the wrong way, but if your entire take-away from the exchange is just that I was being mean then please re-read it. The point was that if someone's revert rationale is simply that a source wasn't provided, yet a source is really obviously right there in front of them at the article being linked to in the edit, then doing the revert instead of taking about the same amount of time to copy-paste the source they're demanding is a mistake. And that didn't involve you anyway; you didn't enter the picture until later (and no lead versus body distinctions were at issue until that point). Edit summaries do not have support for italics or bold, so emphasis is either done LIKE THIS or *like this*. WP:RSN archives appear to indicate that GameRant/ScreenRant is considered reliable enough for this sort of thing, just not for claims about living persons. And we don't need to rely on it anyway, since I've identified lots of other sources, and they are trivial to find. "Accuse me of being willfully obstructive or just unqualified to have this discussion"? I wouldn't have engaged with you in this detail if I thought that, and when I think people are being obstructive or lack competence, I don't have any difficulty just saying so. Tech noir (AKA sci-fi noir or noir SF) probably is "a niche or specialized" genre, but it is notable, and that is sufficient. That it has coalesced fairly recently automatically means that representation of it in source material is going to be lower than for cyberpunk, which as a genre is newer than sci-fi, and so is automatically going to be less represented in sources than sci-fi. None of this is suprirsing or particularly meaningful. It's arguable that even "cyperpunk" should be removed from the lead, since that term did not exist yet when the film came out, and is a retronymic application to this work. But BR's influence on CP and TN are source-demonstrable and so belong in the article somewhere.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Also the article literally mentions Blade Runner's influence on the Tech-Noir genre in the Legacy section, I legitimately don't know why edits regarding Tech-Noir keep getting revoked Officer Memes (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems to be a flat-out incorrect application of the WP:RECENTISM idea. I.e. because tech noir isn't as old a recognized genre as cyberpunk and Blade Runner itself (never mind that "cyberpunk" wasn't coined or described until years after the film anyway), it must not be important to include, simply because it's newer. This is rather nonsensical. If RS are telling us that tn is a notable genre, and telling us that BR is the primary inspiration for it (and in fact more formative of tn than of cp), then it needs to stop being suppressed in the article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually editors were simply removing Tech Noir because consensus had previously been against it. As a result any more continued addition of it without consensus changing was reverted and people pointed to the talk page. There's no strange mystery here or nonsensicalness, it's pretty clear why it was being removed. Purely a case of things were added, others removed them, consensus was against it and therefore when people put it back in it was removed and directed to the talk page. As we know if it's removed the onus is on the editors adding the information to get consensus. Simply a pure BRD issue is all. Canterbury Tail talk 04:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I object to the addition in the lead. As per the MOS, the lead summarises the content of the article, with prominence determined by the the coverage in reliable sources. Being the inspiration for another notable subject does not automatically equate to lead inclusio, it should reflect the article itself.
Currently the article contains a single sentence on TN, sourced to a video games site. The article currently states that BR is an early example of TN, the wording of which was agreed above (due to the relative weakness of a gaming site to define the foundation work of a film genre). Does the edit accurately summarise reflect the content of what is currently in the article? No, being the foundational work of a genre is not the same thing. Would a reworded edit in the lead that reflects what is in the article be justified in terms of the relative weight of content in the article (or even the sub section it's in)? No, the other article content related to it's significance and impact section (significance to sci-fi as a whole, genre wide acknowledgement of it's visuals, cyberpunk movement, bio punk, video games, music etc) is both more extensive and better sourced at this point in time. Even the Tesla truck has more content atm (I'm not suggesting this is an ideal state of affairs...)
I will be reverting the edit on the above grounds. I would suggest developing content in the article using some better sourcing to a point where the case including it in the lead is made. Fwiw, I can say now that I am still against using GameRant (although "permitted" for pop culture matters) in this article for such definitive claims as to whether BR founded TN. If someone can find some sourcing that is academic, or at least from film specialists, I'll be happy to support a change on the body. For adding it in the lead, there would need to be at least an equivalent amount of content in the impact section to other parts of the article that are not mentioned in the lead. Please remember that we came to a consensus a month ago you both agreed with the current wording in the article ("I'm fine with the softening edit") and the non inclusion in the lead ("I have no issue with it not being in the lead"). Not sure what has changed since then, and the claims of it being "suppressed in the article" and of edit warring are not helpful. Scribolt (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:CCC, especially when the sourcing improves. What happened in the interim is that the presumption of there being a single source turned out to be a silly presumption that a moment on Google demonstrates to be faulty [6][7]. There is no longer a defensible rationale for including neo-noir and cyberpunk in the lead but excluding tech-noir. When lots of sources says that BR was central to the formation some other genres, we don't exclude a notable one for which there are multiple sources simply because it's a newer term.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll assume you missed my rationale above as you didn't address it, but the article body currently contains less sourced content than the other examples you cited, and so it is not summarised in the lead. The sourcing in the article hasn't improved, it's exactly the same as when we previously discussed. If you now have issues with it not being in the lead, develop the content in the body to the point at which including it in the lead is proportionate. Scribolt (talk) 09:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, currently it fails MOS:LEAD to include it in the lead due to a lack of coverage in the main body of the article. There are 50 other points more deserving of inclusion in the lead prior to the current coverage of Tech Noir due. No objections to it being added in the future if the body is developed enough for there to be enough content to justify being in the lead, but currently that's not met. Canterbury Tail talk 16:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)