@Revirvlkodlaku:, CNMall41 as well as I have questioned your decision behind selectively placing things into lede, but you keep adding them back against the two of us. Per WP:LEDE, why do these belong there when it is already in a table format in WP:PRODUCTIONS unless they're being front-loaded for generative result and search engine optimization? Graywalls (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Graywalls, the purpose of the lede is to summarize the contents of the article. Given that fact, what specific objections do you have to listing the company's major projects in the lede? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Revirvlkodlaku:, I actually agree with Graywalls on the issue. We don't need five films listed in a two sentence lead section. I would suggest you self-revert as WP:ONUS would be on you for inclusion in the lead.--CNMall41 (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- CNMall41, "We don't need five films listed in a two sentence lead section" is a weak justification, IMO. As I stated above, the purpose of the lead is to summarize the article, and in this case, that clearly suggests mentioning major projects the company has undertaken. The quality of the lead is enhanced rather than diminished by this inclusion, so unless you can make a stronger point, I'm not in agreement with you at all. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Revirvlkodlaku:, since when is justification of inclusion just a reason that is convincing to the person wishing to include it, which in this case you, you and only you? We could also come up with sources to say Walmart has carrots, celery and oranges and cite separate local newspaper for each. You're not the arbiter of the dispute in which you're involved. In this case, there are two users opposing the inclusion. Graywalls (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- That may be the case, but CNMall41 hasn't provided much of a reason for opposing the inclusion, so their stance is rather weak. Your Walmart analogy doesn't stand up to scrutiny, btw. Walmart isn't known primarily for selling produce, whereas Piki is known exclusively for producing film and television, so mentioning productions of note in the lead strikes me as being entirely appropriate, rather than mentioning none, which leaves the lead depleted of meaningful content. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- I understand your contention. Keep in mind that consensus will determine if my contention is weak and that needs to happen on the talk page per ONUS. I have reverted. MOS:INTRO says we summarize the most important points. Having half of their films listed in the lead is not a summary. It is pretty much rehashing the filmography section. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Also, looking closer, I am not so sure this meets WP:NCORP. There are a lot of press announcements and churnalism but don't see anything with independent analysis that can meet WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
 | An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below. |
Please provide opinion on whether it is appropriate and/or permissible to include a brief selection of film production company's major projects within the lead paragraph, in order to help summarize the article's contents. This has been disputed here. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
- I think noting in the lead one or two major projects the company has had a significant part in producing would be sensible. But having read through the sources I am concerned that the company may just not have significant coverage enough to make it notable.
- — HTGS (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
- Possibly, but to prevent COI-ism, I think the significance should be demonstrated by a direct expression by a reliable source rather than multiple sources cobbled together to rattle off names. Graywalls (talk) 04:06, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
- I think the RfC is problematic as I interpret it as asking if WP:LEAD applies to film production company pages. Yes, it does. the dispute is more of a case of whether the LEAD on this particular page should include films and if so how many. The page is not long enough to even need more than a once sentence lead. In fact, the sentence of the lead is longer than the only sentence in the history section. So in this particular case, I would say we do not need any films listed in the lead. The entire filmography is right there. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:30, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
- While I am not saying this is the case here, I'm seeing more and more front-loading not in a way that best summarizes the article objectively, but lede front-loaded and keyword stuffed to LLM optimize for the way company wants the result to come up in response to certain inquiries by increasing citation probability outside of Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
- Is this an accusation against any particular individual? Because as far as I can tell, there is no ongoing COI issue here, and I do not expect regular Wikipedia editors—like you or me—to be introducing such a problem.
- The nature of a lead section is such that it should note the most noteworthy facts about the subject. — HTGS (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- No. I'm saying such front-loading has become more pervasive as generative search result became more common, such as Perplexity and "AI mode" on Google Graywalls (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- Is this just your impression, or do you have evidence of this? I wouldn’t have expected AI mode etc to need anything front loaded, as they do scan the whole page. — HTGS (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
