Talk:Prequel/Archive 1

Relationship between list and prose

   Perhaps i will expound further on this theme, but for the moment i invite attention to a very old analog that i was reminded of. (And there's a virtual lollipop for the first one to adequately explain why it occurred to me.) The good news about it is that it doesn't require, as i had feared, admin privileges to inspect the history: see User:David Gerard/Motif of harmful sensation. I am suggesting -- in the subsection title and now explicitly -- that Prequel resembles this deleted (but eventually userified) article, typifies a type of failure of the editing process where the list content of a page gets too much attention and the prose too little; this raises the question "what makes the page encyclopedic?"
--Jerzy•t 09:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I get your point. Lists attract cruft. I have no idea if all the games listed are prequels in any sense, for instance. And there is no prose at all discussing games. Just a long list. However, I think that Escape from the Planet of the Apes should be noted even in a severely cut down article, as it's one of the earlier examples of the concept in film. The prose is getting some attention as a side effect, though almost only about film prequels.Barsoomian (talk) 09:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion moved - now returned here

I'm now being asked to continue this discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Prequel discussion. I said I'd prefer to keep it on the Talk page, but Curb Chain (talk) and JJB seem to want to have it there. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, it appears Curb Chain at DRN and Barsoomian at user talk are both politely backing away from discussion. Would anyone else find it appropriate if I attempted some nuancing footnotes as I suggested at DRN? JJB 21:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorting by year of original work is indeed better than nothing. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I mean are we ready to add Apes to Films now, while "explaining the different contexts in which the terminology is applied" in Betty Logan's words? JJB 16:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we may as well. I think there are two ways to go about doing it. Either create a new table of pseudo-prequels below the main one, or keep them in the main table and gray them out, with a key at the bottom. The main thing is that reboots and sequel-prequels (we can cover The Godfather 2 in that which is an odd case too) are distinguishable from the pure prequels, and just include a few sentences on how the usage in terminology differs. Personally, I think using cell shading with a key is the cleanest approach, but it really depends on how 'distinguishable' we want to make them. Betty Logan (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I would vote for having them be very distinguishable - best way is to have a first table of uncontested prequels, then a secondary table with the ones falling under the expanded umbrella. I'd like to see a short section or subsection in the article explaining how the term prequel has been expanded by some journalists - most likely due to their lack of rigor rather than an expressed preference - and this is an example of how the English language keeps evolving - due to sloppy usage. Yeah, that's my take on it, but that's what happened. I'm sure there are some sources that back that up. This may be a bit much, but something in that direction. I would also like to see the text Barsoomian took out Apr. 5 restored:

It is also important to note that a prequel must be part of the same series as the publication to which it is a prequel. If, as with the case of Batman Begins it starts the story (and the series) anew, it is not a prequel; but rather a reboot. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to go with the two table approach. I agree with your definition of the 'traditional' prequel too i.e. a prequel was originally the inverse of a sequel—that is, the first film could be perceived as a sequel to the second film. The problem of course is that I'm not sure if there ever was a rigid definition that we can source, the definition seemed to be implicit in its application to a particular sub-set of films that bore this characteristic. It's only recently with the current vogue of reboots that the usage has somewhat become bastardized. If we can't source the definition we can at least summarise the first table as containing films that have no 'reboot' or 'sequel' elements though. Betty Logan (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll agree on excluding Batman Begins (though not because of some definition, but rather because "you could say it's a prequel" is not a sufficient enough RS cite IMHO). I think graying might work better than a small asterisk so will try that later, as has been done in other cases where a long list includes some "disputed" entries; I think Barsoomian felt that two tables would be undue weight against the status of those we are calling "conflated", and it would be better to see them in chrono order I think too. This pretty well satisfies the original concern at DRN so I will report on that accordingly; Barsoomian has compromised also, by excluding Battle. To Gothicfilm, to restore the definition previously taken out, or to bring in any discussion over disputed or changing meanings of "prequel", simply provide RS. Let me know if anything else is needed. JJB 02:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I've done some prose clean-up, since the history and etymology was gretaly confused. I've started a separate section for usage too, where I am going to document its conflated application. I've you don't like anything I've done so far feel free to hit the revert button, if I've removed something that anyone else feel is pertinent then feel free to add it back in. Betty Logan (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add a note pointing out that time travel movies (e.g. Back to the Future III) can constitute special cases ? Barry Wom (talk) 06:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I've expanded on this anomaly in the "Usage" section by using the Planet of the Apes series as an example of chronological prequal-ness, but which are continuous as a narrative. Anyway, I think I've covered all aspects of the terminology in an unbiased way (perhaps I have even been too accommodating of a minority view?), and it's on the right track now. If anyone thinks there are any fundamental problems with what I've written feel free to bring them up here or take a crack at it yourself. Betty Logan (talk) 08:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

All-in-all you've given a very good write-up. I would only bring up a couple points. I agree with discussing Rise as a reboot film that a large but minority of sources imprecisely called a prequel. But I don't believe that's accurate for the original Planet of the Apes series sequels. I have read a great deal about them over the years, including looking back at contemporaneous articles. From what I recall, they were always called sequels, all four of them. I suppose we could find some sources that have called them prequels more recently, but only in very small numbers. Not enough to be notable. A very tiny number compared to those that called Rise a prequel. So yes, I would say you have been too accommodating to a very small minority view. I would either take them out, or explain why they're not prequels at all - each film has characters moving forward in their own timeline and experiences from the previous film, and they discuss what happened in the earlier film. These are not prequels. Also, on a more minor point, is there any RS for The Godfather Part II being contemporaneously called both a sequel and prequel back in the 70's? I don't recall seeing that when going over contemporaneous articles on it. It was always called a sequel from what I've seen. Rather famously so, and often commented on, as it was the first "prestige" sequel - the first to be nominated and even win Best Picture, the first major studio release to be labeled "Part II", as Coppola points out. There was comment on the fact it also contained extensive flashbacks telling the earlier family story, but did the word prequel really get used back then to describe those parts of it? It's appearance in the "Usage" section is good even if it only applies to later decades, but the "History" section may not be accurate. Do we have access to the original press pack for the film? And even if it was called a "prequel" therein, did enough journalists use the term to make it notable? - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't know if Godfather 2 was referred to as a prequel at the time of the release. The reference for that claim didn't bear it out, but since it was specific about where the claim was i.e. the press pack, I left it in for the time-being, with a citation tag. I suggest leaving it there for a few weeks and if no-one produces a source then pull it. As for the original ape sequels, I have to admit I had to search around for a decent reference; I don't believe the usage is that common, but since that has been one of the more contentious points of the debate then I felt it was a good choice for illustrating a specific misuse of the term. Another good example would be Star Trek (2009), which is a sequel that actually takes place in a parallel universe, and that has been widely heralded as a prequel. I feel we need something in there that covers the misapplication of the term in the case of time-travel movies, whether it is Apes, Star Trek or something else. Betty Logan (talk) 10:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's very likely we'll be pulling Godfather II from the "History" section, but I guess there's no rush. I agree we should address the misapplication of the term prequel in the case of time-travel movies, but it doesn't come across strongly enough in the case of the Apes sequels for me. It reads too even-handed: In this case the latter three instalments in the series satisfy the definition of a 'prequel' in one way—and are sometimes referred to as "prequels" is not something I believe belongs in the article. Too few people would make that assertion. Perhaps the 2009 Star Trek is a much better example, as a lot of people do seem to think it's a prequel. - Gothicfilm (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to go with the Trek movie (which I agree off source count is a better example), but I'll get on to that tomorrow. It will give everyone else an opportunity to make any observations/suggestions too. Betty Logan (talk) 11:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

To JJB - What happened to using a second table for contested cases? And as said above, Escape from the Planet of the Apes (1971) and Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (1972) are not prequels. Rise was often called a prequel, the 70s sequels were not. See four paragraphs just above. And isn't saying that Escape and Conquest are somehow prequels, but their follow-up, the fifth film Battle is not WP:OR? Consensus is against including the original Planet of the Apes series sequels. Only one uncompromising user was for that. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

He's probably added them in because I wrote them up in the introduction. However, I will rewrite that part using the Star Trek example as discussed above, since Star Trek is more representative. As for the second table/shading debate, I don't mind either way provided it is clear. As for whether the early ape sequels should be in the table, I tend to think not given that they are mostly described as sequels in keeping with other time-travel movies, but I'm willing defer to majority opinion on that one. Betty Logan (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Um, I am trying to resolve a DRN request, namely, how to handle the question whether the Apes films are prequels. Gothic above has returned to three positions: the statement that they are not, the request for the second-table option, and the additional Battle question. This is a bit of a surprise because I had read the situation differently earlier on all three. OTOH, thank you for your compromise attempt by allowing Rise to stand.

1. We agree two defs of prequel are found in RS. Betty: "If a substantial number of sources refer to it as a prequel maybe we can cover what differentiates it from 'true' prequels." Gothic: "Sounds fine to me. It's legitimate for the Prequel article to go into the distinction between a 'true prequel' and one [i.e., a prequel] that's being expansively added under the umbrella." This implies the article should cover both defs. If we say to each other "not a prequel" we should mean "not a prequel by def 1" because def 2 appears in RS. Gothic deleted based on saying "not a prequel"; but this contradicts the RS deleted (which says basically "prequel by def 2"), and the dispute on this, fleshed out by other RS, already appears in the article. The deleter did not challenge reliability of the source (Slotkin's book on Apes, added by Betty), but only contradicted the RS, which is insufficient. So why, according to RS, is there this need for the earlier Apes movies not to appear at all? If "prequel" is a minority report, it has notable adherents. I am looking for a deletion reason, but the view that "noncontinuity prequels" exist appears to be established as a significant POV, so I don't know of any valid deletion reason; but I am generally inclusionist. Here's the RS status I understand so far:

• Webster, Oxford, and dictionary.com give a broad generic definition that permits "yes".
• Slotkin's book, several critics of Apes, Empire Magazine, and the director of Rise say "yes".
• Silverblatt's book gives a generic statement (not about Apes) from which Betty Logan infers "no".
• It is possible an RS might specifically say "no" about Apes (but forcing one requires proving a negative).
• It appears more sources link "reboot" with Apes than "prequel", from which "no" is also tangentially inferred.

2. I thought Gothic had agreed that one list was possible. Betty: "The compromise is to create a sub-section of the list for reboots that are sometimes referred to as 'prequels', for cases where the terminology is being used interchangeably in reliable sources. Gothicfilm agreed to this .... After all, we don't need to just bundle everything into one big list without even attempting to explain the criteria for its inclusion do we?" Gothic: "I agree with this very well thought-out analysis." Offhand, it seems like one list is better because with two we would need a second list for each genre (eventually at least literature, and one gaming candidate appeared but was rejected), because coloring is a good signal used in many tables for disputed list entries, and because a second list would sacrifice chrono consistency in favor of significant (undue?) demotion of the disputed entries. However, since Barsoomian has been willing to compromise, it's possible two lists might fly. But this question should wait until we understand where the animus against sources is coming from.

3. Whether or not to include Battle was waived by Barsoomian as a compromise, so I went with the waiver. If Gothic feels three are better than two (assuming we include them), it appears everyone else would agree with that.

If I can understand where the rapid deletion is coming from, that should move toward resolution. I am not working out why every last one of the sources using the second def must be impeached for listmaking purposes; it seems a noteworthy secondary POV is being documented. JJB 14:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

We have to be careful to distinguish between the recent Apes film and the 70s sequels. Clearly there are many sources calling the recent film a prequel i.e. it is a significant minority view, so on that basis it should most likely be documented. In the case of the 70s sequels, there really isn't that much out there calling them prequels, just the odd source here and there, and for the most part they are usually regarded as sequels, so the question is whether there is enough opinion out there to warrant the claim that there is a significant view they are prequels? I generally think there isn't if I have to call it, but either way we do have mechanism for dealing with it now so neither option is unacceptable to me. My view on the early Apes films being prequels had no bearing on the reason I removed them from the prose; the reason I did was simply because I was looking for a continuity based example of a film that was described as a prequel, and Star Trek fitted that profile better given that there were many more sources describing it as a prequel. We don't need to include every complex case in the prose, we just need one example that best illustrates the problems in its application. As for the table, I do think the shaded cell styling is by far the cleanest approach, and I'm not convinced a secondary table gives anything over what the shaded cell approach does; we're basically saying not everyone considers these films prequels, and the shading adequately conveys that in IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Understood and thanks for your consideration. I actually was reading your source Slotkin as being a sufficient RS to tack a POV on, as it appears a book-length description of the Apes franchise and is unequivocal. The other sources, as above, are 3 dictionaries by implication (assuming that noncontinuous stories are included), your Empire Magazine cite, and several reviewers found by Barsoomian. It's clear that, now that we have actually pretty good text defining the distinctions (thanks), there are a lot of people independently using the noncontinuous def to support the POV. I can affirm the article with the other Apes films restored (based on RS) and no other changes, but of course the dispute resolution is still incomplete. JJB 18:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

While I would prefer a properly labelled second table, as I think it's more clear for the casual reader, I'm willing to go along with the current new one using gray shading. And, for the record, I agreed to including Rise as a contested example on that list because a large but minority of sources imprecisely called it a prequel. But I did not agree to including the original Planet of the Apes series sequels for all the reasons described above, and again, consensus is against it. You may be able to find a small number of sources that have called some of them prequels, but not enough to be notable. A very tiny number compared to those that called Rise a prequel. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your concession. Will revisit the question of the earlier films later and maybe I'll bring my own sources. JJB 01:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It seemed this was all but wrapped up, and now for some reason you seem to want to advocate for the one user who alone was going against everyone else's consensus both here and at WT:FILM. And why are you insisting on putting in Works with darker gray background shading have been alternatively described as a reboot, remake, or sequel; some are not universally regarded as prequels. As I said, all the works in gray are actually primarily described by sources as something other than a prequel. It's not accurate to say "some" of them are not universally regarded as prequels. They all are. There's no dispute about that. I don't understand your edit summary: The crux is that no RS says alternate description ("reboot") automatically requires ("so") being "not a prequel"; we only have RS for that for Batman and Star Trek, the two linked. How does that conflict with stating the accurate Works with darker gray background shading have been alternatively described as a reboot, remake, or sequel, so are not universally regarded as prequels. Betty Logan first put in wording very similar to that, you added in the "some", I took it out, and now you put it back again. Are you saying Rise was not described by any RS as a something other than a prequel, when it was established repeatedly on this page that actually the majority of sources called it a reboot?

Why are you doing this? I can't believe I now find myself back here again for more debate with the Dispute Resolution guy. If you're going to insist on this I'm going to have to withdraw my support for putting these contested cases in gray within the main list. They're supposed to be distinct. IMHO the contested cases can go in a properly labelled second list, or just be discussed in the "Usage" section. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I sort of see what he is getting at; while something like The Godfather 2 is very rarely described as just a prequel, it is pretty much regarded as part-prequel by everyone so it is misleading for our key to indicate marked films are not considered prequels. However, a key shouldn't need sourcing (since it is a critera, not a claim), and the wording shouldn't just apply to some films it should apply to all films. Maybe we should just drop the second part of the sentence and leave it as Works with darker gray background shading have been alternatively described as a reboot, remake, or sequel. To most people (myself included), if a film is a reboot or a remake it cannot be a prequel so I think it would still do its job. Betty Logan (talk) 05:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

As you know I agree if a film is a reboot or a remake it cannot be a prequel. What you suggest now is better than including "some", but the second half does tie up the sentence well, and I don't see how it causes any problems. It didn't say the films in gray were not prequels, it said they were "not universally regarded as prequels." I took that to mean they were also regarded as other categories. But the wording is a little ambiguous. Perhaps it should be re-phrased. If it were up to me it would say something like Works with darker gray background shading have been primarily described as a reboot, remake, or sequel, but have also been regarded as prequels in a broad sense of the word. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that would work fine too. Betty Logan (talk) 06:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Good. Let's put it in. - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Some good did come out of this, as it is now clearer and less ambiguous. - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for working your minds around these definitions, that was a great compromise. I apologize for tempting you to disappointment in debating the "DR guy". My (volunteer) job is to advocate for everyone. But I think a key is for us to recognize when our statements don't have significant support in RS, such as "if a film is a reboot or a remake it cannot be a prequel"; if we don't have that in RS, we must admit that RS allow films that fall in multiple categories, and then we have WP report that. If I were to affirm or advocate for that statement, it would be my duty to support it with sources. So it looks good for now; let's have it simmer and come back later with various new sources. The only change I'll make is to delete the tags on the legend, per your hint, because they don't apply to your improved wording. JJB 15:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Continuing dispute resolution?

I'm glad this was agreed to. Hopefully this is settled now. To the one user who alone was going against everyone else's consensus both here and at WT:FILM - You ought to take a look at WP:WEIGHT. It says Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.

Again, I agreed with discussing Rise as a reboot film that a large but minority of sources imprecisely called a prequel. But I don't believe that's accurate for the original Planet of the Apes series sequels. I have read a great deal about them over the years, including looking back at contemporaneous articles. They were always called sequels, all four of them. Each film has characters moving forward in their own timeline from the previous film, and they discuss what happened in that preceding film. These are not prequels.

To again quote Betty Logan: In the case of the 70s sequels, there really isn't that much out there calling them prequels, just the odd source here and there, and for the most part they are usually regarded as sequels, so the question is whether there is enough opinion out there to warrant the claim that there is a significant view they are prequels? I generally think there isn't if I have to call it.

Again, consensus both here and at WT:FILM is firmly against listing any of the original Planet of the Apes series sequels as prequels. They were against including Rise as well, but I compromised and went along with listing it in gray shading because it's a reboot that a large but minority of sources imprecisely called a prequel. You may be able to find a small number of sources that have called some of the original sequel films prequels, but not enough to be notable. A very tiny number compared to those that called Rise a prequel.

Just so you know, I will actively contest any attempt to list any of the original 1970s Planet of the Apes series films as prequels, now or in the future. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, you got your way. I recused myself and haven't edited the article for almost a week, and have no intention of beating my head against this brick wall again. But you keep on sneering at me here. And misrepresenting WP policies. You ignored the first sentence of WP:WEIGHT when you selectively quoted it  : "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". It does not mean "I have more buddies at WT:FILM who will back me up. Therefore I don't need to source anything and can ignore anything I don't like, just declare they're 'imprecise', 'inaccurate' , 'minority' if they fall foul of my own definition." The rest is just a rerun of the same twaddle I have refuted earlier, I won't waste my time on that again. Logic, WP:RS, WP:V don't count here. Barsoomian (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you B for returning. I'm glad we reached agreement on settling some issues, though not all presented in the original DRN. If you don't mind, I will do no more than allude to one party's active recalcitrance and to one party's passive sarcasm. Verbum sat. I trust further dialog will be fruitful. My interest is representing the sources, and there is still fertile ground here toward complete resolution in the future, despite apparent impasse. The remaining original question is whether the first Apes series should be categorized as including prequels under the broad later definition. I think we all agree that is a question answerable by source analysis and determining proper weight. Because of potential heat, let's go very slow, and over some period present a number of sources, followed later by analysis. Maybe immediate efforts would be better directed at sourcing and sorting the remainder of the current lists!? JJB 13:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• In regards to the 70s POTA sequels. There are two questions that will determine whether they are included here:

1. Should we include any film that is merely cited as being a "prequel"?
2. If not, what level of significance should be employed to determine inclusion? Can this be decided by objective criteria?

My answer to the first question is simply "no"; lots of sources make wrong calls, such as the Empire source that was cited elsewhere that labelled Manhunter a 'prequel'. Manhunter was the first Lecter film, and all our definitions whichever stance they adopt, all agree that a prequel must be preceded by at least one other film. Even Barsoomian agreed the labelling used by this source was spurious. If we made it a free for all, then we would see many erroneous entries added to the list, so I think there should be some level of significance testing.

That brings to me my next point. WP:WEIGHT states that all significant viewpoints should be fairly represented, proportional to their coverage in reliable sources. "Significant" does not equate to majority btw, so is there a way we can objectively define "significance" beyond an editor's own subjective judgment? In statistical significance testing, anything above a 5% share i.e. within the 95% confidence interval is regarded as 'significant'. So my take on this is that if more than 5% of sources refer to these films as "prequels", then that makes the viewpoint significant enough for inclusion. To avoid contamination from the Burton remake and the reboot, I have performed a Google search on the following terms, up to 1999:

"planet of the apes" sequel -rise -Burton – 715 hits

"planet of the apes" prequel -rise -Burton – 122 hits

According to those percentages, the search on "prequel" receives 15% of the Google hits. That is three times our threshold for significance, so our objective criteria seems to indicate that there is significant coverage of the 70s films being referred to as "prequels". However, if you actually look at those hits, not one single one applies the term to these actual films! The term is being used in a completely different context. The bottom line here is that there are plenty of sources referring to them as sequels, but no-one really considers them prequels at any significant level. Betty Logan (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a decent framework. I think I read Barsoomian earlier as agreeing "no" to #1, not every single cite proves a prequel. I'm not sure if I'd say 5% is a decent threshold but it opens discussion in the right arena, viz., what the sources say. Naturally you show the weakness of Google for hard analysis by demonstrating it yields both 15% and 0% as answers, neither of which is correct because we already have a few scattershot sources calling the earlier Apes films prequels. JJB 15:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Side question: are there any RS taking Gothic's POV, such as by asserting that the expansive definition of "prequel" is offensive or should be deprecated? They too can be quoted. JJB 15:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

(@ Betty Logan) You can't conclude any such thing.

"In regards to the 70s POTA sequels. There are two questions that will determine whether they are included here".

Really? You decided that these, and these alone, are the criteria? Ignoring the question of whether a work objectively satisfies the definition of prequel, as cited in the lead. Also setting a standard that is applied to NO OTHER FILM, BOOK, GAME, etc, etc, in the article. None of which were cited at all.

"lots of sources make wrong calls": from that you conclude that you can impeach any source you disagree with? I never presented the "Empire" article as as source, so I'm not going to defend it. Actually, reading it, the text says "we've put together 10 of the very best origins stories". Only the headline says "prequels", maybe some editor thought that was snappier. Talk about the sources I actually cited.

Your 5% rule is a novel idea, I don't accept it at all. It certainly isn't a WP policy.

For one thing, when the films were released the term prequel was not in common use. Contemporary reviews of any 70s film won't use the word. So it would prove nothing if 99% of reviews did not use "prequel". God knows what percentage of 1970s reviews are online at all. Very few new reviews of them have been done since. But I found a few and CITED THEM. That your search produced a lot of irrelevant crap means -- nothing.

Let's try Zulu Dawn A big budget 1979 film that I doubt you would dispute as a prequel. Only 7 hits, one from 1982 (NY Times), one from 1989 (Criterion). I can't see any earlier. What statistical analysis can you do on that? Nothing. You just read the actual sources, and see if they can be considered reliable.

So, returning to boring old actual WP policies, like WP:V, let's look at some sources:

Since a prequel is defined as: "A prequel is a literary, dramatic, or filmic work whose story precedes that of a previous work by focusing on events that occur before the original narrative." So, it's all about the relationship between the "prequel" and the "original". (And note that it says "events" and "narrative", not "characters", despite some's focus on the latter.) To that end, some references examining the relationship between the Apes works:

• An archived copy of the Planet of the Apes Timeline, originally published by Marvel Comics, who did a series of comics on the subject. That places all the '70s movies, the '73 TV series and the comics, in one timeline. I.e., no "reboot", no "alternate timeline". They're all events that lead up to the 3955 setting of PotA (1968). Thus, in the opinion of Marvel Comics, "prequels". Laugh if you like, but they're authorised by the copyright owners and not simply dismissable as the Empire filler story.

• The recent book Timeline of the Planet of the Apes from Hasslein Books also follows this interpretation. Some fans of course have other opinions. See Circular vs Linear Timelines (a wikia, so not citeable in itself, but can be examined on its own merits) which discusses the theories exhaustively, and concludes "However, most Planet of the Apes fans - both casual and devoted - consider the movie series to be a continuous loop; that either the contradictions were due to mistaken or misleading statements of history, or that if there was a change in history it merely brought events forward but with the same ultimate catastrophic conclusion."

• Most authoritatively, the major writer of the 70s Apes scripts, Paul Dehn stated in an interview in 1972:

While I was out there [in California], Arthur Jacobs said he thought this (Conquest) would be the last so I fitted it together so that it fitted in with the beginning of APES 1, so that the wheel had come full circle and one could stop there quite happily, I think?

— January 1972

• Regarding Battle, the Apes wikia cites the book Planet of the Apes Revisited by Joe Russo and Larry Landsman: "Dehn stated that the tear was to tell the audience that Caesar's efforts ultimately failed - as with Conquest, Dehn was concerned with bringing the saga full-circle rather than changing history for the better, an idea specifically incorporated into the first Corrington treatment."

Your Google search wouldn't find these, because Dehn doesn't use the word, but the writer's statement of intent satisfies the conditions of the definition. Barsoomian (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that none of these four sources Barsoomian spends all this text on ever call any the original Planet of the Apes series films "prequels". He wants to overcome consensus with sources that don't even use the word - and yes, the word "prequel" did exist in the 1970s. I would call this a stretch. The narrative as well as the characters of those films continue forward in their own story in each one, even as they go back in time. For the three primary Apes characters, the events of the third film occur after the original narrative. Not before. So even by the definition Barsoomian keeps quoting, these films are not prequels. - Gothicfilm (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that Gothicfilm is again citing his own unsourced definition and rules. That's nice, but this is not Gothicpedia, and the definition cited in the actual Wikipedia article is what applies.

"sources that don't even use the word" I cited films with sources using "the word" earlier. Gothicfilm repeatedly deleted them regardless. Especially Rising, which has literally thousands of cites calling it a prequel.

"the word "prequel" did exist in the 1970s" It had been used in literature in the 50s. But it was obscure and not applied to movies commonly till the late 70s. This article in Salon regarding your favourite prequel, claims "Lester may also have locked up the dubious distinction of inaugurating the term “prequel” in 1979 when he directed “Butch and Sundance: The Early Days.”". How about you cite some early 70s uses of "prequel" if it was used then? I won't hold my breath waiting for you to substantiate any of your statements.

"So even by the definition Barsoomian keeps quoting, these films are not prequels." Sorry, no, that's the Gothicpedia definition again. Where he considers the personal timeline of some characters (not all, of course, just the the ones he chooses), not the setting, as the determinant. That rule would neatly rule out any time travel story. Sadly, it's a rule that exists only in Gothicfilm's mind.

And you're just ignoring the statements of the writer of the films? At least you're consistent. Barsoomian (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

B, I've suggested two paths forward for Gothic below at #Apes source analysis. "Give a man a horse he can ride" as to paths that are actually traversible. Also, I trust you recognize the present inclusion of Rise is a partial compromise on his part, just as (potentially) waiving Battle is on yours. I will of course add your Butch link to the article as general improvement. All, please continue discussion in the new section. JJB 18:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring the screenwriter's statement as Barsoomian said just above - the screenwriter never called any of his scripts or films prequels, nor did he mean that they were. A time travel story with the same characters going back in time is not a prequel.

And look at this dishonest argument Barsoomian puts on above. He knows damn well I agreed to putting Rise back in the article, in gray shading, precisely because of those sources (imprecisely) calling it a prequel. Yet to read the above, you'd never know that - you'd think I was still trying to keep it out. He has at least three times misrepresented what I was doing. Earlier, well above this, he made a totally false charge against me, claiming I'd put something in the article I never did, and claiming I'd been "caught" at it. I had to respond to that with a diff proving otherwise. He never responded to that part of the thread, much less admitted he was wrong. This is the guy you're advocating for. I am tired of having to spend time reacting to his false statements. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Deleted "Planet of the Apes" prequels

For reference in above discussion, this is the disputed section deleted by Gothicfilm, regardless of the included citations. I have updated this with more refs since. Barsoomian (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

And while we're at it: Definition of prequel
I looked at the Oxford Dictionary. You need a login to see this online, the full entry is here:

prequel, n. Etymology: < pre- prefix + -quel (in sequel n.).
A book, film, etc., narrating events which precede those of an already existing work.

And that's all. Barsoomian (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

My view is that none of these films are "prequels" in any relevant sense. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:V and WP:RS and WP:NOTAFORUM Barsoomian (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:CONSENSUS. You cannot add this content without agreement from other editors, which it appears you don't have. I was not guilty of violating WP:NOTAFORUM. The point of my comment was perfectly clear: you were supporting the inclusion of certain material, and I was objecting to it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You were stating your own personal opinion, unsupported by any citations or reference to published definitions. I took the trouble to cite sources. Consensus doesn't override verifiability. Anyway, this discussion has been moved elsewhere, as noted above. Barsoomian (talk) 04:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

But good news: citations and verifiable sources aren't required now to edit this article, according to the consensus. So go ahead and delete whatever you like, I'm done here. Barsoomian (talk) 04:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in getting into a long argument about this. A lot of people commented in this discussion. Someone else asked for comment here at WikiProject Film, so I decided to add my two cents worth, not imagining that it was anything else. As for consensus, in principle it overrides everything on Wikipedia with the exception of BLP. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

For the record we are not rejecting 'your' prequels either, we are just suggesting the list is presented in a way such that readers can identify the traits they have. In that sense it is nothing to do with RS, it is an editorial decision simply about the best way to present the information. In this manner something like the time travel ape films, would be presented as a list of films that have both prequel and sequel traits, which is distinct from films that are just full-on prequels. Betty Logan (talk) 05:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh really? I'll check back in a few months and see if you've actually done anything beside delete the films you disapprove of. Barsoomian (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion continues above in two sections. JJB 15:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)