Talk:4 Kids Walk Into a Bank

Adaptation section

The article for the unreleased film is currently up for deletion, as it does not pass NFF. The nominator wanted to only draftify the article. I mentioned that in a situation like this, where a film is an adaptation, an ATD is to merge pertinent information to the source material's article. The nominator disagreed, stating that it would put undue weight in the article and that merging content went against NFF, which only covers draftication. They stated that only 1-2 sentences would be permitted via NFF - effectively just saying that an adaptation will be made.

I firmly disagree with this, as NFF does not forbid merging content and that this has always been a valid ATD. It is also something that is done even with cases where both the source material and film are independently notable. Furthermore, the existence of merged content will not prevent the article moving live if/when the film releases and gains more coverage. I feel like common sense is kind of being ignored here in favor of deletion/draftification.

The adaptation section was blanked. I have re-added it and will bring it up for a third opinion as well as at the film and book WikiProjects, since this is pertinent to them. If the consensus is to wipe out entire adaptation sections in favor of 1-2 sentences this will have a very long reaching impact across several areas (film, book, games, etc). ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:13, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

There's already an active AFD. As I said there, this looks like WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Please slow down and let the AFD process play out. There's no rush to implement this, particularly when someone else is objecting to your edits in good faith. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:16, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I see you've already listed this at 3O. More than 2 editors are involved in this discussion at AfD, so 3O is not appropriate. I am also not consenting to participate in the 3O process. Please withdraw your 3O request. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:19, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

3O would also not be appropriate...at least not here, which is the linked discussion...as there's no thorough discussion here. I'm removing the request; it can be reinstated if necessary with a link to where the discussion is occurring, though if there are more than two editors discussing the matter or it is at AfD then it's likely to be summarily closed. DonIago (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

The AFD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4 Kids Walk Into a Bank (film). voorts (talk/contributions) 17:23, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I'll wait for it to be summarily closed. As far as the discussion goes, the other editor isn't involved in this - the discussion was primarily between myself and Voorts. Something of note I want to note here - I've brought this up at WP:MERGE, as Voorts is stating that selective merging of any type is not allowed even if the AfD closes as a delete or draftify and presumably even after the film does pass NFILM, something I find mind boggling. Adaptation sections are incredibly common and in the case of non-notable adaptations, it serves as a good way to cover information gaps. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:35, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Also, out of curiosity - why did you also blank the reception section? There's no reason for that. It has nothing to do with the film adaptation. It's entirely appropriate to have a short mention in the lead and then have the longer info (with sourcing) in the reception section. It's generally discouraged to have sourcing in the lead, particularly if we can move it to a pertinent section - which we do. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:46, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I reverted your edit. I didn't notice you had also moved content to a reception section. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:47, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you are so determined to wipe info about the film off Wikipedia to the barest minimum that you're kind of missing the bigger picture here and purpose of the site. We've all been there. I just think that you're so gung ho on "draft only" that you're overlooking very viable alternatives.

Realistically, the presence of an adaptation section has never stopped a draft article from being edited. What stops a draft from being edited and improved is that the average contributor either doesn't know that it exists or just doesn't want to edit something that isn't a live page. This is a common complaint and honestly, a lot of content sent to the draftspace ends up getting deleted because no one edits it - even if no selective merges took place. It's so common that there have been a few discussions complaining that draftification just leads to abandoned articles that will eventually be speedied as stale drafts.

I'm not arguing against a draft. I think it's a spiffy idea. I love draftification and have recommended it before on several occasions. I just think that in the interim a selective merge is a good way to keep info handy for people coming in looking for details, particularly those who have zero intention of editing Wikipedia in any way, shape, or form. I think you're misreading the intent of NFF, which again - does not forbid merging. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:02, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Shoot, on that note I should probably make a mention at NFILM about it being more explicitly added to NFF, if the absence of the word "merge" is what makes you think it's forbidden. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:03, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's forbidden. You are reading way too much into my opposition to merging and making assumptions about my broader philosophy around articles like this. I am not going to discuss the issue further here because this discussion is already occurring at AfD. Please stop opening multiple discussions about the same issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:08, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

This isn't really about the AfD at this point. The film is irrelevant at this point and it's turned into a discussion about how to read policy, not about the film's notability.

You are stating that content cannot be copied from an article that is at AfD, as the existence of an adaptation section or anything beyond 1-2 sentences will prevent an article draft from being improved. You have also argued that NFF does not cover merges.

The existing policies do not forbid copying content over. They only forbid completing a full merge, as redirecting would mess up the discussion and confuse incoming editors. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:20, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Just swinging by to say that the section is a good idea, and its existence is irrelevant to the AfD, since this content is due here. Once a subarticle for the film is created, the content here may warrant trimming, of course. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:23, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Adaptation section redux

@Fram: I have been told by @FaviFake and others to discuss article content here because the AfD is to establish consensus to merge, not consensus for what gets merged (so your claim that there is consensus for this version is incorrect). I also made a notification of this edit at the AfD and said I was open to discussing it on talk. What is your specific objection to my rewritten version of that section? CC @ReaderofthePack, who just said they're okay with my version at the AfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:50, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I will also note that your reversion just re-added unsourced content and an unnecessary citation to the lead. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:52, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm fine with Voorts's edited version as a compromise. I would, however, still like to include the following line:

The film was initially set to release in 2026, but was postponed to an unspecified 2027 release date.

From what I saw online, there was some chatter about the pushed back release date so a nod to that would be nice. I figure if/when the film releases and passes NFILM, that can be lightly expanded upon in the film article, especially if they elaborate on what caused the delays. Most likely it was something like needing to do more production work or additional scenes. That's usually the case with most films. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:54, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Fine with me. Sorry for all of the craziness earlier. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:55, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

You had previously been reverted by multiple editors. By now, it was up to you to discuss it here (not at the AfD) and get consensus for your changes. If they get such consensus, fine, but you seemed to have a habit in this discussion as requiring everyone else to use talk pages and get consensus, but not to apply this to your own edits. Fram (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

At this point, I have apologized and admitted I erred. I am now trying to lower the heat. Your pointy reversion because I previously reverted other editors is not helpful. Do you have anything to say about the article content? voorts (talk/contributions) 15:07, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

If you truly wanted to lower the heat, you wouldn't have imposed your version and only started this section after you were reverted. Your words ring hollow. As for the contents, I prefer the longer version, although the line about Castletroy College could probably be removed. Fram (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Why do you prefer the longer version? voorts (talk/contributions) 15:24, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Because I think it's better, more informative, better written? Why did you prefer the shorter one? Fram (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Because it's more concise, better written and organized, and removes material that would be due in an article about the film but not an article about the comic. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:08, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

It is weird to get the international release company as the first mention (it doesn't seem as if they are the actual production company, they are not the main company here?), the other version is chronological, your version seems to have lost the source for filming in Limerick (and the interesting detail that while filming is in Limerck, the setting is 1990s US), ... Fram (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

@Fram: did you even read the sources? FilmNation announced the project in advance of TIFF. Amazon/Orion weren't attached to the project until recently. Your reversion also removed complete references and added back in unreferenced information. I'm restoring the version that was merged from the other article and modified thereafter. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:17, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

You sourced the FilmNation claim to this, which says "FilmNation is launching sales " and further down "It was developed and co-financed by Erik Feig’s Picturestart, who will also produce with Seth Rogen’s Point Grey Pictures and Black Mask Studios. Shaw is also producing. FilmNation is launching international sales[...]".

Notice what it doesn't say? That FilmNation is producing. Perhaps the second source attached to that claim? "Miramax boarding as financier and producer." "FilmNation is handling international sales."

Once again, FilmNation is not listed as being involved with producing, only with international sales. Lke I already remarked yesterday, and again in my edit summary earlier today.

You now also claim "Amazon/Orion weren't attached to the project until recently. " even though your own source from December 2024 states "has nabbed a domestic distribution deal with Amazon MGM Studios’ Orion label".

So, you have now three times introduced incorrect information in this article in your continued zeal to get your version as the definitive version, no matter who reverts you or why. Please just leave this article alone, you have done enough damage and wasted more than enough time. Fram (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I've addressed the issues you've identified. The old version you kept reverting to didn't contain any information about Picturestart, etc. I've added that in. I've also fixed the distribution issue. Do you have any objections to this new version? voorts (talk/contributions) 14:22, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

@Fram: what are your objections to the other version? You're also again messing up the citations. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:13, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Also, the 2024 announcement was just one of many. This project has been on the table since at least 2020, so it's misleading. I also don't understand why it's important to start this section with the 2024 annoucnement by FilmNation, which you keep saying isn't a producer and so shouldn't be highlighted. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:19, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

It's also misleading in that all of the sources say Frankie Shaw edited the screenplay, not that she wrote it. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:24, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Also, I don't know why you keep removing the cinematographer. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:27, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Voorts claim: "I don't know why you keep removing the cinematographer. "

Article text: "Robert Richardson served as the cinematographer."

Voorts claim: "all of the sources say Frankie Shaw edited the screenplay, not that she wrote it."

Article text: "she had worked on the screenplay, which was originally adapted by Matthew Robinson. "

Fram (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

My mistake RE the cinematogrpaher. I missed that. I still think the text you added back in about the screenplay would mislead a reader into thinking Shaw is a co-writer. I've made some additional edits. If you want to change things back, please be careful with the citations. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:42, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

"a script by Matt Robinson with revisions by Shaw."

"Shaw also worked on the screenplay originally written by Matt Robinson"

"a screenplay by Matt Robinson featuring some revisions by Shaw."

"Matt Robinson wrote the screenplay with revisions by Shaw."

All of this supports that she worked on the screenplay which was originally written by Robinson, the second source even states so literally. Fram (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Added in that she revised the screenplay. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:26, 30 September 2026 (UTC)