Talk:List of children's films/Archive 1

Archive 1

Movie List

• I added Planes, Trains, and Automobiles to the list. Victor Victoria, Batman Returns, Hancock, and Joes Apartment are also on the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.128.188 (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

None of those films are for children. In fact, Planes, Trains and Automobiles is Rated R for language. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, this list does need a hard line criteria, and I think it's fairly obvious: G and PG rated films only. Anything PG-13 and up is not intended for children, but for teens and/or adults. I'll add a hidden comment to the list, hopefully it will help stem the tide of bad additions. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Holes

Though I fixed the link for Holes, I'm not sure if it actually applies for this page. The film involves psychological and physical torture of children, attempted murder, people getting shot, self-defense attempted killing, people almost dying of poison and many other horrible things. All presented very graphically. Lots42 (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Chicken Run

IMDB says 'Chicken Run' is rated G. Is that true? I'd think it was PG-13. Lots42 (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is indeed G rated (type it in the search box on FilmRatings.com and it says this). trainfan01 talk 02:21, 10 February, 2013 (UTC)

This article needs renaming!

This article needs to be renamed to List of Family films Per my rationale here. John Sloan (view / chat) 19:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Lots42 (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Added an 80s movie

I added Space Camp to the 1986 list, but if there is a specific order, could someone movie the movie to that specific order? Otherwise, all is good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.177.81 (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Criteria?

This list ought to have at least some objective criteria. I'd suggest that any film released with a PG-13 rating (or "higher") be disqualified. If they were really marketing it to children, they'd edit it to get an MPAA rating that told parents it was OK for their pre-teeners. The examples I just snipped (the "Pirates of the Caribbean" films) were seen by far more adults than kids. - JasonAQuest (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus since this post has been in agreement, despite occasional additions which have ignored the comment at the top of the source. I will update the article lead to clarify this. --Mirokado (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

My Girl is not a children's film

The movie My Girl is a 1991 drama-comedy that address coming-of-age issues Originally given a PG-13 because of it's strong Thematic Elements 70.242.139.36 (talk) 06:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this. We are generally following Allmovie's report of the rating. In this case, Allmovie has extra notes under the PG rating icon: "Watch With Your Kids, Children in Peril". This would justify a note in the list, I think. I have added the Allmovie ext link to the film article, see also that article's talk page where this is also mentioned. --Mirokado (talk) 08:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Star Wars, and especially Star Trek are "primarily aimed at Children"?

I'm pretty sure they went mainstream with many more Adults seeing them than Children. Sure, the whole Jar-Jar Binks embarrassment is obviously for the kids, but while the Star* series are generally SAFE for kids, I don't think you can say they are primarily for kids. Is this list intending to specify movies that are SAFE for kids? Does the introduction to the page need to change its explanation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.73.39 (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. As well those films, there are quite a number of other films I can see on this list (Superman, Ghostbusters, Back to the Future, etc.) that while considered safe for kids are largely adult mainstreams and not primarily aimed at kids. There may be a better way to re-alter the indroduction at the top of this page.trainfan01 talk 02:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget more G-rated movies

Nickelodeon745, don't forget more G-rated movies. Examples:

• Dracula Has Risen from the Grave (1968)
• Planet of the Apes (1968)
• Funny Girl (1968)
• True Grit (1969) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:8500:472:8DD8:D9B0:374D:2F91 (talk) 19:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Added nonstop children's films

I added nonstop children's films (Gone with the Wind, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Green Berets, The Odd Couple, Sweet Charity, Tora! Tora! Tora!, A New Leaf, Silent Running, Dark Star, Star Trek: The Motion Picture', Splash, The Straight Story, The Winslow Boy, and The Rookie) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:8500:472:D81C:318F:2841:80CC (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Wild Hearts Can't Be Broken

Is that movie rated G? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:8500:472:90AE:13EE:2E6E:7EBB (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes!

Dracula Has Risen from the Grave

Is that film earned a G rating? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:8500:472:64E0:6E6F:C7B0:A7D0 (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

MPAA G rating for Dracula Has Risen from the Grave: Yes
Children's Film for Dracula Has Risen from the Grave: No — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:8500:472:64E0:6E6F:C7B0:A7D0 (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

MPAA rating for the Bad News Bears

What MPAA rating for the Bad News Bears? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:8500:472:D577:B77:44:B556 (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Film that are not childrens films

Several times now I have had to remove films that are not childrens films, such as Gone with the Wind, Lawrence of Arabia, 2001: A Space Odyssey etc. The lead of this list sets the criteria at films that are "made for or primarily marketed to children". Just because a film is rated G or PG does not mean it is a childrens film. The MPAA ratings are content ratings, and just because something doesn't include profanity/sex/violence/dugs does not necessarily make it a childrens film. A G or PG rating just means the film does not include content unsuitable for viewing by children. Technically each film on this list should be accompanied by a source but in the case of entries that are self-evidently childrens films I will not insist on one; however, where an entry is challenged it must not be restored to the list without a source being provided per WP:BURDEN. Betty Logan (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

TV Films and Direct to Video Films Removed?

Why are the TV films and Direct to Video films made for children and families being removed? The page didn't say that only theatrical films should be added to the list. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Joshua

Is that the 2002 film rated G? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:8500:472:7018:6ABE:8BEE:B26 (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The Winslow Boy

Hey there! It's missing from the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:8500:472:298B:7CA8:96A9:BEE9 (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

This is a list of films that someone, somewhere at some time thought was a children's film. Oh, and it needs to have an MPAA rating of G or PG, but not PG-13.

These are not objective. (Someone thinks Planet of the Apes is a children's film. This is evidenced by the film's two best known lines: "Get your paws off me, you damn dirty apes." and "...damn you! Goddamn you all to hell!" Nothing quite like social commentary on race relations, slavery and nuclear war for kids.)

Some children's films are not MPAA rated. Direct-to-video, not released in the U.S., released prior to the MPAA...

PG but not PG-13? PG-13 didn't exist prior to the mid 1980s. That 1982 PG film would have been PG-13 had it come out two years later.

PG? There are documentaries on the Vietnam war, Watergate, the Holocaust, etc. that are clearly not children's films.

This "article" should exist as a category and nothing more.

This list has roughly 1,000 films. (Apparently, only 16 children's films came out last year.) It features 3 -- not a typo, 3 -- sources. Thus, 99.7% of this example farm is unsourced. There are, of course, thousands of notable children's that are not included here because the editors working on their articles don't know this article exists. I'm willing to bet we have at least 200 Disney childrens films alone.

If we eliminate this article, the categories will gather the same info, but more accuratelyy and more efficiently. Think Planet of the Apes" is a children's "film", go to the article and add the category. People working on that article will demand a source and set you straight. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I have lost count of the number of times I have removed Gone wth the Wind and 2001: A Space Odyssey. I raised this issue above at #Film that are not childrens films. I am not sure about eliminating the article though: if it went to AfD—which is very political these days—it would almost certainly survive the cull because there is quite a lot of literature on the subject of children's films to satisfy notability. You could try it but I think you'd be wasting your time. What we can do though is apply existing policies more stringently, requiring a source for each entry. As an initial step we could probably bulk source most of these using Allmovie's children/family filter, and then tag any entries that Allmovie does not have in its database. If they are not fixed by the end of year they could be culled from the list. Betty Logan (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I am unsure that there are sources discussing a list of all children's films ever made, the apparent subject of this article. There are certainly sources about children's films, English language children's films, wholesome children's films, violent children's films, etc. We don't need a list article for every article. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, the Allmovie filter (reliable?) cuts off after 20 pages of results. Additionally, it includes numerous PG13 films (contrary to the consensus here) and Carovne Dedictvi, which it believes is rated R. I'm rather hard pressed to believe that any meaningful "fact checking" went into that call. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't looked it at that carefully, it was just a suggestion for an interim measure. Ultimately every entry on the list should have its own citation per List of horror films of 1978. The list simply isn't serviceable as it stands, so we need to find a way forward for it. Either it has to go to AfD, we could simply tag it (never makes a blind bit of difference), we can go through each entry sourcing it (although personally speaking I have no intention of wasting my summer doing that) or we can find a way to "mass" source it. Betty Logan (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

MPAA ratings

I have removed the MPAA ratings from the article and have also removed the stipulation that sets the inclusion criteria to "G" and "PG" rated films:

1. Ratings apply to content, not the prospective audience. Just because a film is "G" rated does not mean it is marketed as a children's film; it simply indicates there is no content that is unsuitable for chilren. Case in point: 2001: A Space Odyssey is G-rated but I have yet to find any documentation describing it as a "children's film". While there is an argument that a high age rating bars a film from inclusion on the list, the inverse is not true: a low rating does not mandate automatic inclusion.
2. Different countries have different ratings. Not all countries have a "G" or "PG" rating. For instance, the UK's equivalent of the "G" is the "U" certificate. Even when they have matching ratings (such as "PG") a film can still be awarded different ratings. Adding MPAA ratings to the article creates a bias towards US readers (which comprise less than half of Wikipedia readership) which is not in the spirit of WP:WORLDVIEW.

Betty Logan (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Creating a country specific list, optional ?

Hello, Maybe it’s great idea to create a listing for the country’s where the films were made ?. Example if a film is Danish of made in Sweden like “ Eskil & Trinidad ” put it first on a list of Europe and tell it comes from Sweden. Just a thought… 193.173.48.53 (talk) 19:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Harry Potter

Hi everyone! I just wanted to inform everyone that the Harry Potter franchise does not fit the established criteria of a children's series, as most of the films are PG-13 (some struggling against R ratings according to the producer,) have been marketed to teens and adults, are defined as coming-of-age movies, and are adapted from works written for and marketed to teenagers (and increasingly adults.) Anyone adding these films to this list will be blocked. Thank you! Dcasey98 (talk) 06:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

First off, all PG-13 does is advise that some of the content may be unsuitable for children below the age of 13, not that the film should not be watched by children beneath that age. Secondly, four of the seven films listed here were PG rated anyway so to say that the films were only marketed to teenagers in the United States is factually inaccurate. And thirdly, PG-13 is an American rating and there are over 200 countries in the world and there are many different cultural atttudes regarding what type of content is suitable for children. A single rating in a single country does not determine whether something is children's film or not. Wikipedia must be sourced per WP:Verifiable, and a source has been provided for the inclusion of the Harry Potter films on this list. Even the Internet Movie Database largely concurs classifying all but one as "family films", a synonym for Children's film. Removing the films simply because you disagree with the source is WP:Original research and is prohibited. Betty Logan (talk) 06:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

1) Half-Blood Prince was rated PG-13 in ancillary release and therefore does not belong on this list. That's 3 out of the eight films on this list. 3) Considering which films were edited down, only 2 of the films in the U.S. actually were given solid PG ratings, the first two, and films 3-8 are rated 12A, 12, or 15 in the UK...all child unfriendly ratings. Also, just because a film is rated PG does not mean it is marketed to children. Marketing for the Harry Potter franchise (including movie promo materials, merchandise, book editions, etc,) targets teens as a median audience, and adults as a secondary one, and has done so since at least the year 1999. Saying they're marketed to children so exclusively is factually incorrect. That would require us to lie about the film ratings. 2) Criteria established earlier on this page states that no film that is: a) marketed to adolescents or adults, b) rated PG-13 or above, c) given an unsuitable rating by a variety of other international film classification boards, or d) defined as 'coming-of-age' or as 'young adult' in nature (meaning adapted from teen-oriented source material, marketed as a 'teen film' rather than four-quadrant,) shall be listed as a children's film.

This criteria disqualifies about every Harry Potter film from the children's criteria. Germany's film rating system rates the entire series FSK-12, a child unfriendly rating. Japan rates the franchise predominantly PG-12, the UK rates the films mainly 12 (Deathly Hallows Part 1 received a 15 and should NOT be on this list whatsoever,) Australia rates them M bar the first two, as does New Zealand, and Brazil rates all the films alongside movies like "The Departed" and "Django Unchained," etc.... The books are defined as YA fantasy works, and they've been primarily marketed to an adolescent, and increasingly adult, audience. Children have evolved to be, and have always been, a fringe audience of the Harry Potter series. They do not meet the pre-established criteria for being on this list. If we were to go by your rules, we would have to merge have the teen films list to this one. We would have to include all the Lord of the Rings films, The Hunger Games films and most other YA franchises similar to Harry Potter, The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, Eragon, and the entire Star Wars series, among many others, on the children's film list. Harry Potter is no more a children's film series than The Hunger Games of Star Wars (it's actually less so than the latter.) Dcasey98 (talk) 07:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, IMDB classifies films by genre, systematically, and un-professionally. Users of the website have a lot of sway over what's classified as what, so the genre classifications on IMDB are opinion based to a degree. Stardust, If I Stay, Risen, and a number of other PG-13 rated films are labelled 'family' and IMDB, and they shouldn't be. IMDB also rates semi-systematically when it comes to franchises, therefore what a first movie is classified as, so will the rest of them be. And yet, not all the Harry Potter films on IMDB are classified as family. I'm sorry. They don't belong on the list. Dcasey98 (talk) 07:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

You are an editor and are in no position to draw conclusions based on the rating systems of different countries. In countries like France the Harry Potter films are U rated. Content rating systems primarily rate content, they do not determine who the primary audience is. A WP:Reliable source has been provided and deleting content is not acceptable no matter how much you disagree with it. If you wish to challenge the claims of the source tehn you must do so by providing a nother source, not by providing your own arguments as to why you disagree with the source.. Betty Logan (talk) 07:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

In France, the majority of the films on the teen films list are U rated, as are The Hunger Games, Divergent, Lord of the Rings, even some Game of Thrones episodes.

Regardless of what some lesser websites might want to classify the series as, there is no excuse to for the films to be on this list as they do not meet the pre-established criteria of this page.

May I suggest that it's you who are infringing your opinion on this article? This article has had a set standard for what is termed a children's film and what isn't for a while now, so regardless of whatever source is attached (films on this list shouldn't need sources,) if the film is 1) marketed to (or in this case, part of a franchise that is marketed to,) teens or adults or 1) Is rated PG-13 or above, they are not children's films and do not belong on this list. Sorry! Dcasey98 (talk) 07:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Please excuse the typos. Thanks! Dcasey98 (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

If France rates Lord of the Rings U then that illustrates my point that there is wide variation between different cultures on what constitutes a "children's film" and why inclusion should be delegated to reliable sources as policy dictates. Betty Logan (talk) 07:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

What 'sources' are these? From what I understand, they were links to blogspots and other unprofessional sources.

Harry Potter was rated U with a warning, which, surprisingly, is only given to films sufficient enough in mature material to warrant one, such as The Last Exorcism (also U rated) and The Dark Knight (also U rated). U is a broader classification than you're making it out to be. Dcasey98 (talk) 07:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

And PG-13 is a broader category than you make it out to be. You are the one who keeps deferring to ratings, but as I pointed out above, rating systems rate content, they do not determine the audience, and those vary from country to country. In Family Films in Global Cinema written by Noel Brown (PhD and presently researching the history of British children's cinema} and Bruce Babington (Professor of Film at Newcastle University) say "Many major Hollywood family films, including several of the Harry Potter movies, are now released in the US with a PG-13 rating, previously not considered a family-freindly classification." You still haven't provided a valide reason as to why we should defer to your opinion rather than that of a WP:Reliable source. Betty Logan (talk) 08:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

This source just decides that Harry Potter is a family series without any knowledge of the criteria that makes a franchise family oriented?

They aren't "now released in the U.S. with a PG-13," they've all pretty much been released as PG-13, and the equivalent of that rating in almost every other country with a significant film rating system, if not higher!

Most of the films (therefore the franchise in general) are rated too highly and are marketed to too mature an audience to be classified as a children's film series. The Harry Potter films appear to be very lazily, arbitrarily, and inaccurately classified as family films in this article. There is no indication as to what his criteria for a family film is.

Family films can be anything from G to R, but the few times you actually hear about Harry Potter being called a 'family' film franchise, it's in reference to its wide-reaching, four-quadrant nature, not to its true median audience of teens or even its secondary audience of adults. That's what we have to consider when classifying films as children's films. PG-13 is much more defined than U, as it encompasses most modern films and is assigned an age components. A U rated film in France does not have any sort of age component, and is left to encompass films ranging from Zootopia to The Dark Knight and Deathly Hallows Part 2.

You've failed to offer me a single reliable source so far. Dcasey98 (talk) 08:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The BBFC rates the films either 12 or 15, and their personnel do not have a great amount of knowledge about MPAA classifications.

Has it ever occurred to some people who patronize the franchise incessantly that the series doesn't meet the criteria to be considered a family or children's franchise? It doesn't, by the definitions laid down by this article. Plain and simple. Dcasey98 (talk) 08:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It's really rather a shame you felt the need to edit-war over it. When you come back from your block, remember to adhere to WP:BRD. Cheers. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Page criteria

This is a list of films primarily marketed to children.

SOURCES DO NOT MATTER IF THE FILMS DO NOT REACH THE ABOVE REQUIREMENTS Dcasey98 (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced additions

It seems Dcasey98 has returned from his block (after repeatedly removing sourced content) and has immediately started adding films that sources do not describe as "family/children's films", such as the Star Wars, Twilight Saga, Hunger Games and the Lord of the Rings films. All of these additions are unsourced and are hard to take in good faith. I am going to remove them and I strongly urge Dcasey to not re-add them unless he can provide sources that include them in books about children's films, or indeed a database/catalog that categorizes them as such. Betty Logan (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Edits such as this one are WP:POINTy. Commonsensemedia is a CONTENT rater; they even rate Fifty Shades of Grey. A film can be suitable for children without being a children's film, such as 2001: A Space Odyssey. Unless the film is explicitly described or categorized as a children's film or a family film it should not be added to the list. If there are more of these POINty edits then I will take the case back to ANI. Betty Logan (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

And yet those films are rated lower than Harry Potter by the MPAA, and are rated on for 9 year olds. The Star Wars franchise has always been marketed to kids, they're rated 8+ on common sense except the last one (11+) and are predominantly rated G. Harry Potter is rated mainly on for 13+, is marketed to adolescents, and is predominately rated PG-13. We do not use the children's film list to mindlessly patronize films we don't like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcasey98 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

How many times does it need to be explained to you? Ratings rate content, they do not determine the intended audience. Just because a film is suitable for children does not mean it is for children, and just because a film may contain elements that parents may consider unsuitable for children does not mean the film isn't for children. It is pretty obvious you are not going to listen though so unfortuanely you've left me with no choice except to file another report at ANI. Betty Logan (talk) 04:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Betty. None of the sources this user added including IMDB are reliable. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I already reporter film and TV. Ratings do rate content. Harry Potter meets none of the criteria to be on this list, yet you continue to put it on here.

Furthermore, I've not deleted it. I've made additions and have cited sources.

Harry Potter is for the same audience as The Hunger Games. Ive added them and cited sources labeling them children's films as well and hey they have repeatedly been deleted by FilmansTVFan28 whom I have reported.

Repeat: we do not use the children's film list to patronize films we don't like. That is disrespect and mindless vandalism. You have shown me that you have zero rationale for your arguments. Dcasey98 (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

None of the sources you provided are reliable at all. Allmovies is a WordPress style database, and the book you have cited doesn't specifically classify the Harry Potter films as anything. Dcasey98 (talk) 05:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the sources are reliable. They are not children's films. Period. Dcasey98 (talk) 05:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

All of us are playing by the rules while you were not. You did disobey Betty's direct orders to stop editing this page. You blamed your actions on someone else instead of yourself. Now you are expecting us to believe that IMDB is a reliable source when it's not a all? Oh, no. You don't get anything with that kind of attitude of yours. – FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 05:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Imdb is a far more reliable source than allmovie, as its edited by actual talent agents and film production teams.

I have been overseeing this article since last year, and the Harry Potter films were left of because it met neither criteria of 1) being mainly rated either G or PG and 2) being marketed mainly to children,

The franchise is marketed to teens and carries a predominance of PG-13 rated films, therefore it is not eligible for the list and that is noted at the top of the page. It is you who are not abiding by the rules as 1) you consistently ignore the criteria already set by other users and the creator of this page and 2) you leave un-professional sources. Allmovie is a wordpress style film catalogue. Dcasey98 (talk) 06:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• There is another edit war at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring which currently has two apparently identical "User: FilmandTVFan28 reported by User:Dcasey98" reports. Betty Logan and others may want to comment. Edit warring is bad in general, but the way to get an instant block is to edit war at the edit war noticeboard! Please don't do that, no matter what the circumstances. Someone will notice and fix any problems. Johnuniq (talk) 06:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The IMDb is not a reliable source, and the sources clearly indicate that Harry Potter films are marketed to children. This seems like a case of "I don't like it" as far as inclusion criteria goes. We go by what the sources say, not what editors feel to be correct. That would be original research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Imdb is a reliable source and what sources show that Harry Potter is marketed to children? I've seen zero. Dcasey98 (talk) 07:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Imdb is edited by talent agents and film producers. It's as reliable, if not more so, than Wikipedia.

The Harry Potter films are marketed at an adolescents and increasingly adult audience. The franchise carries a predominance of PG-13 titles and is not exclusively marketed to children, therefore the films do not belong on this list.

What you feel be correct is being shown in the edits, and I have left sources for my irrelevant additions. Harry Potter is marketed to an older audience than Star Wars and pretty much every film on this list, and that's clear.

Repeat: we do not use this list to patronize films we don't like. Dcasey98 (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Please pardon the typos. Dcasey98 (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Restart

I'm coming to this late, and the problem editor has been blocked, but I'm concerned because this page is almost completely lacking in sources!... Anyone got a solution to this problem? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

There isn't an easy solution. There are too many films listed to really source them all. Probably the best we can do is to add sources as films are challenged. Either that or someone is going to spend the next few weeks searching Google. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I just did that for List of films broadcast by Nickelodeon, and I'm in no hurry to take on another project like that any time soon! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I discussed this briefly at #Film that are not childrens films and #Inclusion criteria. I think adding inline citations is too a big a job unless we can round up a dozen or so editors prepared to give a week or so to it (this would probably take the rest of of the year to source for a single editor). The practical solution I suggested was to "mass source" it using the Allmovie catalog. As you can see in the "Harry Potter" dispute Allmovie categorizes the films as "children's/family films". Likewise Wizard of Oz and the Toy Story films. That doesn't mean we should treat Allmovie as a definitive source (for example, it doesn't regard Star Wars as family films even though some sources may well do so), but I think it would function well as a basic "catch-all" source. I am not hugely involved in this article but I keep an eye on it: in the case of questionable additions I check the Allmovie catalog (it literally takes 30 seconds to do a search) and if the film is listed as a children's film I let it ride; if it's not I remove it. This seems to me to be a good objective approach that takes personal opinions out of the equation. Unsourced additions that are challenged should be treated in line with WP:BURDEN, and not restored without a source. Betty Logan (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, book sources, added in a 'Bibliography' section, might be an accompanying solution. There must be books that focus on the topic of children's films, and book sources would likely list of a lot of these... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Removed Harry Potter

They're not marketed to children, they're the only PG-13/12/15 rated films on the list, and they do not have reliable or relevant sources next to them.

They're films for teenagers. I'll leave the first two films there to compromise, but the rest need to go. They don't belong on this list whatsoever. The films are FAR too dark and violent, and have teen and adult main characters. Adejesus1986 (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

This statement is your opinion and is not a reason to remove them from the article. BTW the Grimms' Fairy Tales as well as Fairy Tales Told for Children. First Collection. are dark and violent and have been marketed to children from their original publication. MarnetteD|Talk 00:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Time for protection?

@FilmandTVFan28 and MarnetteD: Not a day goes by without wholly unsuitable films being added to the list. It is relentless with no end in sight so should we request semi-protection for the article? Betty Logan (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

That is a good idea Betty Logan. The other option is to put the appropriate number of warnings on the IPs talk page and report to AIV. MarnetteD|Talk 16:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I did contemplate that but the IP address keeps changing so we can't even be sure the editor would get the messages. If the article was semi-protected for a week or two then perhaps this would persuade the editor to engage on the talk page? Betty Logan (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I second the notion. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• I hope you enjoyed your holiday chaps. Obviously the SP hasn't deterred them so it leaves us with limited options. Blocking is pointless because his IP changes, and pending changes would not ease the burden on the editors who have to deal with this. Communicating with a dynamic IP is next to impossible, but we could experiment with an Wikipedia:Editnotice and see if that has any impact? If that doesn't work we are back to semi-protection again. Betty Logan (talk) 22:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good BL. Did you file a report at RFPP last time? You could ask NeilN directly since he is familiar with the situation. Whatever you think best is fine with me. MarnetteD|Talk 23:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I will draft out an edit notice tomorrow. If we are happy with it we can put in a request to add it to the page. Betty Logan (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• @MarnetteD and FilmandTVFan28: I propose the following editing note:

  This list only includes films that are classified as children's entertainment. Family/childhood dramas and teen films do not belong here if they are not primarily marketed to children. If an addition to the list is challenged you must not re-add it without providing a source that explicitly describes it as a children's film. If unsure you may find it helpful to use the Allmovie film database to check whether the film is listed as a children's film or a children's fantasy.

Allmovie isn't perfect by any means (it is heavily skewed towards English-language films for a start) but it would weed out many of the erroenous entries we have seen added to the list in recent months. Betty Logan (talk) 09:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It looks reasonable to me Betty Logan. Would there be any benefit to mentioning BFI and/or AFI as alternatives to Allmovie? Thanks for your work on this. MarnetteD|Talk 14:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Allmovie has an explicit children's film category which is why it is a useful reference in this capacity. I know the BFI doesn't and I don't know if the AFI does or not. Generally though we only need one database for a quick check. Betty Logan (talk) 09:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd say it looks very reasonable. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 01:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I have placed the request at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/List of children's films. Hopefully it will be accepted, and even more hopefully the anonymous editor will abide by it. Betty Logan (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit notice clearly not working

OK, I suppose I was being unreasonably optimistic that this would resolve the situation since the problem seems to be increasing in frequency. Just to take one example, the IP has added Boy & the World four times now and it has been removed by me ([1], [2] & [3]) and MarnetteD ([4]). Now, I couldn't say if this is a children's film or not, but Allmovie does not include it in its children's catgeory and has flagged it for "adult situations" and "suitable for teens". Doesn't sound like a "children's film" to me. I appreciate that cultural boundaries play a part here, but the bottom line is that it shouldn't be aded back without a source if it has been challenged. We currently have four editors reverting this crap and we've all got better things to do, so I am going to request an extended period of semi-protection tomorrow if nobody objects. Betty Logan (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Betty Logan As far as I am concerned you acted with the best of WikiP principles in mind. The fact that these IPs are WP:NOTGETTINGIT shows that the semi-protection is the only way to - well if not get there attention - keep the article in a stable condition. While I'm here I want to say a big thank you to Trivialist for all their work cleaning up the list. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 03:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

D'oh. Messed up my ping the first and second time so here it is again Betty Logan. MarnetteD|Talk 03:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Unreleased films

Should unreleased films be included in the list? If this is a list of "films primarily marketed to children," and some of them haven't been marketed at all, inclusion seems premature. (Obviously Cars 3 isn't going to be a gritty adult action-adventure, but you know what I mean.) Trivialist (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking this Trivialist. I would include couple of reasons to not include them. One being WP:CRYSTAL. The other would be that there is no way to know who the film will be primarily marketed to until close to its release. There are probably other problems but these two popped to mind upon reading your post. MarnetteD|Talk 17:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

HOW ARE THE HARRY POTTER FILMS CHILDRENS FILMS?

Furthermore, why are they the only ones on this list to have meaningless citations for the sole purpose of locking them in here? You're seriously trying to make the insinuation that a bunch of PG-13 Fantasy action drama films are marketed at the same audience as My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, Diary of a Wimpy Kid, and Zootopia? No.

The Harry Potter films were marketed primarily as dark fantasy Action films, and performed to audiences of primarily young adult women. Please explain to me how they belong on this list? Highlandersoldier1 (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Another day, another sock. How many times do we have to go through this Dcasey98? They are included on the list because that is how reliable sources categorise them, as explained in all the previous discussions. Betty Logan (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll leave the first two because they're the youngest skewing ones here, but the series is not "primarily marketed to children" as the page states, so I really have to remove them.

If the Harry Potter films are on here, why aren't younger-marketed, lighter, lower-rated films like Star Wars and Marvel movies allowed on here? It makes absolutely zero sense. Highlandersoldier1 (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Betty- Please hear me loud and clear:

YOUR. SOURCES. AREN'T. RELIABLE. AND. THEY. DONT. CATEGORIZE. THEM. AS. ANYTHING.

I haven't the faintest who Dcasey98 is.

I would also like to inquire why they're the only ones with "sources".

Someone went out of their way trying to get them on this list because:

This list is for films "primarily marketed to children".

THE HARRY POTTER FILMS ARE MARKETED TO YOUNG ADULTS. NOT CHILDREN.

SHREK =/= THE HARRY POTTER SERIES Highlandersoldier1 (talk) 02:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

2018 films

Per FilmandTVFan28's request in the edit summary I have run a cat scan for 2018 children's films: [5]. There aren't many films as yet and obviously it is not foolproof (it requires the film article to be in a children's film subcat) but it's a start. Betty Logan (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The Trouble with Angels

Where's The Trouble with Angels and Where Angels Go, Trouble Follows. It looks like it was marked to children. --73.184.6.244 (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2018

I would like that they will unprotected the page. Johnny1Wikipedia (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Betty Logan (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

And Inside Out, Your Name and Mirai?

Where's Inside Out, Your Name and Mirai. It looks like it was marked to children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.218.223.87 (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2019

J. G. Canha (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Please add The Three Caballeros (1944) in this list of children's films.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Philroc (c) 14:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2019

in 1950s films: add "La Rosa di Bagdad" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Rosa_di_Bagdad 146.241.129.103 (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Betty Logan (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Betty Logan I don't understand, what do you mean with "reliable sources"? this is a well know film, see https://www.cinematografo.it/cinedatabase/film/la-rosa-di-bagdad/5216/ for example, or https://www.cinematografo.it/cinedatabase/film/la-rosa-di-bagdad/5216/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.241.226.196 (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2019

in 1950s films: add "La Rosa di Bagdad" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Rosa_di_Bagdad 146.241.226.196 (talk) 11:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

See my response above please. Betty Logan (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

I did not see the movie "annie" in this list. It was released in 1976. Perhaps it should be included. 82.161.246.150 (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, it needs to have a Wikipedia article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

We have an article on Annie (1976 film), but it does not seem to be a children's film. Dimadick (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2020

{{subst:trim|1=

Please add Inside Out (2015) to the list of children’s films. 2600:1700:4300:2C8F:A1F2:E3CC:A59B:D966 (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Inside Out (2015 film) was marketed broadly and was not "primarily to children". Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2020

I want to edit nice and neat. P&FFan2005 (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The Dark Crystal 1982 please

Add The Dark Crystal 1982 please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:8000:15FB:B148:CE57:9499:6908 (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Missing 1930s film

Anyone who can edit the list of films: Please add the ˋEmil and the Detectives (1931)ˋ film. 2A02:908:D71:BE20:58A2:2C06:398C:CE0E (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2022

Sumi (film) Bombaywriters (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Storchy (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)