Talk:List of disaster films

Untitled

I've nealy completed the list of disater movies article, you can add more movies (disaster movies) if you wish Storm05 20:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Merged with redirect to here. Lady Aleena 10:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC) For Lady Aleena 02:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Untitled

Should Lion King really be included under Political Unrest?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.72.136 (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

this list is an absolute mess and therefore essentially useless. it doesn't follow the relatively narrow and relatively useful defintion of a disaster movie given in the main article. i would attempt to fix it but i have a feeling these 'list of ____ movies' pages are impossible to control. people will just keep adding stuff that fits their own personal definition of the genre or type of film being listed. i would just advise any thinking of using this list to take it with a grain of salt. Aglie 03:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed some of the more questionable ones. Some I won't argue if they are set back in, but Erin Brockovich? Really? --Bacteria 16:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Lion King is in no way a disaster film, i'm removing it. --User:Supermatt4818— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.81.154 (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Rename list

Should this article be renamed List of disaster films to be inline with other film lists? Lady Aleena 07:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

delete this

list! Many films listed are in wrong categories. Black Tuesday, The Sniper and Armored Car Robbery are terrorist films? Wrong! Steve-O—Preceding undated comment added by Noirish (talk • contribs) 02:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Then fix it!
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 03:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I know what you are saying about 'fix it', but this list is so long it seems too daunting to try and fix. I almost tried a couple of times, but gave up. The other thing I thought was that just like the Jumping the Shark page, another editor will probably just come in and revert all the deletions anyway. Asa01 06:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

General fixes to this list will be made as an ongoing process as many films are not only in the wrong catagories but are also do not even fall within the disaster movie gene Deckchair (talk) 12:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

easier said than done. "A disaster film is a film that has an impending or ongoing disaster (e.g. a major fire, earthquake, shipwreck, or an asteroid collision with Earth) as its subject." Do you really want me to go in and remove all the questionalbe ones? Cocoon, Zoolander, Alien (doesn't a disaster movie have to take place at least near large masses of people?), Babar: The Movie, JFK? Come on! This list is usless.. that's why it should be deleted. It looks like people are just listing movies here. Steve-O—Preceding undated comment added by Noirish (talk • contribs) 04:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried to better define what is a disaster film and what isn't in an expanded introduction. I also sorted through the list and removed some of the more inexplicable entries and categories. Civil unrest? C'mon... any number of non-disaster films could fit into that category (including some of the ones listed there... JFK?). Volatile 22:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the Terminator movies should be on this list.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.68.32 (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Terminator 3 is a pretty obvious disaster movie. The first two I find a little more questionable. cmadler 20:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Disaster Movie

I myself question if many of these are really "disaster" movies. Cast Away may start with a disaster, but it is on such a small scale that only a few people were actually involved. In a great many of the movies listed, the disaster is nothing but a MacGuffin to ge tthe movie started, not the actual plot of the movie. Otherwise, everything from Dog Day Afternoon to Titan AE could qualify as a "disaster movie". 75.120.89.159 22:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't now what categories/too lazy

Mad Max series of films Matrix—Preceding unsigned comment added by Benstern (talk • contribs) 19:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Split animals to List of animal attack films

It is just a thought since that list is long, but I won't do it unless there is a great need for it. - LA @ 02:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the whole list needs cleaning really. And a better grasp and definition of what a "disaster film" really is. the All Movie Guide has a pretty good definition here. The animal based ones seem more based around horror films. Check out the list Category:Natural horror films for the "when nature (animals/plants, rather then enviromental ones) begin to attack. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at Category:Natural horror films, and not all of those film are about animals and animal attacks. Plus there are films on the list which have yet to have articles here. So, I think we still may need to spin that section off into its own list. - LA @ 09:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I found the List of eco-horror films, so I will moved the section there. Most films in the animals section are already listed on the eco-horror list, so I will just add the ones that aren't. - LA @ 23:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Clean up

If you look at the history, you will see all the clean up that I have been doing to this list, but it has a way to go yet. Any input would be gratefully received. - LA @ 02:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Crime film is not disaster film. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

So the crime film section should be removed. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Lady Aleena's changes

After reading the article on disaster, I decided to use the headings there on this list. I haven't used them all since I don't know enough films to do so now. Some of the headings on the companion articles on disaster have their own film lists, so I just linked to them. Here is a short list of changes to this list. For more details please see the history. - LA @ 22:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is X on the list?

The headings for this list have been taken from Disaster, Natural disaster, and Man-made hazards articles. - LA @ 22:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Crime

See Man-made hazards#Crime, no films are listed here.

War

See Man-made hazards#War, no films are listed here.

Documentaries

They are also motion pictures so should be included.

What is gone?

• red links - should I add them back? 23:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• date links
• several films which didn't belong (see history)
• the Stranded and Last on Earth sections
• the Extraterrestrials section has a link to List of films featuring extraterrestrials 22:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

What could be done in the near future?

spin List of disaster films#Terrorism off into its own list by combining it with what is at List of war films#War on Terrorism.

Done. - LA @ 09:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

spin List of disaster films#Animals of into its own list. 22:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Anything else?

I alphabetized all of the lists.

This needs to be heavily edited so that content reflects the article title

The first paragraph is largely correct when it states "Disaster films are motion pictures which depict an impending or ongoing disaster", unfortunately the list does not reflect this with the inclusion of various movies that fall way outside this description and the genre of disaster film. Either the title of the article should be changed to "movies which feature disasters" or the content should be amended. I will be (again) removing the most dubious ones (movies which plainly do not fall withing the disaster genre) as a starter and then examine many of the others which probably be in this list. Please discuss any changes that may be unjustified before attempting to revert wholesale ,Cheers Deckchair (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Deckchair, I developed this list over a span of 2 years and made sure that the introductory paragraph reflected the contents of the list. The title is fine. This is a list of all films that have disasters in them which is what a list of disaster films should have on it. The list title does not need to be encumbered with additional verbiage. I have made sure that all the films on this list included a disaster in them. I have also made sure that each film is listed in each and every disaster which appeared in the film. If the film has a volcano eruption that caused a tidal wave, then the film is listed in both volcano and hydrological disasters.

I reverted your changes since you removed valid entries to this list. It doesn't matter how comedic a film is, if it includes a disaster, it should be included. I do not see how any film you removed falls outside of the scope of a disaster film. The whole point of this list is to show how many films show the various disasters mentioned in the disaster article grouped by disaster and in every disaster shown in the film. If a plane crashes in the film with a person on board who is carrying a virus which spawns an epidemic, it gets listed in both airplane disasters and pathogens. That is how the list has been for a very long time now. Please return the list to the state I had left it in previously and discuss each film one at a time as to why it should not be on the list in the place it is in. LA @ 12:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Lady Aleena, I understand why you have included many of the mjovies in the list, but i believe thay have been included in error as while many of the films may include a disaster, that does not make them a disaster movie. This is meant to be a list of disaster films (i.e. films which fall within the disaster movie genre), many of the films on this list just do not fall into the category of disaster movie just because they contain a disaster or an impending disaster because the disaster in question is not the subject of the actual movie. If the main plot of ther film is the disaster in question then it belongs here, if it is just a sub-plot then it doesnt. At the moment i have taken out those which plainly do not belong in this category and those should stay out as they are the "wrong" genre for this article. With regards to multiple entries for individual films this is not necessary and bloats the article. Cheers Deckchair (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said, this is a list of disaster films based on the disaster article. It includes all films with disasters in them. I spent many hours of many days of many weeks reading articles and other sources to get this list together. Have you? Also, your definition of disaster film may be too narrow. This is supposed to be an exhaustive list of all disaster films, no matter how minor a role the disaster plays. Also, you still have no given any explanation as to why you are wholesale ripping films out of their proper placements by what disasters are included in the films. There are films with several disaster types in them. Please read the articles to get the comprehensive list of disasters shown in the films. If there is no article, I am sure that IMDb would have something. Just do not take a film off of the list until you can definitively show that it does not in any way, shape, or form have a disaster in it. LA @ 13:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You have stated that i need to read read the articles, whereby you need to re-read my statement "i.e. films which fall within the disaster movie genre" Many of the films you have listed may contain a disaster but that does not make them disaster movies. At the moment your list is neither fish nor fowl. It either needs to be a list of disaster movies (which it currently isnt as many of the films are not within the disaster moved genre) or it needs to be a list of movies which contains disasters (which it currently is). There is a big difference between the two. I will continue to remove films which contain disasters if they do not fall into the "Disaster movie catagory" because that is what this article purports to be (a list of disaster movies"

Once more i would like to point out why we are working at cross purposes. You currently have a "list of films which contain disasters" - I am working on the "list of disaster films" as per the article description. My changes are correct as per the article title. All movies in this list should be disaster movies and not movies from other genres unless there is a crossover i.e. Titanic (disaster/romance).

You also state "you still have no given any explanation as to why you are wholesale ripping films out of their proper placements". Yes i have. As i have already stated I have removed these movies as they are not disaster movies, they are movies which contain disasters which as i explained above are two completely different things. Cheers Deckchair (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Deckchair, this is a list of disaster films which includes ALL films which have a disaster in them. This is a non-exclusive list. If the list were titled "List of Disaster genre films" then your edits would be justified, however, it is not titled that way. Until you can justify each deletion, I will have no choice to but to revert your edits again. LA (T) @ 14:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a list of disaster films - i have already justified the removals on multiple occasions and also include a line when i make deletions, your interpretation is wrong as i have explained before. The article title does not have to include the term Genre. Wholesale reverts will just be the first step in an edit war which is against wikipedia guidlines. The only way my deletions would be unjustified is if the article was titled "list of films including disasters". It isn't. My deletions are justified under the guidlines of wikipedia. If this was a list of musical films you would not include every film that has music in it. Deckchair (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You are new to this list, I am not. I have worked on it for 2 YEARS. For nearly 2 years, the list was fine as it was until you came along and removed films which are disaster films because they include disasters. Your definition of a disaster film is too narrow. LA (T) @ 21:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively your definition of a disaster film is possibly too broad. Length of time served on an article doesn't make an editor correct. Read the article on the Disaster film and read the definition. Looking at the early comments on this discussion section there have been comments in the past that there have been inclusions on here in the past that shouldn't be here, I am merely continuing that in the hope of making this a balanced list within the guidlines of wikipedia. If i had seen this list 2 years ago i would have taken action then. Cheers Deckchair (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason why the list cant be in two sections. Disaster Movies and Movies with Disasters in them. That way everyone is happy. One way of determining which goes where is if the movie has its own entry and is refered in that entry as a Disaster Movie. Two movies show the difference. Knowing and The Day after Tommorow Both have multiple types of disasters in them. But one is about people trying to survive the disaster. The other is about man trying to trying to understand what a series of numbers on missing page means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.76.81.200 (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Question

I'm wondering where to put a certain movie which fits pretty much every single category except "Avalanches" and "Transportation Disasters". Its called Seven Signs of the Apocalypse. --haha169 (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Christine and The Car

Shouldnt these two movies be under cars?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.65.124.161 (talk) 05:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced redlinks

I will "soon" remove all redlink entries which do not have an inline reference to a reliable source providing information confirming their status as notable disaster films. A link to a catch-all site such as AllRovi is probably not enough to establish notability. You would be welcome to restore such an entry with a suitable reference. If the film really is notable you should consider creating an article for it. --Mirokado (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Mirokado (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely no grace prior. No attempt at "fixing" the issues you pointed out. It looks as if you simply 'tossed the baby with the bathwater'. There are better ways to do this. Please allow time (days would be nice; not simply 2 hours) for discussion and cleaning before just obliterating everything. Thanks Lostinlodos (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I will be happy to support your intended improvements to this article. But...

WP:VERIFIABILITY very clearly states that unsourced material may be removed and that such material should only be restored with reliable references added. I was entirely correct to remove so many unsourced redlinks and technically speaking you were in violation of Wikipedia policy to restore them without inline references, but I am prepared to see how the article looks in a week or so. Relevant policy links are WP:CHALLENGE and WP:BURDEN. I accept that if there were only two or three such redlinks I could have tried to find references, but that is clearly impractical with dozens of them.

An editor should only add non-trivial content to Wikipedia if he has a reliable source in front of him. In that case it is a matter of a couple of minutes to format an inline reference. It may take another editor trying to find a reliable source later half an hour or so to construct a suitable search term, filter out links which are relying on the unsourced material already added to Wikipedia, read the dozen or so most promising links and select a suitable reference. If the only available reliable source is in print only, most readers will be unable to find it anyway. In this case it may take several days to sort out what would have taken the original editor(s) an hour or so to do properly in the first place. This means that the content is unverifiable, should never have been accepted by page watchers or recent changes patrollers in the first place and must be removed. Although we all work together to create Wikipedia, we should not encourage such laziness and I am not a secretary for other editors.

I will not accept any further unsourced additions to this list. A link to a Wikipedia article about a film which itself has suitable sources would be OK at least for the time being (if a lot of the linked articles turn out to have no sources stating that they are disaster films it may be necessary to reconsider the current practice). Of course in saying all this I have to respect any consensus, but consensus cannot override Wikipedia policy which requires reliable sources for content verifiability.

A diff of a removal serves as a convenient list of candidates for inclusion in this list once articles have been created or inline references found. Thus I had not jettisoned any babies and you could just as well have improved the article without restoring unsourced material in the meantime. --Mirokado (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

In this case it may take several days to sort out what would have taken the original editor(s) an hour or so to do properly in the first place. Hence my request for a delay.
Looking over that list (note that my revert came a fair bit after your purging) I think it would be easier for me to 'clean up after other editors' rather than attempting to start over from scratch. It will take time, for sure; but I'm confident I can get this cleaned up properly. I've already made my first purging of films that do not relate to 'earth' (see my edit note). I'll take time to review this further tonight and over the coming days. Inclusionist as I may be; much of this really should go, and others do need some serious looking after. I'll give it my best and we'll see where we come to. I'll post up on your page and here when I have finished the majority of what I consider a major overhaul. Once we can get some agreement on the final list(s), I'll template them out as well. Lostinlodos (talk) 00:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your gracious responses. The "only Earth" edit you mention has already removed many problematical entries in the Aliens section. With your clarifications I am happy for you to work as you prefer. We will find that once the article is of higher quality there will be fewer problems with further added rubbish. --Mirokado (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't given up on this. I've just had some family medical issues to deal with these last few weeks. I'll be back to this later today to purge some more crap from it. I'm also going to see about getting this semi-protected so these IP adds will be shut down. Lostinlodos (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Your family comes first no question about that. --Mirokado (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We clearly need to tidy this article up, so I have transferred the redlinks to List_of_disaster_films/Sandbox. As articles are created, links can be moved back to the main article, I'm happy to help with any merging. --Mirokado (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to IP 129.7.255.91 (talk · contribs) who has found a few wikilinks for films mentioned in the sandbox, now moved to the main article. --Mirokado (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Indiscriminate list of Science Fiction films

I have removed part of the Aliens section list since it appears to be an indiscriminate listing of science fiction films scraped from somewhere with no effort to format it either consistently with the rest of the article or even in a human-readable form. Many of the films included are clearly not disaster films although some may be. The original author should take the trouble to verify each film and format the entries correctly. Somebody else is of course welcome to do that if they wish, but there is no excuse for such slapdash content preparation. --Mirokado (talk) 23:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I have just noticed that the edit is marked as minor in my watchlist. That must have been a slip of the finger, it is of course not a minor edit! Sorry. --Mirokado (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that another user has reverted this change. In my view it is quite improper to add or restore such untidy content. In fact it took less than a minute to correct the format so I do not understand why that was not done when restoring it. The reason why I removed the content rather than correcting the format is that many of the entries in this list which I have seen (Solaris for example) are quite clearly not disaster films: the combination of careless formatting and clearly incorrect entries is a quality assurance signal for content which should be removed immmediately.

In this case I am delighted that another editor has expressed willingness to sort these entries out, which will I imagine be quite a lot of work, so I have corrected the formatting issue with a disclaimer in the edit summary (the only alternative to removing again). I have to say though that the correct way to prepare content is in a sandbox page rather than ruining the live article for an extended period of time. --Mirokado (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately this page was left alone for far to long with too many additions that have no place here. Being that this page was already live for a long time, I chose the construction overhaul approach rather than attempting to start over. It's also going to be far easier for me to fix a broken page than recreate it from scratch. See above posts. Thanks Lostinlodos (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Movies to add

Japan sinks. Not really the end of the world film. More like the end of Japan lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.247.134 (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolute zero http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0451998/ earth magnetic field changes / causes ice age — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.28.43 (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Suprised how dumb this article is

Why haven't people bothered to subscribe to the notion that a disaster movie is a film where:

• the plot itself directly and chiefly resolves around a disaster, and
• the disaster is not of a fanciful, science fiction or otherwise unrealistic nature, and
• the disaster could not better described as the consequences of an act or war.

It should not take too much common sense to form a consensus concerning what a disaster movie is or isn't. Kransky (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You would be surprised, look at the talk from several years ago. The criteria you mention are certainly going in the right direction. From a section on my talk page:

[This] article will always be a problem until we have a properly sourced lead which better indicates the scope. Also, the sources will say things like "disaster films are often not categorised as such in listings" (I've already looked for sources but have not had time to finish that or formulate any content) so we really need at least one inline reference per entry stating that it is a disaster film. Lists which insist on that are much more stable and consistent. Perhaps we could start adding inlines as convenient, in preparation for making that a requirement later... --Mirokado (talk) 9:21 pm, 8 July 2012, Sunday (19 days ago) (UTC+2)

-- Mirokado (talk) 07:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't given up on this. Just ran into physical world issues to deal with too, taking up most of my time.

I'm not sure [the disaster is not of a fanciful, science fiction or otherwise unrealistic nature] would work or not. The other two I'm fully in agreement with; excluding alien invasion from war, for the time being. I think my next step will be to make a set of tables here, with a single word 'description' tab under each category. From there it will be much easier to figure out what is/not a disaster worth noting. Lostinlodos (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The conversion to tables was not progressing very far, and the descriptions I checked today were direct copyvios of IMDb content, so I had to remove them again. I think providing a reliable source for every entry is probably the way to go: people have more or less stopped adding junk to the horror film lists since we did that. We would need a reliable source for a specific description justifying inclusion anyway, but that is a significant amount of work. Unfortunately it seems unfair to insist that new entries have a specific source until the old ones do! As a starter, I have added Kransky's first criterion to the lead. --Mirokado (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Forgot this movie

Superfire (2002) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.44.164.5 (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Out of scope for a list

A list of all the movies in different languages across the world is too big to fit in a page. It comes under the scope of a category. And we already have them. Anu Raj (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Ya forgot some flix!

What about all those hundreds of other great disaster movies, like Where Eagles Dare (disaster for the Germans), or Black Beauty (disaster for the horse), or Saving Mr. Banks?! (disaster for Disney).

Those qualify as "disaster" films about as much as half your list. I mean, Cloverfield? Battle LA? and Gamera..?! Seriously? And True Lies?? WHAT?! Worthless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.60.112 (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I have only just noticed this contribution to the talk page. You correctly point out that many of the entries in this list are not really disaster films. Have a look at the lead for this article to see generally what is regarded as "a disaster film". Often films with the characteristics or "a disaster film" are categorised by reliable sources in another genre. Most horror films, adventure films, science fiction films etc are not disaster films, even when the odd structure, town or planet gets destroyed. I go through this list from time to time rounding up the usual suspects. If you or anyone else think that an entry has been removed incorrectly, please start a section here explaining why you consider it "a disaster film", preferably providing a reliable source which states so. See WP:BRD in such cases. --Mirokado (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.imdb.com/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Mirokado (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced entries

I have again removed many unsourced entries. The low quality of these updates is exemplified by the addition of an incorrect wikilink presumably intended to refer to Bedtime Stories (film) which, described as a family-fantasy-comedy, is obviously no disaster film. Contributor notified. --Mirokado (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Why some disaster film articles don't exist?

--46.130.147.23 (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC) Why some pages have red links and don't exist?

Spider films

Since spiders are NOT insects, shouldn't the films that have spiders be moved to the "Animals" section or get their own section? Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

More pruning

I am inclined to remove The Last Man on Earth - for example - because the disaster, whatever it was, occurs before the movie begins. In a "Disaster film" the disaster its self has to be heavily featured. Also movies that do not threaten pretty much all mankind (or at least all the people in the Skyscraper, ocean liner, or whatever) really (opinion) do not belong. Your thoughts? Carptrash (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd leave that one in. It appears to be classified as a disaster film, and we shouldn't be applying our own definitions of what a disaster film is. Appreciate your desire to help clean the article up though! DonIago (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, @Doniago: okay, then we just copy and dump this whole list into this article? Since this is an oldish article and I am new here I want to meet community standards. Carptrash (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

That list has its own problems with entries not being sourced, but you'll find that there's a lot of editors who don't want to hear about things like WP:LISTVERIFY. Anyway, I'd say apocalyptic films and disaster films aren't the same thing. We should go by what the sources say, which is why it's so important to have them. Hope this helps, and welcome to Wikipedia! DonIago (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Well I am not new to wikipedia, just to this article. I agree that apocalyptic films and disaster films aren't the same thing, though there is some overlap. I have been watching a lot of apocalyptic, post-apocalyptic, epidemic and disaster films as a component of my dealing with life in a heavily infected state in the USA, so have opinions, but will keep tham more or less in check and just keep looking for sources. Carptrash (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

So what I discovered when I went looking at the WikiRules link that you supplied was:

“Wikipedia's content policies require an inline citation to a reliable source for only the following four types of statements:”

• 1. Direct quotations
• 2. Any statement that has been challenged (e.g., by being removed, questioned on the talk page, or tagged with , or any similar tag)
• 3. Any statement that you believe is likely to be challenged.
• 4. Contentious material, whether negative, positive, or neutral, about living persons

It is clear to me that point 1 and 4 are not involved, that the issue is that you have challenged the inclusion of films that I added to the list, The Poseidon Adventure (1972 film) and Twister (1996 film) and a few others. Had I added The Towering Inferno that would have gone too. That you can claim something does not belong on the list is clearly your right. However if you really feel that these films do not belong on the list then you probably should not be editing here as these are some of the defining works of the genre and to not include them, citation or not is borderline wikicriminal. Carptrash (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Not exactly sure what your concern is here. My concern is that this list not become one where people regularly add entries without sourcing, including ones that no source would actually describe as a disaster film. If the worst thing that happens when an editor adds an unsourced entry is that they're asked to provide a source, that's a pretty reasonable and also easy-to-fulfill request. DonIago (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so let's skip that, the list was a mess in the past and this is one way to clean it up. I would like to explore the idea of adding something like "For zombie movies see List of zombie films, for disasters in war look at List of war films and TV specials, thereby allowing us to exclude those sorts of films here. Carptrash (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

There might be some sense in adding a WP:SEEALSO section. I'm kind of curious as to how much cross-pollination there would be between zombie films, war films and disaster films, though. I would imagine reliable sites for genre classification wouldn't tend to intermix them, though I could see zombie-disaster more easily than war-disaster. Are we anticipating a situation that doesn't currently exist, or do we have films on the list now that you feel are problematic? DonIago (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I;m looking at the Evil Dead stuff and the Left Behind series. I mean, is the Rapture really a disaster? Carptrash (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

You see why I feel we need sources for all entries on this list? :) I'd say yank them from the page, though if you want to be nice, you could tag them for needing citations to see whether anyone will provide them. I doubt anyone will, because I doubt they meet the definition of a disaster film; I'm not incredibly familiar with the history of this list, but I think at some point it wandered far afield of what it should have been. DonIago (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems that AllMovieCom is an accepted source here and in looking over their list find both Flight of the Phoenix films listed. (The Flight of the Phoenix (1965 film) and Flight of the Phoenix (2004 film)) Which is . .... too limited in scope for me to consider a Disaster Film. Perhaps a List of airplane crash movies is needed? Perhaps I just need to wander off and not worry about this? Carptrash (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, you're not obligated to add entries to this list if you don't believe they belong here, but if you find sources for them and they're currently on the list and unsourced, I think you should add the source as a kindness to editors who may feel differently. Alternately we could discuss whether AllMovie's really a good source for this, but it's generally been accepted by WP:FILM for genre determinations. But you're also allowed to walk away for a bit. :) DonIago (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I found an ex-library book on disaster films for sale at a reasonable price so am waiting for that to arrive - with the current post office issues it might be a while - and am willing to go along with what it says. If it feels that Flight of the Phoenix is a disaster film, to name just one I would not include, I'll go along with it. Carptrash (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

AFI lists it as either a Drama or Adventure film, depending on which version you're talking about.[1] If you feel inclined to remove it I won't contest it, but another editor might, or someone may add it back in at some point. If we're going to discuss specific films though, we may want to start new threads for those? DonIago (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I am surprised to note that you removed The Wave, my DVD of it self-identified it as a disaster film and I believe that this should be an acceptable reference. Carptrash (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I have concerns about using promotional text as a source for this list. Can you back it up with a third-party source? DonIago (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . . .......But since this article seems to be managed by your concerns perhaps it is not the place for me. Carptrash (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'd welcome hearing from other editors on the subject, but so far there doesn't seem to be a lot of interest from anyone. You're of course welcome to contact appropriate projects to see whether anyone cares to offer additional opinions. DonIago (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Well it looks as if this is something that we need to figure out between the two of us, hoping that someone else will show up and make it all good is not likely. However I might go back to the site that you are willing to accept and see what it has to offer. Carptrash (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I haven't been clear about this, but there's at least three sites I'm willing to accept, and likely many more. I just don't think we should be using a DVD's promotional material as the basis for the film's genre. At that point we could use the generally refactored reviews as well, and we know those aren't reliable. Anyway, I see you re-added the film using AllMovie, and I find that entirely acceptable, though even that site's been called into dispute at WT:FILM in the past. DonIago (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

So what are the three or so sites that you will accept? Carptrash (talk) 05:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say "three or so", I said "at least three". AllMovie, AFI, BFI. Additionally I doubt I'd have a problem with links to reviews. But really, if a genre isn't supported by at least one of those three sites then I might question whether it really applies, and I think those three give an editor interested in adding films to this list plenty to work with. If anyone disagrees, I'd be curious to hear their reasoning. DonIago (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The Core

I don't know if I'd consider The Core to be a natural disaster movie given it was human actions that caused it in the first place (i.e. The DESTINI project) 202.153.211.166 (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

A citation was provided; do you have reason to believe that it doesn't support this classification for the film? DonIago (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)