Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 59

Archive 55

←

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

→

Archive 65

Film infoboxes

I'm having some trouble at American Mary. Metal121 (talk · contribs) insists on including an extensive list of distributors and release dates in the infobox in violation of WP:FILMDIST and WP:FILMRELEASE. Also, we seem to be at an impasse with regard to the producers. Variety said that Evan Tylor and John Curtis are the producers, but he wants to include executive producers, which is also against the template docs. He wants further input on the matter, so I'll bring it here. I think we should follow the template docs. Is there still consensus for following the instructions there? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Absolute lies, NinjaRobotPirate! The release section includes the premiere and Canadian release dates only; as this film is Canadian, the release date for Canada is completely relevant! Secondly, I have NOT included "extensive" lists of line or executive producers; I have listed all four of the producers of the film. You clearly don't know what an executive or line producer is to be making these bogus claims. I have seen the film and know that Evan Tylor and Robyn Weiner were also the film's producers - Robyn Weiner had two roles in the making of the film: Producer and line producer. I'm not sure if you're aware, but many people have two different roles in the making of a film! I have NOT included any line or executive producers at all (Weiner doesn't count; this individual worked two different roles on the film). Watch the film; I watched it for the second time two hours ago!, and you will know that I am right. Also, by the way, a producer of the film is one person on their own. Co-producer is just a way of saying it was produced by more than one person! This film was produced by four different people! PS. I have written good articles, so don't have the audacity to make these bogus claims that I don't know how to fill in a simple information box on Wikipedia! -- Metal11 (talk) 03:22, November 29 2015 (UTC).

Co-producer is distinct from producer. Looking at this billing block, the only producers are Evan Taylor and John Curtis. Jen and Sylvia Soska are co-producers and should not be included in the infobox. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

As for the distributor, this states, "Anchor Bay Entertainment Canada has picked up the Canadian distribution rights to writers/directors Jen and Sylvia Soska’s American Mary, the thriller/horror pic from Vancouver producer IndustryWorks Pictures." So the distributor should be Anchor Bay Entertainment Canada. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I've seen the film, too, and I just checked the credits on Netflix. Evan Tylor and John Curtis are the only producers. The others are listed as co-producers, line producers, and executive producers. Variety is correct. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like Metal121 is fast heading for a block. Looking at the edit summaries of said article, there's clear edit-warring (against template/guidance instructions), no attempt on the talkpage to resolve these issues, and personal attacks in the edit summaries. Oh, and the token Nazi comparison too. Well done. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Problems with BAFTA Award for Best Film article

Could people please see my comments here and share their views. I'm concerned about how the article merges together Best Film, Best Foreign Film, and Best British Film when all three categories have been separate for some time. I'm proposing splitting it. --Loeba (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Yet another reception debate on Batman & Robin

There is yet another important discussion regarding the critical reception of Batman & Robin (film). The discussion can be found at Talk:Batman & Robin (film)#critical reaction. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Graphic for Fire and Ashes (film)

Is this kind of graphic acceptable under fair use? still, source. ? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Is it for the infobox? If that's the official release poster then it should be acceptable under a FUR. Betty Logan (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It does appear to be a poster - it can't be a still with the title over the two leads like that In ictu oculi (talk) 10:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Torrent litigation

I've seen this crop up on a few articles. Worth mentioning? I don't think it is. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be based on secondary sources per WP:PSTS, and torrentlitigation.com does not appear to be that kind of source, much less reliable. If a lawsuit is discussed in reliable sources, not just listed on some website, then that can warrant inclusion. I see that The Guardian mentioned it in passing, but the focus is more on Voltage Pictures. I would probably advocate for a section at the company's article about lawsuits, and Killer Joe can have a "See also" section linking to that article and section. The coverage seems too light for each individual film to disseminate on each of their articles. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Erik. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that, too, but I'm getting a bit exhausted in dealing with POV-pushers and SPAs. I agree with Erik and Lugnuts. I think the current spate of "the producers sued torrent users" additions don't really belong in film articles. There certainly are a few times when it's worth mentioning, but I think this is too routine. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I just came across this being referenced at Good Kill and removed it as poorly-inserted content per above. I used Special:Linksearch to find other instances and removed them everywhere else except for Dallas Buyers Club, for which it was actually referenced in context. If this reference is spammed again, this link can be used to track them down: Linksearch. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Darth Vader

Hi, all. There is an ongoing debate on the Darth Vader article at Talk:Darth Vader#Edit war. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Opinions requested...

...at Talk:G. W. Pabst#Removal of professional name. Not a formal RfC, but other input would be good. BMK (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

An issue I have with the Toy Story article.

In the section Sequels, shows and spin-offs there is a paragraph dedicated to a YouTube video. And said video is just a popular video online, nothing more, so I don't think it belongs in the article.

However, after finding out it has what looks to me like a reliable source, I decided to leave it there. So it's untouched. But I'm not sure if the source is reliable or not, or if it justifies this being here, so can someone help me out?

Just to make it easier for you, here is the exact quote:

In January 2013, a fan-made live-action version of the film was posted on YouTube which has gone on to have 14,751,219 views before being taken down by Disney for copyright of the audio.

My request is could someone who has more knowledge on what makes a reliable source analyze the sources and tell me if it belongs in the article or not? Thank you. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It's already got a citation to a story by Entertainment Weekly, so I'd let it go. Once something hits EW, it's generally worth mentioning. Time and The A.V. Club are also good sources to check for pop culture trivia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Noted, I will leave it be. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Star Wars page move

Please see the discussion here. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Surprisingly, it's not another one of those Episode IV move requests. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Box office table format at "XXXX in film" articles

There was a recent discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_58#MOS:LARGENUM_issues where some editors felt the long-standing format violated MOS:LARGENUM. There was general agreement and a couple of solutions were put forward. However several editors (including myself) have misgivings about the eventual solution adopted so since this issue affects a wide range of film articles it would be handy to get project input at Talk:2015_in_film#Disagrreement. Betty Logan (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Princess Leia, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Removal of weblinks which are also mentioned as footnotes

It seems that in quite a few film articles, the weblinks to Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and others have been removed if they had already been used for a footnote - example edit. Has there been consensus about this? I honestly think this is nonsense; rather remove the footnote and let the source be easy to find as it had been. --KnightMove (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

If the article references RT or MC in the reception section (specifically to report the reviews and scores for the film), having them in the external links section is just redundant. They are fine to keep until they are used, but once they are, if the reader wants to see the info, it is very easy to find in the article. So I have no issue with this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is here WP:LAYOUTEL. There have been discussions regarding a duplication when a reference section is particularly large but I don't think that was ever written into the WP:MOSFILM. MarnetteD|Talk 20:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I think RT and Metacritic should be in the external links section, as the average reader would expect them to be there, regardless if they're used as an inline ref in the article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

+1, that's exactly my point. --KnightMove (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Esp. in that example as there's more than 200 inline refs to wade through for to locate the RT/M'critic links. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this. The way I see it is that Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are being used for different purposes. When they are referenced as inline citations, we are reporting aggregate scores from them. When we list them as external links, we are giving readers access to many more reviews than would be appropriate to sample in a typical film article. However, I could see a case for excluding RT and/or MC if all reviews from either website are already sampled in the article body, since the EL purpose is then nonexistent. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Infobox poster dispute

Please see Talk:Gold Diggers of Broadway#Which poster for infobox? BMK (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata generated list of Academy Award-winning films

Hi movie fans! I created a tool that automatically generates the list of Academy Award-winning films using the data from Wikidata. That's a big advantage compared to the current article, which has to be maintained manually. The only problem is that Wikidata lacks Academy Award data. This means that the number of Academy Award-winning films generated by my tool is much lower than the actual number. The same is true for the number of awards and nominations of the listed movies. The reason is Wikidata doesn't have data about many awards and nominations. Now I'm asking you to help make Wikidata more accurate concerning Academy Awards and nominations.

See here for the current list in German. I'm also planning to create an English version (if you're willing to help ;-p). The nice thing is we can all work together on this project because Wikidata is international. --Jobu0101 (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Listeria already does this FYI. --Izno (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Dealing with suspicious movie article

Hello! Looking for some guidance as I'm new to editing in general and haven't edited any articles about a film before, so it's hard for me to gauge what sources meet WP:Reliable. Seems like every website about movies that comes up in a google search allows user-generated content. I'm going to be vague about what articles I'm talking about b/c I don't want to make a wikipedia etiquette faux pas. The other day I came across a huge article dedicated to a movie that I'm 99% positive never actually existed. Since 2011, the same 4 usernames have been contributing exclusively to this article and several other equally suspicious articles that are all about movies, TV shows and books that were supposedly written by the same person. This one movie claims a​ HUGE cast made up of some big-name celebs and gospel singers (if you know gospel singers, I assume, based on the verifiable and reliable references in their own wikipedia articles), plus a few no-name cast members that are clearly the writer's friends and family. The same 4 sockpuppets have gone to each celebrity's article and added this movie to their filmography citing the movie's "official" homepage, IMDb and YouTube. When people have challenged these edits on their favorite celebrity's' article, 1 or 2 of these users will reply quickly with links to more sources, always websites with user-generated content. Almost every single one of the film credits has stuck. If it's not real, I feel bad for this one gospel singer that had a fan/family member that tried to remove this film credit from his article, but the the other person gave up after one these accounts shared a link to a YouTube video that's supposedly the first 10 minutes of the film. I don't want to falsely accuse someone of inventing a an elaborate online presence for books and movies that never existed, so can anyone point me to some online resources that are without a doubt WP:RELIABLE for lists of movies by actor or by production company? Thanks in advance! Permstrump (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Edited to be more neutral. Permstrump (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

If it's as bad as you say, there is no faux pas about bring it up. Please provide the list of articles and editors so we can have a looksie. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Nihonjoe (talk · contribs) Are you sure I'm not going to get in trouble?? The one movie is America: A Call to Greatness. If you think I'm crazy after checking it out, then this will stop here. :)

There are a whole lot of websites out there that mention this movie, but none of them meet WP:RELIABLE, as far as I can tell. The majority allow user-generated content or mirror wikipedia and imdb. But there are also websites that mention it that are definitely unrelated to the writer, like fan pages, etc. And journalists for some local papers have mentioned in a list of other notable works by a certain celebrity. I have a hunch that they're basing their info on the filmography from wikipedia and imdb, but I can't be 100% certain. Take Charlton Heston for example... This movie shows up in his filmography on a lot of websites, but it's NOT in his filmography on The Washington Post, New York Times, TCM or Rotten Tomatoes. Is it missing from those lists because the movie doesn't exist or could it have been an oversight or maybe those aren't exhaustive lists? He's the only one I've looked up so far, but it's too time consuming to do that for everyone. I wish there was one website where I could look it up and know definitively that the movie never existed and put it to rest. Permstrump (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

This is amazing. Permstrump appears to have stumbled upon an astonishing network of articles devoted to the deification of one Warren Chaney, all created and maintained by a ... surprising, let's say ... number of editors with a shared interest in Mr Chaney, early television and film, and with occasional dabblings in neural science (a subject Mr Chaney also happens to have written about). Now, I've spent the last couple of hours down this rabbit hole, and it seems to me that most of Chaney's projects do actually exist in some form or another, including the film to which Permastrump refers: America: A Call to Greatness. That actually is Charlton Heston, Mickey Rooney, Peter Graves et al in the Youtube clip, and they are in something called America: A Call to Greatness. However, it's not entirely clear what that something is. It comes across like a short film that plays at the beginning of a museum tour than something that lasts a couple of hours (indeed, that clip ends with a credits roll after about ten minutes). There's no hard evidence that this is what it purports to be, and I would say there is not one reliable source that can verify its existence as a bona fide film. Everything goes back to user-generated or self-published content, and to obvious socks of someone with a desire to see Chaney lauded as a lost great of American cinema. Seriously, this goes everywhere; there are IMDB accounts dedicated solely to rating projects this guy's been involved in, accounts here there and everywhere dedicated to writing about the same. Even our article on Buzz Aldrin mentions the guy. I don't even know where to begin unravelling this stuff. Picking one of his other projects at random: Behind the Mask (1992), which is a cheapo six part serial experiment, now inexplicably lauded in our article: "Warren Chaney won the Best Director and Best Screenplay CineCon ’92 Award and a Best Screenplay American Cinema Award ... Deborah Winters was nominated for Best Actress and Luis Lemas as Best Supporting Actor." That seems unlikely, as CineCon is a classic film festival that doesn't even play films as recent as that (full list). Similarly, there's no evidence to suggest the film "received the Silver Award in the WorldFest-Houston International Film Festival" and "a Bronze Medal Award in the New York Film Festival", and I've looked. This is a pattern with every project and person ever associated with Chaney: some cheapo, marginal production blown up way beyond its significance with half truths and outright lies by a succession of determined editors over many, many years. What to do about it will likely be debated for a good long while. Steve ^T • C 23:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I have also taken a brief look and find much of the article to be dubious if not simply an overblown hagiography of Mr. Warren Chaney. I agree that there are too many details which do not add up. For one small example, the article quotes a review by a Winston J. Aaronson of Screen Times Magazine -- a review which also appears on the "movie" website. However, I find no existence for the magazine and the only hits on google for a Winston J. Aronson were these uploads to Open Library for unknown books by Warren Chaney. Aronson is likely an internet alias for Chaney or a close associate? I suggest the entire mess be taken to WP:AFD for a clear discussion of possible violations of WP:Walled Garden, WP:ADVERTISING and lack of WP:Notability. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps take the matter to WP:ANI as well? I believe they've addressed hoaxes in the past. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have to admit that I'm glad other people fell down the rabbit hole too, because I’ve been here all by myself since Sunday. It’s like the Twilight Zone. But honestly, I’m relieved to have validation, because I was starting to doubt myself, especially b/c Heston and Rooney clearly say "America, a call to greatness" on the YouTube video. I couldn’t tell anymore if I was losing my mind or if it was all as nutty as it seems.

Steve, I had the same exact thought process after watching the youtube video. I’ve come to the conclusion that he took that footage a 1994 documentary called A Century of Cinema… Assuming that one really exist, the imdb page lists both Charlton and Mickey in the credits as “self.” There might be more crossover in the cast, but I stopped looking after I saw those two. I feel like it would be a lot more obvious if our writer had dubbed over the audio, but maybe he just did a really great job with that one thing and that’s what inspired him to go all out with the film's internet debut. I think he spliced scenes from A Century of Cinema with obscure televised broadcasts of gospel singers/choirs (probably recorded back-to-back on same VHS) and then some random footage of his friends and family that he "directed." Btw, did you realize Deborah Winters is his wife? Check out her wikipedia article. Sound familiar? I do think she's actually had minor parts in a few real movies.

I read this page about bundling AFDs to nominate multiple related pages for deletion at the same time, so I was thinking that probably applies to this situation. CactusWriter, does that make the most sense for the next step or would I start with WP:ANI as Erik suggested? I want to learn how to do these things, so I’m not beating around the bush, secretly hoping someone else will do it for me (just so you know), so I appreciate everyone's advice about how to move forward (especially if there's a way to maximize the number of people who can enjoy this before it’s gone… at least from Wikipedia). Permstrump (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Just so you know Permstrump there have been elaborate hoax articles in the past Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Yuri Gadyukin and Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Bucharest Film Festival are good examples. Both of these had corresponding pages at IMDb and they did not remove them there until the hoax was discovered here. Sadly IMDb does almost zero fact checking when items are submitted and that is why we have WP:RS/IMDB. I would like to suggest that you consider posting at either the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard or the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard before posting at AN/I. It isn't that you can't post there it is just that posts at AN/I are meant to be a "last resort that needs attention ASAP" and they sometimes get ignored if other venues haven't been tried first. I am not sure which of the two I've mentioned would be better. Maybe other editors will chime in with their thoughts. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. MarnetteD|Talk 02:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

MarnetteD, That's all really helpful, thanks! (Also interesting to read about the other hoaxes!) I will start with the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard because that one seems like it's been a little more lively recently than the living persons noticeboard. Permstrump (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Permstrump, I also think it is good advice not to jump directly to the drama at the ANI board until it is clear what we have here. As User:Steve notes, the existence of Chaney and some of his projects are not in question -- but rather how much of the text is hoaxy or fraudulent. If the amount is too extensive (which is appearing to be the case), than my own inclination would be to delete the articles and only allow recreation (if any) from scratch. However, as an administrator, I'd need to see that demonstrated first. A single AFD on America: A Call to Greatness would be the best start. I find AFDs with multiple nominations are often messy and fail to reach consensus. A focused deletion discussion can come to a consensus on the extent of the hoax material -- and then, given the evidence from the AFD, broader administrative decisions can be made on what to do about the SPA accounts (block, bans, warnings, etc.) and other articles. The RS noticeboard would also be helpful here. As you say, this is a real rabbit hole and it has been going on since 2011, so it will take a little time to investigate and correct. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

CactusWriter, thanks for the advice about not bundling AFDs. I think that makes a lot of sense here especially, since all of the pages are technically for distinct works across genres, even though they're all technically connected by the same writer/director/producer/actor, Warren H. Chaney. FWIW I ended up posting on the BLP noticeboard instead of the RS noticeboard, because it looked like the RS noticeboard was to ask for help deciding if a reference was reliable. I think it's pretty clear that there aren't any reliable sources in this article, so I wasn't sure what question I would be asking them. P.S. I know I'm splitting hairs, but I just can't see how America: A Call to Greatness ever existed beyond a 10 minute YouTube video. I agree that the rest of the articles related to Chaney's film/TV "career" seem to have a grain of truth to them. I'm not positive about his books though. I'm just thinking aloud, not trying to debate it here. It's hard to hold it in. :) Permstrump (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America: A Call to Greatness. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for creating this. Perhaps we should start a non-mainspace page dedicated to listing all the relevant articles and excising or deleting as needed? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Awesome. I wasn't sure how long to wait before making an AfD since I'm the one who initiated the discussion here and didn't want it to be perceived as [that Wikipedia term I'm forgetting for recruiting like-minded people to a debate about an article]. I don't know if that was a legitimate concern, but now I don't have to hem and haw about it, so thanks, CactusWriter! Erik, I've never seen that done before. How does it work?

FWIW these are the active actions/discussions related Warren H. Chaney that I'm aware of: 1) AfD for an article on his book Dynamic Mind, 2) this discussion, 3) a hoax template at the top of America: A Call to Greatness, 4) a blurb about my concerns on Talk:America: A Call to Greatness and a little bit of discussion about a specific BLP that I need to figure out how to merge with 5) the post on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard about how to handle the numerous celebrities that have America: A Call to Greatness or other Chaney "productions" erroneously attributed to them on their BLP. Permstrump (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Well this is a rabbit hole. Copying some of what I wrote at the above AfD as it seems more appropriate here: Just for fun I started looking up some other things in Chaney's "Superb Speakers" profile. The first thing I checked: Using Neuroplasticity to Achieve Cognitive Change, Warren H. Chaney, Ph.D., Journal of Applied Cognitive-Behavioral Science, Volume 5, 1st Quarter, 2009, pp. 132-145. Google doesn't know anything about the title or the journal. Second thing checked: The Right Stuff - What is It? Warren H. Chaney, Ph.D., Your New Mind, (On Line Journal), 1st Quarter, 2008. "Your New Mind" took some searching, but I found it! Behold a .blogspot blog with two posts, one of which is Chaney's -- basically an ad for Mind Dynamics’ Workshops. Before coming across this discussion I also started to check out some Chaney-related articles and discovered what others did -- a preponderance of sources which either don't seem to exist, are based on user-generated content, or which have a direct (albeit often hidden) connection to Chaney himself. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Sinclairindex, primarily responsible for several of these articles including the one on Chaney himself, claims to know Chaney... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Aye, Sinclairindex is the main SPA to have edited these articles and uploaded images from all of Chaney's "films". It might be worth having someone on the OTRS team look at what the tickets consist of, where the permissions for the files he or she uploaded came from. Steve ^T • C 23:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Orangemike, who noticed some issues with the Call to Greatness article a few years ago (which Sinclairindex removed). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Wow. This is pretty much one of Wikipedia's worst nightmares. I've nominated Space Patrol Chronicles for AfD here and I have a feeling that this will likely end with all of the articles getting deleted. I also hate to say this... but we should probably treat any and all sources with suspicion unless we can prove that the coverage was real and the end product actually got released. For example, I know that there are one or two news links that discuss the making of the America film, but there's also none that actually confirm that it aired. It wasn't exactly impossible for someone to walk up to a newspaper and make a false claim to be working on something, so that's always a possibility. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• I am seeing some usable sources for Chaney, but I would actually argue that the article should just be TNT'd and started afresh without all of this promotional garbage in its edit history. If there is some socking or meating going on here, I think that leaving his article history intact would just encourage them to come back and try to revert the edit history. It'd certainly be easier to just take the usable sources and make a new article based on what's in those than to try to search for things that would back up the claims in the article AND try to remove all of the puffery. I don't think that there's any rescuing the Chaney article as it currently stands. We can only re-write it to actually fit guidelines. Also, ping me when you guys do the inevitable SPI so I can give my endorsement. I'm not sure if this is socking or meating, but I find it very difficult to believe that these SPAs are unrelated. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Uh oh... looking through the various talk pages which link back to User:Sinclairindex and -- surprise -- find it happens to be other Chaney-related SPAs making random existence-confirming comments (e.g. "I used to watch this" or "I saw an article about this") on the talk pages (and working on similar articles).

• LawStClaire commented at Talk:Y2K – World in Crisis. The only two pages he/she edited were User:Sinclairindex and this file for deletion discussion about an image of Deborah Winters. Coincidentally, there was a COIN thread about Sinclairindex spamming Deborah Winters-related material.
• Buzzsawyer commented at Talk:Behind the Mask (1992 film), Talk:America: A Call to Greatness, Talk:Intercontinental Releasing Corporation, Talk:Magic Mansion, . Also coincidentally into neuroplasticity and memory. Also happened to upload a bunch of Chaney images.... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'm running into issues with the Magic Mansion article. A search is bringing up zip to show that this show is notable. Hell, I can't even really guarantee that this even really exists. There's a mention here but the book was published in 2014, years after the article was written. Given that this supposedly ran for 100+ episodes you'd think that there would be something out there that isn't primary or dodgy as hell. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Tokyogirl79, the only sock on my list that you didn't mention is Neverland1 who, in an interesting twist, initially made a weak attempt to contest deletion on Dbrodbeck's AfP for Dynamic Mind (also by Chaney), but after we went through each source one by one and shot down single one of them, waived his flag of surrender without much of a fight. It makes me wonder how the rest of this will play out. It will certainly be anticlimactic if we wake up tomorrow and find that all of these pages have been mysteriously deleted. Permstrump (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Someone created a thread on Imdb/getsatisfaction about this. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: I have created an SPI for the SPA accounts. If anyone runs across more, please add them or you can notify me to do so. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Magic Mansion is now up for AfD here. I've lumped the episode list article in the AfD as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• Y2K – World in Crisis is now up for AfD as well. Other articles that still need to be examined are as follows:

1. Haunted (1991 film)
2. Into the Spider's Web
3. The Hidden Jungle
4. The Lamp (1986 film)
5. The Broken Spur
6. Intercontinental Releasing Corporation
7. Behind the Mask (1992 film)

This is of course not including the articles for Chaney and his wife Winters. In any case, the above were all created by Sinclairindex and assuming that any of these do actually exist and may pass notability guidelines, I'd recommend deleting them and starting them from scratch given that we've clear evidence that we very likely cannot trust anything from this editor. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'd do them myself, but I'm going close to 24 hours without sleep and am about to crash. Although if the SPI comes back positive then we could probably sweet talk an uninvolved admin into just TNT-ing the lot just because we can't trust any of these to be factual or notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• It also looks like The Outing (film) is somewhat related to this, as it's the same film as The Lamp, just edited if the claims are true. I'll check on sources for this when I wake up, if no one else does it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for laying it all out like this and the AfD's you started! I'm about to start responding to your new AfDs and dealing with the inappropriate references to this film on the 28+ BLPs of its cast members, starting with Buzz Aldrin. I can't decide if I should tag it as disputed or delete this movie completely from their filmographies. I was leaning towards tagging them, so the depth of this problem would be readily apparent to whatever objective 3rd party has to investigate. Does that make sense or does it sound like a waste of time when they need to be deleted anyway? Permstrump (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

This sure seems like it might grow into an unwieldy affair, spread out over so many pages and with so much potential evidence. I've tried to gather all the relevant links/pages here: User:Rhododendrites/Chaney. I'd welcome anyone else to edit as they see fit and wouldn't be opposed to moving it out of userspace if someone has a better idea of where it could go. Seems useful to have a place to tie things together and a central point of talk (presumably, User talk:Rhododendrites/Chaney or wherever the page ends up). Do what you will -- it's useful for me, at least, to wrap my head around this nonsense. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: That looks great! Earlier today Erik suggested moving the conversation to another page, but I didn't have a clue how to go about it. I vote to move the conversation to User talk:Rhododendrites/Chaney, so this thread doesn't take up more space on the film project page. Permstrump (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

To update everyone, three accounts have been indefinitely banned based on the sockpuppetry investigation. Not sure if there are any articles by these accounts that have not yet gone to AfD, but they could instead be speedied with {{db-banned}}. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Erik. There are a couple points of order in regards to your post. The editors are WP:BLOCKed not banned. WP:BAN is a different thing altogether. I'm sure most editors know what you are getting at but some might not be aware of the distinction. Next, as to the speedy deletion tag, the guidelines at WP:G5 state "To qualify, the edit or article must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion." As far as I can tell this does not apply to any of the articles that we are dealing with. Don't get me wrong I wish that the {{db-banned}} could be used. But, we will have to proceed with the AFD process for now. Once again my thanks to everyone for all of the work that they are performing in this situation. MarnetteD|Talk 16:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification! Really impressed with the professional clean-up job done by numerous editors here and elsewhere. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Magic lanterns and film

Should magic lanterns be considered a sub-topic of film, and part of this project? It seems to be a significant precursor to modern film. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Really? I would think it's more related to photographic slides and their modern descendants. BMK (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Cabin in the Sky (film)

@SNUGGUMS: used Twinkle to remove wikilinks to the film Cabin in the Sky, [1], saying it was deleted, but the correct article name is Cabin in the Sky (film), so these links need to be restored and corrected. Would someone who uses a automated tool please do this? BMK (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I am plugging away on these. If anyone else does (automated or manually) please be aware that, in restoring the links, that some of them should go to the play Cabin in the Sky (play) and not the film. You just have to take a moment and make sure of the context of the article and the section that the link is in. MarnetteD|Talk 05:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay I think I got them all. There was also a song from the play/musical with the same title to further complicate things. I am pretty sure I got them linked to the right page but I got a little bleary eyed toward the end so if any are incorrect my apologies. MarnetteD|Talk 07:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

There really should be an automated tool to automatically fix the links, and I would've used that instead of I could. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Marnette. BMK (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome BMK. As I pondered the situation this morning I don't think this one could have been automated SNUGGUMS. The links were split pretty close to 50/50 between the film and the play (not counting the few that were about songs from either) and I don't know that bots could have been programmed to distinguish between the two. MarnetteD|Talk 15:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

In my brief perusal of them before I turned in I didn't see that, I thought that they were primarily about the film. Good to get that straightened out. BMK (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema/Telugu cinema task force

There is currently an MfD nomination in progress for this page at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema/Telugu cinema task force. 103.6.159.75 (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The Queen of Ireland (film) move request

A requested move discussion has been initiated for The Queen of Ireland (film) to be moved to The Queen of Ireland. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion at Talk:The Queen of Ireland (film)#Requested move 14 December 2015. --Scolaire (talk) 12:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

"North America"

A number of articles about films split box-office figures between "North America" and "outside North America". The practice seems to stem from the fact that the film industry amalgamates US and Canadian ticket sales. Boxofficemojo for instance describes these as "domestic". However, calling the US and Canada together "North America" is an astonishing howler. Mexico, which is also in North America, has a population about three-and-a-half times that of Canada, so we're not talking about a minor difference in terms of ticket sales, here, but of completely skewed figures. I have corrected this on a few articles whenever I have spotted it but @Adamstom.97: has reverted me on Iron Man 2 with the claim that "it is accepted across Wikipedia" so I thought I would ask here. To me this is a clear case of an error spreading memetically, and though it might be the case that Wikpedia editors understand that North America is short-hand in this context for US+CA, I don't think it is reasonable to expect a reader to know that. Has this been discussed before? Is there such a policy? Mezigue (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

MOS:FILM#Box office. We do not use the term "Domestic", instead using proper "territory names". In the film industry, a film released in the United States and Canada (such as Iron Man 2) is a "North American" film. Again, this is the industry defining this, not Wikipedia; we follow and use the terms from the industry. Other territory release info, such as in Mexico, would go in an "Outside North America" section, should there be enough info to warrant sections. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

No, we should not use "North American" like this in film articles. It is specialist language that we need to avoid on this general and global encyclopedia. "North America" in box office lexicon refers to the United States and Canada only and excludes a host of other North American countries. It is more appropriate and accurate to state "United States and Canada" instead. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Though one flexible approach would be to say "North America (U.S. and Canada)", but with the dispute being section headings, we should go with "United States and Canada". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it is ok to use "North America" in place of United States and Canada provided it is made clear in the initial usage, since having to write "United States and Canada" every time is laborious. Likewise with the UK market which actually includes the United Kingdom, Ireland and Malta(!). Keeping things clear is a necessity in a global enyclopedia, but keeping things concise is also a virtue which whould not be overlooked. I agree with Erik about section headings. Betty Logan (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Off-topic There is a discussion about box-office table formats which could do with some further input (several options up for grabs). For those editors with an interest in this sort of thing comments would be welcome at Talk:2015_in_film#Disagrreement. Betty Logan (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Academy Award page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Limitless page move

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Cinderella (2015 Indian film) page move

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to create an infobox for fictional conflicts

I am proposing that an infobox be created for fictional conflicts, as currently many articles on fictional conflicts, as well as a real-time virtual battle, use Template:Infobox military conflict. To centralize discussion, please reply, if interested, at the infobox talk page I've linked to here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Awards season

Looks like it's awards season. I don't usually get too involved in awards drama, but it looks like we're getting a lot of updates to a lot of pages, and these are going to need to be sourced. Also, it looks like a few new pages are being created, such as 2015 Boston Online Film Critics Association Awards. I can't help but notice that neither Boston Online Film Critics Association Awards nor Boston Online Film Critics Association exist at the time of my writing this message. So, get ready for a deluge of non-notable awards and awards pages, I guess. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Random facts: According to whois.net the award site was created in 2011. I only see three news articles mentioning "Boston Online Film Critics Association Awards". They seem to occur circa Feb/March 2014 and are written in Italian. The article was created by this guy who seems to edit primarily in film award articles, many of which lack any attempt to establish notability, like National Board of Review Awards 2015, Art Directors Guild Awards 2014, (this one may have some legs, since I notice that a related template was created in 2006. I dunno.) Costume Designers Guild Awards 2014, and so on. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Digging deeper, there was some kind of drama over their winners list, so it's at least conceivable that the BOFCA is notable. But I'm not too keen on awards-by-year and best actor/actress/film sub-articles for every regional critics society. If we had a guideline on that, I think it would help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It might be somewhat helpful to look into the people behind the award. If the site is run by people who have some expertise in the field, and if some major sites are acknowledging their awards (as it appears may be happening) then maybe they're worth considering. I do fear, however, that any start-up award can get publicity through the dissemination of clever press releases. Any controversial counter-opinion ultimately means more page hits for the reporting site, so maybe they like award start-ups? I dunno. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, not sure if you were around before, but there have been a number of debates here at WT:FILM about awards organization articles. The biggest challenge about these organizations is that not a lot is written about them directly. Periodicals do report the recognitions that come out of such organizations. Generally speaking, an organization should satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH to have its own article. However, that guideline does say, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." In the case of BOFCA, there is a lack of in-depth coverage, but numerous periodicals, including trade papers Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, have reported that organization's recognitions. The problem is that the coverage is essentially just list of awards. We could either have a consensus to permit such award articles based on multiple shallow sources or not. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

For many of them, it's tough for me to say whether they're notable or not. There's usually some kind of minor coverage in their home town newspaper, and their glorified press releases often get highly replicated across reliable sources. If there isn't even that much, then, yeah, I'd say it's a clear delete. Obviously, a bunch of press releases isn't enough for orgdepth/gng, but I'm willing to stretch the rules a little when there's something to supplement it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

There's a mess developing over at Brooklyn (film) and I can't get to it right now, if anyone wants to clean it up. Lapadite (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yikes. Luckily, that seems to have cleared up. Going through the article history, it looks like someone was adding the standard "universal acclaim" puffery. I think I'm too tired right now, but I'll see if I can source those awards later. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• For me, I think that an awards organization could be considered notable if there are multiple notable RS reporting on the results. IE, if at least 4-5 RS like Twitch Film and the NYT report the award results, that can be a sign of notability even if they're just reprinting a basic list. If it's an article-article, then so much the better. I've noticed that especially lately, many of the major film websites tend to skip reporting results of all but the more well known organizations because there's just so many of them nowadays and there seems to be more and more coming up all the time. The organizations might be serious and not award factories like some of the stuff out there (meaning that they only give out about 20-30 awards or less a year) but it's not exactly hard for places to launch nowadays. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest editors watch List of accolades received by Carol (film) for indiscriminate entries. There have been some non-notable minor awards cited to unreliable sources since before the list was split. On that note, I figure AwardsDaily is a reliable source for this context, as one of its editors is Sasha Stone, who's written for various industry magazines. Lapadite (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC at WT:ANIME

There is an important RfC at WT:ANIME in regards to production companies and anime film articles. The RFC can be found at here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Use of year categories in upcoming films

Please see Talk:Captain_America:_Civil_War#Category:2016_films for a discussion on using year categories for upcoming films. BOVINEBOY2008 16:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Note that TriiipleThreat is still banging on about this. FFS. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am but not for the same issue being raised here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Pedro Costa

Pedro Costa's article notes that he was born on 3 March 1959. Several of the foreign-language Wikipedias, as well as many internet websites, also give the dates 30 December 1958 and 3 January 1959. Thoughts? I have not been able to adjudicate independently which date is the correct one. Thanks. 109.67.195.14 (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Numerous search results in Google Books shows his birth year to be 1959. Not finding anything immediately about the specific month and day. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Please write back if you find more information. 109.67.195.14 (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a biographical article does not have to show the specific date of birth. We can use a template to use that birth year and estimate his age within 1 year or so. See Alex Tse as an example. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

3.3.1959 still seems to be the most popular and is also the one appearing on IMDb, so I will leave it at that. I was simply wondering maybe there is someone here who knows for sure... 109.67.195.14 (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Even if it is popular, it may still be incorrect if we cannot find a reliable source stating it. IMDb is not considered reliable for Wikipedia's purposes because content is user-submitted and likely not closely-reviewed. I would recommend putting just the birth year for now until someone can find a reliable source showing the full birthdate. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Some sources I can find for now: 30.12.1958 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6); 3.3.1959 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15); 3.1.1959 (1). 109.67.195.14 (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Changed his date of birth on his article to 30.12.1958 for the time being given that the most reliable source I could find online for the time being, Jornal de Notícias, a daily which is one of the oldest in Portugal, states it as true. Please comment if you believe otherwise. 109.67.195.14 (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to join a Star Wars discussion

This is a neutral notice to have additional members of this project weigh in on a discussion at Star Wars: The Force Awakens regarding including it being known as Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens in the lead. (Note this is not a discussion regarding moving the article.) You can find the discussion here, and for those of you sensative to spoilers regarding the film, this section does not have any and you should be able to avoid any on the talk page if you click that link directly and stay at the top of the talk page. (There are a few minor ones at the very bottom currently). Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Is Funny Games a horror film?

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

AfD notice

The article on the short film NHAMO has been nominated for deletion. As it has passed through two relisting cycles without any comment, members of the project may wish to take a look and opine on whether or not it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Zoolander No. 2

Regarding Zoolander No. 2, an editor tried to move it to Zoolander 2. However, this film's billing block appears to show that the official title is Zoolander No. 2. Can we make this assumption? This says the billing block is "the product of detailed legal agreements and intense contract negotiation", so it seems correct to call it Zoolander No. 2 instead of Zoolander 2, though the official website uses the latter. There is a discussion on the talk page here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikiclaus' cheer to all.

		Wikiclaus greetings
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing everyone the happiest of Wikiclaus' Wikipedian good cheer. This message is intended to celebrate the holiday season, promote WikiCheer, and to hopefully make your day just a little bit better, for Wikiclaus encourages us all to spread smiles, fellowship, and seasonal good cheer by wishing others a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings and the happiest of holiday spirits from Wikiclaus !

Have a good one too, Michael. Thanks for all your excellent work over the past year. I think I'll spend the day watching Requiem for a Dream, Stroszek and 21 Grams to get me in the festive mood. Ho ho ho. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Millennium (miniseries)

I made a topic about turning the Millennium TV miniseries into a film series article instead. You can find more about the situation here. Lucia Black (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

How do we judge how actor articles should be rated?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Angelina Jolie#How do we judge how actor articles should be rated?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Casting consensus

I've lately been trying to help improve Wikipedia by trying to cut down on some of the clutter in the production section articles. I find that many such production sections consist mostly of "On (Insert Date here) X joined the cast. On (Insert Date Here) X Joined the cast, and so on and so on some times for paragraphs at a time, Lately, within the past few months or so I've been just deleting these section because the information provided is trivial at best, and the cluttered look, I believe hurts the project more than helps it. Lately I've been running into a few people who think that this is the wrong approach because they say the information of when cast members joined is valuable information that should be kept regardless of the clutter. I'm starting to think that. I may be in the wrong, because I just want to make these articles useful, I don't think I should have to fight about it. So I kinda wanted to get a project wide opinion on this.

I would present to you as an example of what I'm talking about Pete's Dragon. I would say that when compared to something like Inside Out (2015 film)the production section leaves a lot to be desired and has a lot of indiscriminite details that don't belong there.

I don't know I'm getting really sick of fighting these fights and was just hoping that we could all come to a consensus about how these sections should handle casting news. --Deathawk (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

My initial thought is that it could be reasonably argued that "John Doe joined the cast on MMDDYY" is trivial and probably can be safely removed once a film has been released, though it may be interesting/useful prior to that point. If there's meatier information relating to their casting, then it should probably be retained. DonIago (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Specific dates are of little use, however more general time references can be useful for contextual purposes so the reader understands how the film came together. These can also be grouped together depending on the general time so we do not have a bunch of short sentences.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Another issue is that is there are sources of actors who have appeared in the movie and are appearing in upcoming ones that should be kept in either in the production section or whatever section that they should be in if we're going to make these kinds of changes. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the proseline clutter needs to be addressed. The details do not necessarily have to be removed entirely, but at least compressed. Here's an example of what I did at Gods of Egypt (film):

• Before: On 5 June 2013, actor Nikolaj Coster-Waldau has signed up to star in the film as Horus, a God of the sky. On September 24, 2013, Gerard Butler also joined the film's cast to play the role of Set, a God of the desert, storms and foreigners in ancient Egyptian religion. On the same day Geoffrey Rush also closed a deal to join the epic fantasy Gods of Egypt for Summit, he'll play the role of Ra, a God of the Sun and also father of Set and Osiris. Later on 7 October, Summit added Brenton Thwaites as a lead actor in the fantasy film's cast, he will play Bek, a human thief. On December 12, 2013, a new actress Courtney Eaton joined the film as a lead actress, she will be playing the role of Zaya, a slave girl who is cursed by Set. On January 30, 2014, Chadwick Boseman has signed on to star in the film as Thoth, the god of wisdom. On February 19, 2014 Élodie Yung joined the cast of the film as the goddess Hathor. On March 20, all other cast was also revealed as filming began, which includes Bruce Spence, Bryan Brown, Emma Booth, Abbey Lee Kershaw, Rachael Blake, Robyn Nevin, Paula Arundell, Alexander England, Goran D. Kleut and Yaya Deng.
• After: Actor Nikolaj Coster-Waldau was cast in June 2013. Gerard Butler, Geoffrey Rush, and Brenton Thwaites joined the cast toward the end of 2013. Chadwick Boseman and Elodie Yung joined the cast at the start of 2014.

Here, I excluded the character names since they can be seen in the "Cast" section and excluded actors who did not receive billing (the last sentence). I identified the first person to join the cast, then I grouped those who joined later that year. I also mentioned another group that joined at the beginning of the year. I applied WP:CITEBUNDLE here as well to avoid multiple footnotes at the end of a sentence. Maybe we do not need the new passage at all, but I think it at least helps frame the "Production" section, like to show that the first actor did not join until a year after the film began development. The problem with the proseline clutter is that sentence after sentence is just tacked on. The content has to be revisited after some growth to determine a cleaner way to present it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, based on Erik's suggestion, I think the first actors who joined any movie, top listing ones, anyone in the billing bulletin list at theatrical posters and any recurring actors who appeared in any film series should be included with reliable sources. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

If it's a clear case of WP:PROSELINE then that needs to be removed, but in the case of stubs and "start" class article you need to make sure you don't derail the development process. With Pete's Dragon what you basically have is a bare bones article, and the lighthouse stuff may be trivial as it stands but on the other hand it may have relevance if there were more context. I've done quite a bit of development work on stubs and "start" class articles and sometimes I have managed to integrate existing "trivia" into a more coherent article and on other occasions I have dropped it. Sometimes it is hard to tell at first what you are going to use and what you are not. Betty Logan (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I think what Deathawk was referring to is the 2016 remake of Pete's Dragon. And what we need to settle is how to resolve the issues of actors who joined in a film without causing any clashing issues of consensus. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I apologize, I was tired when I composed my initial massage and somehow forgot to include the 2016 at the end of Pete's Dragon. --Deathawk (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you think we should do with the trimmed down casting list Erik suggested? BattleshipMan (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and OpenCritic

I started a discussion about review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes. I would appreciate some feedback from some of this project's members. Thanks. SharkD  Talk  23:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Review score aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and OpenCritic. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Combined my section with this one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Mad Max page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC at Star Wars: The Force Awakens

There is an RfC at Star Wars: The Force Awakens regarding if a title including "Episode VII" should be considered an alternate title to the film. The RfC can be found here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The Rotten Tomatoes "Certified Fresh" designation at the Star Wars: The Force Awakens article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens#"Certified Fresh" designation. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Additional editors requested

At Under Siege, we have a couple of IP editors adding material to the Plot that I don't think is particularly helpful, but so far I'm the only reverting editor. A Talk page discussion has been initiated. Thanks for the assist! DonIago (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water director credit

Hey all, does anyone have any info about who was credited onscreen as the director of The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water? AFI says that Paul Tibbitt was the director, but the kids keep adding Mike Mitchell, who apparently directed the live-action sequences. Obviously we shouldn't be fabricating credits for people, and by comparison, we normally don't credit second unit directors. If Mitchell received an opening credit as one of the directors, that should be included. It's just not clear from my research whether that's the case or not. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, this was brought up last February here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thank you sir! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Time to look at what is best!!

The project needs to look at what is best for our readers... deleting all links/template to movies/actors and leaving 30 awards templates on actor pages does not help our readers. Project need sit down and fix the spam of templates without going out of there way to imped real navigation. Content editors keep bring this up again again again...they what to know why there work is being orphaned from templates. Dont be the project that people use as an example of what not to do WP:ADVICEPAGE!! Is this project sure that an article like Robert De Niro is better off with hundreds of links to unrelated articles over his films? Do our readers want to find related articles or unrelated articles...to most this setup seem backwards and counter productive. -- Moxy (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you talkin' to me....? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've had a quick look at the De Niro article and I assume your concern is the dozen or more templates at the foot of the article. These are all collapsed by default, so the readers aren't drawn to them in the first place. Now the harsh truth is that templates are here to stay. They're part of WP's fabric, as are categories and lists. Maybe there is an excess of them on De Niro's page, but where to start? You could say that some of those awards aren't worthy of a template, but which one? I don't know how "good" the Boston Society of Film Critics is, for example, compared with other film awards. You could start an RfC on that template to remove it. But I'll tell you what will happen. You'll get some editors defending it to their grave. You'll get another set of editors wanting it to be deleted. This will drag on for at least 30 days. Everyone will waste vast amounts of time and an admin will come along and close it as no consensus. Don't believe me? Go ahead and see. And the salt in the wound that only half-a-dozen or so people will probably contribute to get a (non)-"consensus". On the other hand, as De Niro isn't a Film, maybe this is best raised with the actor project... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

My point is being missed here...lets start over. We have editors and projects wondering why they cant link actors and film articles they work on in nav templates. Instead they see useless awards templates spammed all over. We have editors going out of there way orphaning 2 types of articles from navigational aids. Those that work on these article have the same right as anyone to have there articles seen by people in navboxes. Wikiprojects are here to help people ...not go out of there way to imped navigation in this manner. The project needs to sit down and tlak about there odd POV that films (and actors) can never be linked in navboxes....over spamming award templates all over. To use De Niro again as an example....no where on his page can someone find all his movies....yet we can find links to thousands of other actors. Does this sound like a good thing? Got to understand people navigate wiki in certain ways ....one of those ways is to skip to the bottom to find all the related links.....but this is not true for 2 types of articles...because all navigational links are being removed all over. Project is getting a bad rep!-- Moxy (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Those looking for a list of all of De Niro's movies could go to the Filmography section of his article, which would then direct the reader to Robert De Niro filmography. This seems pretty clear-cut to me. I'd like specific examples of what you see as a problem and what you would like changed, as this issue, at least, doesn't appear to me to be an issue. DonIago (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear here you think its best someone has to go to a secondary page to see the films...over a simple navboxe? Yet thousands of unrelated actors linked in navboxes is ok? -- Moxy (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, are you suggesting we should create filmography templates for actors and spam film articles with them? Because ultimately we would have dozens upon dozens of actor templates stacked up at the bottom of film articles. This is a hyperlinked encylopedia; readers are more than capable of following a link or two to get to the information they want without us shoving a ton of unwanted template code down their (possibly metered) internet connections. As for the award templates currently spamming De Niro's article, then yes they should go or at least be limited to award articles. Betty Logan (talk) 11:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Not what i am saying....not suggesting making new ones ..wondering why all films are being orphaned in navigational aids even in templates by other projects that are not devoted to films. And fix the spamming of awards templates. -- Moxy (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

"thousands of unrelated actors linked in navboxes" - Can you please provide an example of this? DonIago (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Doniago: He's referring to the awards templates. If De Niro won a specific award, the template is like, see who else won this award! I find this unnecessary (too many "tangentially related" links) when it could just be kept to a link to the awards page. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, okay; thanks for clarifying. Your approach makes sense to me. DonIago (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

"Project is getting a bad rep!" - Can you supply some proof of this? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Love project members to join the conversations Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Looking for guidance -- Moxy (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

So that's a "no". Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Denial will not solve anything....this is the big problem ...this attitude that this project owns all templates and does not care about what other projects and editors think....thus is why we have a guideline for just this -- Moxy (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't seem to see the problem here; although at times navboxes can seem over-loaded, they don't interfere with the article itself in any way; they don't affect or prevent any content or link usage throughout the article proper. Any other issue you feel the article, or any other, has is something separate and unrelated to how many navboxes it contains. GRAPPLE ^X 10:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

So lets look at just one example....we have Template:Madonna that Wikipedia:WikiProject Madonna took the time to make...that is stable for a decade. Then out of the blue because of this projects odd POV we have an edit war removing any of the films she is in.....as seen on the talk page its a problem to those that work on these articles....why would anyone orphan articles from a template in this manner as its counter-productive. Dont want templates devoted to films fine....but dont go around removing every link all over.....its pissing people off!!! -- Moxy (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You're still pissed off from going against consensus from May 2015? Well, as long as you don't hold a grudge... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Good example of what we are dealing with...the fact a council members has to tell editors what is happening is the problem!....happens alot! I said this just recently (suggesting its best to just let it be) .....again a problem that simply should not be there. Could we get some more feed back here on any solutions or a way forward without being a smart aleck . Questions to consider - Does this project really think its a good idea to remove all films (now spread to cast and crew) from all navigational aids. Does this project think this type of interaction with other projects and editors is a good thing or detrimental? Should there be an RfC to see if the community agrees that a certain type of article can be banned from navboxes in this manner? - Moxy (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Masters of Cinema

Please see these AfD discussions - one and two. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Review boxes

Why don't we use review boxes in film articles, collecting critical ratings, like we do for game and music articles? I'm not necessarily saying we should, just curious. Popcornduff (talk) 07:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm... that's actually not a bad idea. I think that part of what could stand in the way of this is that some film review websites don't use ranking scales (star ratings, percentage scores, etc), but enough do that there could be a good justification for an infobox. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • We used to have a template for such a thing, and it may still exist. I believe it fell out of favor because posting just a score does not give ample context and in reality is not saying much about the film. We generally prefer prose and having a review box encourages a gross abandonment of that. BOVINEBOY2008 12:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• They have existed in the past but have been deleted (see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_2#Template:Film_reviews and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_14#Template:Film_ratings). I suppose the question really is why do we need them when we already have review aggregators such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, since review boxes are generally just a less effective editor-constructed aggregator? Betty Logan (talk) 12:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

For video games, there are more universal reviewers that makes it easier to have a box. If the same applies for film articles, then that would be good. But each film is treated differently and will often have different reviewers. Lucia Black (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Also because we try and steer people away from just putting in "3 out of 4 stars" or something similar. Many viewers don't give ratings period anyway. We want critical reception sections to focus on prose, summarized content, not grab and paste quotes to sensationalize films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

for films it's a different culture. I do know we want people to focus on prose over stats. But in the end Its there to give a general idea. Especially finding out which ones we're negative. And which ones were positive. A lot of other types of media do this. But I understand why film project doesn't do it. Lucia Black (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

2014 celebrity photo hack information at the Jennifer Lawrence article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Jennifer Lawrence#Scandal. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

This matter has now become a WP:RfC; see Talk:Jennifer Lawrence#How best to include the material?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Academy Award for Technical Achievement

Do we have list of all winners and nominees? --Jobu0101 (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

YYYY in film

Hey all, I'm no expert on tables, but I don't believe that the "YYYY in film" articles (2015 in film, for instance) are in compliance with MOS:DTT as the large, multiple rowspans, and vertical text, do not facilitate accessibility for visually impaired users who employ screen readers. I've started converting some of the future articles (2020 in film, 2019 in film, 2018 in film) to a simpler format, which has two additional benefits: 1) They don't require casual editors to be savants at table formatting to add and subtract films. In my experience at the Indian equivalent (ex: List of Bollywood films of 2015), it was always a nightmare to fix other editors' rowspan errors, and I'm not very good at table formatting. Confuses the crap out of me. 2) By using {{DTS}}, all the tables can be made sortable, which is more useful if you're interested in listing by studio, or genre. I expect that my changes will ruffle some feathers, because "that's the way we've always done it, and what about the gorgeous colors?!" so I thought it wise to voice my perspective here before moving onto the beefier articles like 2016 and 2015. Thoughts? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's a real world example of the clean-up required. IP editor removes a title, Landingdude13 has to clean-up the rowspan crap. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I fed 2015 in film through Fangs screenreader emulator (available as an add-on for Firefox) and I can confirm there are problems. The vertical "January" is spelt out in letters J-A-N-U-A-R-Y, rather than as the word "January". As for the row-spanning, this renders fine of a technical level, but because the rows haven't been "scoped" a screen reader does not know when each new row starts (this can be easily fixed though). On that note I think this is a general improvement. Date spanning in the first column should be ok provided each row is appropriately scoped. Betty Logan (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

My head is swimming a little, Betty. Tables make me woozy. Can I trouble you to provide me with a general formatting example for how to get the rows properly scoped, so that if I go through with the conversion it's in keeping with your vision? I'm also unclear if you think it's wise to go with the simpler formatting style. As noted, there are issues with people not knowing how to deal with rowspans when they add and subtract films, so the simpler version seems the no-brainer to me. Happy new year! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

If you click on "edit" at List of most expensive films you can see an example of "scoping" in the first table. That should address any potential problems for screen-readers. Whether you decide to rowspan something or not is a trade off between simplicity and redundancy, how active the article is etc. If you have to fix it every other day then it is probably not worth the hassle, but ultimately I think that is an editorial decision. Betty Logan (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Redirect targets

(Not sure if this is the best place for this discussion - please feel free to suggest an alternative venue). Following on from a recent question on WP:RD/E, would Double feature be a better redirect target than B movie for Supporting feature, Program picture, and Second feature? The double feature article contains more useful information on the basic concept of the "second feature" - the B movie article is more about B movies as a genre, rather than the structure of theatrical programmes in the twentieth century. Tevildo (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Opinions needed on The Lobster

An editor and I disagree about The Lobster. Is it OK for a plot summary to incorporate details (names, settings etc) taken from a press release but not mentioned in the film itself? Check out the Talk page discussion. Popcornduff (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but they would then require an inline reference to their source, and that source would independently need be considered reliable. A plot summary doesn't need to just recap what's seen in a linear fashion. GRAPPLE ^X 16:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I could definitely be wrong on this one, but hear me out. I'm OK with talking about other information/interpretations in other sections, when sourced. But it seems to me that the plot summary should only summarise the movie's plot as it is presented in the movie - rather than incorporate details given from outside the movie. Is that just me?

WP:FILMPLOT states: "If there are differing perspectives of a film's events from secondary sources, simply describe the events on screen as basically as possible in the plot summary and report interpretations in another section of the article." Does that not apply here? edit: oh, of course it doesn't, it's been pointed out to me that a press release itself qualifies as a primary source, not a secondary source. Still, I think there's something philosophically weird about reporting stuff that doesn't actually come up in the film itself...? Popcornduff (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that if something is ambiguous it would be inappropriate to include it in the plot summary, but sometimes there are no differing perspectives and an event is strongly implied rather than shown literally on screen due to a censorship or time-saving issue. I accept it is not always clear cut but at the same time we don't need to deliberately obfuscate the plot out of some pedantic necessity; we are summarising the plot, not providing a screen captioning service. Sometimes secondary sources can be useful for clarifying a plot point provided it is not ambiguous and there are no differing interpretations. Betty Logan (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggest using lower-case for the names of the characters and buildings unless they are proper nouns or explicitly named as such. For example, "David and the short-sighted woman conspire to escape and live in the city as a couple." but "David escapes the hotel and joins the Loners in the woods". This would be like Curious George and "The man with the yellow hat" which would be what the latter would have to use until the name is officially given for the film. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

First release dates

Please see the film Honor Thy Father (film). This article is a magnet to Filipino fan-boys and sock accounts about the release date. I've had one sock blocked and another sock/SPA (User:Hollyckuhno) constantly remove/revise the release date. They have no fucking clue what they're doing. Can someone else help with this? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

It may be worth pointing out WP:FILMRELEASE: "Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival, a world premiere, or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings". So the domestic and festival dates both belong, though I'd favour the earliest overall if it needed to be narrowed down to one (which it doesn't). GRAPPLE ^X 13:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Honor Thy Father was first screened in TIFF. That is true and I did not said that it isn't. But the guidelines clearly states that screenings and previews are excluded and only the earliest release date in the country the film originates (produced) should be listed in the infobox, any other release dates must be written elsewhere. Hollyckuhno (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Sneak previews are excluded from the country that produced the film. Read the guidance again. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're reading, because I only just above quoted your link, and it does not say that. It recommends listing (1) the earliest screening, wherever that is; and (2) the first domestic screening. That means the Toronto festival and the Philipine release. GRAPPLE ^X 14:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Here - "...and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings". IE, excluding sneak previews in the country that produced the film. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Fine, then I would not argue anymore. I clearly misread the guideline. But I can't figure out why Lugnuts is so pissed with me instead of actually helping other Wikipedians to be better. Thanks. Hollyckuhno (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Because I believe you are a sock puppet and treat your edits with the contempt they deserve. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Opinions requested on Film Award Notability

A question has come up regarding the notability of a film reward. Please see Talk:List of accolades received by Inside Out section Movies for Grownups Awards.100.36.87.229 (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Summaries of critical response - revisited - again - revisited

The concept of summarizing critical response has been a thorn in my side for a while and I've bellyached publicly on the side of "don't" summarize, especially when the aggregators are summaries themselves. As I've whined before, I patrol Indian cinema articles a great deal, because they're so problematic and prone to POV fluff. Often I'll seen an article cite a single source like at Kaththi: "Kaththi opened to mostly positive reviews from critics.[2]" or Irandaam Ulagam: "The film received mixede [sic] reviews from critics.[3]" and perhaps each summary is supported by a few selected reviews. Is that all it takes to substantiate the general critical response of a film to satisfy MOS:FILM? One ref? Two refs? The MOS says: The overall critical response to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources. If IBT is a reliable source (and it generally is considered such) do we post as fact this subjective evaluation? That seems like WP:UNDUE to me, especially when RT and Metacritic, sources that take a clear analytical approach to critical response are not always in alignment. How many subjective summaries are satisfactory to meet the MOS? Thanks all, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Supporting a summary statement with citations to individual reviews is synthesys/original research, so no number of citations is appropriate. It has to be cited to a reliable source that summarizes the film's reception (positive, acclaimed, mixed, etc), and it should be presented as such in the article; A summary statement of "opened to mostly positive reviews from critics" should be cited to a RS saying that the subject opened to "mostly positive" reviews. Lapadite (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

If multiple reliable sources say the same thing, then any of them can be referenced with the summary paraphrased and without the need for in-text attribution. If the sources are saying different things, then I have referenced different summaries, using in-text attribution to say who reported what. WP:DUE could be applied to go with one summary (without the need for in-text attribution) if most sources agree on how critics received the film, even though there may be one or two sources that digress. But how many sources to be considered is probably up to the editors. There could be more sources evaluated than actually referenced in the article body. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the above as well. Summary statements can be used, but should always be referenced by a source that actually summarizes the overall reception – not an individual review or group of reviews. By the way, since this has been brought up in other recent discussions, I don't think we should summarize when RT and MC are the only sources. In those situations, the summary statement is probably best avoided altogether. In your example, when we do have one or two summary sources, in-text attribution should probably be used to help distinguish between an opinion and a fact. As Erik stated, the attribution can be optionally avoided when there is a significant number of summary sources in agreement with one another. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree as well. If the NYT says the film "received positive reviews from critics", it's certainly fair to say the film received positive critical reviews and cite it. Why, when RT and/or MC spit out numbers we feel the need to interpret the numbers as being universally/largely/mostly positive/positive-to-mixed/mixed-to-positive/mixed... is beyond me. A percentage of critics on RT gave positive reviews. Whether that is 100%, 0% or somewhere in between is a fact we can cite. That this percentage of a limited group of critics means a specific word accurately describes the opinions of "critics" (all of them) is inexplicable, especially the need to twist the word "universally". Yes, tell readers what MC and RT said, but don't summarize their summaries. (I once saw a film series that received "mostly positive" reviews. It was a summary of the summaries of the summaries of RT and MC for the individual films. Meta-synthesis; brilliant.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Video in infobox

I've been working on re-encoding from source to webm and re-uploading some of the public domain/free short and feature films available. There aren't that many, but I was wondering whether where a high quality copy of the film itself is available directly on wikipedia having the video itself with an appropriate "thumbtime" representing the film well in the infobox itself as the lede image would be acceptable/desirable? It's seems to make sense to me over burying inherently the most important media on the page at the bottom as tends to be the case now. - Wolftick (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I would oppose any link of this sort in the infobox. Items at the bottom of the page are not buried and, in my experience, the external link section gets read every bit as much as the infobox. There are already links to the Internet Archive and YouTube in the EL sections for readers to watch films in the public domain. I don't know how this new source for films is more important than those. MarnetteD|Talk 00:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think he is suggesting adding a link, but rather integrating the full film into the article, if I have understood Wolftick's question correctly? I don't have any objection to that in principle (for public domain films), but it probably shouldn't go in the infobox. The point of having an image in the infobox is to provide visual identification, and I don't think a thumbnail is necessarily the best way of doing that. The plot section might be a convenient location for a thumbnail, since having the film directly accessible would support a synopsis. This is what is done at Night of the Living Dead, for example. Betty Logan (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'd be fine with Wolftick's suggestion. The "Play" button, as it were, isn't as obstructive as it used to be. Having it in the plot section works as well. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• As above I don't mean an external link. I mean a thumbnail from a file hosted on wikipedia/commons like the one in the "film" section here: Big Buck Bunny and used in a similar way to here: Stanley Kubrick (albeit that is not directly comparable). A poster makes sense to me in most cases, but where the film itself is contained within the page I think it could make sense to make that most prominent, especially when the quality is sufficient to make a good still too - Wolftick (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

When I made my post the only things I had to go on were the wording of the header for this thread, the phrase "burying inherently the most important media on the page at the bottom" {where the EL's are situated) and this User:Wolftick/sandbox all of which indicated that the request was to put these links in the infobox. Apologies for the errors in my WP:SYNTH. Placement in the body of the article is okay. However, I would ask how readers are supposed to know that the picture here Big Buck Bunny#Film is anything other than a big picture. A person has to know to click on the little image logo in the bottom right hand corner (not the picture itself mind) to get to the file page File:Big Buck Bunny 4K.webm and then click on the pointer to play the thing. This is a cumbersome process and, for me, a link in the EL's would be easier to deal with, but, if everyone else can make it work in the article then that would be fine. MarnetteD|Talk 02:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

My initial idea was indeed to use the video in the infobox such that the thumb would show either the title card or a representative still, something like my current sandbox. I still quite like this but I think per Betty Logan maybe the best place is within the plot section keeping the infobox consistent with Template:Infobox_film#Image while making the actual movie a prominent and consistently placed part of the page. Regarding readers knowing to play the file, I do think the play arrow is quite a strong prompt for most that is consistent for videos across wikpedia, especially when combined with a caption along the lines of "Full Movie (Running Time)". For me clicking the play icon plays the video in a popup without leaving the page rather than redirecting to the file page. I think this is default behaviour. - Wolftick (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

That is part of my point - in the Big Buck Bunny#Film section there is no play icon or listed run time when I look at it. Only the "enlarge" icon in the bottom right corner. I am sure that it has something to do with browsers or setup in the preferences but I cannot be the only reader or editor that this applies to. Any consensus that the rest of you come to in using these in the articles and making them so all readers will know what they are sounds good to me. MarnetteD|Talk 03:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Films relating to Christmas at AfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Persistent problem with leads

WP:LEAD It seems like the lead section in many film articles is as brief and cryptic as possible. I can't tell you how many times I have come across articles with leads like, "X is a 1995 film about a man with a car. Y starred as the man. It grossed $Z." This is barely an exaggeration. I'm not sure if this is deliberate or just a product of trying to write many articles about many films in a short time but I figured I would alert members of this project. The one section that virtually every film article has is "Plot" and two to four sentences describing what happens is entirely appropriate for summarizing the article. I get the impression (although this is unfounded speculation) that these obscure leads are to avoid "spoilers" which is contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

There's two types of editors - new article creators and those that add content to existing articles. I'm firmly in the former, and loathe writing plots for films. I can only think of two articles I've added the plot to out of the thousands of stubs I've started (one and two for those who care). I don't think it's an attempt to hide spoilers, just that there's not that many editors who spend that much time fleshing out plot sections (excluding the obvious blockbuster films, of course). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Writing accurate, guideline-appropriate plot sections is the worst; so doing it for any given article without having any real desire to greatly expand the whole article is a pain. This, coupled with the fact that most editors aren't overly concerned with an appropriate lead section (hence the fact that there's an ongoing contest to improve leads across the site), and you have your answer. GRAPPLE ^X 09:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't realise writing plot summaries was so loathed. Can't get enough of it, myself. Popcornduff (talk) 10:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not a fan of writing plot summaries myself. I see them re-written constantly because there are probably infinite ways to describe what happened in a film. In contrast, the other sections are not as heavily re-written. I used to avoid for a template that warned editors that the plot summary would be in flux and to focus on other sections, but I doubt that mattered.

Koavf, I think I know the kind of articles you mean, though I don't recall the last one I saw. I doubt that such light lead sections are on purpose. Any article that gets concerted effort means the key editors will summarize details into a lead section. If different editors contribute to an article over time (from being a stub), then someone may not necessarily have come by and said, we need to summarize all this upfront. Do you have an example to share? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Erik: Sure. This revision of The Gallows only says "The Gallows is a 2015 American found footage supernatural horror film..." in terms of plot. Of course writing a well-formed article is a challenge for any subject but it seems positively rampant for films in particular. I agree that summarizing the plot of a film can be written several ways and for something even borderline experimental, you can magnify those options. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I find writing a lead to be more tedious than a plot. If I already spent hours writing, summarizing, and copy editing an article, I generally don't want to restart that whole process for the lead. However, I've been trying to work on improving leads in film articles. I don't mind minimalist leads, but I agree they should have at least some kind of plot summary. I try to add this if it's missing. More often, it seems like I end up trimming trivia and synthesis from leads. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Examples In case anyone else is wondering, I just stumbled across two more examples purely by happenstance: Moon (film) and Source Code. I think these are fairly indicative of what I'm saying above. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

A lot of our WP:Good and WP:Featured film articles have fleshed out leads. The only time I worry about spoilers in the lead is per what I recently stated on the matter. The spoiler would need to be important to the lead for me to support it being there. As for the Plot section, the plot sections usually have spoilers and a lot of plot bloat to fix; we have WP:Film plot to try to keep the plot bloat under control. As for Lugnuts's point, there are also the editors who create articles and keep expanding/looking after those articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

A24 Films

Regarding A24 Films, I am interested in overhauling the "Filmography" table. I have a few ideas and have proposed them on the talk page as seen here. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

In film accolades lists, should a film placing 2nd or 3rd etc. be counted as a win?

For a long time, film accolades lists including featured lists have listed 2nd or 3rd as a win in their infobox and have also coded them green as wins in the main table e.g. List of accolades received by 12 Years a Slave (film). This was because they were seen as a special distinction different from simply being nominated. However I was unable to find the consensus in the archives for this. This issue was also brought up in this featured list candidate. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Lost in Translation (film)/archive1. I welcome comments on this so that we may establish consensus on this. I personally would not mind changing the tables and infobox if there was a template to show wins, nominations and placings as different entities. Cowlibob (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

When I wrote up List of accolades received by David Lynch, I included a field in the summary infobox awards outside of the normal "nominee/winner" process; I figure something similar could be used for these instances. GRAPPLE ^X 13:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You could use {{nom}} with customized text like "2nd". If they receive some designation like "Silver" or "Bronze" then you can color code with those colors as with Olympic competition {{won}}. If the award for second place has its own name then you can just use won. There are some Kpop music awards called Bonsang where the top 10 would win that physical award, but be a finalist for the Daesang. Similar for Best in Class and Best in Show for dog shows. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Fly Away Solo → Masaan page-move discussion

A request to move the film article Fly Away Solo to Masaan, has been initiated here. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion.—indopug (talk) 07:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Category: Films about women

I've started a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Films about women. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Renaming "List of Chinese films"

Pacerier (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC): ❝

The page List of Chinese films of 2015 writes:

...list of Chinese films first released in 2015.

However within the article, we seem to see the sub-condition "released in China" applied to the film listings. For example, "Our Times", a Chinese film that is not released in China (it's released in Taiwan) is not included in the film listings.

Should "list of Chinese films" be renamed to "list of films in China"?

❞

I think the intro needs changing, rather than the list renaming. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Rather than renaming it, I'd be of the opinion that we don't need lists of films by countries in which they were released. Especially if they're broken up by year, in which case we're looking at over a thousand lists per decade, for information that's not really useful. Even lists of films produced in a country seem redundant to me, given that they serve as little more than a glorified category page. GRAPPLE ^X 12:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Pacerier (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC): ❝

What do you mean? Do you mean to remove the 26 pages/lists, starting from List_of_Chinese_films#1905-1929?

❞

"Incomplete film lists" v. "Film incomplete lists" categories

What is the difference between Category:Incomplete film lists and Category:Film incomplete lists? If none, they should be nominated for merging; if there is a difference, someone should give an explanation on the category pages. Any advice?? Pegship (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be a difference, other than the awkwardness of the title of the second category. Would support a merge of the second into the first. In fact, I don't think that's even controversial enough to open up a discussion, you could simply be bold and do it, Pegship. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks like one is for public consumption (Category:Incomplete film lists) and the other is a maintenance "clean-up" category (Category:Film incomplete lists). Category:Incomplete film lists does have Category:WikiProject Film as a parent, while the other doesn't. Just an update - I don't think I'll be messing with these myself. Thanks for the input! Pegship (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Bugs Bunny gets a starring credit in Space Jam?

Anyone have a thought about this?. Every time Bugs Bunny's name is removed from the Starring parameter of the infobox at Space Jam, someone invariably re-adds it, so I'm going to temporarily assume the problem is my narrow thinking. Not sure if this is a legit poster to use, but here you go. I'm drawing the line at Daffy Duck though! He's not even on the frickin' poster! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

If Bugs is credited as an actor, rather than a character, in the film's credits, the sure, keep him in there. But if not, then don't. The Bugs Bunny name being used in advertising is no different than throwing a T-Rex into a trailer for The Lost World, but Mr. Rex doesn't get a credit for that one. GRAPPLE ^X 23:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I only know what the poster says. No idea about the crawling credits. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

He's fictional. He doesn't get listed. It's a marketing gimmick, not an actual credit. You cannot credit a fictional character in that way. It's not like he's part of the SAG.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, crediting him is nonsense. Popcornduff (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with BIGNOLE and Popcornduff. A cartoon character is not an actor. And Wikipedia pages on feature-length Disney movies like Fantasia or The Three Caballeros do not credit Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck as actors. - Xenxax (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

True, but on the other hand, we're suddenly gonna fault Bugs Bunny because Mickey and Donald didn't have the stones to find a great agent?! Just sayin'... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see the history of this issue or this discussion before editing before removing Bugs. (The IP made a "mistake" (?) in arguing that "Donald Kaufman" was nominated for an Oscar for Adaptation. Not true, that was Donald Kaufman, not "Donald Kaufman".)

Anyway, yeah, it's a marketing gimmick. Bugs cannot perform, receive a paycheck, eat carrots, &ct., so it cannot be a featured "performer". - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like this is also an issue at a few other articles (e.g. Looney Tunes: Back in Action). - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

There was a similar issue a while back about Mythbusters, and whether or not the inanimate crash test dummy they dubbed "Buster", should be listed as a cast member in the Wikipedia article, on the basis that The Discovery Channel website referred to Buster as a cast member. I was on the side of exclusion because inclusion seemed to defy common sense, but I could see where the inclusionists were coming from: that we should be going by what reliable sources say. Gah. Still seems silly to me for an encyclopedia to credit a cartoon rabbit as a star. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we want reliable sources. However, we prefer independent reliable sources. A couple of years back, we had an album being promoted as if it were a movie: "scenes" not "songs", "co-stars" not "featuring", etc. We decided (somewhere...) that no, it is an album with songs and such.

Dependent reliable sources will often state that a religious figure is still alive long after independent sources say they died. Dependent reliable sources will sometimes shave a few years to a decade off an actress's age compared to independent sources. Yes, kids' movies, TV shows, songs, books, etc. are often credited as being the work of fictional characters. Dependent reliable sources will say lots of things that independent reliable sources say simply are not so. How many self-proclaimed "innocent" murderers do we have? How about perpetual motion machines? Bugs Bunny is an idea. Ideas cannot act. Ideas cannot "star". - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I have removed similar credits at Looney Tunes: Back in Action, with an edit summary and talk page comment inviting discussion here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a complete non-issue. Fictional characters have been being credited throughout the history of cinema. I also can't but notice that Summer "PhD" removes all of her ad hominems and the false equivalency and strawman arguments she made while presenting this argument here, all the while saying I'm an IP who made a mistake? What mistake? Or was the fictional Donald Kaufman not only not credited with co-writing Adaptation but also not nominated for a real Academy Award? (Spoiler alert: He was). There never has been a rule that fictional characters cannot be credited. Aside from the dispositive fact that Bugs Bunny is listed above the title on the official poster (where the stars of the movie go), there is a long history of other fake names being used and discussed like the real stars, writers, directors, or editors of films. Not just psuedonyms like Alan Smithee but full-fledged alter-egos and fake personae. They get nominated, they get accolades, they get credit and sometimes they get unioncards. Also how often are dogs, horses and bears credited? They're listed in the cast, lots of things are listed in the cast. Sergeant Murphy comes to mind as the horse is credited. The point is: Never has there ever been a rule that only living people can be credited, it's up to the producers or director of each film to distribute the credit and for Wikipedia to neutrally report it. JesseRafe (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

What "ad hominems and the false equivalency and strawman arguments" are you talking about?

I see no personal attacks.

Wayne Knight is not a straw man. We credit him (the actor) not "Stanley 'Stan' Podolak" (the role). Similarly, the actor is Billy West. "Bugs Bunny" is a role, as independent reliable sources state. Bugs Bunny was not paid for performing ("starring" in this film). Billy West was, because he performed in the film.

Strawman arguments: We are talking about who we should credit as starring in a film. I say we credit actors, not roles, for films. You say the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences accepted a nomination for a writer. We credit actors. They nominate a writer. Which one discusses who we credit?

Yes, Terry (a real dog) played Toto in the Wizard of Oz (1939 film). Higgins (a real dog) played Benji in Benji (1974 film). Pal played Lassie, Bamboo Harvester played Mister Ed and Bruno the Bear played Gentle Ben. Real animals, not fictional ones.

Yes, primary sources sometimes say absurd things about themselves. Sometimes they are non-neutral or promotional. ("Billy West" on a poster doesn't sell tickets.) Wikipedia prefers independent reliable sources. (I hesitate to think what we would say about OxiClean if we preferred the company's statements over independent reliable sources.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you don't know how blatantly you are making strawman arguments and false equivalencies is why I call you a "PhD". Textbook keyboard warrior tactic. JesseRafe (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss the issue, not the editors, JesseRafe. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Does the film itself credit the character as a performer in its credit reel, or as a role being played? If it's the former, I'd be okay with it being listed as a credit with an inline ref explaining this; if the latter, then obviously it should only be treated as a character. For what it's worth, BFI list the film with plenty of "themselves" credits, but Bugs is just listed as a character played by Billy West (whose name, it should be said, would not sell as many tickets on a poster beside Jordan as his character's would). GRAPPLE ^X 14:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

As you note, independent reliable sources do not credit the fictional rabbit as an actor. Secondary sources contradict the primary source (the poster), tertiary sources agree with the secondary. Billy West was a performer in this film. Bugs Bunny is a character. "Stars" are principle performers. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia, not a entertainment guide. It may be cute to credit a fictional character as a star of a film, but it is blatantly wrong to call that character an actor of the film, given that it is the voice artist (Billy West here) that gets paid to do that role. It can be mentioned in a marketing section that Bugs etc. were marketed as stars of the film, but from a fundamental basis, no, the film does not star a fictional character, regardless of what other sources say. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

What about crediting Bugs Bunny then including a footnote explaining that the film itself credits him and who the current bugs bunny voice was at the time? While it may seem overly cute or gimmicky I think that if the movie itself does not credit a specific voice actor than we're just making an educated guess, which I would feel somewhat uncomfortable with. --Deathawk (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

IMDb, which typically reproduces screen credits quite reliably, does list West as the voice of Bugs. Other reliable sources also list West (e.g., The New York Times). To my knowledge, the only place that says Bugs is a "star" is the poster. It's marketing, nothing more - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

In that case it should clearly be credited to West. You could add a note in the markup so editors are aware of the situation. --Deathawk (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Kitchen sink realism

I've started a talk-page discussion on the relevance (or not) of two images added to the article. Opinions sought. Softlavender (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Daniel Craig in Star Wars

There seems to be an unconfirmed rumor flying around that Daniel Craig cameos in Star Wars. "Unconfirmed" as in Disney have not confirmed it and Craig himself denies it. An IP keeps adding the rumor to an article so I would appreciate a couple more opinions on the issue: Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films_in_the_United_Kingdom#Daniel_Craig_in_Star_Wars. The film has also been added to Craig's filmography at Daniel_Craig#Filmography and while this discussion does not address that article I have doubts about its inclusion there too. Betty Logan (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC) EDIT: There is a parallel discussion at Talk:Daniel_Craig#Star_Wars_rumor. Betty Logan (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

No credit, needs a source. No source, needs excised. That's always been the way with these things. GRAPPLE ^X 22:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Betty Logan - I wondered about that as well. However, it seems to be confirmed: The Daily Mail], [Yahoo News] (via The Sun), and Eonline. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The EOnline source Onel5969 is referring to is this article. Putting here to avoid editing One's reply. That article refers to this one and the language of that one makes me a little uncomfy tbh. I do advise continuing your current discretion. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I have a bad feeling about this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Could we not just write that multiple sources reported that Craig played the part, but Craig denies it? Both sides of the story, covered in one sentence. Popcornduff (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I suppose we could state something to that effect in the Daniel Craig article, but do we include an entry in his filmography for it when he denies being in it and no formal credit exists? Personally I would sit on it for a while and see how other "respectable" film databases handle it. Betty Logan (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Betty. I can see a future news source saying something along the lines of "...even Wikipedia reported the hoax of Craig being in Star Wars..." or words to that affect. So far we have rumours recycled by tabloid-esque Hollywood paps, with no real substance. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

All the so-called sources repeat the same line of "...He did it for sh–s and grins,” says one of the people with knowledge of the actor’s performance." with reference to Simon Pegg saying it happened. That's it. It's a rumour. Someone said someone did something. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for input

Hello I am looking for some people with more experience and comments/opinions on a series of articles [4] created by a single user over several years. My concerns are that almost every article I have looked at has no reliable sources and are nothing more then a plot summary on the film. As each of these films seem to predate computers sources may be difficult to track down, but I do not know where to start to my WP:BEFORE and am hoping someone here may be able to help. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

"Cinema" and "movie theatre"

The usage of "cinema" and the naming of "movie theater" is under discussion, see talk:movie theater -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The Revenant (2015 film) opening line

Please see this discussion about the opening line/lead section for this film. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Formatting of this page

Anybody have any ideas on how to better the table format on List of Big Five Academy Award winners and nominees ? Jennica^Talk 06:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd leave out the "Year in film" or the "Awards ceremony" column, one or the other would work fine. Maybe merge them so as to have the ceremony year a piped link to the ceremony (1934 Academy Award for example). I'd also consider the next column being the film's title ("Best picture"), then the other awards in sequence, then the other nomination guff. That other guff could also be trimmed or jettisoned, too—generally for lists like this, there's an extended lead/prose section that would cover additional information, so other wins by these films outside the "big five" could be covered there if necessary. I think how I would present it would be as follows:

Key

Symbol	Meaning
Bold green text	Winner
O	Best Original Screenplay
A	Best Adapted Screenplay

"Big Five" winners and nominees

Awards ceremony	Best Picture	Best Director	Best Actor	Best Actress	Best Screenplay	Notes	Ref(s)
7th Academy Awards (1934)	It Happened One Night	Frank Capra	Clark Gable	Claudette Colbert	Robert RiskinA

This should fit all on one page to make things much easier to navigate, without scrolling horizontally. I've also included the necessary formatting in there for compatibility with screenreaders, so if you copy that it should stand up to scrutiny for FLC if you go that far (plus it just means anyone relying on one can still read it). GRAPPLE ^X 16:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jennica: GRAPPLE ^X 21:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaning articles for templates

So we had no real reply here to the concerns raised by the council about omitting certain types of articles from navigational aids. So we are moving forward regardless of this projects willingness to participate or not in the discussion. As seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Looking for guidance we think it may be best to start a site-wide discussion on the matter. We will move forward with this in the next week or so....I will inform the project when this takes place. Thank you for your time. -- Moxy (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Moxy: This seems to be drama over MOS:FILM. Not sure exactly what the dispute is all about, but this is not an advice page from a WikiProject. It's a guideline that's part of the manual of style. WikiProject Film follows the guideline; we don't dictate what the guideline says. If you have a problem with the guideline, you can start an RFC on its talk page. I don't really see what WikiProject Council has to do with the MOS. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Please read the MOS your referring to.. there is advice from the project injected into the MOS. Beyond the MOS problem our concern is that editors of this project do not have the right to dictate that a certain type of article is not allowed in navigational aids and/or have the right to tell others they cant link the articles they work on in said navigation templates. We are concerned about the fact that films, actors and writers links are being deleted from all navigational templates despite the concerns raised by many editors and other Wikiprojects. Pls see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Looking for guidance for more info. -- Moxy (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Film adheres to WP:CLN in supporting appropriate implementation of navigation templates. It is against WP:CLN to have every actor's filmography available at the bottom of every film article. The disadvantages of this kind of bloated implementation have been articulated at various TfDs. I think the slippery-slope argument is vastly underestimated here. When we add a new field to the film infobox, it will get filled out everywhere. When we endorse director templates, such templates will be (and have been) made and inserted everywhere for everyone, including work-for-hire directors. To endorse non-director templates is to effectively endorse inserting all cast and crew members' filmographies in each and every film article, which is disadvantageous per WP:CLN. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Again the point is being missed....no one is saying the project needs more nav templates or is forced to use them in articles the project covers (you are free to use WP:BIDIRECTIONAL at your discretion) ....what is being said is that there is a problem that people from the project are removing all films, actors, directors and writes from all exciting templates because of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL . Prohibiting (Orphaning) certain types of articles from all nav templates even by other projects is the problem. -- Moxy (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

What is an example of this? It seems like an either/or proposition. If a multi-faceted person's navigation template includes specific film roles, are we not "compelled" to include their entire career in a film article per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, even if they only have a cameo role that is only "tangentially related"? How does this not amount to forced use when the setup doesn't satisfy advantages and have disadvantages? Perhaps there ought to be guidelines at WP:CLN regarding navigation templates for people since many tend to have varying degrees of involvement or contributions in society. If someone is a film director and also a musician, there could be separate templates for different bodies of work. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Not this again. Moxy is pissed off as actor's filmographies are removed (quite rightly) from actor templates. I think the previous example was the Madonna template. Quite sad that he's still going on about this, despite a clear consensus against it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 21:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You got it right Lugnuts...we are still dealing with this and have made the decision to move forward with or without this projects input...because its now moved on to actors, directors, cast and crew ...understanding consensus is the problem here WP:Local consensus. @ Erik I am sure most would agree there is no need to remove links just because the template is not wanted in a certain article (its an abuse of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL). Let me give a few examples... again as mentioned by "Lugnuts" ... an old one that the members of the Madonna project are still puzzled about no acting roles in navboxes. Then we have edits that people ask about at the help desks like this and this..... again all done to remove the template from the film and actor articles. People may argue that the links are reachable by others means ...but this POV does not think about those with accessibility issues ...making people have to click multiply times to find an article (every click is hard for some) and/or having to load huge pages (not all have fast internet nor unlimited data allowances) to find said info. Not to mention the fact many many readers navigate to the bottom of pages to find said info at a glance. Going out of our way to make a certain types of articles hard to navigate to is the opposite of what projects should be doing. If spam is a concern with the project just remove them from said article...over orphaning articles from templates just to stop there placement in one article. We are looking for common sense implementation of our policies and guidelines....not conflict driven edits.-- Moxy (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

pls see Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Banning articles from navigational aids

User:Mshmurd at film articles

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mshmurd at film articles. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC regarding navboxes for Actors, etc.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Banning articles from navigational aids. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments solicited - "YYYY in film" revisited - Tables in film summary articles

Hey guys, I brought this up a few weeks back, but dropped the matter because it was close to the holidays and I thought it'd be better to wait for everybody get back in the swing. There are a number of articles like 2014 in film, List of Bollywood films of 2013, List of Italian films of 2014, etc. which all use complicated tables like this:

Extended content

Opening Title Studio Cast and crew Genre(s) Ref. J A N U A R Y 1 Pinnokam D' Cinema A.Hamen Kumar (director/screenplay); A.Hamen Kumar, Anu Ramamoorthy, Aghonderan Sahadevan, Surenderaj Yuvaraj Action, Romance 8 20 Once Again CJ E&M Film Division Leste Chen (director); Yang Zishan, Kuei Ya-lei, Chen Bolin, Luhan Comedy Blackhat Universal Studios Michael Mann (director/screenplay); Morgan Davis Foehl (screenplay); Chris Hemsworth, Viola Davis, John Ortiz, Yorick van Wageningen, Tang Wei, Leehom Wang Action, Thriller, Mystery 14 I Aascar Film S. Shankar (director/screenplay); Subha (screenplay); Vikram, Amy Jackson, N. Santhanam, Suresh Gopi, Upen Patel, Ramkumar Ganesan Romantic, Thriller Wild Card Lions Gate Entertainment Simon West (director); William Goldman (screenwriter); Jason Statham, Stanley Tucci, Sofía Vergara, Milo Ventimiglia, Michael Angarano, Anne Heche, Hope Davis, Jason Alexander, Cedric the Entertainer, Max Casella Drama 15 Aambala Avni Cinemax Sundar C. (director); S. B. Ramadas (screenplay); Vishal, Prabhu, Hansika Motwani, Ramya Krishnan Action, Comedy Darling Dream Factory Sam Anton (director); G. V. Prakash Kumar, Nikki Galrani, Karunas, Srushti Dange Horror, Comedy 16 Spare Parts Lions Gate Entertainment Sean McNamara (director); Elissa Matsueda (screenplay); George Lopez, Jamie Lee Curtis, Carlos PenaVega, Alexa PenaVega, Marisa Tomei Drama The Wedding Ringer Screen Gems Jeremy Garelick (director/screenplay); Jay Lavender (screenplay); Kevin Hart, Josh Gad, Kaley Cuoco, Olivia Thirlby, Alan Ritchson, Mimi Rogers, Ken Howard, Affion Crockett, Lindsay Pearce, Jenifer Lewis, Cloris Leachman Romance, Comedy 21 Ex Machina A24 Films Alex Garland (director/screenplay); Domhnall Gleeson, Oscar Isaac, Alicia Vikander Sci-fi, Thriller 22 The Summer of Sangailė Fralita Films Alantė Kavaitė (director); Alantė Kavaitė (screenplay); Julija Steponaityte, Aistė Diržiūtė Drama 23 A Walk in the Woods Broad Green Pictures Ken Kwapis (director); Rick Kerb, Bill Holderman (screenplay); Robert Redford, Nick Nolte, Emma Thompson Adventure, Comedy, Biography Knock Knock Lionsgate Eli Roth (director/screenplay); Nicolás López, Guillermo Amoedo (screenplay) Keanu Reeves, Lorenza Izzo, Ana de Armas, Ignacia Allamand, Aaron Burns, Colleen Camp Erotic, Horror Mortdecai Lions Gate Entertainment David Koepp (director); Eric Aronson (screenwriter); Johnny Depp, Ewan McGregor, Olivia Munn, Aubrey Plaza, Oliver Platt, Gwyneth Paltrow, Paul Bettany, Ulrich Thomsen, Jeff Goldblum Action, Comedy

Initially was concerned that there were WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues, which may or may not be the case. I do know that formatting vertical text like this is problematic:

J<br />

U<br />

N<br />

E<br />

But my major problem with this style of table, is from a wikignome perspective. While they are intended to be pleasing to the eye, table formatting is confusing to begin with, and this fancy format requires casual editors to be familiar with nested rowspan formatting in order to add and subtract values. This very often necessitates that other editors clean up the mess. (Ex: Editor removes a title, Landingdude13 has to perform cleanup by adjusting the rowspans for September and for the 23rd.) This is not an efficient use of volunteer time.

My recommendation for future articles is that the community consider a simpler format, like this:

Extended content

Opening Name Genre Director Cast Source 7 October Half Girlfriend Romance/Drama Mohit Suri Arjun Kapoor, Shraddha Kapoor 28 October Ae Dil Hai Mushkil Drama/Romance Karan Johar Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Anushka Sharma, Ranbir Kapoor, Fawad Khan, Imran Abbas, Lisa Haydon 28 October Shivaay Action/Drama Ajay Devgn Ajay Devgn, Sayesha Saigal, Erika Kaar, Ali Kazmi, Jabbz Farooqi, Vir Das 11 November Rock On!! 2 Drama Sujaat Saudagar Farhan Akhtar, Arjun Rampal, Purab Kohli, Shraddha Kapoor, Prachi Desai, Shashank Arora, Shahana Goswami 23 December Dangal Biopic Nitesh Tiwari Aamir Khan, Sakshi Tanwar, Fatima Sana Shaikh, Sanya Malhotra, Rajkummar Rao

This general style would make it far more intuitive to add and subtract titles, and would add the functionality of being able to sort by date and title. (I will note that I'm not good with table formatting, so I'm sure there are significant improvements to be made here. Sorting by genre and cast would be somewhat pointless, I'm aware.) Anyhow, your thoughts are warmly solicited. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Image size discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size. A WP:Permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not we should keep the following wording: "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding." The latest aspect of the discussion is the 1.4 Amended proposal (2A) subsection. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has progressed to a WP:RfC: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#RfC: Should the guideline maintain the "As a general rule" wording or something similar?. A WP:Permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Use of the term "development hell"

On my WP:Watchlist today, I saw that Coconutporkpie is removing the term "development hell" from film articles, per MOS:JARGON, as seen here and here. While I understand Coconutporkpie's point, I don't see that we should be completely avoiding that term/article, especially in cases where the creator is using the term. We can, for example, WP:Pipelink it with clearer wording. My point is that "development hell" is standard film terminology, and we shouldn't WP:Orphan that article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

We can also use its alternative name "development limbo." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I saw that, too. I figured it wasn't a big enough deal to care about. Maybe it is jargon, but I think a link resolves the issue. Then again, if the concept can be explained without jargon, I guess that's just as well. So, I'm OK with pretty much any resolution of the issue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Not to fear. My intention is not to orphan the article, but merely to make film articles written for a general audience more intuitively understandable. "Development hell" is not a term in common use outside the entertainment industry field of entertainment. My impression is that most readers interested in a particular work of film will be primarily interested in the story, characters, cultural impact celebrity actors, etc., and will find unnecessary jargon to be distracting. Personally I feel think that diverting readers to a linked page so that they can understand a concept that could be simply explained in a handful of everyday words is snobbish and condescending. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

However, I see that a piped link such as stalled in development could provide the needed explanation while avoiding jargon. Since the link is a phrase, it signals that some concept is being referred to, while avoiding confusion with the general term Development. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I personally prefer Coconutporkpie's wording, which is much more accurate and encyclopedic. I think development hell should be avoided, and if or where a consensus deems it necessary to use, that it be placed in quotation marks. It's much better to state what actually happened than to use slang. Softlavender (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Coconutporkpie and Softlavender, I feel that we have the Development hell article for a valid reason: To educate readers on that topic. I don't find anything snobbish and condescending about that. If we are not going to link to that topic/mention it on Wikipedia, we shouldn't have a Wikipedia article on it. No matter those who dislike the term development hell, that is the name of the topic. And, like I noted, development limbo is the other name for it, and we can pipelink the term with wording that is considered more encyclopedic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, I don't think that the sequel to Wanted (2008 film) is in development. There is a difference between "in development" and "in development hell." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

For a comparison, enough of our editors feel that the term box office bomb is unencyclopedic, but we still link to it in our film articles, commonly pipelinked as "underperformed" or a similar term. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Existence of an article on Wikipedia does not mean that it either should or must be linked to, that it is encyclopedic wording, or that it is the optimal way to describe something on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:Orphan, existence of an article on Wikipedia does indeed mean that it should be linked to. But linking to the article because it exists is nowhere close to my main argument. Linking to the article because it explains an encyclopedic concept to our readers, and because there is a difference between "in development" and "in development hell" is my argument. Using "In development" when what is actually meant is "in development hell" is misleading. Not linking to an encyclopedic concept directly related to the topic because some editors don't like the term is a poor reason not to link to the concept. If we were talking about a MOS:Neo violation and a term that easily offends some of our readers, as in the case cisgender, then I would see the point. But even in that case, I noted pipelinking as an option. With the existence of pipelinking for "more appropriate" wording, there is no valid reason at all to avoid the development hell link in an article about a film discussing that aspect, and especially not when the creator has used that exact term for explaining the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, the filmmaker's point of view is not privileged over other sources, which may be more reliable. Giving due weight would mean choosing wording and descriptions—including linked topics—that reflect how reliable sources choose to talk about a topic. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, consensus as to not leaving articles as orphans does not override Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, including due weight and the general notability guideline. I'm not convinced that the concept of "development hell" is all that notable. Putting links to it wherever possible where they don't really belong, as seems to have been done, looks like simple advocacy for the phrase itself, in order to shore up a perception of notability where little exists (as well as noteworthiness vis-a-vis due weight). For instance, under Wanted (2008 film)#Sequel, the idea of "development hell" was not even alluded to by the source cited. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 04:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

NB: Wanted (2008 film) has been updated with more precise wording about the sequel's status. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think development hell is unencyclopedic - it's a well-used industry term, and I think is pretty clear in the meaning.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is meant to be a general reference, not a specialized industry publication. Accordingly, articles are written for a general audience, and everyday language is preferred (see Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable and Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Information style and tone). Another question is whether using the concept of "development hell" is original research, for example in The Man Who Killed Don Quixote. That example was easy to find; my impression is that there are probably numerous others, especially since a lot of these pop culture articles are poorly cited. [NB: that article has been updated. —Coconutporkpie (talk)] Even when a reliable source uses the term, as the New York Times does in their review of Broken City, I think that Wikipedia's job is to translate such jargon into everyday language. "Education" per se is not the aim; per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, we are neither a dictionary nor a guide to jargon. Due weight notwithstanding, I think that the use of specialty buzzwords in place of everyday language is jarring and distracting. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Coconutporkpie, nowhere did I state "the filmmaker's point of view is privileged over other sources." As for your argument that "consensus as to not leaving articles as orphans does not override Wikipedia's policies or guidelines," take note that WP:Consensus is a policy. Your interpretation of the WP:Jargon guideline does not mean that you are correct on this matter. I do not interpret WP:Jargon as meaning that we should not link to the encyclopedic topic of development hell. No matter what the topic is called, it is encyclopedic and is a notable topic with regard to the film industry, which is why it is noted in various screenwriting books. It's also why the development (film) link currently takes readers to the term; it's there to explain to readers what is meant by "Many projects fail to move beyond this stage." Wikilinks are there to help our readers. Linking should not be about whether or not an editor personally thinks that a term is notable or personally dislikes a term. It is supposed to be about what is best for our readers. You are going beyond the WP:Jargon guideline by removing links to the article altogether; you are not simply rewording. I don't have a problem with the rewording if it sounds more encyclopedic; I have a problem with you removing the link as though it's useless. If you doubt the notability of the development hell topic, then nominate it for deletion. Otherwise, I would like to see some form of WP:Consensus for you or the rest of us avoiding the link. So if we need to take the matter to MOS:Film, maybe start a WP:RfC on it and/or other film terms like "box office bomb," let's do that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I find the personal nature of the above previous comment to be inappropriate and insulting, so I will not reply to it except to say that it seems more like bullying then an attempt to reach consensus. I will only add to my above remarks that per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Vocabulary, new and specialized terms should not be introduced simply in order to educate the reader about them. In the case of "development hell", I think it's much more straightforward and informative to simply describe the facts: whether progress on the film stalled, and why. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

There was nothing personal about my "06:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)" comment, and certainly not any more personal than your commentary in this section. You've again focused on the terminology aspect. I focused on the linking aspect in my "06:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)" post. It's been established in this section, including by you, that rewording can be done without removing the link. So I stated, "I would like to see some form of WP:Consensus for you or the rest of us avoiding the link. So if we need to take the matter to MOS:Film, maybe start a WP:RfC on it and/or other film terms like 'box office bomb,' let's do that." I'm not going to be avoiding the link because of an editor's personal opinion on it, or because of their interpretation of a guideline. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: Since Coconutporkpie is still going around removing the term and link as though the term and/or link are banned, as seen here, I will soon be taking this matter to MOS:FILM and working it out there; sometime later this week or next week (if someone else doesn't address the matter there first). Editors commonly have this type of problem with those who strictly enforce the WP:Words to watch guideline (as noted more than once at that guideline talk page), despite that guideline being clear that the words noted there are not banned and that the guideline should not be applied rigidly. Guidelines are not policies. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

And, yes, I know that this was addressing wording not directly supported by the sources. It still doesn't take away from the fact that terms like "development hell," "box office bomb," etc. need to be discussed at MOS:FILM with regard to their use in our film articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Film release

Resolved

 – Talk page reached consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I recently watched a film, The Veil (2016 film). Normally, one would think that if you've seen a film, it's been released. However, Vmars22 seems to want to go by the DVD release date, as in this edit. I don't understand this, as it seems contrary to WP:FILMRELEASE and common sense. I started a discussion on the talk page, but he hasn't responded there yet. So, I'll try here to see if we can find consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Allmovie and BFI can be quite useful for release dates. We go by the earliest public release, be it at a festival, on home media or in cinemas (so if there's a release date that be cited that earlier than the DVD date in this case, use it). GRAPPLE ^X 20:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit war at The Little Prince (2015 film) over film's nationality

Hi all, there's been an ongoing edit-war about whether The Little Prince (2015 film) is a French-only film, or a French–Canadian co-production. One of the references cited in an edit summary is behind a paywall, screendaily.com. Neither party has yet opened a discussion, so I thought that if anyone here was interested in getting the ball rolling, that would be sweet. The article has been fully-protected. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

My advice is to strip it out; it isn't actually important what nationality it is and it's clearly causing much more hassle than it could ever be worth. GRAPPLE ^X 18:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Please correct film title - Incorrect spelling

The film Subah - O - Shyam is actually Subah-O-Shaam. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0158246/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uypoi (talk • contribs) 09:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks like you already moved it. I would be careful of using the IMDb as a reference for titles because that's user-generated content and follows its own conventions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

And the small matter of the copy + paste plot directly from IMDb too. I've left a note on the user's talkpage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Straigh outta Compton page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Film posters

Regarding this edit at File:Pride and Prejudice and Zombies poster.jpg which version of the film poster is better suited in the article. @Film Fan: believes this version is better because it is a US poster and it is a US film even though there is no date or billing block. I contend that the UK version is better because it has a billing block and shows the month/year of release, which is still inline with the US release. The only thing wrong is that it shows the UK distributor instead of the US distributor. What say you all?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Does the lack of a billing block not mean that it is a teaser poster? The inclusion of a billing block seems to make a poster more "final". I don't know if there are any strict guidelines to help decide. I think we tend to prefer the originating country's poster, though that seems inapplicable here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I say that the lack of a billing block and the generic "coming soon" suggests the US version is a teaser poster.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Given that, billing block/release dates aside, these posters are only going to be different aesthetically (and are really only used aesthetically, if we're honest about it), then we should obviously go with whichever one has more relevant information on it (which in this case would be the UK poster). GRAPPLE ^X 14:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

UK films use UK posters, US films use US posters. I don't see why that rule should be broken because of billing block. Might as well use the Japanese poster. The final US poster (not yet released) will trump both anyway. — Film Fan 14:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The film comes out next week in the US, though. There's not a more final US poster available? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Why not use the UK version which has more relevant information as Grapple X puts it until if and when the final US version is released?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I was wrong. The final US poster HAS been released. Uploading it now. — Film Fan 14:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, sweet! :) I guess that takes care of this debate. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Yup, good find Film Fan.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Assistance needed

There is a large amount of red in the Once Upon a Forest#References section. If anyone can untangle it that would be wonderful. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 04:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. The first citation shouldn't have had a refname. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix NinjaRobotPirate. MarnetteD|Talk 22:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)