Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 60

Archive 55

←

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

→

Archive 65

Production section problems

It's a new year and I think we should finally tighten our production section guidelines this year. This is something I've been trying to bring up in various ways off and on, but I feel the new year it would make sense to actually do it.

Right now my major issue is that it seems there is no formal agreed upon "house" style for production sections. For older films this isn't really a problem so much, but it's really hurting new film articles. Often times you end up with people putting in every little piece of news that comes out into these articles. So you often end up with bloated production section that list, who the screenwriters are, when the cast joined, when locations were scouted but in the end it doesn't really add up to anything.

Look at the current page for The Conjuring 2: The Pre-production section lists A) when cast members were announced B) When they were confirmed C) When location scouting occurred, and when actors visited the set. None of these actions I would say really add up to anything in that they don't really present the story of how the film came to be.

The traditional view of many Wikipedians seems to be that if it's sourced information no matter what information it is, it should stay, and that leads to some bloated production section, that like I said don't really accomplish the goal of Wikipedia.

I dunno maybe I'm crazy to think like this. Could we maybe try to say something in the Manual of Style for film aricles about this? ----Deathawk (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's a form of trivia that seems unique to film articles: overly detailed proseline sourced to press releases. It's tedious to rewrite these sections, but I've done a few. I guess the best thing to do is suggest wording to be added to MOS:FILM, then hold an RfC to get it added. We don't need that to start a cleanup campaign, but it might help to have a guideline behind us. One thing we can do is search for "Variety confirmed"/"confirmed by Variety", which seems to be a stock phrase. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion at WT:MOSFILM can be revived (e.g., pinging involved editors). We never really finalized the wording. Discussion can be seen here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Production sections can be difficult to do without adding any trivial stuff. Here's some suggestions I can come up.

1. We need to make sure we add any necessary production information without adding any trivial stuff and make sure any source is reliable.
2. Filming sections should have only any necessary filming information on locations, which actors that they are seen in pictures of filming and make sure there is nothing too trivial about it. We also need make sure we check out the sites first that have that filming information first before adding references to it.
3. What we need to do is set up some consensus to include some news and references about some actors who joined some movies without making too much clutter. The details should be compressed to avoid removing entirely removing sourced information about that stuff like Erik previously suggested. We should only add any actor who have first joined any movie, any actors who are top listing ones, anyone in the billing bulletin list or named in theatrical posters and any recurring actors who appeared in{any film series should be included with reliable sources.

That's the suggestions I can come up. Any one else who add some suggestions to it, I'm all ears. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan: While I concede that for certain movies casting sections are important, I wouldn't feel totally comfortable with a hardlined rule that when top billed signed on must be included. For every Doctor Strange and Deadpool there are hundreds and hundreds of smaller movies where including this information would be negligible at best. Overall I'd like to guide users more than tell them "Have this, don't have that". I'd more like it to be "These would make for a good section, these may make for a cluttered section." and then kind of let users make there own judgement. --Deathawk (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Deathawk: Maybe. But I want to make sure some things about production sections have some necessary consensus. Cast members who joined in any movie should be kept there without any unnecessary clutter and such. @Erik: previously came up with some suggestions about that as you know that. @MarnetteD:, @Betty Logan:, @NinjaRobotPirate: and others should state their opinions to these suggestions. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess it depends on what you mean by trivia and clutter. I think "on [date], [source] confirmed that [actor] joined [film]" is poorly written trivia. If it's salvageable, I rewrite it. If not, I remove it. To me, salvageable means that there's more information than dates and names. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Hey, look. Erik came up with a solution to settle a compromise, which I at much agreed. This is what he said in a previous discussion which is now archived.

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.

That's the suggestion he came up with. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan: I'm in favor of doing that for movies where the production section is already written however I think moving forward we can give a bit more guidance. What I want to say is something to the extent of " the goal of the production section is to establish the story of how a movie came together, this is different from a news site like The Hollywood Reporter or Vanity Fair which reports on every little aspect of the production. For instance a location scouting excursion may not be appropriate for a Wikipedia article, however if a significant story change was made because of the location scouting than that would be appropriate. Editors are encouraged to evaluate the stories coming out to see if they contribute in a significant way to the story of how the film came to be." and then let the editors make the call. obviously I kind this is a rough version and I do want to tweak it up, before going forward. --Deathawk (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

This is pretty good, and I agree with it; however, it avoids all mention of proseline, which is something I would have explicitly mentioned. Leaving everything to editor discretion is how we ended up with long, overly-detailed casting sections written in proseline. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: @Deathawk: What can we do about that? The production will need a lot of work and we should have at least a trimmed down casting sub-section without clutters. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan: Casting sections should focus mostly on the casting process and not necessarily casting news, although in some cases these may overlap. For instance listing "On X date Y joined the cast" For every major character, in most cases, would lead to a very repetitive section, instead it would be better to explain what qualities the director saw in the actor that brought them aboard, or how the actor studied for the role. I'm sure we can tighten the wording on that section, and make it more clear why some dates would be valuable, but that's honestly my basic feeling on how it should be handled. I'm open to suggestions though. It still doesn't quite address @NinjaRobotPirate: concerns though. I'm not trying to avoid that, I'm just really tired right now. --Deathawk (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, the most important bit is the first sentence. The second sentence is good to have as an example of what we're trying to avoid. And, I think the third sentence helps to address Erik's concerns from the prior discussion, in that we were telling them what not to do without any help on what they should do. So, I think this is pretty good. Certainly, we could tweak it further, but this is good enough for me. If you'd like a copyedited version: "Casting sections should focus primarily on the casting process and not necessarily casting news, although in some cases these may overlap. For instance, listing 'On X date, Y joined the cast' for every major character would lead to a very repetitious section. Instead, it would be better to explain what qualities the director saw in the actor or how the actor studied for the role." If someone wants to expand on it or streamline it, that's fine, but, like I said, I'm fine with it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with Deathawk's proposal. How and when an actor comes aboard a project is very relevant and essential to a film's development. Same goes for location scouting and other "news" items. Theses bits of information can be useful to tell a more complete story about the film's development. Its all about presentation. The real issue here seems to be proseline, which not only effects casting but how articles are written generally. So instead, I think we should focus on helpful technics to reduce proseline like avoiding exact dates, and WP:Citation merging to group similar pieces of information. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with @TriiipleThreat:. We need to find a way add how and when an actor/actress joined that movie without clutter to reduce proseline. It's all about presentation and development of the film. We removed all that casting information, we will lose much meaning of the development and presentation of that film, which we're not gotta take that kind of chance. Which means we should probably do based of what Erik previously suggested and try to reduce proseline of how they are written. We need to also make sure we add information about filming locations, post-production work and such without any trivial stuff or any clutter.

@Erik:, @NinjaRobotPirate:, @Deathawk:. Alright, let's inform everyone who mainly work in film articles & such about this issue. Get them to discuss the issue. Make sure we keep this interest alive as much as possible. Let's work on problem and settle for compromises, people. Let's not make things worse by having them removed completely by entirely removing casting sections and such. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat:. @BattleshipMan: Perhaps my passage about Location Scouting and Casting could be better rewritten. There are a lot of steps involved in filming a movie, and what I'm trying to avoid is listing all of them, because then you end up with a very messy production section. I really don't have a problem with say, for instance, if a scouting location takes place in a historic building and the producers had to work overtime to secure it, but what I don't like is when you just have a "Location scouting began on X date" and then moves on. Similarly I don't have much conflict with big buzzed about movie like The Force Awakens listing casting news, what's problematic I think is when little known comedies or dramas listing all the casting news on the page. I don't know if that makes my position any clearer or not--Deathawk (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with TriiipleThreat. It's a better way to put all details of casting and filming. @Deathawk: It won't be too messy if we do it better way, and that's what we need to figure out. And until then we should be keep going as we were. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 14:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat:. @BattleshipMan: @Captain Assassin!:So I'm thinking the best way to go here, might be an infobox, where we could list such rote information. Such an info box would be seperate from the regular box and could include colums such as "Original Draft by" "First Actor to sign on" "Latest to sign on" Etc. Then we could devote the entire production section to prose regarding inspirations and the like. This would be especially useful for dealing with past articles on the subject. It would also leave a lot less room for misinterpritations of the guideline as we could simply say "avoid what's repeated in the box" --Deathawk (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Deathawk: @Captain Assassin!: @TriiipleThreat: I agree with Captain Assassin!. We need to find a better way to put all details of casting and filming without making it too messy. Deathawk, it isn't as simple as you think. Production and casting sections are not meant to have infoboxes for such information. We need outside references to have such information on them. We add infoboxes and columns, we could have issues among many readers. It's too messy to add infoboxes and columns on those sections. We're not going to do that. That's means we have figure a better way to ensure we have all the presentation and development of those films without any clutter, reduce proseline, make sure it sounds encyclopedic and get it solved without having to remove those sections completely. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I still think prose is the way to go. There are ways as @BattleshipMan: pointed out to do it without listing each casting individually and avoiding proseline. Also I'm generally not in favor of one-size-fits-all approaches to addressing problems. The MoS should focus on giving advice to help editors write better articles instead of telling them exactly what to do. There are already a number of guidelines and essays on the subject that we can borrow from and incorporate into our MoS.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan: :@TriiipleThreat:.@Captain Assassin!: Can we all agree with this passsage of my draft "the goal of the production section is to establish the story of how a movie came together, this is different from a news site like The Hollywood Reporter or Vanity Fair which reports on every little aspect of the production." I think we get hung up in the example I used, but can agree that these sections shouldn't read like a news section from Variety correct? Like we all agree that there's a problem, it's just how do we fix it that's a problem.--Deathawk (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Deathawk:, maybe we don't understand, but those news feeds provide us with information on who has joined in the movie. Therefore, it provides that information with a valuable source, whatever you like it or not. There are reasons not to remove this information entirely from the production sections. What we need to do is too add that information from that source and write that casting information in a encyclopedic way. @TriiipleThreat: @Captain Assassin!: BattleshipMan (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, we just need to write all information in an encyclopedic way. And we don't have any other way to put all that information this time. But whenever someone gets an idea please feel free to contact and share. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 17:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan: I do think you are misunderstanding my wording. I'm not saying not to use these articles as sources, they provide a great and valuable resource for us. What I'm saying is that these publications have different goals than a Wikipedia and that users should evaluate whether and how such information should be integrated into the article. --Deathawk (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

To @NinjaRobotPirate:'s point earlier in this thread. I've been thinking about how to cut down on the clutter and I though we might include such wording as "Production sections should be created when there is an ample story to tell and not created merely because a film article is expected to have them. For instance while it might be useful to provide dates when cast members or filming joined or dates filming started for a production section in process these shouldn't be the only sections contained within it. Instead the production section should create context for how the casting came about or how the filming location was decided"--Deathawk (talk) 06:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's very close to my thinking. Dates are good to have, but they should have context. Per policy, just because something is verifiable doesn't mean that it should necessarily be included in the article. That means that not every trivial fact belongs in Wikipedia. In some cases, excessive detail simply needs editing down; for example, an entire paragraph of proseline could be streamlined to: "A, B, C, D, and E joined in 2015. After extensive auditions, F was cast in 2016." I wrote something like that myself in Cold in July (film), which I think is written pretty decently. I wrote that production section two years ago, so I'd probably do things a bit differently now, but it's a fair representation of what I've been saying. It describes how Michael Hall was cast, what issues he faced (potential typecasting), and how he overcame them. It doesn't just list a bunch of dates. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: @TriiipleThreat: @Deathawk: @Captain Assassin!: Based on what we saw on Cold in July, there is another movie you can check for proseline and such, Ninja. This is the link to 2016 remake of Pete's Dragon and you should check out the production and casting section. This is where Deathawk and I started this whole issue, so do some test edit on that section and we'll see how it is. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan: I think these are two different discussion. The Pete's Dragon remake discussion was about how to compromise so that the article was at least readable what @NinjaRobotPirate: is talking about is making sure that everything has context. Cold July and the Pete's Dragon article are thus dramatically different in terms of casting news, as one was. I'm guessing, thoroughly reconstructed from the ground up to give the exact reasoning the casting took place while the Pete's Dragon was quickly whittled down as part of a compromise. Ideally I think we should strive for more articles like "In Cold July" as opposed to Pete's Dragon's in the future but because there is so much grey area in the language for Production section right now, that is somewhat difficult. --Deathawk (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to start coming up with some consensus on things. right now it appears to be that one thing we can all agree on is that the film should follow proseline formatting. I have heard no complaints about my idea that the production should follow a clear narrative. Although for the latter there hasn't been quite as much discussion as I'd like. :@TriiipleThreat:. @Captain Assassin!: (talk) do you agree with the wording? --Deathawk (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

What do you suggest for the latter then? BattleshipMan (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan:off the top of my head I would say "Production should follow a clear narrative about how the film came to be while avoiding trivial matters that do not forward this narrative. What is trivial is loosely defined and may vary from movie to movie and indeed editor to editor. The important thing is that context is provided about how this forwards the goal." The idea here being something @TriiipleThreat: brought up which is that we're not so much telling users what to put as guiding them in the right direction. it may seem silly to define "trivial" as a moving goalpost of sorts but I think it highlights the fact that we are actively looking to avoid something and the section isn't just "List everything you know about the movie"/ --Deathawk (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to reiterate my stance the guideline shouldn't so much focus on 'what to write' but 'how to write'.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

List of supercouples move discussion

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:List of supercouples#Requested move: Move back to List of fictional supercouples. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear: This move discussion concerns whether or not real-life people should be on the list. If you really have no problem with the list reverting back to how it was years ago (the inclusion of real-life people), then (going by the current lean of the move discussion) there is no need to comment. If you do have a problem with it, then now is the time to comment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Production section Draft.

As some of you may or may not know I've spent about six months or so trying to get new guidelines for the production section off the ground. I worry mainly about the crop of 2014 and 2015 film articles who's production read more like PR news releases than they do useful Wikipedia articles. While I do not think we've not quite finished discussing everything I wanted to in my previous "Production Section Problems" section the conversation has seemingly reached a dead end. With that said I think I've got enough input to create a reasonable first draft of what the production section guideline in the Manual of style should look like. I would like some of your guys's input.

When creating a production section it is important to keep in mind both what Wikipedia is and what it is not. Whereas a site like Variety or The Hollywood Reporter reports on every little detail as it happens that is not so beneficial for a Wikipedia article. Instead the production section should focus on a clear narrative that is interesting to the reader while avoiding trivial information. The definition of what is and is not "Trivial" here is deliberately vague and may change from movie to movie. Context should be provided for information added about how it contributes to said narrative. Not all films may have such a narrative at which point editors should give pause to whether or not the film should even have a production section.

All information should be written using WP:Prose guidelines. Dates can be useful for context however the article should not rely too heavily on them.

This is what I have so far, thoughts opinions? --Deathawk (talk) 02:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, I think we should avoid specific examples and instead focus on existing guidelines:

When creating a production section it is important to keep in mind both what Wikipedia is and what it is not. Particularly, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. To provide encyclopedic value, information should be put in context to provide a clear narrative that is interesting to the reader while avoiding indiscriminate details. Remember, an encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Context should be provided for information about how it contributes to said narrative. At the same time, be sure to avoid proseline. While general time frames can be useful for context, exact dates are rarely important and similar pieces of information can be bundled together.

--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I support that too. Quotes all the right pages beyond this WikiProject. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I really like how TriiipleThreat has cobbled together several applicable already existing guidelines to tackle the problem. Betty Logan (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Imo, the TripleThreat paragraph, as an addition to the MOSFILM Production section, is good, in that it states general principles framed by core content policy (overly specific supplemental guidelines can tend to distract from discussion of disputed content, and themselves become the focus). I would suggest explaining proseline in straightforward language, as this is a novel term, and I find the essay, while pretty clear in intent, is not so clear in actually describing itself in a reasonably actionable way. --Tsavage (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with TriiipleThreat. His way of production section rules make more sense in the way to avoid proseline. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Concur. Excellent phrasing by TriiipleThreat. One suggestion: "accepted knowledge" can often be wrong. How about "verified facts"? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with the concerns brought about by Tsavage in that it would not be immediately clear what is meant by some of the more Wikicentric words. specifically I'm talking about ", be sure to avoid proseline" Is there another way we could put that so that it's more obvious what we're talking about without having to make editors click? --Deathawk (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Promotional SPAs

Elisha Cuthbert and House of Wax (2005 film) could use more eyes. Promotional wording is being added by SPAs: "premiered at several festivals, including three of the most important in the world", more about "most important" film festivals, "gained international fame", various permutations of "hailed by critics", etc. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI

A discussion which is relevant to this project has been opened here Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should we move full-length movies from article space to Commons.3F. MarnetteD|Talk 16:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Language of a film without dialogue

I have been given no explanation as to why my edits to Shaun the Sheep Movie have been reverted, basically noting that the film has no dialogue. Why is this not notable, when The Naked Island lists the language as being "Japanese (no dialogue)," and Themroc lists the language as "Gibberish?" Most other articles I've seen about films without dialogue either don't have a language listed, or note the language of the country of origin. I'm just asking for consistency here; silent films always list the language as being "Silent" no matter what the original language on the title cards is, so why don't films without dialogue have any sort of standard? --Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 17:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I dunno. The first time it was removed, it was from an IP user, 216.75.177.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who has been repeatedly blocked (for good reason, I might add). The second time, it looks like Koala15 reverted you. You might try asking him. I don't have a problem with it, but I think Koala15 is more strict about these things than I am. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe take the lead from Koyaanisqatsi and remove the parameter from the infobox. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. If there's no dialogue then there is no language to note. GRAPPLE ^X 20:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather fill it in somehow since I don't think the absence of the field clearly indicates no dialogue. It could easily look like someone forgot to fill in the language. Without anything in the infobox or the lead section, there is no way to tell that the film lacks dialogue. The vast majority of animated/anthropomorphic films have talking animals, after all. What about having something similar to "Silent film" in silent films' articles? "No spoken dialogue"? EDIT: Could reference this for my last suggestion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Then just an "N/A" or "—" would denote it, I think. I still don't really see much use in filling in a field just to say it doesn't apply, though; surely it having no dialogue is worth mentioning in prose. GRAPPLE ^X 21:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Leave it blank and add [1] as an embedded note where the reviewer notes it is a silent film. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Spoilers

While I do not refute any information on this page I feel that anyone that hasn't seen the movie will miss out in the value of the drama because of the whole plot being displayed even to the point of killing a climax of the ending. If you could allow a drop down tab for these parts it would be nice, but I don't know enough to know how to do it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.183.70 (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, spoiler warnings are not allowed per WP:SPOILER. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for teasing movies. Considering that this is a global Wikipedia, there is no real threshold for when we would stop providing warnings, anyway. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You may use the table of contents to skip the plot section entirely, though certain plot points may also be mentioned in the reception section. Reach Out to the Truth 04:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I avoided any spoilers for The Hateful Eight by not visiting the article for The Hateful Eight. Guess what - it worked. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It's amazing how you pick up these secret little tricks. GRAPPLE ^X 09:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I think I'm going to collate them all and get them published. I'll do a book signing and for an extra £10, you can kick me in the balls too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Edits by 187.190.4.251

Would someone please take a look at the contributions of 187.190.4.251? In the past few days, this IP user account has modified several articles about films and film actors by changing preexisting text about nationality to state that the individuals or films are Mexican. I reverted these changes in one case where sourced content was replaced with unsourced content but would like a second opinion on the others: Tad Hilgenbrink, Sergio Kleiner, El Topo, The Holy Mountain (1973 film), Ray Santiago, Iyari Limon, Maite Perroni and Angelique Boyer. I am inclined to revert all changes to BLPs as unsourced but sadly that is characteristic of most content within those articles, and so I thought to check here before taking any steps. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, User:MarnetteD, for addressing this issue on each affected article. I left a notice on the IP's talk page regarding attribution of content and hope it will make a difference. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome Black Falcon. This kind of "low level" vandalism goes on all the time. In some ways it is worse than the people who like to insert the word "poop" etc. into articles. By that I mean that - as there are so many articles that are no longer on any active editors watchlist - it can easily be missed. Thanks for your vigilance. MarnetteD|Talk 17:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Stars in lead?

WP:FILMLEAD says, the "first paragraph of the lead section should also identify the director and the star or stars of the film". I'm curious how WikiProject Film defines star. I am aware that actors' roles can be classified as "top billing", "lead", "supporting", and so on. Unfortunately I don't know how to determine who's classified as what for each film. IMDB's public site doesn't divide or list roles this way (I don't know about pay IMDB site). Usually I think it is clear from the size of the names on the original posters who are the "stars" of the film. If an actor/actresses name is in the biggest font, they are the stars. Other people generally should not be given mention in the lead unless there's good reason.

I have in mind the article Grease (film), which currently has the statement "The film stars John Travolta, Olivia Newton-John, Stockard Channing, and Jeff Conaway." in its lead (paragraph even). I think it is obvious that Travolta and Newton-John are the film's stars in this case and Channing and Conaway had supporting roles and should not be mentioned in the lead paragraph, or perhaps even the whole lead. The film's poster corroborates this point of view. It doesn't even mention Conaway. This is good example where it would be great to know the specific about the role titles.

Anybody able to give advice her on sorting through this? Jason Quinn (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Billing Block on poster, then opening credits or end credits if it does one of those segments where there are a few names in big type before the normal listy credits. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Casting hoaxes

I don't know what's going on, but there's a whole lot of hoaxing in film-related articles right now. I would request that editors keep an eye out for this. In animated film articles, I'm seeing a lot of fake casting news that's falsely sourced to existing citations. In mainstream, live-action comedy films, I'm seeing editors replace actors with different ones. I don't know why this is such a big issue suddenly, but it's been going on for the past month or so. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest it's probably just one or two bad apples. I'd see if the user names committing these hoaxes are similar (or if it's a range of IP adresses) then bring it up in the Administration Noticeboard. --Deathawk (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Entirely possible. I've been tracking the worst offender at User:NinjaRobotPirate/Animation hoaxer. I got a few IP addresses blocked and a few articles semi-protected, but it's tedious to clean up. Hopefully whoever is behind this gets bored soon. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I've only created a handful of animated film articles and note that this sort of thing crops up a lot on them. Hopefully, as NRP said, they'll get bored and go. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The New York Times online bios question

How reliable are The New York Times online biographies, such as this one? Can we assume that birthdates, birthplaces, and birthnames have been independently verified by TNYT? Or is there a chance that they are cribbing those from us, thus making it a WP:CIRCULAR reference? Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not circular. I'm still not 100% on exactly which parts of the hosted data come from what source, but the bulk of it seems to be from Baseline. That database has a long and twisty history, but you can read some about it in this article from Variety. Some other parts of the hosted content come from All Media Network, specifically AllMovie, which are usually quite clearly labeled as such. Baseline and AllMovie are reliable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

In case anyone is curious, I think I unraveled most of Baseline's history in Baseline StudioSystems. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Top Ten list .2

The list for the Carol article was deleted as being "superfluous". See: Talk:Carol_(film)#Top_Ten_lists

Is there any means by which such a list could be included in a secondary article related to the film? Can it be added to the bottom of the accolades page, or perhaps create a page for the Top Ten lists when it represents voluminous content? Particularly when a film has been declared the best reviewed film of 2015 by Metacritic. I just think that needing to go from citation to citation within the article to cull this information is contrary to making information on Wikipedia helpful and easy to find. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary, we discussed this above. I would support keeping the summary sentences, though. The list itself is indiscriminate; its overall placement is what matters. I would encourage mentioning the number of lists, though, like how many lists were evaluated, and how many lists included Carol. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I did not add to that discussion because it focuses on the films Gravity and Tangerine. Didn't want to add another card to that pyramid. If a separate article for accolades is acceptable, why can't there also be a separate article for Top Ten lists? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between an accolade, which is given by an organization of multiple people, and a top ten list, which is created by a single person. Just looking at that screenshot above, it is way too many people to list per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I think the consensus from the above discussion is that a summary can be appropriate. Metacritic doesn't even list the individuals upfront, it is more in the footer that it does that, like an appendix of some sort. So Wikipedia shouldn't make it such a formalized list in the article body. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Ambiguity of Category:Directors

Pre-CFR discussion on possible new names at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Ambiguous_name:_Category:Directors_and_national_subcats.

This would effect the parent categories of Category:Film directors, Category:Theatre directors, Category:Television directors, Category:Opera directors, etc. It would not effect the titles of the categories used on individual biographical articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Changes to columns

Had a quick confab in Talk:2016 in film, decided to try out change to the column lists. Working backward from 2020.

Nutshell: Replace Medium column with Country to list of films.

I suggest the Year in film pages that are more than a year in the future get locked down. Have a link for regular editors to submit suggested updates for approval instead of messing with all the fanboyz adding their wishlists for stuff like Harry Potter and the Zombie Dumbledore Part LIV. Kid Bugs (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The British Screen Advisory Council

All references on this page, apart from being affiliated with the British Screen Advisory Council (BSAC), seem to be dead links. All three that were linked go to the BSAC website, but it apeasr to be down. I am in Australia, if that makes any difference. - 220 of ^Borg 23:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Refs all work for me (in the UK). Can you try again, please? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

References work for me (in Italy), too. About the article, shouldn't we thin out this and this sections? Or, at least, wikify them? --Almicione (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Works for me too, now. I should have added that I emailed the contributor from BSAC on the 10th (Wednesday), and they replied that the website was down. "... being rebuilt but the new version should (according to developer's deadline) be back up again by this Friday." (Today!) - 220 of ^Borg 22:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Public Domain, YouTube, and Wikipedia

Hello everyone,

Recently, I've run into an editor who is linking Charlie Chaplin movies from YouTube onto their relevant Wikipedia articles. Presumably, all the movies are in the public domain as they are 80+ years old. Is there any precedent for whether or not these types of additions are OK? Right now, I'm leaning towards allowing them, but I figured someone here might know better. m.o.p 18:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, there's no site-wide consensus about how to handle public domain films, but there are two ongoing discussions sparked by ANI drama: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 125#Should we move full-length movies from article space to Commons? and Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#RfC: amendment to WP:NOTREPOSITORY. If all the links go to the same person's YouTube channel, it could be link spam. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

From the looks of it, those discussions are talking about hosting said content on the encyclopedia itself, or limiting the number of external links we let people post in an article. Neither applies in this case.

I've asked if they are related to the YouTube channel, but I don't think that's a strong-enough point of contention to outright deny them. m.o.p 19:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, those discussions are probably only tangentially related. I suppose I'm holding out hope that they will arrive at some kind of consensus on the wider issue of how to deal with PD films, as I've often wondered about it myself. At any rate, one of the reasons why I brought up linkspam is because some people monetize their YouTube channel. Even if this never happens, I don't understand why we'd favor one person's YouTube channel over one of the many others that undoubtedly host it. If it were the BBC, BFI, AFI, or something like that, sure. Otherwise, I'd say to just upload it to Commons. Or archive.org. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

There is not a significant consensus regarding the issues that are raised here. However, the consensus codified in 'What Wikipedia is not' and the external links guideline does suggest against linking to YouTube movies (or any external links) if that inclusion can not be properly justified. I came here after I got notified that my reversion of the third link to an online version of a movie was judged to be against this consensus. There are several reasons not to link to YouTube movies (bandwidth, not always accessible everywhere, etc. etc. - see WP:ELNO points), and I do think that the movie itself does not necessarily tell anything beyond the encyclopedic content of the article itself (and if they do, some of that can be included. Adding those YouTube/Vimeo/etc. links then turns the list into a Yellow Pages entry for that article. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• WP:ELYES in fact recommends linking to "a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work" in the external links section, and WP:YOUTUBE only prohibits linking to copyright material. If the films can be proven to be in the US public domain (all films made prior to 1923 are) I don't really foresee a problem provided Youtube doesn't impose regional restrictions. I don't think bandwidth is really a problem since you would be using Youtube's bandwidth, not Wikipedia's. The whole fiasco at the Village Pump is specifically about embedding films in articles, and inparticular pornographic films, so the outcome of those discussions really have no bearing on this. That said, even if the film project cooked up a local consensus to not link to films then it's entirely possible we would be overruled down the line anyway. Jimmy Wales himself seems to favor linking to films rather than embedding them, especially in the case of porn: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Debbie_Does_Dallas. Ultimately though, we only need one link, so all things considered I would look to Commons first, then the Internet Archive (which hosts public domain material) and only then would I consider commercial video hosting sites. Betty Logan (talk) 10:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Betty Logan: - WP:ELYES is referring to what can be linked, it does not recommend linking to .. Moreover, you took out a small part of the whole sentence - 'An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work, so long as none of the § Restrictions on linking and § Links normally to be avoided criteria apply.'. Similarly, WP:YOUTUBE suggests 'While there is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, the links must abide by the guidelines on this page. (See § Restrictions on linking and § Links normally to be avoided.)'

  The bandwidth referred to is the bandwidth of the user who wants to see the movie - there are plenty of people behind slow internet, for which downloading/streaming this type of material is not really helpful. WP:ELNO has more points that may tick the box.

  As I stated on my talkpage, in principle there is nothing that prohibits a well chosen link to an online copy of a movie (the additions that precipitated this were about the second or third addition of a copy of the movie). Although I continue to argue, that these are borderline on WP:ELNO #1 (does a link to the movie itself add anything encyclopedic that can not be described in the article itself? - the reverse reading would state that any article that does not have a link to the online copy of the movie cannot be a featured/good article), and we are not writing the yellow pages (we are not an internet directory for finding an online copy of the movie, that is the job of the search engines), I do think that it is not unreasonable to link these (once). I think that that is already common practice, but if you guys want to codify it .. (well, it should be codified for books, music clips, etc. etc. then as well). I do agree that the internet archive copy would be the choice over YouTube etc. (and those links are on most of the articles where I re-removed the YouTube addition). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Film directors from Africa‎ has been nominated for discussion

Category:Film directors from Africa‎ and three similar categories, which are within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for films?

Did the rule change? I thought a film had to be in principal photography to merit an independent article, but Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 appears to have existed a lot longer than a week ago... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The page existed as a draft and was moved as soon as filming begun. That's how the article has so much development. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Can someone look over Amy Pascal

I just made some edits to Amy Pascal because it gave zero indication of what had happened since the Sony hack. It sounds like she is doing a lot with a lot of big movies, and like Pascal Pictures is about ready for its own article. Problem is, I made these edits knowing zero, I mean zero, about what a film producer is, and in trying not to plagiarize I could have munged the content in ways I don't understand. Also, I think there's a lot more to be written in that article. It was the biggest story there is a year ago ... now nobody is minding the store. Wnt (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Plain listing of DVD features

There is a discussion regarding this edit about the plain listing of DVD features at Talk:Marvel Animated Features#technical minutiae. All comments are welcome.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Films by certification at CfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Financing credits

There are a number of organizations and production companies credited in some way on Manifesto (2015 film). Input needed on which (if any) should be included in the infobox. Lapadite (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

This is what I think we have had to accept when we accepted a "Production company"/"Production companies" field in addition to the "Distributed by" field. Editors are going to tend to add companies identified in film posters, trailers, and the film itself in the infobox. It can be difficult to determine how exactly each company was involved with the film, to the point that I'm just fine with including the collective set. Honestly, listing three companies is not a big deal compared to some other films (for which I'd rather see a link to a footnote at the bottom). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Right, but there are over 10 and they don't share equal credit. See my latest post. There's one primary resource, the ACMI, which commissioned it; the others share a variety of credits such as "in partnership with", "in cooperation with", "supported by", "made possible by". The issue is whether the others should be given the same weight. Lapadite (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I thought there were just three based on this before you removed them. If there are 10, then I suppose I would do a "(see below)" link where a "Notes" section can just write out the companies in a sentence. That way it does not take up so much infobox space and is still available in an appendix-style approach. Others can comment on what they think should be done instead. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not the exact example I mean; it lists the companies and explains their involvement in a footnote: Out of the Dark (2014 film). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Incorporated the suggestion, thanks. What do you think about adding a presumed editor's name to the infobox based on him being on IMDb and his website stating the film? As I said to Vmars22, the website does not say he is the editor of the project, and I've seen no information on him or credit for this film in reliable sources. One can only suppose he is. Lapadite (talk) 10:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The "Notes" section looks good to me. Definitely too much to have put in the film infobox. As for the editor, are there no reviews that mention Bobby Good? Sometimes reviews recap credits. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

No, not in any i've come across (German or English-language). I just looked through the sources on development & production, and I think it points to the director-writer being the editor:

• "In parallel, I began to sketch different scenes in which a woman talks, ending up with sixty short scenes ... I finally edited everything down to twelve scenes and twelve corresponding text collages."[2]
• "...the Berlin-based artist Julian Rosefeldt has edited and compiled a collage of historic artists' manifestos..."[3]
• "Rosefeldt has edited and reassembled a collage of artists’ manifestos..."[4]
• "the films have then been edited and spliced together by Rosefeldt to create a poetic narrative."[5] --Lapadite (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia's criteria is to verify through reliable third-party sources, I would exclude Bobby Good here until a source can reflect his involvement. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Star Wars page move

Again. Please see this discussion. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Input needed

Please feel free to add any input that you have at Talk:Once Upon a Time in America#Sergio Leone. MarnetteD|Talk 23:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Choregrapher role - Suggest Adding Tag to Film Infobox

It has been suggested that the Choreographer tag should be added to the Film infobox. (See discussion here.) I support this addition. algocu (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Me too. As I mentioned in the discussion linked above, in some films the role of the choreographer is even more important than that of the director. For instance, we call Ziegfeld Girl a Busby Berkeley musical, not a Robert Z. Leonard musical. ubiquity (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Blue is the Warmest Colour controversy inclusion in lead

Please see this discussion. More input is needed. Lapadite (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Simon Kinberg

Template:Simon Kinberg appears to be problematic because it was seeded in film articles where he was a writer, a producer, or both. Considering that a given film often has multiple writers or producers, the use of this kind of template implies endorsing inserting writers' and producers' filmographies wholesale even though they are part of a team. This is problematic per WP:NAVBOX since it bloats the footer with works or persons themselves that may or may not be relevant to the topic. I don't believe we ever formalized guidelines for this matter. Do we need to update MOS:FILM#Navigation to exclude navigation templates for figures other than directors (with consensus-based exceptions)? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It's recently been hashed out, at tedium, that these kinds of template are unnecessary (I think actors were the main focus the last time but it's a slippery slope) so I'd be happy to see it nipped in the bud now before people start mistaking it for precedent. GRAPPLE ^X 23:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Jared Leto by Naano94 is another such template that unloads an actor's entire filmography into each film article, even for the smaller roles. We really need to prevent such templates from taking hold and creating bloat. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The Mermaid language(s)

Hi. There's a dispute over at Talk:The Mermaid (2016 film) over the language(s) to be included in the infobox. I think it would be useful to have more opinions. Thanks,--Cattus ^talk 20:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Aviation film task force

Any interest in creating this task force? The following are examples of authoritative sources that can be exploited in writing articles on this genre.

• Carlson, Mark. Flying on Film: A Century of Aviation in the Movies, 1912–2012. Duncan, Oklahoma: BearManor Media, 2012. ISBN 978-1-59393-219-0.
• Dolan, Edward F. Jr. Hollywood Goes to War. London: Bison Books, 1985. ISBN 0-86124-229-7.
• Farmer, James H. Broken Wings: Hollywood's Air Crashes. Missoula, Montana: Pictorial Histories Pub Co., 1984. ISBN 978-0-933126-46-6.
• Farmer, James H. Celluloid Wings: The Impact of Movies on Aviation. Blue Ridge Summit, Pennsylvania: Tab Books Inc., 1984. ISBN 978-0-83062-374-7.
• Farmer, James H. "Filming the Right Stuff." Air Classics, Part One: Vol. 19, No. 12, December 1983, Part Two: Vol. 20, No. 1, January 1984.
• Harwick, Jack and Ed Schnepf. "A Buff's Guide to Aviation Movies". Air Progress Aviation, Volume 7, No. 1, Spring 1983.
• Mackenzie, S.P. British War Films, 1939-1945: The Cinema and the Services. London: Continuum, 2001. ISBN 978-1-85285-586-4.
• Murphy, Robert. British Cinema and the Second World War. London: Continuum, 2000. ISBN 978-0-82645-139-2.
• Orriss, Bruce W. When Hollywood Ruled the Skies: The Aviation Film Classics of World War I. Los Angeles: Aero Associates, 2013. ISBN 978-0-692-02004-3.
• Orriss, Bruce. When Hollywood Ruled the Skies: The Aviation Film Classics of World War II. Hawthorne, California: Aero Associates Inc., 1984. ISBN 0-9613088-0-X.

• Parish, James Robert. The Great Combat Pictures: Twentieth-Century Warfare on the Screen. Metuchen, New Jersey: The Scarecrow Press, 1990. ISBN 978-0810823150.
• Pendo, Stephen. Aviation in the Cinema. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press, 1985. ISBN 0-8-1081-746-2.
• Silke, James R. "Fists, Dames & Wings." Air Progress Aviation Review, Volume 4, No. 4, October 1980.
• Wynne, H. Hugh. The Motion Picture Stunt Pilots and Hollywood's Classic Aviation Movies. Missoula, Montana: Pictorial Histories Publishing Co., 1987. ISBN 0-933126-85-9.

—Preceding undated comment added 03:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC) by FWiW Bzuk (talk)

Rotten Tomatoes now owned by Fandango

I couldn't see this mentioned, but given that RT is now owned by Fandango which has suspect scores and a conflict of interest, should we be looking at precluding the use of Rotten Tomatoes scores in film articles going forward? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

They're ultimately owned by NBC. I don't see how this is a huge difference from Metacritic, who's owned by CBS. If news sources question their reliability, we can talk about this, but it seems a bit early right now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Prior to this they were owned by Warner Brothers, which is more suspect. If we didn't have a problem then, we shouldn't have a problem now. --Deathawk (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Release date for Tarzan (1999 film)

There's a dispute over which date should be used in the infobox in Tarzan (1999 film). Since the article is currently fully protected, we need to come to consensus on the talk page. See Talk:Tarzan (1999 film)#Release date in the infobox. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Top 10 lists

Editor Tenebrae has been removing lists of film critics' top 10 listings from a number of film articles and references this discussion from May 2012. I would like to revisit the consensus since it is over three years old. I have seen these lists around film articles for some time and have not been bothered by them. They strike me as similar to listing accolades. I could see a case for them appearing to be indiscriminate. Do other editors find such lists indiscriminate? I would say at minimum, we should at least keep the prose summary that usually appears with such lists, like here for Gravity (film). Input would be appreciated. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I think they're fine in prose, but I do recall there being a period of time when they were just thrown in as bullet point lists indiscriminately (AFI top 10 and top 100 lists, I think), which was causing opposition. Sometimes retrospective listings like that can be useful to show the long-term reception to a work, after the initial release reviews have died down, so they do have a good purpose if they're used well. GRAPPLE ^X 16:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It's always good to get a discussion going, and I only removed bulleted lists from three or four articles today until further editors can weigh in. Virtually all such lists were first inserted by a single editor, so I'm not sure how widespread the desire is for year-end top-ten lists.

My owns concerns are 1) that dozens of films wind up on one top-ten list or another at year end, which means clutter, and 2) this clutter doesn't seem necessary since what films appear on top-ten lists? Films that have won awards and been positively reviewed and have high RT/MC ratings. It seems like indiscriminately gilding the lily to say that award-winning, well-reviewed films appear on top-ten lists ... and here's every one of 'em!--Tenebrae (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I am in general agreement with Tenebrae on this point. Top ten lists do not reflect the critical consensus as effectively as aggregators (they perhaps over-represent a minority of opinion) nor do they convey any critical analysis. They are mostly list spam, that usually reflect the proclivities or a particular critic or publication. There are exceptions though, where such a list can present the findings of a notable poll i.e. the decennial AFI polls of its membership, the Sight & Sound critics and directors polls, various industry polls, national audience polls with statistical validity etc. The Gravity list is horrendous and I agree with its removal. Betty Logan (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I can see the case for doing away with listing all the top 10 lists on which a film has appeared, but what about the summary of the lists? For example, Gravity had this summary, "Gravity was named one of the best films of 2013 by numerous critics and publications by appearing on 93 critics' top ten lists wherein 22 chose the film in first place, and was ranked second on Metacritic's Film Critic Top Ten List scorecard for 2013." I think that it can be worth having this kind of summary (though not necessarily with all this detail). I say this because I believe there have been reliable sources that cover films appearing on multiple top-ten lists, and I argue that it is worth noting in addition to the other metrics. Some films may be on many top ten lists but have very little recognition with the main awards; Tangerine is one example. Although I am not sure how far to take such a summary. If a film appears on ten top ten lists instead of a hundred, is that worth noting? Is there some kind of cutoff? Metacritic apparently cuts off with the top 30 films, for instance. So do we want to have at least a summary (without actually listing the individual critics)? In any case, I would recommend updating the guidelines to reflect the consensus because otherwise, the current proliferation of this particular feature will likely ensure future proliferation (e.g., someone thinks Gravity has been missing its list of film critics all this time and puts it together again). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Concur with GRAPPLE, Betty Logan, and Erik, particularly about Erik's point re: updating the guidelines — especially since we reached consensus a couple of years ago as well as, from what I can see, now. I agree with him that in some cases, as with Tangerine, a prose mention is appropriate. But for well-reviewed films that are garnering award nominations, I would have to wonder what the point is. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Let me just chime in to say I have no strong opinion on Tenebrae's actual Gravity edit. The questions that came to mind revolved around entirely different issues, that potentially have nothing do with actual Film:

To what lengths can you go to find a talk discussion supporting your cause? As a trivial problematization, our talk archives could potentially contain arguments that decide both for AND against a certain issue. And when does a consensus go "stale" from old age? How representative is a consensus discussion involving a mere handful of editors that might not even be active Wikipedians anymore?

To what extent does this page present consensus on ALL film pages? I mean, can there really be a single answer that's good for every article in the project? Do we really want editors to be able to use discussions here as hammers to shut down individual discussions on single articles? (I mean, in some cases we do. But sometimes the best decision must be to not arrive at a decision)

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your concerns. The talk page is exactly where we reach consensus on issues that affect multiple articles. Anyone is free to watchlist it and comment on any discussion. If I'm reading correctly, you seem to be saying we should be having a discussion about the propriety of top-ten lists on each individual page that contains one. I'm not sure that's a practical or efficient way to do this. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

CapnZapp, I think the key issue here is proliferation of article elements. A decade ago (I've been here that long, sigh), many film articles had taglines, and if a film article did not have them, editors would add them because they would have seen them elsewhere and thought they'd help spread that particular element. Nowadays, we've pretty much expunged taglines, except where the taglines have actually been written about in secondary sources (and are even then presented neutrally anyway). I think this is a similar case where top 10 lists have sort of gotten out of hand; editors have seen this element being used, so they help spread the same element elsewhere. This happens with other elements on a more "acceptable" level, such as spreading Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores everywhere, making sure that every director has a navigation template (even the work-for-hire ones), or film articles having sub-article lists of accolades. So here I started a discussion for the same reason you did, not finding the consensus formalized and wanting to make sure it was still preferable to remove top 10 lists. Ultimately, I think we should formalize the outcome at MOS:FILM because that has more visibility than an archived discussion from May 2012. I do think MOS:FILM is referenced often enough that it helps to do that. It also permits editors to challenge that guideline if needed and change it if consensus has changed as well. I did make this change the other day in line with what I'm proposing, and I'm wondering if others would be on board with that simpler summary approach. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess that's one way to put it: if you take action, either refer to a policy and not obscure talk discussion, or don't refer at all, and be prepared to discuss and defend your edit then and there. (Perhaps bluntly put but all I have time for now) Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Acknowledging the Capn's concerns, may I ask all the other editors here if they believe that, between the two discussions, we have a consensus to formalize this Manual of Style update? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

In the spirit of clamping down on listcruft I agree, but as with all MOS alterations we need to see the actual wording before approving it. As I state above such a guideline would need to avoid restricting prominent polls but I can certainly agree with imposing a narrow restriction on namechecking single critic end-of-year top tens. Betty Logan (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

How about, following the existing last sentence in the "Accolades" section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film ("The section can list accolades and also use prose to provide context for some accolades, such as a general overview or a summary of controversy behind a given accolade."), we add, "Do not add critics' top-ten lists on which a film appears. In certain cases, where a film largely has been overlooked for awards, a prose summary of it appearing on such lists may be appropriate." --Tenebrae (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather keep the language open-ended about when to include a summary. While it can be especially useful in absence of award recognitions, I think it is still fine to have that as a metric along with the awards if these exist too. The opposite could even apply, e.g., The Revenant getting on only 36 lists out of 260 assessed while it has numerous award recognitions. Basically, a case-by-case basis. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Just offered the wording as a springboard we can start working with. What phrasing do you think would work? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It's been a week without further comment, so based on this consensus to address top-10 lists, I will add wording based on my suggestion but with the open-ended language Erik suggests. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I started a discussion about the wording actually used over at its talk page, and nobody seem to disagree, so now I'm reverting the change. Your opinion on how to proceed would be appreciated. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Erik, Betty Logan, Grapple X, and CapnZapp: CapnZapp unilaterally reversed a consensus change to the Film MOS here. Rather than get into an edit-war, I'd ask that he respect consensus and WP:BRD and discuss the issue here. I'd also ask the consensus editors to be vigilant of any further unilateral edits to the page. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Why the hostility, Tenebrae? Why frame my actions as "unilaterally revers[ing] a consensus change"? You made an edit. I responded, on the talk page, to that edit (not making any hasty reverts). I waited well over a week for any replies.

I did not recieve any comments or objections to my criticism of the wording used. At that stage, I felt that the only way to proceed was to revert your change, anticipating that this would trigger a discussion on a better wording. I even posted a heads-up here so nobody needs to be "vigilant"! Please reframe my actions in your mind as a well-meaning editor trying to help out (good-faith and all that), and advise me on what I did wrong in your mind, and we'll hash something out. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 09:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I've removed excessive top ten lists (lists with over 50 critics/publications or that would contain over 50 per the Metacritic scorecard) from Academy Award-nominated films. Lapadite (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject assessment Copyedit (minor) Suggestion

--Valleysgirl76 00:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valleysgirl76 (talk • contribs)

Gods of Egypt

There is an open discussion about Gods of Egypt (film) and the reporting of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores. The discussion can be seen here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

List of Bhojpuri films

I've recently come across this list article and was astonished at the sheer number of redlinks that appear on this list. I am normally not a fan of removing redlinks, and advocate for Wikipedia:Red link from time to time. However, this article is 80% redlinks. I seriously wonder if any of these redlinks will ever have articles. I went looking for direction on this issue and came across Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Guidelines_for_related_topics which says "Once an article has been created for a film, it can be entered into a number of lists..." This apparently hints that a film shouldn't be entered onto a list until an article exists for the film. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe what the manual of style is alluding to here is that an easy to rescue orphaned articles is to put them in various list related article. I do not believe that is advising against putting red linked titles in such articles.--Deathawk (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The Mummy (1999 film) plot synopsis

Hey all, I'd appreciate those with a critical eye for cutting plot sections take a look at The Mummy. People keep inflating the plot summary repeatedly, and I axed it down again from 1000 words to about half that. I'd appreciate someone else taking another look and seeing if there's any good way to shave a few dozen extra words off it, or make sure that there's nothing I've cut or truncated that reads wrongly. Thanks. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I read it over and made two minor spelling/grammar corrections, but otherwise it looked good to me. I wasn't really looking for anything that could be cut though, but just checking that it made sense as written. Calathan (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the look! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

Hi all, I'm in the process of adding a reception section to Where the Red Fern Grows (1974 film). I don't watch movies much and don't edit movie or TV articles much consequently. However, I have seen this movie (when I was a kid I loved it to the extent that I worked to buy a dog like the main character!) and I wanted to know if it's alright to add the audience approval rating from Rotten Tomatoes. I know IMDB is crap, but is the RT audience rating considered reliable? It doesn't have any comments from professional critics, but I did find some of those in the Google newspaper archives. Thanks, White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 16:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@White Arabian Filly: Per MOS:FILM#Audience response, we don't report audience ratings. They can be easily gamed, such as using a bot to vote up a rating hundreds of times. We do track audience polls through CinemaScore, though. If you know a film has a dedicated fanbase and enduring popularity, you might see if any reliable sources have identified it as a cult film. Sometimes you can find good results if you search for "cult film" OR "cult movie" OR "cult classic" OR "cult following" in Google. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Input requested

here. BMK (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Input requested (2)

here, as well. BMK (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment

Please comment at Category talk:Films about rape#About or in. Debresser (talk) 11:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I would like to get project wide input at this discussion. It affects a wide range of categories about thematic content, and how we intend categories to be used. Betty Logan (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Ghost films?

112.208.19.69 (talk · contribs) added a See Also link to List of ghost films to a number of film articles and also added them to that article. No sources were provided, and as some of the additions included the Scream films, which as far as I'm aware involve no supernatural elements, I have reverted the changes to the list article. I am less certain about the changes to the individual articles as I don't recognize many of the films, and in some cases this may be a judgment call. My WP time is quite limited right now, but wanted to make other editors aware. DonIago (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The only cited source in that list article that uses the term "ghost movie" is this one. Is this genre label even a real classification that's used by a significant number of reputable sources? I realize that "ghost film" is another term that can be found in sources, but the fact that these terms exist is not enough to justify a comprehensive list on Wikipedia. If we can't find at least one reputable source that actually supports this genre label and list, then the list article probably shouldn't exist. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It's definitely a genre; see this. In addition, I searched for and found various lists of ghost films (some sources reliable, some not), so I think such a list on Wikipedia can satisfy WP:NOTESAL. I would say for a film to qualify to be listed, it should have been called a "ghost film" or "ghost movie" by a third-party source. We can require more than one source if needed. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

BFI and AllMovie can be very good for sourcing genres if necessary. GRAPPLE ^X 18:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, just wanted to be sure. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Note that this IP definitely added a link to List of ghost films for several that in no way involve ghosts. I reverted a couple, but didn't have time to go through all of them. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Page move discussion for Found Footage.

Please see this discussion, thanks. --Deathawk (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I started a new name proposal, as found footage is a technique, not a genre. Please comment at this discussion. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Requesting category:John Wayne films to be recreated

John Wayne is one of the most noted actors of all time, and considering John Wayne filmography exists as a standalone article, it's only natural that a parallel category would too. The deletions of the film categories by actors is most a decade old now, and while consensus doesn't really "expire", I'd like to ask that this one be allowed.--Prisencolin (talk) 09:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to make an exception for this. Once you start down that road then you have to make exceptions for actor b. c and d as well. The deletion of these was by WP:CONSENSUS and you would need to get that changed before proceeding. MarnetteD|Talk 18:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

"distributor" field in infobox film

Is the "distributor" field of Template:Infobox film still supposed to be the original distributor only, per the infobox documentation? There's an awfully long note on that field at Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith that reads "Theatrical and home media distribution rights will be transferred from 20th Century Fox to the Walt Disney Studios in May 2020. The digital distribution rights belong to Disney, as Lucasfilm retained the film's digital distribution rights prior to its acquisition by Disney." which seems entirely unnecessary, or should at least be accompanied by a comment of some sort... --Fru1tbat (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I've seen notes like that added to a bunch of films on my watchlist. I think it's kind of trivial, but it seems harmless. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The thing is that it doesn't belong in the infobox. Especially a long winded item like this belongs in the prose (with a WP:RS) in the body of the article. MarnetteD|Talk 18:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

My concern was that it appears to imply that the distributor field should be updated in a few years. Rather than a long note, I expected a markup comment that said "this should not be changed"... Since the distribution rights are a bit complicated, I can understand a note of some sort, though I would agree that as long as this one is, most of it probably belongs in prose. --Fru1tbat (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Everything in the infobox is in relation to the theatrical release. So, only the theatrical distributor should be there. Home media is separate and not appropriate. If you open up that one are to multimedia information, you'll open all. As such, if you make that clear then you don't have to worry about a long-winded explanation of changing to Disney. Because Disney did not distribute the film originally.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

What MarnetteD and Bignole said makes sense to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Brendan Toller edits

A new editor BToller (talk · contribs) has begun adding a number of articles of questionable notability, basically, all on himself or related to him. Two of them, Brendan Toller (on himself) and Pamela Lubell (on his producer) have been deleted ([6],[7]) via PROD already. Another, I Need That Record! I have just prodded: it seems clearly non-notable, his student film that had no theatrical release and went to DVD.

My question is on Danny Says (film), another unreleased film; but at least this one is purportedly planned for a release, this year. It seems non-notable, but I would like some input from this crowd before PRODding it. Also, while I really dislike it when people use Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote themselves, I don't want to propose deleting content if it actually has merit. TJRC (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@TJRC: A festival premiere counts as released. Danny Says has reviews by Variety and The Hollywood Reporter. It's definitely notable. Don't prod it or nominate it for deletion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks; that's the kind of input I was looking for. TJRC (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I de-prodded the other one, I Need That Record!. I cleaned it up a bit and added more sources, but it needs more work. It's got too many reviews now to get prodded, and I'm pretty sure it would survive AfD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

List of films featuring whitewashed roles

Regarding List of films featuring whitewashed roles, there is an active discussion about an attempted overhaul of the list article. The discussion can be seen here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

There is also a discussion thread about the writing of one of the section headings used in the article. The thread can be seen here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

This really needs more input. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Removing great chunks of text isn't helpful and the user is now going down the route of personal attacks. See how long this lasts... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Moby Dick (1930 film)

Beyond My Ken recently restored uncited content to the article Moby Dick (1930 film), the subject of a disagreement on the article's talk page. I'd like to ask whether project members could find citations for the restored material, or, failing that, whether they would be prepared to offer opinions about whether the material ought to remain without citations. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Updating Template:Film date

Please join the discussion over at {{Film date}} here that pertains to recent discussions this project has at about including "[Year] film" categories on upcoming film articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Films set in the future...how far?

Once upon a time I started a discussion at Category talk:Films set in the future regarding whether 2012 belonged in this category. Yes, the film was released prior to 2012, but less than 5 years beforehand, and I don't believe the film is particularly futuristic, as opposed to, say 2001. What I suppose I'm saying is that I believe this category is intended to be used for "futuristic" films, though that's not entirely clear.

In any event, I think there should probably be some clarification as to what films belong in that category. Nobody's yet replied to my inquiry, so additional opinions would be welcome! DonIago (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

2012 is a member of Category:Apocalyptic films which is a subset of Category:Films set in the future, so it is a member of that category by virtue of inheritance regardless of whether we explicitly add it to the category or not. Basically this comes down to whether we regard Category:Apocalyptic films as a diffusing category or not? I would say it is non-diffusing because it is partly defined by genre rather than just by period (such as Category:Films set in the 22nd century) so 2012 probably does belong in the category. I think you picked a relatively easy example to be honest, because 2012 is essentially speculative science-fiction and fits comfortably into the category. The broader question is much more difficult. For example, what about a 1999 film set on Millenium Eve? If it is essentially a contemporary drama just taking advantage of the occasion it probably doesn't belong in the category, but if Satan tries to take over the world it probably does! What about Godfather 3 which has an epilogue set in 1997? I would say that doesn't belong in the category even though there was a larger gap between the release of the film and the date of event than there was for 2012, because the date is largely incidental. I think there is subtle distinction between a 1990 film set in 1997 and a 1990 film set in 1997 and the future. Betty Logan (talk) 12:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the concept of being set in the future needs to define the work, rather than being an incidental or epilogue-related thing—films whose plots or themes hinge on the future, like science fiction stories requiring future technology or the like, would be wholly different than having a "here's how things will pan out" epilogue. This may still cause some grey areas but they can be taken one at a time. That said, I think inclusion should really be based on the date of release versus the date featured—we're not constantly looking at it as our future, but as the future from the perspective of the work's creators. GRAPPLE ^X 12:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Surely there are apocalyptic films not set in the future? What about stories that involve the destruction of civilisation in a fantasy or alternative-history context? Game of Thrones could be considered apocalyptic, for instance, and so could the period-faithful adaptations of (say) The War of the Worlds. (Not the best examples, but you take my meaning.) —Flax5 18:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Sicario

A Request for Comment has been posted at Talk:Sicario (2015 film)#Request for comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Request to remove comments on realism

WP editor Tenebrae requests to have a chapter of the article removed, which reports about comments by journalists and city offcials who criticized the depiction of the Mexican city Juarez in the film.
From my understanding any public discussion caused by a film fits very well in the WP article about it, however documentary or fictional the film is. If the film kicked off these public discussions they become part of the story; for example in JFK (film), American_Sniper, Zero_Dark_Thirty, Lockerbie Revisited or The Power of Nightmares. But I'm willing to accept majority view: Should we remove comments (backed by sources like this) on the realism of a movie from an article? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Editors please take action

Once an RfC has been called for a section, that section is not to be edited. Yet I've just had to revert Bernd.Brincken's unialteral editing of the section. I ask other WikIProject Film editors to keep an eye on the article so that this breach of policy does not recur. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Where do you read this 'protocol'? Nobody seems to be interested in your crusade anyway. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

First of all, a protocol is not a published policy or guideline. It's inherent in the very process. There is no way to rationalize making contentious changes to a section under RfC discussion we're awaiting consensus to make changes. We're not supposed to make changes without consensus. Do you really need me to point to where it says "Wikipedia operates on consensus"? And please be civil — making snarky and untrue comments about a "crusade" is not constructive or collegial. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Coonskin

I have nominated Coonskin (film) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dagko (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox character

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox character#Template-protected edit request on 25 February 2016. There is a request to add |mother= and |father= parameter aliases to {{Infobox character}}, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Scheduled for?

Hola, re: Template:Infobox film's |released= parameter, does the project have any preference for whether or not to add "Scheduled for" before the film date if the movie has not been released yet? There's no mention in the template instructions, but I've seen "Scheduled for" here and there. Gracias, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I would omit it as it's easy to overlook it when updating releases but I don't believe there's a hard and fast rule on it. GRAPPLE ^X 16:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I feel like there was a discussion about it. I remember there being content on about whether presenting it without scheduled is CRYSTAL and whatnot. I'd go through the archives but I'm mobile and navigation is difficult. I apologize for not being able to look. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We actually already established consensus about this last October: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 58#Joy (film). I would exclude it. (@TenTonParasol:: I think I got you covered.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, OK, great. Thanks all. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Input requested

Here. Coretheapple (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Proposal to make unnecessary spoiling clearer in the WP:Spoiler guideline

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Spoiler#RfC: Proposal to make unnecessary spoiling clearer in the guideline. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

European films AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Transformers 5

Does this article pass WP:NFF? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

BLP summary headings

Lately, I've seen a number of summary section headings added and removed, e.g., [8]. Is there a consensus on whether they should be used? Lapadite (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I was going to mention Clint Eastwood, but it looks like these section headings were simplified too. Looking at MOS:SECTIONS, there does not seem to be much guidance. MOS:LAYOUT#Names and orders for section headings has no guidance either. I suppose WP:STRUCTURE could apply, especially in the case of Saoirse Ronan, where the section headings may be perceived as too promotional if the prose does not truly back the headings. It might be more acceptable to have more "creative" headings for persons whose careers are evaluated in retrospect. Ronan may be too new to warrant such headings, where I would have thought Eastwood would have warranted them. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I've been removing them. They're almost invariably promotional, and they serve little purpose. For some reason, the vast majority of the IP editors who are adding them are based in South America, and the biographies targeted are almost always actresses aged 17–25 years old. But this belongs more at WT:FILMBIO or WT:BIOG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Posted discussion and responded at WT:FILMBIO. Lapadite (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

New template I've come across

I wanted to post here to get more eyes on this matter before I took any action, but I've just come across {{FilmdbLink}}, created by Nami-ja, which appears to be a copy of this template at the Japanese Wikipedia, ja:Template:映画情報管理, where that user is also more active. I believe this template, which puts external links below an articles navbox, goes against our practices here, as laid out in Wikipedia:External links#How to link. I was planning to nominate it for deletion, but just wanted to see other's thoughts before I did. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

How should we refer to unnamed characters in plot summaries?

Look at The Lobster. (This has been discussed a bit before.) Most of the characters aren't named in the film, but are identified with names like "Limping Man", "Heartless Woman" and "Biscuit Woman" in the credits - presumably because some means of identification is necessary in the credits. The current plot summary uses these names - proper nouns and all - in the summary itself. I think this is a bad idea, because it suggests those are the characters' actual in-universe names, when nothing in the story suggests this. So it's misleading. Surely referring to them with standard prose ("the man with the limp") would suffice?

I don't mean this to just be a discussion about The Lobster, by the way; I'd like to establish a consensus about how we identify unnamed characters generally, as it's something I've seen in a few places. Popcornduff (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it an issue? The first film I thought of was Eraserhead, which uses the character names of Beautiful Girl Across the Hall and Lady in the Radiator in the plot. This is a Featured Article and is due to be posted on the mainpage in the next few days too. How is Biscuit Woman different to Charles Foster Kane, for example? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Charles Foster Kane is the character's in-universe name. I haven't seen Eraserhead, but is Beautiful Girl Across the Hall the character's in-universe name - ie how other characters refer to her? To me this is a major distinction. Popcornduff (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

In the case of Eraserhead those characters are not mentioned by those names in the film by anyone. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Then my view - and I respect that this may be controversial, I don't know - is that referring to them in the plot summary that way is misleading and kind of weird. And I just don't think it's necessary. Normal English would just describe them in prose. Popcornduff (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I think for the matter of succinctness, you would just refer to them as if it was a proper name. But, I see your point about it not being an official name, just a credited name for the sake of payment. Like "Ambulance Driver #3". That being said, the easier solution would be to put a note at the top of the plot section stating "No characters are referred to by name in the film, and for this plot summary they will be referred to by their credit." Or something to that effect. At the end of the day, it's probably six to one, half dozen to another. I don't think any reader is going to care of "the man with the limp" or "the Limping Man" are used. Readers aren't that dense.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the credit names should probably be used (unless there is a descriptor that makes the character more identifiable) but they should be written as common nouns, rather than proper nouns. This is done at Walkabout_(film)#Plot where the names from the novel are not used in the film. It would look like poor English if we went through the summary capitalising generic descriptors. Betty Logan (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

This is what I did in Circle (2015 film). Otherwise, you'd have awkward sentences like, "Wife tells Doctor that she loves Husband." In an article like Faster (2010 film), I think using the in-credits names makes sense, as this is part of the film's stylistic conceit. In Exam (film), the characters are unnamed but given in-universe nicknames, which we use in the plot summary. The plot summary makes a little more of this than I would like (putting the nicknames in italics), but I don't think it's a big deal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

If characters are credited as normal words like "Doctor" and "Husband", it seems reasonable to call them "the doctor" and "the husband" in prose. In the case of more unique credits like "The Lady in the Radiator", I think readers can be trusted to recognise that these are supposed to function as names of a sort.

In other words, I would suggest that "The wife tells the doctor that she loves her husband" and "Spencer is embraced warmly by the Lady in the Radiator" are both perfectly good sentences, while "Wife tells Doctor that she loves Husband" and "Spencer is embraced warmly by the lady in the radiator" are not. —Flax5 18:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Splitting a page listing three separate franchises' accolades up

The page List of accolades received by the Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator franchises lists the accolades received by three separate science fiction franchises. I suppose this would have been acceptable had the franchises all existed under the AvP umbrella, a la a shared universe. However, the AvP franchise has been dead for over eight years now and the Alien and Predator franchises have had their producers explicitly state that the continuities are separate from AvP and that AvP is a non-canon crossover detached from the individual franchises.

Seeing as how these franchises are not a part of the same umbrella, I believe we should look at splitting the contents of the page. I believe the page should be reserved for the Alien franchise, while it is a subject of discussion as to whether the accolades received by the Predator franchise are numerous enough to warrant a separate page. As for AvP? Ehh... it's pretty evident that the couple accolades would fit nicely on the Alien vs. Predator page. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 09:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Any input would be appreciated! DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 01:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The franchise awards articles can be split and the crossover awards moved back to the AvP article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Censors cuts in single markets

Could those interested please comment in the talk thread Talk:Spectre (2015 film)#Indian censorship revisited on whether the solute cuts of a censor in one market is worthy of inclusion in an article. Many thanks. – – SchroCat (talk) 06:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to address this here rather than there, because I think that this is a topic common to more than one film article. While the specific edit in question at Spectre has a bunch of baggage about angry Twitter users and such, I do think that significant edits that local film boards make to films are notable as long as they can be reliably sourced. Films are artistic works, and insofar that it is not unusual for us to describe cuts that a studio or distributor makes to a film contrary to the director's wishes, then if an audience segment sees a version of the work that wasn't the intent of the creator or that no other audiences see, then I think it's noteworthy, regardless of who does the cutting. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 07:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Define "significant" in this context. Cutting out some kissing? Hardly worth mentioning, and certainly not encyclopaedic. Censors normally ask for some minor cuts to get it into a particular age bracket, and we don't normally bother with such trivia. – SchroCat (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I propose that it needs to be on a level beyond "edited for television", and above and beyond what is typically censored for that country when it is not the primary market of the film. And sourced beyond someone's observation in a blog or forum post. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Film template at TfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Members of this project...

...may be interested in this discussion. BMK (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

another movie, a TV movie, of The Invisible Circus

I loved Egan's book, The Invisible Circus, and was totally delighted when I saw a TV movie of the book. It was SO much better than the one with Cameron Diaz. And the love scenes in Italy so much more explicit and beautiful.

I cannot find any mention online of this TV production. I would love to hear from you if you saw this TV movie!

Carolyn Erbele — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.237.234 (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

"Dunkirk (2017 film)"

Is Dunkirk not considered to be notable enough to have an article? It has been covered by a fine amount, with large coverage of it being Harry Styles' "film debut". Freshness For Lettuce (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:NFF, we do not create stand-alone articles for a film until it has begun filming, which is not a certainty. For what it's worth, Draft:Dunkirk (2017 film) is underway. This mentions that filming will begin in May, so the draft can be moved into the mainspace then. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

That is a bad guideline, potential difficulties in a project is a bad reason not to have an article of something that is notable. "If something is notable, it's notable". That is like a guideline that says you shouldn't have an article of a game in development because it may be delayed. There isn't a proper reason to "arbitrarily" keep it as a separate article until the start of filming it. Freshness For Lettuce (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on topics of enduring notability. In the film industry, there have been many films that have begun development but never reach the filming stage. They don't have their own articles because in the end, there's nothing tangible. The so-called notability that exists is rooted in a broader topic, such as the source material. In this case, it is the director. Per consensus, the start of filming is the threshold to have a stand-alone article. Once filming starts, a film is much more certain to be released than not. Wikipedia isn't in a hurry, anyway. If filming begins, then there can be a stand-alone article for all eternity. If filming does not begin, then the early news coverage can be summarized in the broader article of whatever made it notable. Shantaram (novel)#Film adaptation is one such example. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The notability is enough for Dunkirk and it should be a "case-to-case basis" for each movie, instead of a "blanket" rule. Freshness For Lettuce (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Why do you believe that the notability is enough? What we have here is forward-looking news coverage which does not differ from coverage about projects that either happened or didn't. There have been projects with directors and stars attached but never start filming. We can discuss the odds of it ultimately becoming a film (I'm pretty sure it will, personally) but the clearest threshold to use is the start of filming. Before that, there is not much that cannot be summarized in a single paragraph in a broader article. There is no need or rush to demand a stand-alone article based on the ongoing plans. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Cast lists in leads?

I was recently told on Talk:Captain America: Civil War that the standard for articles on films set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe is to give the small-print billing block from the official poster, verbatim, but this seems problematic to me. For one thing, on our Avengers: Age of Ultron article this means Hayley Atwell and Idris Elba (who have one-minute cameos) and Stellan Skarsgård (whose cameo is only slightly longer) are named in the lead, before the film's principal antagonist James Spader. The problem on the (as-yet unreleased) Captain America: Civil War article may or may not be worse, with Wikipedia unilaterally declaring that the film will have an "ensemble cast" even though the same poster that lists sixteen actors also lists three of them much more prominently. Both of these articles' leads suffer from WP:OVERLINK with the paragraphs in question having more blue text than black.

I was told that saying that we should list the actor who plays the title character and the other actors whose names are listed above the film's title on the poster is bad because it is "based off of marketing materials", even though billing blocks by definition come from marketing material.

Any thoughts? Is this actually a style guideline for film articles? I read WP:MOSFILM#Lead section and WP:MOSFILM#Cast, but I still can't understand the logic here...

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The infobox should ideally be a formal reflection of the credits, which is why it generally relies on the billing block (although sometimes even this causes problems if the billing block does not reflect the actual film credits). There is a little more leeway granted for the lead because the purpose of the lead is to summarise the article, not just the film. If the number of names is swamping the lead I would say it is acceptable to use the names just above the title, or if that's too many then just limit them to the "title" role. Betty Logan (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Notability of producers

Is there guidance somewhere about what constitutes notability (i.e., notable enough to have their own article) for producers of films, TV shows, etc.? I can't find a guideline at WP:Notability (people); WP:CREATIVE includes writers and directors, but does not say anything about producers. I also couldn't find anything at WP:NFILM. But I'm guessing that some kind of consensus understanding does exist - possibly not written down - and that you folks here at WikiProject Film might know what it is. Specifically: if a person has been the producer (I mean THE producer, not just one out of several executive producers) of a notable TV series or film, is that enough to make them notable? Or does it require multiple such productions, or an unusually notable production, or what is required? Thanks for any input. --MelanieN (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I have applied WP:ANYBIO #1 in creating articles about producers as well as other crew members. WP:CREATIVE does say an article could be warranted if the person "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work", but I personally find that level of contribution hard to tell sometimes. For some films, producers are a dime a dozen, and it seems silly to create an article about a producer just because their film was #1 at the box office. Being the recipient of an award more directly recognizes their contribution. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I would check trade magazines for coverage. They often run profiles of notable professionals, and these can be sourced to demonstrate notability. For example: [9]. If such articles exist (and preferably are cited), then I would consider them evidence of satisfying WP:CREATIVE, which seems applicable to producers. Beyond that, I'd go with the more generic criteria, like WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. One thing that I've noticed is that AfD seems to be shifting toward a heavier burden on biographies lately. Articles on filmmakers who can't establish notability independent of their filmography often get redirected or deleted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. This could make it hard to source a person who was active in the 1940s and 1950s. But I'll see what I can do. --MelanieN (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library might be useful for that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I do a bit of work on producers/directors/actors of the 30s and 40s, regarding producers, I go by WP:GNG, and I've probably created a few dozen articles or so from that period. I find the Media History Project extremely useful. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

List of films considered the best

List of films considered the best is on to its fifth AfD nomination (if you include the three AfDs under its previous title as well). It seems some editors just don't get the message >>> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films considered the best (2nd nomination). Betty Logan (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

If Smokey and the Bandit 3 isn't on the list, then I'd strongly support the deletion of this article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

List of children's films

To include or not to include the Harry Potter films: Talk:List_of_children's_films#Harry_Potter. An editor has removed sourced content several times now. He's about to feel the ANI birch on his backside (hopefully) but it wouldn't hurt to get a third opinion at the discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 08:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Trouble has flared up again at this article. The other editor is back off his block and is now making POINTy edits. Discussion has resumed at Talk:List_of_children's_films#Unsourced_additions. It's obvious I am going to have to go back to ANI but it would be useful to get a third opinion before I do. Betty Logan (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• Dcasey98 is even using IMDB to source one of the films that he/she recently added to the list and as we all know, IMDB was never a reliable source. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library

I've proposed something about approaching some of the film companies to make agreements with screenshots from films. If interested please add some input.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Internet Movie Database page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

List of cult films

Well, it's official. According to this article in The Atlantic, list of cult films is one of the longest articles on Wikipedia. This is fairly recent. The article used to be well-sourced and moderately long, but now it's insanely long and comparatively poorly sourced. If anyone wants to take a look at it, I'd be grateful. The first thing that needs to be done is to remove all the redundant citations per WP:OVERCITE. Second, and this is going to be tedious, we need to get rid of the unreliable sources. Finally, we may want to tighten the inclusion criteria such that it takes more than some trivial mention in a glorified blog to make it onto the list. An indiscriminate list of 1000+ random films really doesn't help anyone understand what a cult film is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Jesus, that thing has 1600 sources! I suppose it is better sourced than the List of children's films, which has all of two sources. They both face the same problem though: they are both too big to fix! These lists need a team of editors to commit for a couple of weeks to be knocked into shape. I don't think this project has enough manpower for that kind of undertaking. Betty Logan (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's partially my fault that it got to this point. I probably should have done something about it earlier, but I was busy with other stuff, and I didn't want to deal with it. I didn't realize it had gotten quite this bad until it made the news. Which is actually kind of depressing, because I used to keep this article in really good shape. It's tempting to simply revert back to five months ago, before it exploded. Then, if the sources were judged to be reliable, they could be added back individually. But that might be too extreme. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I would definitely make sure to set a limit on what sources can be used to ID a cult film. All that list presently does is that as long as one person in one somewhat RS says "cult film" it's tagged as such. I would ask for at least 2 sources per film from two different authros to get some type of discrimination on that. --MASEM (t) 03:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

We'd have to be careful about bloating the article even more with extra citations. I guess we could split it into multiple articles, but I'd much rather find a way to make the inclusion criteria more exclusive. One idea I had a while ago was to require a source that discusses why the film has a cult following, rather than simply saying that it has one. A lot of these citations are simply "cult film X was released to DVD today" or "Director X, who directed cult film Y, has died". This requirement would force more in-depth sources to be found, and that doesn't happen unless the film made a significant impact. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Official selection

Should we list that a film was an "official selection" at every film festival in which it played? For example: The House on Pine Street. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

In short, no. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Release states "Details about a film's release can include noteworthy screenings at film festivals..." I don't think all of them are noteworthy, esp. as most don't have a wiki-page of their own. "Big" film festivals, yes, or debut screening, but the rest is just cruft. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

A festival's article would list those films selected to play, but the film's article shouldn't worry about listing everywere it played bar its début. GRAPPLE ^X 08:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Birdy (film) related move discussion

Please seee Talk:Birdy (singer) In ictu oculi (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to our April event

You are invited...
	Women Writers worldwide online edit-a-thon Hosts: Women in Red, Women writers April 2016

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Uncredited producer in infobox revisited

We could use more input at the film's Talk page. Another discussion affecting this project was opened on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Trouble finding references? The Wikipedia Library is proud to announce ...

The Wikipedia Library

Alexander Street Press (ASP) is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online" collection includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (notably shows like 60 minutes), music and theatre, lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. The Academic Video Online: Premium collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. For more details see their website.

There are up to 30 one-year ASP accounts available to Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Definition of ensemble cast?

I know the phrase has two definitions, but are we supposed to conform to one or the other when writing articles? It seems like when WP:FILMCAST says that if a film has an "ensemble cast" we should write up the cast list in detail, this could not mean that "if the cast includes a large number of famous actors" but rather "the cast includes a large number of players of roughly equal importance". Any ideas? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

An ensemble film is basically a film that does not have a clear lead. Two contrasting examples I can think of in the same series is Alien and Aliens: the first film clearly has an ensemble cast with the focus of the story split among the cast members, whereas in the sequel Sigourney Weaver is clearly the film's lead and the other cast members are a supporting act. Betty Logan (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: That's what I thought, but a lot of editors (including the two users responsible for virtually all of the text of Captain America: Civil War -- a movie that at this point no one outside of the production knows whether it has a clear lead, although it does have a title character and is a sequel to two previous films with the same title character played by the clear lead actor) seem to hold to the more recent slang-y definition of "a cast that includes a lot of famous actors". Should the guideline specify that we mean one, not the other? We have several articles on films calling those films' casts "ensemble" and meticulously listing everyone named on the poster, even those that are known to be minor cameos. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC notice: In-universe name details of fictional characters, in article leads

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: In-universe name details of fictional characters, in article leads (concerning fictional characters as article subjects generally).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Unreferenced 'pashto' movies

Just bringing to this projects attention the many unreferenced 'pashto' movie (and actor BLP pages) [10] created by Nouman khan sherani (talk · contribs). 10 of 31 new pages have already been deleted. --220 of ^Borg 07:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It might be best to simply move them all into userspace. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Order of content in the lead

Looking for some 3rd-party comments and feedback at Talk:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice#Opening in lead. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Money in the Reception section

Hello, Wikiproject Film. Lately I´ve wondered about the very high level of detail about money/earnings (Box office) in some moviearticles. A small sample is Deadpool (film) (the one that made me react), The Avengers (2012 film), Jurassic World and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Obviously, an important aspect of films like these is that they cost and make a lot of money, but is the abundance of detail here in line with what a WP-article should reasonably cover? To me it seems excessive, but that´s my opinion. I´d like to hear others. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I've only looked at the Deadpool one, but that seems a textbook example of over-the-top fan-boy cruft if I've ever seen it. Why is it worth noting how much this (American film) grossed in Brazil, Malaysia, Italy or Spain (to name just a few). The film MOS just states "Coverage of a notable opening in a country not of the film's origin may be included..." (my emphasis). I don't think any of those openings are notable, but that's just me. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion which really should be held here

[11] The underlying question is how do we disambiguate films, by premiere date or by general release date, and is that convention enshrined in a guideline somewhere? BMK (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

How to handle summary statements when RT and MC disagree

And yet, we have another "summary statement" discussion brewing at Talk:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice#Constant Revision of Criticics Response section. Your opinions there would be appreciated, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council‎ - Proposals

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Science fiction movies--Moxy (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Music videos in director navboxes?

Should music videos be included in the navigational boxes of their directors? I'm thinking mainly of examples like Jazzin' for Blue Jean and Michael Jackson's Thriller (music video), where the videos are made by notable directors and are often described by reliable sources as short films in their own right. It seems to me there's a grey area here with no official guidelines. —Flax5 15:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Two Caine Mutiny discussions

Discussions here and here could use more eyes. Both related to image use. Coretheapple (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Girls Gone Wild (1929 film)

Related move discussion linked at dab page. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's a link to the actual discussion: Talk:Girls_Gone_Wild_(franchise)#Requested_move_1_April_2016. Betty Logan (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Created article on satirical comedy film - Climate Change Denial Disorder

I've created a new article on the satirical comedy short film Climate Change Denial Disorder.

Help with additional research would be appreciated on the article's talk page, at Talk:Climate Change Denial Disorder.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Way of the Dragon

There's a dispute on an old Bruce Lee film. Can someone look at Way of the Dragon, please? A new editor is adding a producer to the infobox, and I'm not convinced this person, Riccardo Billi, belongs there. It's difficult to find authoritative English-language information about this film. I just checked the film's credits on Netflix, and Billi is not listed. The editor has provided a non-English source that has Billi's name in it, but how can that override the film's own credits? And I'm not even sure what the source is even saying after putting it into Google Translate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Just an observation that copying from the PDF isn't reliable. You have to eyeball some corrections before pasting into Google Translate. After doing this, I get, "Bruce Lee saw my picture in the newspaper. It so happened that the production manager of the film, who was Italian, called my husband Riccardo Billi to take care of productive and organizational issues. So the producers of Hong Kong contacted me through the agent and chose me immediately." Even with this source, it's interesting his name doesn't appear in the official credits. Not sure exactly the best way to handle this kind of scenario, though it would seem that one person's testimony in one source shouldn't override the film's credits or be enough to justify inclusion in the infobox. However, a subtle in-text attributed mention (with source) in the body of the article might be acceptable. My 2¢ --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Riccardo Billi was just nominated for deletion by someone else. I may do more digging. It's possible he may have had some kind of involvement, but I seriously doubt that he's a full producer on Way of the Dragon. Not even the IMDb lists him as a producer. More input would be useful on this matter. I don't like that we're crediting someone for something that they may not have done. It could cause reliable sources to start reporting this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to change production section guideline was shot down=

Well not shot down, but there really wasn't a consensus able to be reached. You can read the whole thread here. The main problem seemed to be that it wasn't specific enough although there weren't really enough comments to properly gauge a reaction. The manual of style talk page, is not the most active in the world, so that also was a problem. I don't think I did a request for comment for that particular piece, just because I already did a request for comment on here regarding the same thing and I didn't want to come across as repetitive.

I think in a lot of ways the problem regarding production sections is kind of fixing themself, but we should probably tighten up our draft and submit it again. --Deathawk (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Plot or Spoiler

In the page The Huntsman: Winter's War, a user from Thailand is adding full plot into the article as it has been released in that territory but not in the United States (where this English Wikipedia is written into the style and coverage). It was removed by another user citing "spoiler". How could it be when it was released in one territory before? Do this English Wikipedia has a spoiler policy? Why doesn't it allow a coverage to be written when this Wikipedia itself promotes worldwide subject? --182.232.115.23 (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

If that is the case then the removal of the plot is invalid and contravenes WP:WORLDVIEW. Once a film is released in at least one country in the world the plot becomes verifiable. We don't remove plot summaries because a film has not been released in an English speaking country, and we don't remove them because of potential spoilers. Betty Logan (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Another IP is blanking the plot (probably the same person as the OP here). One to keep an eye on. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The OP here seems to be against the plot removal. Just so we're keeping an eye on the right person... --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not make exception for spoilers, that's written right in the manaul of style. If anyone blanks a page citing spoilers you can just revert it and cite that rule. --Deathawk (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

All star films at CfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

10 Years (film) and Ten Years (film)

These two films have been proposed to be renamed, see Talk:10 Years (film) and Talk:Ten Years (film) -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure why'd there be a debate, going by standard naming guidelines, it should be;
  • Ten Years (film) → Ten Years (2015 film)
  • 10 Years (film) → 10 Years (2011 film)
• - ^theWOLFchild 04:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguating them with the years seems compliant with WP:NCF. In these situations you should ask yourself "What would Lugnuts do?" Betty Logan (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

He'd use his eidetic memory and recall a similar situation from five years ago. Then he'd take you all down with him Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

If these moves succeed, perhaps Ocean's 11 and Ocean's Eleven should be revisited. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Film budget representation in infobox

An RfC has been started at Template talk:Infobox film#Request for comment - would this be the better forum for this discussion? I'm also questioning the wording of the RfC - if I had started it, it might have been written:

1. What is the most desirable figure to represent a film's budget [in the infobox] - the studio's net expenditure (considering tax credits, etc.), or the gross cost of production?
2. If both are available using secondary sources, but the preferred figure is less widely reported, is it acceptable to choose the source that uses the preferred figure over a more common/standard source?
3. If there is debate over the validity of that source, is it acceptable to indicate a range in the infobox, with a note explaining the difference?

But that's just my interpretation, and I'm involved in the dispute, though not one of the primary parties. --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I find RFCs that pose general questions aren't much help in practice because they often ignore specifics. It is better to hold the RFC where the problem is, and then present all the options put forward in the dispute, if you want a resolution. That said, Wikipedia policy and guidelines answer the above questions for you: i) if there is a debate over the validity of the source then the answer is you take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and get it checked out before using it; ii) Per WP:WEIGHT we should include all significant figures, and significance is determined by the context of those figures; the less widely reported figures might be preferred for good reason, especially if fresh information has come to light invalidating the older, more widely reported information; iii) ranges are acceptable per {{Infobox film}} which advises "If there are conflicting estimates, do not cherry-pick; list each estimate either as an individual value or as a number range". Betty Logan (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that questions that are too general accomplish little, but generality is relative - the RfC isn't too narrow, but rather somewhat misdirected, in my opinion. My first item above is really the core of the entire debate. The reliability of a source doesn't matter one bit if it doesn't tell us the information we're looking for. It seems to me that first we need to decide what the budget figure should represent, net or gross. That's been the source of the most vehement disagreement. My third question was poorly worded. I was thinking more about how the source determined their figure in each case, not whether the source itself should be considered reliable or not. --Fru1tbat (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You might be right, and your questions might be what we could address. My view is that gross or net matters less than us reporting what reliable secondary sources say. If secondary sources generally use net, then that's what we should use. If secondary sources generally use gross, then that's what we should use.

In other words, my wording of the RfC is content-neutral — we could be talking about movie budgets or a nation's GDP ... it's all the same. And in that regard it speaks to existing policy: Does Wikipedia report what reliable sources say or does it derive its own figures independently? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

And what about when they use both? Or when they mention the gross only, but give the rebate amount to allow one to deduce net? At the end of the day, the language on the infobox is quite clear, it should represent the "Actual cost of filming". If a movie like The Force Awakens has to spend $300 million on "the actual filming" BEFORE they get a $50 million rebate (which, again, is based on a percentage of the amount SPENT FILMING), then the budget is plainly $300 million. Depauldem (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• This discussion is spread out over a couple of forums and at several articles so I will list them all here for the benefit of interested parties:
  • Template_talk:Infobox_film#Request_for_comment
  • Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Forbes_article_by_credible_contributor
  • Talk:Star_Wars:_The_Force_Awakens#budget
  • Talk:Thor:_The_Dark_World#Budget
  • Talk:Avengers:_Age_of_Ultron#Disruptive_changes_to_the_budget
  • Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Order_of_the_Phoenix_(film)#Budget
  • Talk:Maleficent_(film)#Budget
  • Talk:Ant-Man_(film)#Budget
  • Talk:Entourage_(film)#Budget
  • Talk:The_Amazing_Spider-Man_2#Budget_concerns.3F

If there are any more feel welcome to add them. Betty Logan (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• I have started a test case RFC at Talk:John_Carter_(film)#RfC:_Which_figure_should_go_in_the_budget_field_in_the_infobox.3F. Betty Logan (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

shotinberlin.de reliable source?

Any WP Film editors know if this website (English version) is a reliable source? I don't see any info on the site that can help determine if it is. Lapadite (talk) 03:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I would probably email the person on the contact page and ask what kind of editorial oversight they have. I don't see enough information on the site itself or on Google to make a conclusive statement about it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks self-published to me. It doesn't seem to be affiliated to any credible organization or they would presumably link to it from the website. Betty Logan (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I contacted the site, and it is according to the owner: "at the moment it is a one-person personal project". Lapadite (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Additional editors requested

Can other editors please weigh in at Talk:List of giant-monster films#Sourcing desperately needed? Thanks. DonIago (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Could someone of authority please weigh in on the entire talk page, while they are at it, see Talk:List of giant-monster films#regarding links section, which has never been resolved on the talk page. Danke. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

And Doniago, please stop deleting the list until a consensus has been reached, two people against two people is not a consensus. Do you understand? Doctor Kaiju (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Article assessment assistance request

OK, so I think I've now got a pretty good handle on assessing 'Stub', 'Start' and 'C' class actor articles. Next, I'd like to figure out if Elizabeth Olsen has graduated to "B"-class. I can read the Wikipedia:B-class criteria, but I'd like someone who's done some "B-class" assessment work before to look over my shoulder on this. If anyone's willing to work with me on this, please reply back here, or hit me on my Talk page... I think once I've gotten one or two "B"-class assessments done, I should have a handle on it. Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the easiest way to tell if something has hit B class is to look at the Good Article criteria with a forgiving eye. I removed a primary source and performed copy edits, but I think it still needs more work. The career section could be expanded somewhat with more information than just release dates for her films. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Any other thoughts on what makes an article good enough for "B" class?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:FILMBIO would be the best place to ask about actor biographies. It's starting to stray away from what I initially wrote, but Mike Flanagan (director) is an example of what I like to see in an career section. Instead of just saying, "Flanagan directed Absentia, which received acclaim. He then directed Occulus", I describe what led up to these films and how they affected his career. For a film itself, I try to focus on real-world details, such as Cold in July, which has a pretty beefy production section. Leprechaun and Phantasm are also my work, but they're not exactly my best; in both, I've tried to detail what I can from the sources available. You can see in Phantasm that I focused on themes, since there wasn't a whole mountain of sources available for production.

For a B class article, I think the sources should be reliable enough that they won't cause a debate at RSN. This would preclude stuff like ethniccelebs.com. Grammar isn't as important as coherency, but there shouldn't be major disasters. A picture or two would probably be required. Once you get to B class, I think the MOS needs to be adhered to more stringently, though I'm sure others will disagree. Specifically, I'd check for MOS:WTW, which is part of the GA criteria. In film articles, you'd likely find puffery more than anything else, such as "it received universal acclaim", "award-winning director", and "prestigious film festival". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Russian film title article blanked

given that this has an "expand Russian Wikipedia" tag on it should it really be just blanked like this? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. IMDB has some award at the Chicago Film Festival listed. If that can be sourced outside of IMDB, that would give some notability. Basically, it'll never get expanded as a redirect, where as stub has a chance. I know there's a couple of Russian editors who edit film articles (they pop up on my watchlist from time to time - sorry, can't recall their usernames), so there are at least some editors who could expand this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Film director categories at CfD

A relisting of a discussion, please see this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

More eyes

Talk:Hollywood blacklist#Huston quote BMK (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

"A Streetcar Named Desire"

The usage and primary topic of A Streetcar Named Desire is under discussion, see talk:A Streetcar Named Desire (play) -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Plot lengths tool

Hi all. This is just a friendly notice to inform everyone of a new script created by AlexTheWhovian to check a length of a film's plot in relation to WP:FILMPLOT. Obviously there will continue to be the rare exceptions, but this is meant to help check the standard instance. You can find the script and instructions to install it on your common.js page, here. Feel free to reach out to Alex with any questions regarding the script. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It works if the plot is under a section titled "Plot", "Premise", "Synopsis", "Summary" or "Plot summary". If the plot for a film is under another name, let me know, and I'll add it to the script. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Overview is used on documentary films from time to time. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Added. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I've seen "story" used before, if you'd like to add that. Lapadite (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on auto-assessment of articles

See this discussion, which suggests a bot task that would auto-assess some articles for WikiProjects based on other WikiProject templates on the page. Please feel free to comment on the discussion. It would be helpful to know if your WikiProject would be interested in auto-assessment. ~ Rob^Talk 17:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

What's the consensus for inclusion of negative awards?

Hey all, what's the consensus for the inclusion of negative awards like the Golden Raspberry? I have this situation to deal with, where Sonam Kapoor received an award for worst actress. Include? No include? Many thanks (and could I please trouble you to ping me in case I forget? My little red gnome hat has been spinning lately... Thanks all!) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

If they are notable and reported by secondary sources I don't see the problem. It really is no different a to a bad review when you think about it. Betty Logan (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

unnecessary duplication?

Can some of you take a look at List of Star Wars characters and List of Star Wars cast members. Both are basically identical. One is a table and list, the other just a longer table. Both have a great deal of overlap and duplicate info. While they serve a purpose, I'm thinking with some reduction, re-writing and merging, a single comprehensive article/list would serve much better. - ^theWOLFchild 15:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Also consider List of Star Wars Legends characters - ^theWOLFchild 16:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

There is certainly a strong case for merging them, at least the first two. Betty Logan (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Third (second) opinion need at 2008 in film

The charts in this family of articles only document the intitial release (i.e. it excludes grosses from reissues in subsequent years) as explained at Talk:2008_in_film#Disruptive_editing_of_the_grosses. An editor keeps re-adding the reissue grosses and refuses to discuss the issue on the talk page. At the moment there is not much I can do because I am the only opinion on the talk page so if possible I would like to get some outside opinions. Betty Logan (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Purple Rain screenings not appearing in box office results

Can someone explain to me why the Purple Rain screenings that occurred all weekend across the country do not appear in the weekend box office results.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Jackie Brown page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Additional editors requested

Folks may want to take a look at recent changes to the Plot for Independence Day (1996 film)‎ and get involved if they feel it is appropriate to do so. Thanks. DonIago (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

NYT film database seems to be gone

The New York Times film database seems to be gone. It redirects to NYT reviews instead of showing data from Baseline. That's kind of a pain because I was using that for a lot of citations. Oh well. I guess we've still got Allmovie. Speaking of which, I see that Allmovie isn't listed at WP:FILM/R. Is there a reason? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh bollocks. I bet we've got a ton of stuff sourced to it. I hope it's stored in Wayback. Betty Logan (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The number of links is getting on for 10,000. Let's hope it's just a temporary glitch. Betty Logan (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

That also collects some older reviews that have been archived, so they don't all need to be replaced. Right now, archive.org links work, such as this one. It could be that the NYT lost their license to access Baseline's data. If that's the case, I'm guessing we'll see a press release about this in the next few days. I'm tempted to email the NYT and/or Baseline people to see what's going on, but I doubt they'd respond. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

As of March, NYT got rid of its standalone movie awards, cast, credit, and overview pages (which had data from Baseline and AMG). NYT now shows a limited set of movie metadata at the bottom of the movie review page that it gets from IMDb. The movie review article text usually contains director and cast information that is vetted by the newsroom and seems fine to cite. NYT has reviewed around 30,000 movies. Hughmandeville (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Yahoo links too

I keep forgetting to mention this but the thread above jogged my memory. In actor (and occasionally film) articles I find refs that use Yahoo pages that no longer exist. These are from last decade and they - no doubt - disappeared during the several changes that they have gone through. Is it possible to program a bot to go through and mark these as dead links? If not I don't think it is as big a problem as losing the NYT info but I thought the members of the project should be aware of this. MarnetteD|Talk 22:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

There's a bot that's going through articles and adding archived links. If the bot doesn't get the Yahoo! stuff, one could probably use AWB to do it. Personally, I usually prefer to replace the citations to better sources than Yahoo!. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Solution?

So, have we figured out a workaround solution for this? Assuming TNYT films/bios database is "gone" (and I am assuming that until told otherwise...), is there a viable alternative for this kind of info? IMDb can't be used, and Hollywood.com is questionable, so is there another viable source for this kind of information? Because using archive.org isn't going to help those of us looking for this kind of info for "new" people or films and new articles... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

There are several film databases around such as BFI Explore and the AFI Catalog but the bios are going to be a bigger problem. Betty Logan (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, actor articles is what I work on much more, so what I really need is a replacement for the bio info like DOB's and places of birth... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hollywood.com says at the bottom of their pages that they get their data from Baseline, which is a reliable source. Allmovie gets their data from Rovi, which I think is fine if you can't find a better source. You can also sometimes find birthdays at People and other celebrity magazines. Some British newspapers publish stuff like this, too, but I would stay away from the outright tabloids. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I emailed the NYT about this. I'm not in work today, so it'll be Monday before I can see their reply (if, indeed they do). If I hear anything, I'll let you know. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

No, nothing. Oh well, fuck 'em. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't the internet archives have all, or most of the data we need? Someone with more technical knowledge than I have could probably create a bot that archives all these links (I say probably, because again I don't have much knowledge on these things), also was this database deleted or was it just taken offline? Because if it's the latter, Wikipedia allows for hard to reach articles assuming that there is someone withing the company that can access them. --Deathawk (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Internet archives only helps with existing references – it doesn't help when you're trying to add new references for Bio info to articles, as I've been doing a fair amount lately. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

It can do both; you should be able to search the archived version of a page as though it were live. It should still be possible to locate archived pages that haven't already been referenced. GRAPPLE ^X 15:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Aside from the linkage grunt work we may have to do, the information was only being syndicated via NYT, and did not involve NYT editorial staff. The biographical prose material was all from AllMovie/Rovi. Not sure about birth dates / birthplaces; someone on a talk page says that information on AllMovie is user-generated and unusable, like IMDb's, but I don't know if that's confirmed. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Wait, hold up, isn't Allmovie staffed by editors? I know that's the case with Allmusic which is also by Rovi. Looking up a movie on it, The Huntsman Winter War, shows me that the article was authored by a Jason Buchanan and reviewed by Perry Seibert, who both appear on Rotton Tomato as critics whom they count. At the very least the content seems to be selectively curated. --Deathawk (talk) 09:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Baseline is where TNYT's database info came from, so if Hollywood.com uses Baseline too, then they're comparable. The problem is, I came across a Hollywood.com Bio recently with errors – I dunno if the errors were on Hollywood.com's end or on Baseline's end, but in either case it's shaken my confidence in using Hollywood.com as a "substitute" for TNYT's database. But we may be stuck here – I'll probably be forced to start using Hollywood.com's database for references. I find that solution preferable than fishing out "new" Internet Archive link references for this kind of info... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Deuce Bigalow - Male Gigolo

Moody Blues - Nights In White Satin, should be included on the soundtrack list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.119.234 (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Numeral romanization debate on 5 Centimeters Per Second

Hi. I think more people should weigh in on Talk:5 Centimeters Per Second#Numeral romanization. There is an ongoing debate regarding which numeral romanizations are to be used for the title. Input from project members are appreciated. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

"Cinematic universes"

I recently noticed the existence of Universal Monsters Cinematic Universe and Godzilla-Kong cinematic universe and I don't see any strong verification for naming these articles "cinematic universes". It seems the names are solely inspired by the existence of Marvel Cinematic Universe. The difference is Marvel Cinematic Universe, was actually coined by Marvel and became the common name for the franchise. I don't think "cinematic universe" should be the de facto name of these types of film series, especially if there are no strong sources to back them up. And they should definitely not be capitalized like "Universal Monsters Cinematic Universe". I think either "film series" or simply "universe" should be fine. It should also be noted that DC Extended Universe was once located at DC Cinematic Universe until references proved otherwise.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

One more thing, I thought the general rule of thumb was that we do not create film series articles unless it includes three or more standalone film articles.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

See also the bloat at Shared universe. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Any "cinematic universe" films need to have reliable sources confirming that is their name. That is why there was so much trouble with what is now the DC Extended Universe before it was called that. So many IPs kept trying to make and move the article to "DC Cinematic Universe" because it was DC's version of what Marvel was doing so obviously it had to be the same title. Eventually, we made and held the article at DC Comics shared universe films, because that was the best descriptor of what it was at the time, without an official name. So in that sense, using "shared universe films" after what it is, is probably a good title to use, because "film series" is a bit too general and can include additional films that may not be "shared". I'm also in agreement with simply "universe" as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

So what should we call these articles; "shared universe films" or "universe"?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I think "shared universe films" should be used, given it is a bit more specific in its scope and you get all relevant points from the title: all the films exist in a shared universe. I think just having "universe" would be too general. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wasn't a part of the discussions in those articles, but it's just a matter of time before reliable sources begin to swap DC in place of Marvel, retaining the "cinematic universe" descriptor. Here's just two of the first hits I came across: Tech Times and TechnoBuffalo. It seems the phrase is destined to become mainstream if it hasn't already, with or without an official name released by the studio. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, I think we should just call them franchises or film series as appropriate – that's what they are. And I don't understand why we have two articles on the Universal Monsters. This new one seems like a duplicate to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Film grosses in the XXXX in film charts

There is an ongoing discussion about which gross should be used in the "XXXX in film articles" i.e. in the case of something like Star wars in 1977 in film, should the lifetime total be used or should the gross for the 1977 release be used? This issue affects a whole bunch of articles and the articles are inconsistent. We need to settle on one format or another, so I have started an RFC at Talk:1982 in film if anybody wishes to comment. Betty Logan (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Lists of award prizes for actors

They are quite common at wp:FLC and they look fine overall, but to me I think too many of them have 20+ sections. I think you guys should devise a guideline on how to merge some of those 20+ sections. I saw recently that people started grouping critic's awards into a single table/section which is a great step towards that. I hope people in this field come up with good suggestions (maybe ask those at wp:Music too since musicians have the same issue?). This is a typical list these days: List of awards and nominations received by Emma Stone. Nergaal (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree it looks very fragmented. Normally I would just put them all in one, big, sortable table and then readers could group by film or award. I don't think that is a good organizational structure. Betty Logan (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I second what Betty said. It seems that most of the actor award articles are split by award, while film award articles are one big (sortable) list. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at RSN about stephenfollows.com

Hi the reliability of stephenfollows.com is being discussed at RSN here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#stephenfollows.com. That is a blog about the movie industry. Perhaps folks here could weigh in there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Shrek page move

Feel free to talk the hind legs off a donkey here. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing on a German children's film

Here's a long shot, but does anyone here know anything about German animated children's films? I'm dealing with an IP that I suspect may be a vandal, but it's very difficult for me to even tell. The article is The Fearless Four (film). You can see that I and a few other people have been reverting someone on an IPv6 range. I'm not quite sure, but I think this edit is a hoax. I checked the Turner Classic Movies database, BFI, the Big Comics Database, and the IMDB, and none of these databases list the cast members the IP editor insists on adding. I can't find anything on the Internet to support their inclusion in the cast list. I filed a request for page protection, but it's probably going to get declined. I also started a talk page thread a few weeks ago where I asked for sources to confirm the casting, but nobody has responded. So, in desperation, I come here. What's the verdict? Is this a hoax, or have I suddenly lost my ability to source content? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The IP editor just stripped out the sole reliable source in the article, which I had previously added. I'm more inclined to see this as a vandal now, but I'm hoping someone will comment here about the content dispute – the uncredited roles that are being repeatedly re-added. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

It goes without saying that we don't accept unsourced names. If they are verifiable from the film's credits then fair enough, but if they are uncredited then there definitely needs to be a source. RFPP is a joke: the only way you can get page protection is by reverting the editor about 20 times and then they will just block you lol. Meanwhile, the IP will just skip to another address and pick up where he left off. If it continues just post a notification here or on my talk page and if I'm around I will revert it for you. Betty Logan (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Metacritic template at TfD

The nom looks a bit of a mess, but I thought I'd bring it to people's attentions. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Pauline Frederick film?

There's a suspicious film called The Slave Island in Pauline Frederick and IMDb's filmographies. I think it may actually be another name for The Slave Market. Greta de Groat, who appears to be Frederick's number one fan, doesn't list it,[12] IMDb's entry is extremely bare (e.g. she's the only cast member listed), and the two films' release dates are December 31, 1916, and January 1, 1917, respectively. Can anyone shed any light on the matter? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Most filmographies on Wikipedia are copy-pasted from the IMDb by lazy editors. Her filmography at the American Film Institute doesn't mention anything about a Slave Island. This webpage by de Groat cites a NYT review of Slave Market and identifies Slave Island as a misprint. Seems logical to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Aha. I missed that last part. Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Son of Saul (poster).jpg

This image is discussed. I invite you to FFD. --George Ho (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Buster Keaton Rides Again.jpg

Another image is still discussed. I invite you to FFD. --George Ho (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Time Travellers film

Hey, I'm new to the Wikiproject and I was looking at the Time Travellers film and Is it the Time Travelers, Time Travelers or the film called The Time Travelers, Would this be classed as a disambiguation or the TV movie? D Eaketts (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking. There's a redirect called Time Travellers, which goes to the disambiguation page Time traveler, which lists various films. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I mean't there is a request for Time Travellers (film) but I wasn't sure which film it was suppose to before.D Eaketts (talk) 10:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

In that case, there are two options. I favor creating a WP:REDIRECT: #REDIRECT [[Time traveler#Film and television]] . The second choice is to create a list, but that essentially duplicates part of the existing disambiguation ("dab") page. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks will do the Redirect for the article shortly.D Eaketts (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Not a joke (or typo on the release date)...

100 Years (film). Any thoughts? Passes WP:NFF?! @Bovineboy2008: too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe so. I think we can lump it in with the likes of The Day the Clown Cried or The Man Who Killed Don Quixote as notable film ephemera without worrying too much about its actual release. GRAPPLE ^X 13:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I assume it is verifiable that it has been produced? If so, a stand-alone article is appropriate. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Only in as much that Malkovich and Rodriguez say it's been made! There's no footage, no real trailers. All the reports repeat this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Grapple's and Erik's comments, and have no problem keeping the page. The release-date concept of the film is on purpose and outside the usual realm of movies covered by WP:NFF. - Xenxax (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

MOS:TENSE and WP:FICTENSE in practice

There are debates on various open FACs regarding the interpretation of MOS:TENSE (a guideline) and WP:FICTENSE (an essay) because most current WP:FAs ignore these directives. In summary, I believe that these two points combine to give the directive that we should consider films ongoing present things rather than past events. Unless a critical commentary is made at a past event (like a film festival panel discussion), it is written about in the present until the critic dies or the film is lost in my opinion. Colloquially, people will say a film was good/bad, but say a building is tall/beautiful/etc. A film is as permanent/ongoing as a building, and modern buildings are more likely to be demolished/replaced than modern movies are likely to be lost. Because of colloquial use, I think it is common to allow articles fall into past tense when discussing a movie. The question is whether we want to ignore, revise or enforce these guidelines.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Attn FAC discussants including FrB.TG, Vensatry, Numerounovedant, Twofingered Typist, @GRuban:.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Tony, I'm not entirely clear about what your specific issue is, but I think you are misreading MOS:TENSE. We write "Reviewer said..." because they said or wrote it some time in the past. They are not saying it right now. But we would use present tense when describing the aspect of the film. For example, "Ron Walker wrote that the use of lighting in Fight Club is amazing." --Laser brain (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Laser_brain. Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll look at this more closely later tonight.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Since all of the other FACs do it one way, it is probably the correct way. I remain at a bit of a loss. What is the point of the "Homer presents" example at WP:FICTENSE?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

"Homer presents" would probably describe the fictional elements of a work, such as, "Homer presents Odysseus as a crafty leader." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

List of longest-running film franchises

Inspired by List of longest-running video game franchises, what do you think about this article being created? At the moment the nearest thing is List of the longest gaps between film sequels, which has a notably difference scope.--Coin945 (talk) 04:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it's likely none of these lists satisfy WP:LISTN, but I could be wrong. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

It already exists at Lists of film series and the sub-lists (for example List of film series with more than twenty entries). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to an online editathon

You are invited...
	Women in Entertainment worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red June 2016 #wikiwomeninred

--Ipigott (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)