Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Talk:Alien_(creature_in_Alien_franchise)#Prometheus

There is a discussion going on here and as a result at Prometheus (film) that I would like input on or ideally intervention because I've spent days debating this with a brick wall and I'm sick of dealing with it so I'm not anymore. Fair warning this might have spoilers for the above film I'm being told that with reliable sources you can add information to articles even if that information is theory. If you've seen the film you know its wildly open to interpretation and most importantly not directly related to the events of Alien without a massive amount of time/distance/logic being filled in, yet largely a single editor semitransgenic is and has been for days, arguing for the inclusion of theories about creatures in these films to be taken as fact and added to the article on the Alien creatures. Mys tance is that reliable source or no, its uninformed theory that only 3 people definitely know about: Ridley Scott, Damon Lindelof, and Jon Spaihts, and they haven't discussed it. I think the user is wrong, thoroughly wrong, but I have been back and forth over this since the 7th or 8th and I am done with it, nothing I say will assuage him or others on that path even when I debunk source after source. So if someone with more knowledge knows whether it would fail policy to include that info or if anyone wants to enter the discussion for either stance, go nuts. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Executive producer roles in producer navboxes

I recently cleared out all the executive producer entries in Template:Steven Spielberg, as I feel they don't belong. An executive producer does not have an implicit creative role, and much the same way we don't have actor navboxes, some films can have a dozen or so executive or associate producers, so assuming each executive producer had an infobox, we would end up with as many navboxes on the articles. I recently did something similar at Template:Quentin Tarantino. Is there any precedent for this? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, i reverted that. Spielberg's role in film is notorious, so those film, those he's only an executive, had Spielberg's creative input. The infoboxes don't allow exec producers in as only the main producers can be included, these navboxes allow us to fill it with all of Spielberg's filmography, from directing to producing. RAP (talk) 12:08 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You have to have the same rule for one as the other. It's not a valid argument that because Spielberg is Spielberg, he had creative input. There's a link to his filmography on the navbox. That will suffice. And "all of Spielberg's filmography, from directing to producing" would not include Executive producer, as that is not "producing". --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This is Spielberg we're talking about. Everything he does, he has creative input in. Jurassic Park III, Men in Black are examples. The navboxes and infoboxes are different because with the navboxes we can use it to cover all aspects of a highlightable person's work, examples being Spielberg and Joss Whedon. RAP (talk) 12:17 13 June 2012 (UTC)

But that's my point. You cannot assume that an executive producer has creative input just becasue of who he is, and you have to have the same rule for one as another, and executive producer credits are not notable enough for a navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Then what do we do with them? They are part of his career, and navboxes cover all career aspects, but since that doesn't apply anymore, what becomes of them? RAP (talk) 12:24 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Navboxes are not supposed to "cover all career aspects". Navboxes are supposed to appear on each article that is mentioned within them, and if you start doing that with every role in someone's career, then each article will be full up with navboxes. This is why we don't have actor navboxes. All the information can be included in a biography or filmography article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• To be fair, these navboxes are there to identify creative authorship. Actors can have creative input in films too, and we don't include a navbox for every actor whoever ad-libbed a line. The production designer probably had more creative input than Spielberg in the executive producer capacity. According to Robert Zemeckis, Spielberg didn't interfere at all on Back to the Future; a lot of the time—especially in the 80s—Spielberg would act as an executive producer for his friends just so they could get their movies made. It's important for Wikipedia to not get caught in the fame game; the issue is really the creative authorship of the film. Betty Logan (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Aren't navboxes meant to highlight important links related to their topic? If you're going to have something as bloated as Spielbergs navbox, you might as well just replace all of that with a link to his filmography. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, cool - we're in agreement. I cleared out the George Lucas one a bit too. How do we feel about the executive producer roles in their filmography articles? Should they be in the main filmographies, or as a separate list? --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think the Spielberg filmography is fine as it is, I wouldn't want to see data fragmented just for the sake of it. With the filmography, each column is sortable, so if you want his director credits it can be sorted that way, same with his producer credits, and if you want to view all his credits for a particular film they are all there on one row. In truth I think the editing decisions for filmographies are best left to the individual article editors; they are restricted to the article the filmography is on, it's not like like a template that is dumped across a load of articles. Betty Logan (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Until the other day however, all the executive producer roles on Spielberg's filmography page were lumped in together with the producer roles showing a "Yes" in the relevant column, so I changed this. I did the same with the George Lucas page, but this has been reverted, changing the column to executive producer instead, as Lucas doesn't appear to have had any actual producer roles. I can live with that! --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Red Tails / George Lucas

Making the argument that executive producers do not provide creative input belies the fact that individual films have unique histories and stories. Making the statement Lucas doesn't have any producer roles?? that alone fails as a statement as he is renown for his involvement as an executive producer, including Red Tails which extended far beyond just being a money man, he actually took up the reins as a second unit director. FWiW, individual articles have to be treated in isolation and left to the authors/editors that have made thoughtful and relevant submissions. Bzuk (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC).

Yes of course, there are always exceptions, and that's fine as far as individual articles go, but we shouldn't be including executive producer credits in navbox and infobox templates, as there is no context (and I meant that Lucas didn't have any "producer" credits - roles are a different matter). --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

As a general statement, that might be true as executive producers usually are backroom people, but folks like Lucas as notorious "tinkerers" that just have to get involved. His role in Red Tails was so complex as both creator, originally screenwriter and then personally financing the production that it stands out as a unique role, and again, I did not contribute the original note or infobox, but am confident that a reasonable "exception" can be made to retain a mention in the infobox for the casual reader. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC).

It can be discussed at length in the article if you like, but it doesn't belong in the infobox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes are there to give relevant information "at a glance" and even in [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_film , there is a clarifying statement/premise that "All parameters are optional".] The particular article already has an extensive background as to the role Lucas played, but that isn't the question. I feel that it is an issue of removing content where it matters, disregarding that the original contribution was a reasonable "exception" and follows WP:Bold, rather than a, dare I say it, "drive by" reversion. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC).

"Executive producer" is a completely different role to that of "Producer", and there is no field, nor any support for an executive producer field. This has been discussed at length at Template talk:Infobox film and is a bit off topic here (although that's my fault we went off topic I guess). Consensus was that no executive producers should be included, and Lucas was cited as a specific example. And as Betty mentions, we're playing the "fame game" if we start excusing people because of who they are. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Not that an exception should be made for "who they are" but for "what they did" in individual films should lead to consideration of the actual contribution of an individual to the creative element of a film. How that appears should be relevant to the reader and the case that infoboxes are there for a "at the glance" type of information is one possible solution. Take a look at Red Tails now to see my out-of-the-box solution. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC). As to the assertion that "consensus was that no executive producers should be included" is not at all what was the jist of the arguments. In reading through the "strings", it is evident that many editors made the case for allowing individual and unique situations to be identified in the infobox when an executive producer made a substantial or significant contribution to the production. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC).

Just because a couple of editors were pushing the argument in a certain direction, doesn't mean that that wasn't consensus. If you look toward the bottom of the discussion, a case study was made specifically on Lucas, and it was decided that if anyone was an exception it was him, and consensus was that he failed the tests for exception. Just be content to add the information in the article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Even making a clarifying note to the reader is not acceptable? What became of AGF editing? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC).

Infoboxes are supposed to be "at-a-glance". If you start including clarifying notes, then they are no longer "at-a-glance". And sorry about my last revert, that was a mistake. And what's your obsession with the outdents? ;) --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the outdents are an affectation that resulted from my involvement in "circle jerk" arguments. The issue, however, should not come down to an editwar which was precipitously being created. The reader actually does not have a full or complete picture of the role of George Lucas in Red Tails which may end up being a last effort of the ubiquitous filmmaker in the creative process. FWiW, the need for concise and "to-the-point" editing is the flag behind which I am fighting. Bzuk (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC).

If you're all for being concise and to the point, then I'd say that the concise statement is "George Lucas was the Executive producer of this film". The non-concise statement is "George Lucas was credited as the Executive producer on this film, but actually he took on many other roles including...", etc, etc. As I said, there's no problem in elaborating in the text, just not in the infobox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

This convoluted discourse has now devolved into an examination of the role of the executive producer, and I am now questioning the "consensus" that is being bandied about. Isn't a consensus derived when all parties to a solution agree to the decision, rather than one adherent taking/making a statement that consensus has been reached? Perhaps further elaboration and discussion is required? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC).

If you care to read the discussion, there is a very clear consensus that executive producers should not be included in the infobox. I'm not getting into it again. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

People continue with this fiction that "Executive producer" is a completely different role to that of "Producer". Not all Executive Producers are stereotypical managers or lawyers or studio heads whose credit is questionable. As I explained at Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 21#Executive Producers producer credits are not specific anymore at all. They have come to mean very different things on different films. It is now not at all unusual for the line producer to be given the title of Executive Producer, while the initiating producer takes the "Produced by" credit. But on other projects, including all Lucasfilm productions, the reverse happens, with the line producer taking the "Produced by" credit. So the two credits have become effectively interchangeable, with no precise definition. As an example from a less famous person, Robert L. Rosen was John Frankenheimer's line producer on six films. On the first, French Connection II, he got "Produced by" credit. On the second, Black Sunday in 1977, he got "Executive Producer" credit, even though he did the same job. (For what it's worth, I think he and others should have objected -- that switching the then-common meaning of the two titles was not a good thing.) The two credits became increasingly interchangeable on feature films ever since.

The infobox is supposed to accurately reflect who made the film. When if comes to the Producer category, the most important criterion is not a strict telling of who got the "Produced by" title, but who actually initiated the film and oversaw it - this guy is the effective principal producer, whatever title he actually got. He should be listed for the article to be accurate.

I agree with Bzuk that Infoboxes are there to give relevant information "at a glance", and that is why I believe instances like Lucas should be included. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Gothicfilm, If you look at the recent discussion on this subject that you mention above, you were the only editor giving this opinion, and consensus disagreed with you. And that discussion specifically talked about Lucas. --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You came in and declared consensus was achieved - based on the false belief that there's a hard and inviolable difference between Producers and Executive Producers. I could show many examples of the same producer doing the same job, yet going back and forth on which of those credits he gets on films he worked on. For many producers today, the titles are interchangeable. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Any reasonable editor who saw that only one editor was arguing in one camp would have reached the same conclusion. If you choose to ignore all the arguments against your point, that's up to you, but there was a clear consensus. We have to be careful about WP:OR and jumping to conclusions regarding these roles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

template:Internet Archive film

A reviewer at WP:FLC suggested getting rid of the "more" link. See the discussion here: Template_talk:Internet_Archive_film#more_link_redux. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cinema of the Philippines

To be perfectly clear, I am not suggesting that this template be entirely deleted, but instead that it be split into smaller, more targeted subtemplates. none of the other templates in Category:Film country navigational boxes are as large as this one. I attempted to boldly split the template into modified version of Template:Cinema of the Philippines, Template:Filipino film crew, Template:Philippine film schools, Template:Philippine film awards, and Template:Philippine production companies and film studios. However, this change was reverted and I was told to gain consensus first. given the fact that none of the other Cinema of Country templates are this large, it seemed to me that there was consensus, but I guess not. what do you think? Frietjes (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, your split makes sense. I'm in favour; go for it. GRAPPLE X 15:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right to split this down, it's massively bloated. Although I'd go one step further - where's the merit in Template:Filipino film crew? Imagine if we had a Template:U.S. film crew. And I'll bet this template is included on the article pages for every Filipino movie ever made. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

In fact, I'm considering sending Template:Filipino film crew to WP:TFD. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

sure, we can delete that one, but if it is deleted, we should remove that section from Template:Cinema of the Philippines as well. FYI, it's not used on articles about films, but articles about directors, producers, ... Frietjes (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the section should be removed from Template:Cinema of the Philippines regardless, but nominated at WP:Templates for discussion#Template:Filipino film crew if anyone wants to contribute. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

320 transclusions, at present. //Obviously// this pig needs splitting up. The one-template-to-link-them-all approach is very poor design (as was image-on-left in prior 'look'). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

the high transclusion count is due to it being included on articles which it does not link (e.g., individual actors). Frietjes (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am the creator of Template:Cinema of the Philippines. I just want to let you know that Philippine Cinema is very different from American cinema, budgetary wise and much lesser number of people involved in making a movie. Frietjes made the Template:Filipino film crew, from the original Cinema of the Philippines template, but in the original COP template the director is separated from other film crews, it has its own collapsible group. When Frietjes combined the directors to the other film crews that's when the template got bloated and lopsided. Transclusion? Yes, I added the navigation template to some Filipino actors, but it is still related to Philippine Cinema. Could you please tell what rule am I breaking by doing that? Because I believe that's what Navboxes are for. So, If we have a Navigation box we can only place it to only a few articles? My main problem is Frietjes keeps doing all this changes without explaining what I did wrong? What rule am I breaking? Don't I deserve an explanation? I think this is just rude and disrespectful. Whatever happened to WP:ETIQUETTE? Briarfallen (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You are the creator of Template:Cinema of the Philippines? are you a sockpuppet of Dr. Blofeld who created the template back in 2007? it looks to me that you are the one who "expanded" the template in 2011. I'm not the only one who feels that was a mistake, if you check the recent edits to the template. instead of asking me to revert my changes, or why I made the changes, you simply went on a rollback spree, then told me to gain consensus when it was fairly clear that this template was the outlier in the group of all the others. indeed, what happened to etiquette ... Frietjes (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not here on Wikipedia to argue with anyone, I am here to contribute or improve articles on Wikipedia most especially about the Philippines. Please do what is best with the template. Thanks. Briarfallen (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Tcmdb title

There is a note there stating that the template is not working as of 2011.
Well, it is working as of 2012, with the different URL structure over at TCM.
Varlaam (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Various film categories at CFD

Several film categories are currently up for changes at CFD. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film#Categories. – Fayenatic London 13:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC: FILMRELEASE - A Matter of Life and Death

I wonder if I could please have some thoughts on the article A Matter of Life and Death, particularly in relation to the age-old question of WP:FILMRELEASE. I undertook a stack of edits yesterday to try and move this article out of the mess in which it currently wallows, only to have them reverted. Most of the reverts were down to formatting points and, whilst I disagree with them, I am more concerned about the release dates of this film. The film, for those who don't know, is British and was first released in the UK on 1 November 1946. Another editor, Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) has added both a New York release and an LA release date (both with non-consistent date formats too). Neither of these US release dates are in themselves particularly notable, but BeyondMyKen has argued that "The NYC release (which is not a screening -- films at that time generally opened first in NYC), which is the American premiere, significant because the American release is discussed in the article, (3) The LA release, which determines the year that the film is considered for Academy Awards, and, finally, the general US release." I'd be very grateful to hear the thoughts of others on these additional dates. - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that as the UK release was first, the American premiere or release is not relevant in the infobox (just as a UK premiere of a US film isn't relevant), but can be discussed in the article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Changed my mind. Think that the premiere, the first general release, and the home country release are all valid. Have updated article to this effect. LA release has absolutely no bearing on anything. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Rob, I've tweaked what you wrote, based on new info which puts general release in the UK on 15 December 1946 - way before any US release. Are you happy with this? - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd say yes. If home country's general release is before any other territory's then this renders any other release date irrelevant. That's not to say it can't be discussed in the article mind you. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The Royal Tenenbaums

Since I have been accused of article ownership, I was hoping some other editors would take a look at the recent changes to this article's plot and give their opinion as to which version is better. My opinion on the matter is that the plot changes added unnecessary details and an inadequate reason was given for the changes. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 14:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comments

Due to the fact that this thread Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters was closed without resolution I would ask that other input be added to this discussion Talk:Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters#The new film by any of the members of the film project that have the inclination to do so. As only two people have discussed this we need other input to form a consensus one way or the other. Thank you for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 16:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Incredible article you have to see for yourself!

The First Motion Picture Unit has more full length watchable film videos embedded than any other article in Wikipedia. It is really cool to be able to watch so many movies in one place! It is now at WP:PR (and T:TDYK). Check it out here: Wikipedia:Peer review/First Motion Picture Unit/archive1. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Suitable for sourcing?

A question of "reliability" is being answered at WP:RSN. Journalist and film critic Nick Nicholson is an established expert in his field as film critic. He accepted two minor positions in two-different film projects, one in 2011 and the econd in 2012. The positions which may have been volunteer spots or paid. Any supposed financial connection ended when he left those projects. His works are found in otherwise reliable sources in which he does not control editorial policy: Fort Bend Focus Magazine & Focus on Women Magaine,[1] Fort Bend Star, [2] Style Magazine,[3] ABC News 92 FM,[4] CBS/CNN 650 AM,[5] Houston Chronicle, and Houston Post.

To clarify, before we get off-track, policy WP:SELFPUBLISH is about someone publishing their own book or creating a self-published media, and THEN claiming themself as expert. Inapplicable. The related WP:SELFPUB speaks toward non-experts writing about themselves and their personal activities. Inapplicable. Further, the guideline WP:USERGENERATED telling us that "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." This said, may we consider those articles written by him before his connection was made and those written by him after his connections ended, as worth weighing toward notability of his covered film topics per WP:NF? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Genre change help

An IP has changed the genre of My Week with Marilyn from drama to biographical. I believe there are more sources stating the film is a drama, than a biopic (An Economist writer even states that it isn't a biopic [6]). Google gives me 3,500,000 results for drama and 1,730,000 results for biographical. Is there a website the project uses to source the genre or will a discussion need to take place on the talk page to determine a consensus? - JuneGloom Talk 00:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

This happens every once in a while on film articles. I would suggest not getting into a dispute. Leave the "biographical" bit in the article, but take it to talk. I might suggesting using a straw poll if consensus cannot otherwise be easily determined. I used the same method during a similar disagreement recently. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Getting into a dispute over the genre is definitely something I want to avoid! I'll start a discussion on the talk page and use the straw poll if I need to. - JuneGloom Talk 13:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion started, if anyone wants to take part and help resolve this. - JuneGloom Talk 14:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Best sources for awards

When adding awards and nominations to a film or actor's article, what is the preferred way to source them? There has been some discussion by members of the Indian cinema task force that according to Wikipedia policy, first party sources like IIFA are not adequate, and third party sources like newspaper reports are better. However, I see that official sites of the Academy Awards and others are used in Hollywood GAs and FAs, so I am thinking that first party sources are okay for awards. Comments please. BollyJeff | talk 15:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

For reporting objective facts a primary source is fine; the César award website isn't going to be biased in reporting who won what, after all. A newspaper or other secondary source is always a bonus but if you have something like film awards which are provable facts and not opinion then a primary source is fine. GRAPPLE X 15:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, primary sources are unsuitable generally because they can just say "I'm great and the party don't start til' I walk in". Listing award winners isn't going to be questionable. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

"Movie studio" or "film studio"

Please see Talk:Movie studio#Requested move. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

And while we're at it, what do we think of movie star, movie theater, movie projector and movie camera. And digital movie camera might be better off as digital video camera or digital motion picture camera. I'm not going to nominate or move them just yet, just wondered if anyone had any thoughts? --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I've responded at "movie studio" in regards to that particular case, but personally I would do a Google web, books, and scholar searches on the terms to determine which usage is more prevalent. I think WP:COMMONNAME is the relevant policy here, and probably takes precedence over Film Project naming conventions. For instance "movie theater" gets 26 million hits as opposed to 2.4 million hits for "film theater"—a phrase I've never actually heard. However "cinema" gets 886 million hits so is probably the COMMONNAME here (although we can't be sure how many of those are for the "theater" usage, but the majority on the first few pages are), but the title is occupied by a disambigation page in any case; if you are going to disambiguate it as Cinema (movie theater) you may as well leave it where it is. Betty Logan (talk) 05:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Opening sentence in 'Critical reception' section

The following is my position on a debate I started on a film article. Because it applies to almost all film articles here, I thought I'd start a discussion here at another editors suggestion.

Fairly often, we will see the critical response section open with a statement saying that the film received "Generally positive" or "Generally negative" or "Mixed or average" or some combination of the above. Just as often, particularly in the cases of films that aren't clear cut one way or another (let's say scores from 30 to 79 on Rotten Tomatoes for the sake of argument), the verbiage gets changed to be more positive or negative depending on the view of the editor. Aside from culturally recognized films, either for critical success or failure, I've never seen this 'summary' sentence cited, and it sometimes does not reflect the conclusion a reasonable person would come to reading the reviews. In short, I think a lead sentence that makes a clear statement regarding the quality of the critical reception is SYNTH, and thus inappropriate. I feel leading with the Rotten Tomatoes summary and consensus, along with Metacritic and it's summary, gives the reader an excellent introduction to the section, and leads into samples from a group of reviews. Keep in mind, we don't generally start the box office section with 'the film performed well' or 'the film bombed at the box office' unless there is extreme, verifiable cultural significance there. In fact, I've also been removing unqualified statements like those as well. --Williamsburgland (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, in regard to an argument that's been made in the past, even in the case of extremely well received movies like The Avengers, with 90+ ratings on RT my argument remains the same. It brings consistency to the articles, and since aggregators already report how well a film was received the intro sentence isn't needed. The only exception I think is merited would be films that are cultural icons, such as The Godfather or Jaws. This is because it would be simple to find a litany of reliable, verifiable sources stating that the movie in question was successful critically. This would be the same for movies notable for being critical failures, such as Battlefield Earth, or Gigli. That said, I still think the reviews tell a better story than we can. --Williamsburgland (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is a previous discussion that may have some answers for you Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 39#Neutral language in critical reception MarnetteD | Talk 16:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

A fascinating read - it seems it culminated in another discussion I cannot find: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Request_board#Neutral_language_in_critical_reception If there's a way to locate it please let me know. At any rate, I'll point out that a key difference between my position and the debate in the article you linked is that I don't want to classify official language to use on Wikipedia based on film ratings; other sites already do that. I'd like to remove the inherently OR leads and simply let the reviews and aggregators tell the tale. --Williamsburgland (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It was archived to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board/Archive 1#Neutral language in critical reception. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that! So it seems that discussion resulted in two people holding a similar position as I do, and one that disagreed. Please click the link above and let me know if you feel I'm not being accurate in that assessment. --Williamsburgland (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think those discussions ever arrived at a formal revision of the guidelines, but I was one of those in favor of scrapping the opening appraisal sentence and going straight to the scores. It's also worth pointing out that WP:AGG states aggregators are "not arbiters of critical consensus". In short they provide useful statistics but we shouldn't be drawing conclusions from them. Betty Logan (talk) 06:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Question for other project members

Hello there. I've been delinking dates in film articles in accord with WP:MOSFILM, and formatting, and making other kinds of minor changes. Project members are probably familiar with what I've been doing. My question is, would it be possible for some edits of this type to be done by a bot? Thank you. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, along with alot of other page clean-up tasks that can be done at the same time. I listed several ideas when I was a co-ordinator a few years ago, but surprise surprise, nothing was done. Maybe WP:BOT can help. Lugnuts (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

What I'm really wondering is whether someone could create a bot to delink dates in film articles that are linked to "year in film" pages. I can't do this myself, as I have no programming skills. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no programming skills either but I would think that hitting the simple "Year in" links in the lede should be possible. It gets tricky when someone has linked to "Year in British films" etc. On the other hand better to have your edit count increase rather than a bots so thanks for all the work you are doing until some programmer does act on your suggestion. My pet peeve is when we have a "Year in film" link for a television show or performance. MarnetteD | Talk 21:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think things like removing "year in film" links from film articles would be better done by bots than by human beings. Would there be some way of requesting the creation of a bot to do this job? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

As it is such an onerous task your best bet is going to be ask people who actually work with bots. This Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group might be one place or maybe they can direct you to others. MarnetteD | Talk 03:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Sergio Leone 3RR

Single issue new editor Spencer831 (talk) is repeatedly putting in the same unencyclopedic text in the Unrealized projects section of this article. Despite warnings on his Talk page, he just did it again. It looks to me like he's broken the three-revert rule - perhaps someone with more experience in these matters can deal with this? - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The Godfather lead & infobox

There is a dispute at Talk:The Godfather#Godfather film credits about whether or not to include two uncredited figures in the lead & infobox, or put their involvement in the prose. The other issue is whether screenwriters should be listed in the lead as "in a production of", instead of the usual WP film article language. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit war at The Godfather and Carmine Coppola

Ring Cinema (talk) has been edit warring since June 17. He does it spread over days, apparently to avoid being sanctioned for breaking the three-revert rule, as he has been blocked more than once already. He is now insisting on repeatedly putting in Carmine Coppola as composer on the first film. Not even the IMDb lists Carmine as a composer on The Godfather. The composer standard for the infobox is the one who did the film's score - not composers of songs used in the film, or composers of music played by musician(s) in a wedding scene, as we have here. Carmine had additional music composer credit on The Godfather Part II, not this film. The infobox is for the principal composer. Work Coppola did on a piece or two for the first film's wedding scene might be mentioned in the prose, but it does not belong in the infobox. Nino Rota deserves his sole billing in the main credits.

Ring either doesn't understand or doesn't care what a film score is. He keeps saying things like you are in error and sorry about your mistake but Coppola wrote music for this film. I spent a good amount of time improving the Carmine Coppola page, adding a number of details. he then came in and reverted all of it, just to keep the incorrect bit in the lead. After much back and forth, he continues to revert the lead, while taking out correct, sourced info from the article. MarnetteD helped at The Godfather, but then seemed to throw in the towel. Others should comment at both Talk:The Godfather#Godfather film credits and the Carmine Coppola page. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Film ratings template

Here is another question: Is it bad practice to use the Film ratings template now?{{film ratings}} I was told that not many Hollywood GA articles use it; that they rely on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic for statistics. Well, many foreign films do not get much, if any, coverage on those websites, so it is nice to be able to use this template. The documentation says that its okay to use it in conjunction with prose, just not by itself. I could not find anything on the film MOS that forbids it. Thoughts? BollyJeff | talk 19:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I personally have no problem with using it, as long as it is used with prose, as you said. I added it to a few of my film GAs (The Young Victoria being one). It's true that I don't see the template in many film articles though (video game and album articles mostly use it). I'm unclear about the specific policies discussing it. Ruby 2010/2013 19:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

One reason we don't use it is that a number doesn't really say anything, it's what the critic liked and why that matters. It's also because so few of the most prominent papers use ratings at all. Many countries btw have their own equivalents of RT and MC, not every country has one and sometimes they're not good, but those that exist and are good can be used. Smetanahue (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm open to using it in the same manner that it's intended for albums, to summarise a prose section that already includes these reviews in more detail. It'd be a nice at-a-glance summary and would be useful to break up prose in films when non-free media can't be used for that purpose. GRAPPLE X 20:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I suppose the real issue is that it could be seen as constructing your own aggregator, since review selection would not be objective. Editors could select a bunch of 4 star reviews, and then it looks like a 4 star rated film even if the majority of reviews were in fact 3 stars. Gauging the critical consensus for non-English films (and for old English speaking films for that matter) is a real problem with no satisfactory solution but creating the illusion of a critical consensus isn't the answer. Betty Logan (talk) 05:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Surely that's just as true with or without this template, though; a prose-only section with cherry-picked good reviews is going to give the same impression as one with this box. GRAPPLE X 07:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

If you present scores readers will attempt to average them out, so even if you present a 1 star, 2 star, 3 star and 4 star reviews to be balanced, a reader may perceive that as a mixed reception or an average rating, because they may interpret it as being representative of the mix of critical opinion. On the other hand if you have a paragraph saying what the positive reviews liked about a film and a paragraph saying what the negative reviews disliked it's less likely to be perceived as representing a spectrum of opinion. Betty Logan (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

If the latter is present, though, then the former shouldn't give that impression, in my opinion. I've made use of the template in Nude per l'assassino, to provide a quick summary of the reviews which are expounded further in prose; the mix of high and low scores to me draws attention to the divisive nature of the film and encourages reading the individual reviews to see what the craic is with them. Granted, there are times when this isn't a useful layout (I doubt anyone really needs a table to see a run of consistently high or consistently low scores, for instance), but if there is a spectrum of highs and lows, represented as exhaustively in the table as they are in prose, then I think it serves to show that at a glance rather than creating the impression of "averaging" out the scores. I'm not going to force them in wherever I can but I don't see it as harmful or misleading. GRAPPLE X 10:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Betty Logan: You would have to leave out the "star" ratings in the prose section as well if you are so concerned about giving impressions, no? Readers will find them. Are we to refrain even from giving a reviewer's overall impressions, and only mention specific likes and dislikes? I agree with Grapple X that the template is even more useful when there is variety of scores. I also believe that our primary concern should not be in protecting from abusive editing practices; we have review processes (and the very nature of the wiki) for that. It is helpful to those that do not want to read all of the prose as well, we are making it easier for the reader. Finally, if it's okay for music reviews, why not film reviews? BollyJeff | talk 13:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally speaking I would leave out star ratings and scores in any capacity from individual reviews. Betty Logan (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring going on at The Zombie Diaries and World of the Dead: The Zombie Diaries

There's been nonstop edit warring on these two articles for months now between User:Bradswanson2010 and various anon IPs (who I imagine are the same person/organization). One issue seems to be over how many theaters the film was shown in, the other is the budget.

I don't really have anything on either article so I'm bringing it here to see if anyone can settle this.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Move request comments needed

A move request has been posted here Talk:Grand Illusion (film)#Requested move 3. Any input from filmproject members would be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 00:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

im not a geek, so anyone to help please?

I'm thinking this web page SEVERELY needs a new column: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_films_of_2012 )

Please add "DATE OF Release" column for this page so people can sort the list BY DATE, because every time I visit this page I really need that feature and I'm sure every other person Needs that too.

i donno how to edit pages so if anyone can do it please do it. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.203.173.25 (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well this geek doesn't care whether it gets a column. Why not learn how to edit the article yourself? Britmax (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

American dollars in British film articles?

I apologize if this is a silly question that has an obvious answer, but recently a user reasonably asked why the Pride & Prejudice (2005 film) article uses US dollars rather than British pounds. I looked to other British films to discover an explanation, but all those I've seen have also used US dollars (such as here, here, and here). Any responses would be very helpful. Ruby 2010/2013 00:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Have offered a response at the FAC in question. GRAPPLE X 03:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Problematic IP at giallo

Any chance someone could have a look at giallo? An IP editor is consistently removing entries, changing links to existing articles to plain text translations (eg, Nude per l'assassino is constantly replaced with the unlinked Strip Nude for Your Killer, along with a good few others, which is the exact opposite of helpful). I've had zero success reasoning with the editor who doesn't seem to understand that their own personal preference for English-language titles shouldn't override the fact that the articles exist under other titles and shouldn't be unlinked just because they don't like the extant titles. GRAPPLE X 22:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you have things under control. While you haven't been filling their page with official warnings (which you had every right to do) you have been asking them to explain and/or cease their edits which amounts to the same thing. If they edit the page again I would think that you could file a report at AIV. The worst that could happen is that they ask you to place a level 4 waring on their page and then they would get blocked at the next edit after that. Thanks for you vigilance in dealing with this. MarnetteD | Talk 23:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

He's now adding a duplicate list, providing redundant red links for articles which exist under different titles. I believe that this pattern of edits is sheer disruption and I'm not overstepping 3RR by reverting it but I'd still appreciate a hand if anyone wants to step in. GRAPPLE X 18:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I had to log off this morning (my time) before leaving reply - I did issue a final warning though. AIV report has been filed so we will see what happens (if you haven't filed one before they are fairly easy and straightforward - if you have then plz ignore this statement) if that gets turned down then we proceed to page protect - slightly more involved but still straightforward. Sorry I know how frustrating this is and thanks again for you work in trying to protect the article. MarnetteD | Talk 20:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Quick action means that you will be getting a day and a half relief. If they return after that time they can be reported without having to leave multiple warnings. Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 20:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I see that the pest has moved on to a new IP so I have filed a RFPP report here Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for protection. Response time there varies so it may be awhile before the page gets protected. I have to go now so hang in there and revert as needed. MarnetteD | Talk 03:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Am doing. Thanks for the aid. GRAPPLE X 03:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The new IP has been blocked and the page has been protected for two weeks. If the nonsense resumes after that you can alert the admins who took the actions or file new reports. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Relativity Media

Could someone from this project have a look at this article? There have been some edits in the past few days removing a sourced critical section and adding what looks like unsourced puffery. I have reverted because this looked improper, but perhaps the critical section is WP:UNDUE, too. I don't know much of this area, so some other eyes would be very welcome. Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Spider-Man in film cast list

Anyone have anything to add here? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added two cents, specifically concerns that the inclusion criteria for the table do not appear to be clearly defined. Doniago (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Michael Mahonen's Sandstorm

I have been working on developing a few articles relating to Falun Gong, including one on the above named film. I guess the biggest question to my eyes is whether the film is notable enough for a separate article, under your guidelines. Most of the information I have found from independent reliable sources on the subject, and the sources themselves, can be found at User:John Carter/Falun Gong books#Sandstorm, with the exception that the film was on the festival circuit for five years before receiving a very limited release in New York and Los Angeles, and that it closed quickly in both markets to fairly uniformly negative reviews, although I've only seen one of those reviews. If any of you think that the subject does meet notability, and want to move the article out from there into main article space, please do so and let me know either here or in some other obvious way. If you think it isn't sufficiently notable for an article, please indicate that here. Thanks for the attention. John Carter (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Notable enough... and a perfect example (see above discussion) of the earlist screening date (2004) being in the infobox (with date and where it screened), and the "official" and searchable commercial release date being in the article title Sandstorm (2009 film) for disambig purposes,[7] but explained in the article as sourced prose. May I have your permission to work on it in your sandbox and move it to article space afterwards? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Permission gratefully given. Google shows a couple of articles in the website of The Epoch Times as well, and there might be a few other usable sources there as well. But I would welcome the input of anyone who knows how to do film articles on that piece. John Carter (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

2012 Aurora shooting

Should 2012 Aurora shooting be covered by this project? It's a real world incident related to cinema theatres and showings -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

If the members have an interest in the article, then yes.– Lionel ^(talk) 11:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I have resevrations. It seems that four other projects have already claimed it so it's not like it's looking for a home, and none of our guidelines really seem applicable to it. If it gets up to GA or FA standard we'll nab it then. Betty Logan (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

LOL, sounds like the stuff I was doing when I first setup WP:WikiProject Conservatism.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:FILMRELEASE vs. WP:NCF for year of release

Spotted this potential issue in the wording of the above policies:

• WP:FILMRELEASE states "Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release"
• WP:NCF states "For the other films...add the year of its first public release (excluding film festival screenings)."

So you could have a situtation of an article titled New Film (2012 film), but it was actully released (albeit screened in a festival) in late December 2011. The infobox would state Dec11 as the release date, but the page title would have 2012 in it. Should the two policies be aligned? I realise that one relates to an infobox and one to article titles, but shouldn't they compliment each other? Why does WP:NCF have the caveat of "excluding film festival screenings"?

A secondary point raised from WP:NCF is this statement - "Where a film does not screen outside of film festivals, use the year of its first festival screening." Have there been examples of a film only screening at a festival and not getting any other form of release?

Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This was apparently added by Erik on 7 August 2009, diff here. I don't know which discussion he refers to, but as far as I know there have been multiple discussions about this in the past, and the result has always been to go by the first public release, regardless of how limited or wide it is, ie including festivals. Seems to me like the only reasonable way to do it, as we otherwise have to fight over what exactly constitutes a wide enough release. Sometimes, for example, several small films are released simultaneously under a marketing banner like "Hungarian festival days" or similar, but it's really just a way to give a limited release more publicity. And often a screening at a big festival like Locarno or Valladolid renders much more publicity than a theatrical run maybe a year later. Smetanahue (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

A simple solution may be to add location in a bracket note in the infobox, especially if the release is not a theatrical release. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC).

Films that don't get a distributor may screen only at a festival. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed... Many projects have been found notable that NEVER had a theatrical release. WP:FILMRELEASE is a template issue. We place the earliest public screening therein. We may have a film that hit Sundance in 2010 but did not recieve theatrical of DVD distribution til 2011... or it might never do so. The later film date is something that a film's production company does when submitting information to IMDB or to press interviews. If the earlier date is verifiable, it is the preferred date and is the date which goes in infobox. Later screenings are generaly covered within the body of the article as text... in production or release sections. And yes... we could have a article titled New Film (2010) with a release date in the infobox of 2009. The clarificaton belongs as text in the article....

OR... as we can always be BOLD, if doing so improves the project and serves the readers understanding. There can be rare circumstances where it is reasonable to use both "earliest" screening AND later "official" year in the infobox... IF the two different years are explained and expanded within the article as prose. Giving the reader more information is never against policy... specially if to do so if it improves the project. In those rare instances, use the template's filmdate twice, separated by a break: {{Film date|Year|Month|Day|Location}} <br/> {{Film date|Year|Month|Day|Location}} and be prepared to defend your bold reason for doing so if asked why (which is likely). But never battle over such issues... bring them here for discussion.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you, Michael. However, I personally do not understand why we would have the title of the article and the year of release have a discrepancy. The first verifiable release can definitively determine, barring strong argument and extremely notable exception, the year of release. The guideline at WP:NCF only needs to be updated to indicate that we should include film festival releases as the films year of release. BOVINEBOY2008 22:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Bovineboy here; I would just go by the first verifiable release, festival or not. GRAPPLE X 22:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not saying that mixed dates in the infobox are best, and fully agree that the first verifiable date is the preference, even if it precedes the "official date" by years We explain a seeming inconsistancy between infobox-date and article name-date by sourced prose within an article. I am only considering that there might be circumstances that could qualify as rare exceptions and how we might then deal with those very rare exceptions. We serve the project by recognizing that rare exceptions could sometimes exist (however unlikley) and we show wisdom by encouraging any editor wishing an exception to bring it here for discussion. Anyone disagree with that? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I complete agree. There are definitely certain instances that will need to be discussed and may dissent this guildeline. But, I do often see films that are considered, for instance, 2012 films when they actually and definitively premiered in 2011 and would show in multiple places. We need some guideline to point to that says this is how we typically deal with these circumstances, but it is up to discussion. BOVINEBOY2008 20:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• I concur with those that want to keep this simple: when disambiguating by year the simplest solution is to go by the year when the film first became publicly available, whether via a festival or limited/DVD release. At the end of the day, it is the 'publication' date. Betty Logan (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your input. I've been bold and changed the WP:NCF policy to include festival release dates (if that was indeed the first release of a film). I've based this upon a) the consensus which seems to be have been reached here and b) I'm unable to see why the "excluding festivals" rationale was discussed before (or indeed why that would be an exclusion). Thanks again. Lugnuts (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Well done. Only recently work has begun on the internationally released French film La Chasse aux papillons. While it did have a release IN France in November 1992, its first release, one which received recognition and notice, was two months earlier in Italy at the Venice Film Festival. Later other-language and other-year releases will be covered as text within the article, the infobox now contains its FIRST official release date (in Italay). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding trailers

If a free trailer for a film is available, should the video be placed in the {{Infobox film}} or somewhere in the body? – Lionel ^(talk) 11:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Only if it is notable. Like if there is controversy over the trailer in question. Generally, we don't even link directly to trailers because they are available for viewing through the many external links provided for films, like the official website and IMDb. BOVINEBOY2008 12:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear. I was referring to a full length ogv file of the trailer uploaded to commons--not a link. Would it be preferable to add the full length watchable trailer to the image parameter of the {{Infobox film}} template? And when a trailer ogv file and a movie poster are available, do we use the poster in the infobox, and put the watchable trailer in the body? – Lionel ^(talk) 13:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It may be worth reviewing WP:NFC. We are generally supposed to limit the use of non-free media, which I suppose includes trailers and if there is a poster available, that should be sufficient. I certainly could see cases where including the trailer could be important if there was some sort of coverage of the trailer in which it would be insufficient to cover it in text. However, generally, I don't see how including trailers would meet our fair use standards. I especially do not think we need to be including it in the infobox as the infobox is supposed to give a short, concise list of the vital content about the film; only the minimal amount of stats should be there and I don't see how a trailer would be vital to be included. It may be worth double checking with WikiProject Fair use. BOVINEBOY2008 13:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess if it's on commons it's been declared as PD, so in theory the copyright isn't an issue/ I agree with your other points though. Betty Logan (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Personally speaking I don't think it should go in the infobox because it doesn't really provide any essential information about the film. The reason we have a poster in the infobox is to visually identify the film to the reader, and a trailer may not do that without being played, and not everyone has media playing enable in their browsers. A trailer seems like a reasonable external link candidate though. Betty Logan (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed. If it's an official trailer, it would be reasonable to consider it as an external link per WP:ELMAYBE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Animated films

Should the Category:Animated films include all films like for example Category:French films or should they be moved to subcategories whenever possible?--Cattus ^talk 21:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Subcategories. Smetanahue (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--Cattus ^talk 15:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Some input needed

A few more eyes over at Talk:A Scanner Darkly (film) in regards to the plot summary length would be helpful. --MASEM (t) 12:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY/Credits

There is a question raised as to whether MOS:IDENTITY applies to credits for films, etc. Discussion here. --j⚛e decker^talk 13:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The Great Escape cast list

I started a discussion on The Great Escape talk page, here, regarding the film's cast list. I would like to get the opinions of other editors regarding my edits. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Filmography templates submitted for deletion

Actress filmography templates Template:Joan Crawford, Template:Bette Davis, Template:Greta Garbo, Template:Katharine Hepburn and Template:Lana Turner are under discussion as candidates for deletion. Details may be found at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 July 30#Actress filmography templates.—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the use of colons in titles

There is a discussion about Final Fantasy VII Advent Children. whether we should use colons in the title or not. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Square Enix#Colons (again) for discussion. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Capitalisation of foreign language titles.

Anyone have anything to add here? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone? Could use a fresh point of view. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I will have a look at it a little later today if it hasn't been resolved (which looks unlikely). I'm a little pressed for time right now but I will get around to it. Betty Logan (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - with just two opinions, we're kind of at loggerheads! --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Filmography articles

An editor recently asked me about creating a filmography article for Shammi Kapoor. How do we generally go about that? Are there requirements? The only thing I could think of was Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:Summary style and for the time being, I don't think a new article is required; however, tables are treated differently and can be created as a stand alone list. What should I tell her? I'll make sure she knows about attribution and all of that before she does so. Ryan Vesey 13:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

He looks to have a sizeable enough filmography, I think WP:SPINOUT would apply here. See Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography for a good example one to follow. GRAPPLE X 13:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Invite to comment

Hi,

This is an invitation to "Film" members to comment on my proposal for a "Westerns" WikiProject to deal specifically with articles regarding Western movies and Western TV series', major Western actors, directors and people involved in this vast genre over the past century. This is for the fictional Wild West – Hollywood's idea of the Old West – so not a historical project. Comments, ideas and further support appreciated. Thanks. — Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 18:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Westerns

FFVIIAC GA push

I've started a discussion on bringing Final Fantasy VII Advent Children back to GA status. The discussion is at Talk:Final Fantasy VII Advent Children#GA revamp. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Once again, let's give IMDb a hand...

...because it needs it. We sometimes hear that IMDb's cast list for new movies might be OK, since IMDb theoretically has access to the press notes' official credits. But that's not so. Just look at all the claims of actors in the new Sparkle cast list at IMDb, and compare it with the official cast list posted at Talk:Sparkle (2012 film).

It really does seem as if IMDb lets every extra without speaking lines or every bit player whose work ended up on the cutting-room floor enter themselves into the cast list of whatever movie they want to. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Their policy includes everyone in the movie, so it serves a useful purpose. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for input

We have only two editors who have discussed a proposed move here Talk:Play Time#Requested move. It would be great if we could get more input from other editors. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 14:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings naming discussion

A proposal to make a name change to The Lord of the Rings film trilogy has been posted on the article's talk page. The discussion is at Talk:The Lord of the Rings film trilogy#Possible name change. All are welcome to comment there. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Films shot with DSLR cameras

Given films like, For Lovers Only (film) and Like Crazy, I was considering creating a Category:Films shot with DSLR cameras. Does this make sense.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

As the frequency of DSLR use goes up, so might the need for such a cat. We have release-format cats, so why not? One thing might be an issue is that "DSLR" isn't a format, since so many sensor sizes and shapes are available. I'll be following this discussion. --Lexein (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Going south

After looking at this, I wondered if there isn't room for a project on the Southerns film genre? "Gone with the Wind" is probably the best-known example, but scarcely the only one... Thoughts? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Song of the South, The Birth of a Nation and... um... Deliverance? I'm all out. GRAPPLE X 00:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Deep Throat. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, that was silly. ;p

I don't say I could name many (any?) others, but I've read this somewhere: until about 1950, there was a whole genre of films, all recalling the lost greatness of the Old South, called "Southerns", which got killed off by desegregation. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Sight & Sound top 10 films

Sight & Sound have published their decennial poll of top 10 films. Some of the articles are in better shape than others. Hopefully project members can help in expanding them were possible. Who knows, maybe a few Good or Featured Articles can come from this. Here are the lists:

Crictics' Top Ten

1. Vertigo
2. Citizen Kane
3. Tokyo Story
4. La Règle du jeu (The Rules of the Game)
5. Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans
6. 2001: A Space Odyssey
7. The Searchers
8. Man with a Movie Camera
9. The Passion of Joan of Arc
10. 8½

Directors' Top Ten

1. Tokyo Story
2. 2001: A Space Odyssey
3. Citizen Kane
4. 8½
5. Taxi Driver
6. Apocalypse Now
7. The Godfather
8. Vertigo
9. Mirror
10. Bicycle Thieves

Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 09:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Taxi Driver

Yesterday, I started a merger discussion, proposing that the You talkin' to me? article be merged into Taxi Driver. Interested editors can find the discussion here. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Not yet released films in filmography

Still a touchy subject – adding films still in production in filmographies. I'm just having a discussion about the film The Canyons (film) added to director Paul Schrader's filmography with a speculative release date of 2013. I say it shouldn't be included in Schrader's filmography until it's been actually released. – Robert Kerber (talk) 10:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

If it can be be sourced, then I see no problem in adding it. Most actor and director filmographies contain upcoming titles. Lugnuts (talk) 10:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Once a film has begun principal photography, it can be added. The Canyons (film) has begun production and now has an article - it's withholding information to keep deleting it off Paul Schrader's page. - Gothicfilm (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Then at least classify it as "in production", not as released in 2013 which it isn't. – Robert Kerber (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Films in production can certainly be added to filmographies. It's films pre-announced or in pre-production that is a touchy subject. I keep them off all the pages I edit and I add a stern comment to the more popular ones to try and head off frequent reverts. Elizium23 (talk) 10:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• On a similar note what do we make of this category: Category:Movies that do not exist yet? Personally I don't think such a category should exist, since films that have not commenced principle photography should not have their own articles as per WP:NFF. Films which have commenced principle photography but have not yet been released are posited in Category:Upcoming films. Is a speedy delete in order here? Betty Logan (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

As it's empty, speedy deletion applies. Also it should be films, not movies... Lugnuts (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Future films should be mentioned in filmography tables. For films which haven't yet started their shooting we don't usually have separate articles and in such cases the article is temporarily redirected to one of the filmography (main actor/director/producer etc. whoever is the hot-cake). So i agree with majority of you on this.
  However i don't like the "in production" or whatever note in the filmography. Only in rare cases (speaking from experience of Indian films) we have reliable source verifying the status of the film. Mostly it is just fans who come in and add "In post-production", "Filming", "Shooting halted", "Releasing on 17th August 2012" and such notes in tables. They are certainly not reliable and frankly unnecessary. Keeping any such note encourages them more. And the trend sets on all articles of biographies related to the film. I personally used to remove such live-updates and simply wrote "Upcoming". But i never won against all those fans. So.... in case you all are deciding to bring this to practice i would request you to think over the nuisance it usually causes. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Red vs. Blue FAR

I have nominated Red vs. Blue 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. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 09:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The Matrix - Larry to Lana (And other films)

There is a discussion going on at the manual of style with a user who believes that The Wachowski Brothers and the Larry Wachowski credit should be changed to Lana Wachowski and the Wachowskis to represent her current status. Personally I feel this falls under the realm of this project, and that it is improper to retroactively alter credits on films based on future events. There is also comment of a compromise (Lana as Larry for example) but again I feel this is improper and irrelevant to the article's history, past, present or future. She wasn't a she at the time, certainly wasn't credited that way, and that change hasn't retroactively altered the film. To insert such a statement is unnecessary, incorrect and confusing ("Wait, why was this woman credited as a man?"). BUT, I am only one person with my own opinion, so I feel input from members of this project would be appropriate since this can potentially affect any film article where something changes in the future and effectively alters their existing history. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

To me, this seems like it would be similar to changing someone's maiden name on their previous credits once they're married, which we don't do. Obviously Wachowski's page would be titled Lana but piped links on past credits are Larry are how we should go about this. Future credits under the name Lana would go ahead as normal. GRAPPLE X 23:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, exactly the thought process I had. I made an example there that Steven Spielberg changing his name wouldn't mean updating E.T. or Indiana Jones, it'd be ridiculous, those are Spielberg films, that is how they're known. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been dealing with a very similar situation working on the articles Against Me! and Tom Gabel (Gabel recently came out as transgender and plans to transition to living as a woman and take the name Laura Jane Grace). I agree with Darkwarriorblake's take on it, and it's the approach I've used: When an individual goes through a name change—whether through adopting a pseudonym, marrying, legally changing names, etc.—it's improper to go through all their past credits changing their name. It's basically revisionist history. In this case the individual was Larry Wachowski at the time they did all these works, and that's how they're credited on the works. MOS:IDENTITY comes into play in these circumstances with respect to how we refer to the individual in their bio and in articles about current/future works, but it doesn't justify changing all past credits. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

We have had a similar situation for years with Wendy Carlos. She is referred to as Walter for her work on A Clockwork Orange and as Wendy on The Shining. The default has been that "credits are listed as seen onscreen". I don't remember whether that ever got added to the MoS but it is the guideline that most of us have used over the years. There is always room for mentioning the change briefly somewhere in the article and, as these changes are going to continue to occur we should make some allowance for them. Perhaps a centralized discussion involving several projects would be a good idea. MarnetteD | Talk 00:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Possibly. I still don't think it needs to be mentioned in the articles unless it is of note, like they changed their name because of the film or were forced to be credited in another way/chose to be like Alan Smithee. In their Bio that work before a certain point was credited as another name or that suchafilm was their last film credited as whomever, OK. I just don't see how it is of any relevance to the Matrix films. Certainly not in the infobox (though tbh they shouldn't even be credited individually in the infobox, they were credited as The Wachowski Brothers, I assume someone has already partly changed that for the sake of this in the past) Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

To find another (so far uncontentious) example, Aqualung (Jethro Tull album) mentions the role Dee Palmer had in arranging the album, though she was at the time David Palmer and was credited as such, which is the name used in the article. As that article's primary author, I know its GA review was quite thorough and performed by an experienced reviewer, so if it were incorrect or contentious to list credits as they were at the time then it surely would have come up. GRAPPLE X 00:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Well the user who actually brought this up at MOS:Identity used Cat Stevens as an example, unintentionally completely undermining their argument since he is now known as Yusuf Islam, but all his work as Cat Stevens is still credited to Cat Stevens and not Yusuf Islam. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It bugged me last week when I saw Bound (film) credited to The Wachowskis, an obvious compromise. While not promoting the name Lana, it's still not accurate to the film's historical credit. Credits should reflect the work at the time of its release. The Walter Carlos example on A Clockwork Orange (film) - Wendy Carlos (then known as "Walter Carlos") - in the text, Walter Carlos in the infobox - is a good way to handle it. I've had to restore that a few times myself after someone deleted "Walter", leaving just Wendy. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, except I think the prose part is unnecessary there to. It raises a point in the very lede about the composers personal life which has no bearing on the article itself (She doesnt appear to be mentioned at all outside of the lede and infobox). I just can't see how it is important to mention that in the lede or article at all and gives the mention seemingly more importance than the article reflects since she is never mentioned again. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

And I agree with you, in a pure sense. The problem is if it doesn't say that there will always be people coming along to change it to Wendy - probably thinking they're the first to do so. And it is in the third paragraph of the lead. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps per MarnetteD (formerly known as MarnetteC), we should have a discussion and add the result to the FILM:MOS because this is apparently happening more often than I realised as I'd only ever seen it with the Matrix films. I'm really not happy with this "THe Wachowskis" compromise, it flies in the face of the effort we go to, to maintain accuracy and it does it to reflect things that simply weren't the case when the work was made. If they decided to retroactively rename Blade Runner to Edge Trimmer, I can't imagine we would change the article name to reflect that. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are using the term formerly - I have never change my user name and that is easy enough to check by viewing my edit history or edit count :-). I would agree that we should have something in our Film MoS but it might be a good idea to get it into the larger MoS for the biography project since this will affect more than just actors and filmmakers. MarnetteD | Talk 02:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I think Blake was just being hypothetical, not implying that you've actually gone by a different username. Personally, I'm against the "x (formerly known as y)" thing. It just seems unnecessary. Assuming the person is notable enough to have an article, and that article is titled by their current name, a simple piped link suffices to handle the name issue, for example [[Tom Gabel|Laura Jane Grace]]. It's exactly how we handle name changes due to marriage or legal name change, when the person had previous credits under their maiden/birth name. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: I didn't "unintentionally completely undermine" my argument. I was completely aware of the crediting for Cat Stevens, and like I said, I consider it a different situation (name changed at the end of their career, not the beginning; doesn't involve a change of gender). I'm trying to examine the guidelines and precedents to figure out what naming makes the most sense. I'm not just trying to win an argument. The reason I changed the name in the first place is that MOS:IDENTITY states that people who's gender is in question should be referred to by their "latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life." That seems to suggest that "Larry" Wachowski should be listed as "Lana" Wachowski (as sites like IMDB and Metacritic list it). If people want to carve out an exception for movie credits, that's fine, but I don't see any guidelines to that effect currently. Kaldari (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, the main point I wanted to make is that changing your public gender identity is a much more sensitive issue than a simple name change. This is why we have specific guidelines on this issue. The argument that it is equivalent to a person's last name changing when they get married is unconvincing. Per our BLP policy, we have an obligation to take people's identities seriously and treat them with some degree of sensitivity. I'm not sure there's any solution that will make everyone happy, but I hope there is room for compromise. Kaldari (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: "The default has been that credits are listed as seen onscreen". I don't think that's necessarily true. In all the cases I've found where a cast member's name was spelled wrong in the credits, we list their name spelled correctly:

• Denis Lawson in Star Wars
• Christopher Walken in Annie Hall
• Philip K. Dick in Total Recall
• Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in Airplane!
• John Kitzmiller in Dr. No (film)
• Bonar Colleano in A Matter of Life and Death

And in most of the Alan Smithee films on Wikipedia, we list the real director, not "Alan Smithee". In many cases, however, "(credited as Alan Smithee)" is added after the real name. Kaldari (talk) 04:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

"'latest expressed gender self-identification.' This applies in references to 'any phase of that person's life.'" In a biographical article that would be true, but it has never applied to other types. In fictional articles characters are to be referred to as they were first introduced. Film information, especially infoboxes is to refer to films as they first came out and how the people were credited at the time. Larry was NOT Lana when The Matrix was made and it should not be forced to reflect future events. If Hitler were alive today and changes his name to Puppy Sunshine Totally Innocent, the article name would change to reflect that, the article body would have a pre- and post- life as Hitler sections, otherwise a huge historical common knowledge would be distorted. ANd I've already told you about IMDb and Metacritic once, they're databases, they're not going to have two entries for the same person with a different name, it absolutely violates the most basic tenets of managing a database because you'll end up with redundant information. It is not an endorsement for history altering, it's practical computer knowledge. The same thing happens here, you use a piped link to "CooCoo Machoo" but it leads to his current name of "ChooChoo Macoo". No matter what you name the piped link, it will lead back to the base article because we don't have separate articles for people based on hteir current identity. And you seem to be arguing that it somehow upsets Lana to have been previously named Larry. Well this isn't a gender issue, what does the gender have to do with the films they made as the Wachowski Brothers? She obviously had no issue receiving that credit, that is the credit as given, that is what the credit here should reflect. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

As for spelling mistakes, that isn't a name change, it's a correction. We aren't pedantic about that, we fix spelling mistakes in quotes as well unless it impacts the context in which case we use [sic] to retain the error. A mistake in name, Lary to Larry, is not the same as rewriting the film's history and putting in place an entirely different name/individual compared to who is recognized as being responsible for the film, The Wachowski Brothers. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I was going to make this comment over at the Talk:MOS discussion, but it seems better-placed here:

Different ways of referring to them

The case of the Wachowkis is complicated by the fact that not only is there a name change, but they're also commonly referred to as a pair (and the name for that pair is also affected by the sex change); also, sometimes their films credit them as a pair and other times individually (I just watched the end credits of The Matrix and it says "Written and directed by The Wachowski Brothers", but "Executive Producers: Andy Wachowski Larry Wachowski Erwin Stoff and Bruce Berman").

Different places they can be mentioned in an article

• The infobox
• Their first mention in a lead section
• Subsequent mentions in the article's body text

In each of those places, the question comes up: how should they be mentioned? The way they were credited in the film, their individual names at the time of the film's release, their individual names now, their collective names then, their collective names now?

Infobox inconsistency

I looked at the infoboxes of the articles on films they were involved with, and here's what each infobox currently uses:

1. "The Wachowski Brothers" - The collective way they were credited as directors/writers on The Matrix. (Used in the infoboxes for Speed Racer and The Animatrix.)
2. "The Wachowskis" - The current collective way of describing the pair, and the name of their biographical Wikipedia article. (Used in the infoboxes for Bound, The Invasion and Cloud Atlas.)
3. "Andy Wachowski, Larry Wachowski" - Their individual names at the time of their films' releases, and the way they were credited as Exec Producers on The Matrix. (Used in the infoboxes for the three Matrix films, Assassins, V for Vendetta, Ninja Assassin.)
4. "Andy Wachowski, Lana Wachowski" - Their individual names now. (Not used in any infoboxes.)

My opinion

To be honest I haven't really decided for myself. I've considered a few different variants (like changing the opening sentence of The Matrix to read: "The Matrix is a 1999 American science fiction action film written and directed by Lana and Andy Wachowski (credited as the Wachowski Brothers)") but I can see problems with all of them.

I just know that whatever's decided needs to be applied consistently! --Nick R^Talk 15:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I had no idea about Larry/Lana. As well as the Against Me! example cited above, see also Keith Caputo of Life of Agony. Has there been any thought on spliting the The Wachowski article? Lugnuts (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Honestly the solution to me is simple, we don't change who authored an album when they have a name change, which we discussed above, I imagine any re-releases of the Matrix do not refer to her as Lana either. The credits should accurately reflect the history and not future changes, and the credit should remain Larry and/or The Wachowski Brothers and not the made up credit "The Wachowskis", even if this is in use for their releases now. The sex change is not relevant to these films and does not need discussing there and as Lugnuts statement above proves, it is not even particularly common knowledge and so introducing it into films where it was not the case causes unnecessary confusion. Courteney Cox is not credited as Cox Arquette on things where she wasn't married, neither is Jada Pinkett, Jada Pinkett Smith.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

added discussion to main page again because it is an issue again at V for Vendetta and Speed Racer (film), and at Ninja Assassin. In the case of Ninja Assassin, a 2009 film, she is individually and explicitly credited as Larry. As far as I can see the first and only film where she is credited as Lana is Cloud Atlas (film) and it is the only article that should reflect that with an accurate credit. If Wes Craven changed his name to Joe Liberty Kickass, it wouldn't become Joe Liberty Kickass' A Nightmare on Elm Street. The Wes Craven wikilink would however point to the article on Joe Liberty Kickass. This needs to be added to our guidelines/policy/rule/whatever now so that this particular ongoing nuisance can end. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Obviously a work should be credited under the name that it was authored under, that is pretty much the publication standard. For instance, if you look up Silas Marner at the British Library catalogue you will find it credited to George Eliot, not Mary Anne Evans! The same logic applies to Larry/Lana Wachowski. In the case of "The Wachowski Brothers" it is a stage name, just like "The Righteous Brothers"; it doesn't have to describe a factual biological relationship. This isn't really something Wikipedia editors should be fiddling with, it's an international standard that any encyclopedia worth its salt should be respecting, so if editors are retrospectively altering credits then yes, we definitely need to make it explicitly clear in the MOS that they must not do it. Betty Logan (talk) 12:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh Betty, I bask in your sanity and it soothes my pain. Finally we are getting somewhere. I made a similar point regarding stage names at Laura Jane Grace where someone wants to retroactively recredit musical works to the new identity. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If it's happening on music articles (and possibly books too) then maybe it should be raised and addressed at the main MOS. A guideline here (although it wouldn't hurt to have one) obviously won't apply to music articles, so a guideline is required that can be invoked in all topic areas. All that is needed is something like this: "Authorship credits should not be retrospectively altered to accommodate name changes at a later date." Betty Logan (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

This debate has been rumbling on for some time now, and the main argument for retrospectively altering the film credits seems to be that MOS:IDENTITY requires it. Personally speaking I think this is a missapplication of IDENTITY, since film credits (which we are documenting in the infobox) specifically address the identity of the work i.e. they should match up to what is on the film, so if the film isn't altered neither should the bibliographic information. No major English-language cataloguing system alters the bibliographic details of a work, because bibliographic details are an attribute of the work itself not the author. This argument has been central to both debates at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_128#Does_MOS:IDENTITY_apply_to_credit_for_works.3F and Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Authorship_creditation and neither has arrived at a consensus in regards to how handle this situation. In the absence of a MOS consensus, I believe it is appropriate for the Film Project to set its own guidelines in the interim. The consensus for not retrospectively altering film credits does seem to be much more concrete here, so I would like to put forward a revision to the infobox guidelines, and see where the project stands on it:

Film credits in the infobox should not be retrospectively altered to accommodate name changes at a later date. A person should be identified by the name which they were using professionally at the time the film was made.

Support Betty Logan (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Support with addendum: I agree with the proposal, but I think additionally we need to look at how and if it is injected into the article. For instance if it needs to be inserted into the body such as Lana (as Larry), I don't think it should be in the lede where it almost creates a confusing tangent (wai...wha? why is she under a guys name?) in the opening sentence, and so the lede should respect the infobox credits. As for the body, I'm not particularly keen on having it there unless it is relevant to the production/reception of the film, and it potentially requires every article in which they were involved needing the change made to the body plus an explanation for why a female was credited under a male name, requiring unnecessary information. Or we just play it straight and ignore any explanation. There are other issues I imagine such as suddenly switching to primarily a different name at a point in the article (which normally wouldn't matter as you could use the surname but cannot in this case as there are two Wachowskis). But for the given proposal for maintaining the infobox at least, I am in support. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The prose and the infobox shouldn't be covered by the same guideline, we should have a separate guideline in the MOS and one for the infobox. The infobox guideline is pretty straightforward so I think we should just remove it from the equation, and once that is settled we can move forward with a more general MOS guideline for the prose. Betty Logan (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Betty has said with greater clarity much of what I've argued in the past regarding this issue, and I agree fully. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Infobox and lead should always reflect the film's credits. Note that the article body will probably have to mention these name changes, like we have with Wendy Carlos at A Clockwork Orange (film), or else there will always be people putting in their own versions. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Betty. I'm convinced. Ruby 2010/2013 01:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support This has been the default as long as I've edited here so lets put it into words in the MoS. MarnetteD | Talk 16:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Since there has been no opposition I have added the guideline to the infobox. Obviously the infobox guidelines don't apply to the article prose, but we'll sit on it a few days and see if there is any challenge from editors unaware of the discussion before we proceed with anything else. Betty Logan (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

FahrenHYPE 9/11

FahrenHYPE 9/11 has been an unsourced stub for almost eight years since it was first created in October 2004. It was originally nominated for deletion in 2004 with no posted result of the discussion.[8] After recently prodding it and having the prod removed by another editor, I've redirected the unsourced stub to Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy. If someone has a better solution, please share it. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

How to use these Expendables 2 production notes long term

I found production notes for The Expendables 2 at [www.lionsgatepublicity.com/epk/theexpendables2/docs/pro_notes.doc www.lionsgatepublicity.com/epk/theexpendables2/docs/pro_notes.doc] but its just a download link, at least for me. I wanted to use them in the article, can others see this in their browser? Or is a DL link a valid thing to use as a source? I think webcite will take it when it is up, but I know some people will be ware about DL links as sources. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with downloadlinks as a source. It's not ideal, but a source is a source, regardless of how you can obtain it. --Conti|✉ 12:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the input. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope GA

You probably never heard of this film but this article is getting GA and has got some problems hindering for GA nomination that could use some works for experts on film articles. It's worth noting that it was a FA once and it would be nice to be of good quality once again. Be a good film Jedi and help out this film today. :b Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Chinatown

I could use more eyes over at Chinatown, as a dedicated anonymous editor (blocked multiple times for edit-warring on film articles) keeps dramatically expanding the plot section. Other watchers would help. Thanks! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I need to reiterate, with more vigor, this request that other editors take a look at this article. I have now been accused of article ownership and "admonished" by an administrator for "harassing" the anonymous editor who has repeatedly expanded the plot section. Other editors need to review the changes and make a determination as to whether they are appropriate, as I am going to step back from this situation before I find myself blocked. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I've left a message with the admin as I feel his/her actions are totally unwarranted in the scenario. THe admins on the site at the minute seem quite intent on making things so difficult that established editors just leave. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the admin that on its face this is a content-dispute, and that TheOldJacobite should know better than to edit-war/attempt to get admin fiat by immediately characterizing the other position as pure vandalism (the IP makes a legitimate case in edit-summary). I have full-protected the article for a week, so hopefully the involved parties will choose normal WP:DR on the talk-page and others can join them in finding a consensus. DMacks (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Darkwarriorblake's message to me and my response to him/her with some diffs is on my talk page at User talk:A. B.#User talk:70.79.75.159. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Plot bloat is a huge problem on the film articles, and the reason we have a hard limit of 400–700 words is so editors have a firm idea of the level of detail that is required. Clearly, bloating a plot summary to 2600 words is well beyond the realms of an acceptable exception. To be fair, TheOldJacobite directed the IP to WP:FILMPLOT and the IP chose to ignore the guideline, and I think reporting the IP at AIV was reasonable: the purpose of the MOS is to express the consensus of the regular editors so we don't have to keep discussing the same things over and over or go through DR every time someone wants to write an overlong plot summary, and the IP willfully edited against the collective consensus which is vandalism at worst and disruptive editing at best. I don't think it is too much to ask to have our MOS enforced against blatant violations and not have our articles fully locked up because of a single errant IP. Betty Logan (talk) 08:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

A few thoughts on the matter-

1. As much as people like to confuse the two, guidelines are not policy and can be overruled via consensus on a specific basis (the fact that it may rarely happen doesn't preclude the possibility). It would have been appropriate to ask the IP editor to request consensus at the Talk page for the film article (perhaps mentioning WP:BRD), and if they refused to do so, then escalate the matter.
2. If the IP's plot-bloating edits were classified as "vandalism", I would agree that that was inappropriate. "Disruptive editing" might be more accurate once they were pointed to and chose to disregard the guidelines. For the record, we do have "warning" templates specifically designed for situations where an editor is bloating the plot: uw-plotsum1 and uw-plotsum2.
3. I disagree with the Admin's assertion that a "disruptive editing" warning was inappropriate, but I also disagree that going through AIV was appropriate, as this was not a matter of vandalism. I think handling this as an edit-warring issue would have gone over better.
4. Protecting the article due to one IP editor seems silly to me. The issue is an IP editor apparently editing against consensus, not the article needing to be defended from multiple editors. Doniago (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Betty Logan's and Doniago thoughts on this situation. The IP was editing in a disruptive manner and the warnings for such were entirely appropriate. While page protection may have been an overreaction it is preferable to 3rr blocks being handed out by admins who have not fully investigated what is going on with a specific article. That has happened, or been threatened, a few times since May and it has got to stop. Thanks to Doniago for listing the plot summary warnings. I had forgotten that we had them and they will be useful in the future. MarnetteD | Talk 13:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I decided to hold off on commenting after the exchange I had with A. B. yesterday, in the hopes that other experienced editors would express their opinions on this matter. So, I want to thank Darkwarriorblake, Betty Logan, Doniago, and MarnetteD for their posts above. I also want to reiterate Marnette's thank you to Doniago for the plotsum warnings, which I had seen previously and forgotten about. Those will be helpful in the future.

Now, I want to address A. B.'s comments and the diffs he posted on his talkpage in response to DWB's message. I left messages on the IP's talkpage before I started leaving templated warnings, and he was not responsive. Per BRD, he should have made a case on the article talkpage for his bold expansion of the plot, but he did not. I should have pointed this out to him, though, and now wish that I had. My feeling, though, based on our interaction, and his long history of edit-warring on film articles, was that he would not be swayed by policy arguments. The interaction I had with the IP was testy, both in the messages I left on his talkpage, and in edit summaries, and I admit that I became too-quickly annoyed.

However, the diffs A. B. included of my interactions with Mabuska are taken completely out of context, and are irrelevant to the topic at hand. A.B. seems to want to include them in order to indicate that my interactions are always, or for the most part, rude and/or aggressive, but by showing those diffs out of the context of the ongoing dispute over Northern Ireland-related articles, they lose their significance. As I say, those diffs have nothing to do with this topic, and do not, I would argue, indicate that I have a problem playing nice.

What I have thought about in the last 24+ hours is that, having posted here on the FilmProject, I should have left the article alone and hoped that one or more other editors would take a look at the IP's edits and take appropriate action. Instead, I took it upon myself to repeatedly revert those edits. I stand by my assertion that he was being intentionally disruptive, especially when he reverted with no edit summary. But, perhaps I was wrong when I called it plain vandalism, and AIV was clearly not the way to go. But, I strongly dispute A. B.'s accusation of article ownership. I saw disruptive edits, and I reverted them, which I believe is responsible editing, and this is exactly why we put articles on our watchlists, so that we can keep track of unhelpful edits.

One last point, which is A. B.'s assertion that editor's leave because they find the atmosphere on WP "hostile". This may be so, but I would argue that the atmosphere has not been nearly hostile enough for this IP, and others of his ilk, who continually disrupt the project with their single-minded edits. I would argue further, speaking only for myself, that what makes me think frequently of leaving is situations like the one we are discussing now, in which the positive idea of "assuming good faith" is stretched beyond reason and good sense so as to include IPs with long histories of disruption. Well-intended admins, going about their duty of protecting the project's high ideals, make life more difficult for long-term editors who are attempting to actually build the encyclopedia. Repeatedly, of late, I have seen admins fail to act in the face of disruption, always in the name of fairness and good faith. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:BRD, a revert is supposed to lead to a discussion, so editors who make changes and then won't discuss when they are reverted are prima facie out of bounds. The admins don't seem to recognize that. If OldJacobite's complaint was filed with the wrong department (which the admins seemed to think was cause for suspecting bad faith), it should have been directed to the right department, like a normal person would do. So the admins should follow BRD. Many problems come from their failure to understand this elementary principle. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Jackie Chan filmography

Hello! Who can remair this list? On her is many errors. And featured lists are in other style. Eurohunter (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Odd thing at the film poster image for Yojimbo

A concern has come up regarding File:Yojimbo (movie poster).jpg. Near as I can tell Jsigned (talk · contribs) added a second poster to this file back in May [9]. The first problem is that this second poster is for a triple bill of Kurosawa films and the picture on it is from The Hidden Fortress so it is useless in the infobox for Yojimbo. My second concern is that a "Orphaned non-free revisions" tag has now been added to the page and it reads to me as though the old correct poster will be removed and the new one will replace it. Please don't get me wrong I have no reason to think that J was acting in anything other than good faith. Also I may have misread the edit history concerning what is going on. So I am hoping that we can get this straightened out and that we can keep the correct poster in the infobox for Yojimbo. Any help that you can provide will be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 14:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The correct poster will be deleted in favour of the triple bill one unless it is reverted. So if it is a triple bill then JSigned is wrong and the poster should be restored. The tag should remain until JSigned's replacement is deleted. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah I just noticed the dates for the uploads and the incorrect poster was done back in May and the correct one was done just a couple days ago so the tag will get rid of the poster that we don't want. Thanks D for helping me to get things straight. MarnetteD | Talk 14:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, its the older poster you want rid of? Well yeah, that is what it will achieve then. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I think J straightened things out at some point. The correct color poster had been in the infobox for years and then the black and white showed up and caused some back and forth on the talk page. I hadn't paid attention to the dates in the file history until after reading your post. I think that we are okay now so thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 15:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Bad Santa

After the Chinatown debacle, I want to get other editors involved early, lest I be accused of "ownership" and "harassment" again. Bad Santa needs more eyes on it, as a dedicated IP-sock of a blocked editor, again refusing to use edit summaries or discuss his edits, keeps altering the article. A couple of his changes were actually helpful, so I have now incorporated those. But, what he has mostly done is completely rewritten the lede and added non-starring roles to the infobox. A look at the article history will show that these are the exact same edits made some time back by another anon. who is now blocked for a month. I do not want to commit a 3RR violation, so I am stepping back, but others looking in would help. Thanks! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I have requested semi-protection on Bad Santa. Also, reverting edits by a sock is not a 3RR violation as per WP:NOT3RR. If you invoke NOT3RR though make it clear that you are reverting a sock and who the IP is a sock of, so it's clear to an admin. Betty Logan (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

More made-up credits using real names

I've just discovered another bizarre vandal who credits real names on films they had nothing to do with: 187.141.84.87 (talk). Don't know if he's an IP hopper like the previous one - of course he may be the same guy. I've only started looking at this, but this time he seems to be focusing on inserting Spielberg and Amblin on multiple film pages. Others may want to keep an eye on his history and revert where necessary - which so far appears to be everything he's done. Also looks like he's been discovered and blocked before - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

All of the IPs Spielberg/Amblin edits on multiple film pages have been cleaned up. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The geolocating to Mexico rings a bell but it has been awhile so I'm drawing a blank on when I last saw this. If I remember I'll add the info. Thanks for your vigilance in reverting this nonsense. The sandbox that the IP edited back in March makes for some odd reading. MarnetteD | Talk 05:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Protagonists and antagonists

Hello, it seems that 24.137.70.88 (talk · contribs) is on a mission to catalog the protagonist and the primary, secondary and tertiary antagonists of various films and TV shows. Example 1 Example 2. I don't see this as particularly harmful, but I don't see it as particularly helpful either, and it may dip into original research - plot analysis not yielded by a superficial viewing of the work. It doesn't strike me as very useful to the reader to explain who is a secondary antagonist in a list of characters. So I wonder: should we let it be? Should I revert and warn this person... who has made some rather prolific and destructive edits, I am keeping a close eye, but I would like more input about the current situation. Elizium23 (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm very anti this labeling method. I've seen a push towards it recently and its patronizing and unnecessary. We might as well add a gif of a man twirling his mustache next to villains or break them into subsections, "Heroes", "Villains", "Other". So if we can start a push to define MOS against this, I am all for it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm also against it. It's not very encyclopedic, and makes the articles read like a kid's school essay! --Rob Sinden (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I add my agreement with the sentiments expressed above. Their use is both OR and WP:POV as well as "in universe" which we are supposed to avoid. Darkwarriorblake here is the gif to add to the villians

The antogonist of the film.

I don't have one of Dudley or Nell though :) MarnetteD | Talk 23:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Given Marnette's contribution, I have reversed my position. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

While we are moving other things forward, how about we decide on a phrasing for this that be added to the MOS:Film Cast section as well? Something like "Do not add labels such as 'Protagonist' or 'Antagonist', 'main villain', 'primary villain', etc. to cast/character descriptions as these are unhelpful and constitute Original Research. The plot will normally convey such roles when applicable." Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

"Please do not add labels such as "protagonist", "antagonist", "main villain" or "primary villain" to cast/character descriptions as this constitutes original research. A well-written plot summary should convey such roles." Doniago (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I can support that. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, also maybe "Hero", "Main character", "supporting character", and any others people can think of. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

A support from me too. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the objection is that it is OR, really, because it wouldn't be difficult to find a source to say that Hamlet is the protagonist of Hamlet. I think the real objection is that for an encyclopedia it is better to give the facts that support a conclusion instead of the conclusion itself. It's patronizing to tell us what we should think about Hamlet and that's why we don't like it. Instead of trying to ban certain words (we are not censors) I would suggest we say something about leaving the conclusions to the readers, then giving these labels as examples that usually go too far. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You make a good point. I would say that the proposed wording isn't intended to censor so much as it is to give examples of what "labels" are meant. Without at least one or two examples, heaven knows what people will think "please do not add labels to cast/character descriptions" means! --Tenebrae (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

@RingCinema, I agree that there are often undeniably heroes and villains. John McClane is the hero, Hans Gruber is the villain, but the plot section should adequately convey that even if it was one sentence long. In certain circumstances it could be necessary, though the only examples I can think of are novels where you might have a very large cast of leads and obstacles. We could change the opening to "Avoid using labels such as..." so it's less censoring, but that does leave an opening to use them. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, if someone's willing to dig up and cite a source stating that the protagonist is in fact the protagonist, in order to circumvent the OR "concern", I say more power to them. Good luck doing that for deuteragonist though. :p Doniago (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

...that being said, and I hate to bring this up at all...should my original supported statement be modified to say something like "...cast/character descriptions as this constitutes original research, unless a reliably sourced statement from the filmmakers establishing the character's role is provided..." You know, I'm already sorry I'm saying this... Doniago (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think your original statement was better. Even if they can find the source, it's still not a particularly necessary item of information.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

And I support as well. Finally. It's POV, unnecessary, and Rob Sinden's "kid's school essay" remark hit the nail exactly on the head. If I see the word deuteragonist one more time.... I like Doniago's wording. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ugh yes, deuteragonist and triagonist or whatever it is. Hate that. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Darkwarriorblake on this: the point is not that a source can be found, the point is that even if one can be found, it's usually best left unsaid. However, sometimes a discussion of a film's themes or techniques will require using some of the banned words. These words exist for a reason and they are familiar to us for a reason. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

My original statement does specifically reference cast/character descriptions...usually the film's themes/techniques will be discussed in a separate section. In any case I think this is unlikely to be a common occurrence, and can certainly be brought up for discussion if/when it becomes pertinent. Also, much like plot guidelines...well, the operative word is guideline, not requirement. Exceptions can be granted by consensus. Doniago (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, you are right that it is about cast/character, which is good. But, please, let's not rely on editors to agree by consensus to ignore a guideline. That is not what happens, so it is better to keep the guidelines to the essentials. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey there all. I meant to weigh in here the last time this came up I but was extreme wiki light so I never got around to it. But I think most of you who know me know that I absolutely despise these pedantic labels and call them as such when they are used in a certain way in cast sections. Specifically, it seems that most people who add such lines use the same phrasing over and over again ("he is the main "____agonist" of the film" used six times with varying forms of the term is just bad writing, period). I genuinely get the impression that most of the editors doing this have likely only just learned the more advanced "agonist" forms.

In addition to the OR problems other editors have already noted, I find that such labels are usually redundant to a well written plot section (when we are talking specifically about a brief cast list as opposed to a more in depth cast section, where as Ring Cinema notes, the terms may come up in a more organic and useful fashion). And particularly when we get to tritagonists and the like, it is often viewer interpretation. If a director said that he was suprised the audience thought of the character of Mr. Toe as the deuteragonist when he felt that should actually be Ms. Thumb, that might be with noting with said terminology.

All of that said, I'm not sure if incorporating it into style guidelines is strictly necessary (but am open to the idea). We already have guidelines against plot summary in cast lists, viewer interpretation, and other issues that the "agonist" labels frequently bump up against. It seems like adding another guideline against these terms would be 1) redundant and 2) potentially confusing in light of potential exceptions (if they can't figure out why their usage is NOT ok I don't trust them to figure out why and acceptable use would be such).

Hmm. That all came of a wee bit more ranty than I intended... Have I mentioned this is one of my pet peeves? Hugs guys, nice seeing you all.  :) Millahnna (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

So is there anything formal we have to do, like a week-long request for comment, or do we have a WP:SNOWBALL-type consensus?

Also, as long as I'm on the WikiProject Film discussion page, maybe some of you could weigh in at the incipient edit war over the issue discussed at Talk:Sparkle (1976 film)? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like anyone can edit the project page; if you feel like being bold, I won't object. I'd add it myself if people want me to do so, given that nobody's expressed any strong opposition. I guess it's worth asking if anyone feels there's a need to wait any longer or make more of an effort to solicit comments.

I weighed in on Mr. Sparkle Sparkle (1976 film). Doniago (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the current draft? --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Current Draft, per above Supports I did replace the slash with an "or" and inserted the comma after "descriptions"...hopefully that's not controversial- "Please do not add labels such as "protagonist", "antagonist", "main villain" or "primary villain" to cast or character descriptions, as this constitutes original research. A well-written plot summary should convey such roles." Doniago (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but isn't an editor going to say, "This is not OR because of this source"...? Then what? --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, as I brought up before, if someone's willing to track down a source saying that someone's a protagonist or what-not, I'd be willing to concede. I've never seen it happen, and I'd bet money it will never happen for things like tritagonist, but if they can beat us at our own game, I say let it pass. Doniago (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Odd wording. But i say, if a source is found, then let it be added however if no source is found, then just call them "Protagonists" and "antagonists".Lucia Black (talk) 20:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The point of the proposal is to prevent the use of protagonist and antagonist as pedantic and unnecessary, the cast list should (if it faetures more than just names) provide a character description that enlightens the reader and then other background or informative information by cast and crew in that characters development. An arbitrary and arguably relative label like "main villain" is unhelpful and incorrect from some perspectives. Very few, if any, quality articles feature such terms because it is unnecessary to provide such information. How about "Please do not add labels such as "protagonist", "antagonist", "main villain" or "primary villain" to cast or character descriptions, as these are unnecessary and can also constitute original research. A well-written plot summary should convey such roles." Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

We just took a left into comedy. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not really original research. its a case in point. Unless we have to verify the obvious. Protagonist and Antagonist are universal. thats why its easier to use them rather than "main hero" or "main villain" which is subjective to genre. such as an action super hero movie but would not fit in a romance story.Lucia Black (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I would ask that you read this section from the top. You are jumping into the middle of a conversation, I think. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Please make this happen, I cannot Support this enough!--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not trying to be contrary here, but while getting into minutia of XYX-antagonist can be overly detailed, it's hardly original research if the labelsing of a character is matched by the common sense of the viewer and from critical reception. I mean how do we know ANYTHING about a movie's plot unless we make assumptions because on our viewing? Do we know the movie Gone with the Wind takes place on Earth or Alpha Centari? I say Earth, but I don't think they actually MENTION the planet name. We just assume it with some common sense from viewing. It's allowed. Mathewignash (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  You might notice that we tend not to actually mention whether films like Gone with the Wind take place on Earth, so that really isn't the best comparison to fall back on. :/ GRAPPLE X 22:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps not the best example, but we do make logical assumptions about characters, for instance we generally assume the genders of characters because we did can tell from their looks if they look male or female, or whether the actor/actrress is male of female. Even if they didn't say character XXX is a female specifically in the dialog, we can make that assumption from our original research. If a reliable critic refers to a character as an antagonist, shouldn't we be able to make that assumption as well? Mathewignash (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, these things are inferred and not directly stated. The plot summary for a film shouldn't begin with "Harry Spencer (Jack Nance) is a man". If the summary of the plot doesn't get across that a character is the protagonist or the antagonist, where these roles are clear-cut in the film, then it's poorly written. There should be no need to state it outright as it should be readily inferred from how the plot is written. Look at Manhunter —it doesn't need to state outright that Will Graham is the protagonist, as the plot follows his actions and he's the centre of the narrative. That makes it obvious enough already. GRAPPLE X 23:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this has gotten needlessly complicated. There appear to be one or two editors who continually add "protagonist," "main antagonist," "secondary antagonist," "triangonist" and "deuteragonist" etc. to cast lists. None of these are necessary, just as, for example, it's not necessary to say "a male" or "a female" by each character's name. The plot summary gives the character relationships.

I suggest this shorter version: Do not add labels such as "protagonist", "antagonist", "main villain" or "primary villain" to cast or character descriptions. A well-written plot summary should convey such roles."' --Tenebrae (talk) 04:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps more to the point: "Do not offer interpretations of the characters with labels. The plot summary will tell us who is the hero, if there is one. Similarly, don't include "protagonist" or "antagonist" and their variants: leave that to the readers. Instead, tell us who the character is, succinctly and completely." --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I think Ring is on the right track. We're against character labelling rather than the use of particular words. If you ban some words, some editors will take it as ok to use others i.e. antihero, megalomaniac. It's the practice of labelling we're against, and that's the point we need to get across. Words like "antagonist" etc may also have a legitimate place in a thematic analysis section for instance, where we have sources analysing particular character traits and so on, so we don't want a reaction in sections where the terms are used appropriately. Betty Logan (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm amenable to this, but I'd reiterate that the previously-supported wording was intended to apply to cast/character descriptions, not things like thematic analysis. That said, I don't care for Ring's particular wording, if this is the direction we wish to pursue. Maybe- The Cast section should not present interpretations of the character's role. A well-written plot summary should establish a character's role via the actions they take, while the Cast section discusses aspects of the character's background and personality that are pertinent to understanding their role. Hm. The second sentence is a bit long, but I think it's comprehensible. Doniago (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Since we want to avoid labels of all kinds, I think we should say it. Also, guidelines are better that suggest a course of action. My understanding is that this text will appear in the guidelines under Cast somewhere, so we don't have to restate that. If I may attempt a rewrite, perhaps something like this: Avoid interpretations in the form of labels (e.g. protagonist, villain, main character). If the plot summary doesn't establish the characters and their relationships, address that instead. In this section, tell us just enough about each character so we know who they are to each other and themselves. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree about the course of action, we don't want to limit editors' freedom, just give them some helpful advice of things to avoid. Similarly to WP:W2W. Perhaps instead a mix of this and Tenebrae example: Avoid interpretations in the form of labels (e.g. protagonist, villain, main character). A well-written plot summary should convey such roles.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd be okay with this. I'd also be okay with what Ring's going for, but the specifics of the text would need to be tweaked a bit in that case...I'd drop the contraction, and wouldn't address the editor/reader directly. I'll hold back on writing up a suggestion in the event that your text satisfies Ring's concerns. Doniago (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind Triiip's way. My reason, for what it's worth, is of course not to limit the editors, but to say what is the alternative to a label. It's pretty open-ended. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

No! I want the users clamped down on. Dissension punished with banning or death! They shall fall under our banner or they shall just fall! But if I have to compromise, the emphasis of this endeavor is that the cast should be basically "Actor name as character name -> a brief description of the character as they are introduced, not as they end, that creates an actual understanding, i.e. 'a construction worker', 'a man struggling to conceive a child with his wife', 'a teenage girl' -> and then information about the casting/actor thoughts on the character/development of the character/etc", assuming of course you are using that format and don't have a separate casting section. Protagonist does not create an image or understanding and this is true because a protagonist need not be good, bad, human. It's almost hollow and just states an arbitrary status in the plot which does not enhance the readers understanding of the character. A themes section is different where it discusses the label in a literary sense but the cast and plot section are not for thematic analysis and in this case, using these labels adds nothing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hyperbole aside, this covers a few salient points... and there are a few others in this thread.

• Wikipedia should be free to edit, and for the most part it is, but not a free-for-all. Guidelines and policies have come into effect stating what the community expects articles to look like, what they should contain, and what they should not.
• If something has been very disruptive, "try to avoid", "use of foo is discouraged", and the like won't cover the situation. If it's gotten to the point that updating/adding to a guideline is being considered, that change should be a crystal clear as possible to allow editors pointed to it to understand it and to actually allow editors trying to defuse or stop the disruptions to point to something concrete as to community consensus. It looks like this has gotten to that point, so clarity is going to be needed.
• I think it was pointed out that using the literary jargon is a problem. There is an essay that speaks to this in general terms - Wikipedia:Readers first - and it is a good starting point. The article should be accessible to any reader, not primarily those that work with or are conversant in literary terminology. This is also for WP:JARGON in the overall MoS guideline. This would be in regard to "primary", "secondary", and/or "tertiary protagonist/antagonist" as well as the fancier terms.
• Stating that characters should not be labeled as "protagonist", "villain", "anti-hero", "comic relief", "[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ButtMonkey butt-monkey", etc by Wikipedia editors is in line with WP:OR. That type of statement needs a verifiable, reliable source attached to it. That does not mean that the terms or identification cannot appear in the article, just that they need the sourcing.
• Ideally, if "...as the films protagonist..." popped up in a film article, {{cn}} would be added and, if no source is added, it would be removed after a reasonable time. Given where this situation is, ideal would be as disruptive as the repeated insertion of the terms. A clear note in the Film MoS that character labeling without a reference other than the film would seem in order.
• Even with a source, the labeling should be appropriate to the section of the article.
  • It really isn't appropriate within the plot section.
  • If the idea of a cast/character list is to give a plot based nutshell of the character and minimal casting notes, the labels aren't appropriate there either.
  • Given that the lead is supposed to be a simple overview of the article, details like the labels should not be there as well.
  • That leaves sections like "Production", "Development", or "Critical commentary" where the labels could show , if explained an sourced.

- 02:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Many of these points have already been covered, but the discussion is getting long. First, as to sourcing. As we have mentioned a couple times already, that is not the issue. Everyone knows that sourcing "Hamlet is the protagonist" is not the problem. Child's play. So the problem is not OR. (Caveat: in the rare cases of obscure terms, it may be OR. We can handle that.) The loose consensus here seems to be that labels don't belong in the cast section. Everyone knows that OR doesn't belong, but this is about something else. Labels.

Urging rigid language doesn't seem in order, because of the nature of the issue. We are a self-selected group and I think we still respect the editors who don't waste their time on guidelines.

This problem is not disruptive at all. We are discussing how to improve the articles in a very specific way.

Clear language, yes. Let's be clear and see if that works. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

While OR isn't technically what's sticking in the craw for some of us, I think some editors (myself included) believe that those individuals most likely to include terms such as "protagonist" are also likely disinclined to do their research and source any usage of the term. Sure, it's easy to find a source where Hamlet is identified as a protagonist, but I believe that to be the exception rather than the rule, especially when you get beyond basic protagonist/antagonist terminology. Anyway, depending on the direction other editors want to go with this, I'm not sure how germane my point is, but I'm just saying that while OR is probably not the largest concern most of us have with regards to the labels, it does make a very good argument and gives us a clear-cut way of handling the issue - "Source it or omit it". Doniago (talk) 07:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but we don't need a new guideline for that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but some editors seemed to want to address this situation in particular within the guidelines. Maybe we should do a straw poll with options including: no change (covered by OR policy, remove unless sourced), allow inclusion of roles, my original suggested text, one or more versions of your text (though I'd like to do a clean-up pass on that if you'd be amenable) and TT's? I'd like to see this discussion to move on from discussion to action, even if the only action we decide to take is no action. Doniago (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be reasonable support for Triiiplethreat's mashup: "Avoid interpretations in the form of labels (e.g. protagonist, villain, main character). A well-written plot summary should convey such roles." Should we go with that? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. I wouldn't object to it starting with "Please", but only if that's consistent with the tone of the rest of the guidelines (which I'm admittedly not looking at right now). Doniago (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

We haven't discussed where in the section this text should go and it is not obvious to me. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Currently on Cast

Cast===

Background information about the cast and crew should be provided, ideally as well-written prose. There are several ways to provide such information: Halloween contains "Writing", "Casting", "Direction" and "Music" subsections within the "Production" section, which uses well-written prose to describe the casting and staffing decisions made, as well as discussing the reasons behind some of the cast decisions, the thoughts of the actors themselves about their roles, and some brief explorations of their careers before and after the film, e.g.:

The part of Dr. Sam Loomis was offered to Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee; both declined the part due to the low salary. English actor Pleasence—Carpenter's third choice—agreed to star. Pleasence has been called "John Carpenter's big landing." Pleasence's daughter supposedly saw Carpenter's Assault on Precinct 13 and liked it, thus encouraging her father to star in Halloween. Americans were already acquainted with Pleasence as the villain Ernst Stavro Blofeld in the James Bond film You Only Live Twice (1967).

Alternatively, Tenebrae discusses "Production" in its own section, and provides the cast via the plot summary only. When a character is introduced in the plot summary, the actor playing that role is listed in parentheses immediately following the name of the character. The well-written prose enables the character to be introduced without breaking the flow of the plot, e.g.:

Tilde (Mirella D'Angelo), a beautiful lesbian journalist, is murdered at her home along with her lover. Later, Maria (Lara Wendel), the young daughter of Neal's landlord, is bloodily hacked to death with an axe after stumbling into the killer's lair.

The key is to provide significant behind-the-scenes production information. Of course, some film articles will lend themselves to one style better than others.

Failing that, a cast list inserted into the body of the article may be appropriate, though some editors frown on lists inside articles. It should be longer than the list in the infobox, and, depending on the number of minor characters in the film, can be furnished with a dozen or more credits. Credits should be written in the "ACTOR as CHARACTER" format, using list syntax, but for credits where the character has not been mentioned in the plot section, a short summary of the importance and role of the character in the film would be necessary, e.g., an example from Witchfinder General:

Robert Russell as John Stearne: Playing Hopkins's thuggish assistant, Russell certainly looked the part. However, as filming progressed, Reeves found the actor's high pitched voice unsuitable for such a rough character, and after production was completed he had all of his dialogue dubbed by another actor, Jack Lynn (who also appeared in a small role as an innkeeper).

Cast lists should not use table formats (see Wikipedia:When to use tables), unless absolutely necessary when dealing with a foreign language work. Neither the actor nor role name should be bolded. Pertinent casting information might also be included in this section or in Production if a separate Casting section is not included. Try to avoid using the section as a repository for further "in-universe" information that really belongs in the plot summary.

Commentary Follows

I'd say insert it at the end, as the final sentence(s), and start it with, "Also avoid..." Doniago (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone else have thoughts on this? I'm content to handle it as an OR issue if nobody cares to voice an opinion at this point. Doniago (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I think there was a fair consensus to add it, so yeah, I don't think there's a problem adding on the end as you suggest. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Let's hope that's the end of that. Doniago (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Shortcuts

I recently added shortcuts to the guideline and bolded the examples as is done in WP:W2W and was reverted. I strongly suggest that this edit should be restored as it would greatly aid in referencing this part of the guideline when dealing with these situations.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we are getting carried away on this issue which is not really important. Yes, it would be nice if these labels were not in Cast sections, but what we are saying about these words is quite different from the cases on W2W, where they say: "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or endorse a particular point of view." This is none of those things. Not only that, but very little is bold on MOS:Film, and I see no reason to draw attention to something we don't want. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not a referendum on the guideline, but tools to help us apply it. The entire reason behind us implementing the guideline, is because we saw an important enough issue that it needed to be addressed, so why hinder its application. I also disagree about your interpretation of W2W, which to fully supports this measure.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It's barely important enough to be included. Just something on the margins. And W2W supports this measure? Well, no, the structure of that page is built around examples in bold followed by an explanatory paragraph about the reasons we avoid puffery, disparagement, etc. That's not how MOS:Film is organized. Instead, the few items in bold are for emphasis of something essential that should be done. Your proposal is the precise opposite: you emphasize what we don't want on a subject that is so peripheral we have successfully ignored it for years. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Barelly important enough? The fairly wide consensus says otherwise. Futhermore where ever the emphasis lies, the idea is the same: guiding behavior. I see we fundamentally disagree on this topic, so if not the bold at least support the shortcuts, as they would directly suggest that heart of issue that might otherwise be lost on the offenders.

There is no connection between consensus agreement and importance. It is a mistake to think that something is important because we agreed on it. We could all agree on many, many trivial things. This subject is barely important enough to include in the guidelines. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You say its not important, I say it is. The fact is the importance of the guideline is purely subjective so regardless of our personal opinions on the subject, we agreed to include it and should now see that it is applied in the most effective manner as possible.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It is included. Look, it's nothing personal, but enough is already said on the subject the way it is now. It's not effective to call attention to what we don't want. The Cast guideline is predominantly about other matters, and those matters deserve to be prominent. This matter is not prominent and it shouldn't be prominent, because the Cast section is about other things. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

And they still would be prominent, but we didn't go through all this just to ignore it. Adding tools to help apply this particular issue, does not impede on the rest of the section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It's misplaced emphasis. Nothing is ignored. We have exactly what we discussed. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I obviously disagree, lets see what others think.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm undecided about the bolding though I do think it is easy to miss the labels without it, but why were the Shortcut anchors that T3 added removed? They seem useful. NM, his links still work. I think some kind of emphasis is necessary whether it be " or italic or bold, just to highlight what we are talking about there. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

How could someone miss the labels (which are only examples and not a complete list) if they read the sentence? And if they miss them, so what? The harm is minuscule. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Support, provided we also emphasize that the words should not be invoked. Otherwise sooner or later an editor will see the emphasis and not see the not. Doniago (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Funny Games page move

Hi all. Following the consensus that was reached last month to bring WP:NCF and WP:FILMRELEASE in sync, I've raised a move request for the 2008 film Funny Games. The discussion can be found here. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 18:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Westerns

Howdy, WikiProject Film! Your editing history indicates that you may be interested in joining the new Westerns WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve and maintain Wikipedia's coverage of fictional Wild West articles. If you are interested in participating, you are welcome to sign up at the project page. We hope you will join us! Ma®©usBritish{chat} 01:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not particularly well worded for non-userpages, but yeah, this WikiProject is now setup and still in the early stages of building its project area before user-participation can really begin to function. Anyone interested, please feel free to join. Note, this project not only covers film and TV, but Western novels, comics, actors, directors and authors, etc who make the fictional-Wild West possible. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 01:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Revamp layout?

Hello. Lately, I have been contemplating about revamping the layout of the WikiProject's home page in order to maintain a more professional layout. For reference, please see WP:VG and WP:MILITARY. Any thoughts, comments or ideas from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I say go for it. If it attracts even one or two editors to be collaborative it is a big net gain.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Be bold and go for it! Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 06:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Films shot with digital SLR cameras

I had previously proposed Category:Films shot with DSLR cameras. I have created Category:Films shot with digital SLR cameras.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Input requested

A question has come up here Talk:Sanjuro#Sequel to Yojimbo. Other editors input would be welcome to try and reach a consensus. MarnetteD | Talk 00:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Men In Black listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Люди в чёрном 3 and Қара киімділер 3. Since you had some involvement with the Men In Black redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Ninja Turtles article

We have a situation here. Someone is creating the Ninja Turtles article directly from the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (film series), despite the guidelines at WP:NFILMS#Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films and WP:FUTFILMS insisting that future films should not be sourced until we have verifiable information for the principal photography's start date and a message on the section in question regarding that it should not be moved until we have the sources. Unfortunately, as I was trying to help fix up the mess mess, he reverted it and left what I assume to be an abusive message directed towards me in the edit summary. Can anyone voice their opinion on this matter and see if we can help resolve it? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Has this been resolved yet? It seems to have been stable throughout the day. You are correct in your interpretation of WP:NFF; the film should be documented on the film series article and once it starts filming a separate article for it can be created then. Betty Logan (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it has been resolved. Unfortunately, I've been reported by the user in question who has edited the film series article at WP:ANI#Possible wikihounding. More fresh eyes would be appreciated there as I am waiting for a third-party to respond. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

No Country for Old Men

An edit war is in full swing over here, and more eyes, as well as opinions on the talk page, are needed. I do not think there is any question that the article should be shortened, perhaps broken up into more than one article, but simply taking the meat cleaver to it is not helpful. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I see you've request full protection which is probably the right step. I'm not sure it needs a differences from the novel section though or a breakdown of what every extra on a DVD contains, and that whole genre/themes/style thing could maybe do with a split. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it has a lot of problems, which is why we need to reach a consensus on what is to be done. A couple of editors taking it upon themselves to hack the article apart is not the right approach. And then the accusations that were made at conflict resolution were uncalled for. So, more discussion is needed. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

American cult films at CfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 13:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Themes and analysis of No Country for Old Men (film)

I wanted to bring this article to the attention of other filmproject editors, those who are not already participating in the discussion about what to do with the main article. This "themes and analysis" article seems to contain, or attempts to contain, every single critical article ever written about this films, which is why it tops out at 107,000+ characters. It is unwieldy. I had suggested that some of the content from the main article be moved over there, but this thing cannot take more content. Anyone have any suggestions as to what can be done with this? It requires a major pruning. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Breaking Dawn split?

I am figuring it would be about time to discuss about the Breaking Dawn split or to discuss the best time to split it. The discussion can be found here. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The Midlands martials arts vandal

There is an IP editor who periodically makes disruptive edits to martials arts films i.e. MOS violations, genre changes, overlinking, removing tags, unsourced additions etc. It's been going on since last year and he's supposed to be blocked but he's turned up on another IP: Special:Contributions/90.200.85.223. I've reported him at AIV for evading his block but it's pretty unresponsive, so some reinforcement would be appreciated until the cavalry arrives. Betty Logan (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hands to the deck, he's back: Special:Contributions/90.199.99.3. Betty Logan (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

'See cast' links in Starring parameter on Infobox

The vast majority of modern film articles include the starring actors directly in the infobox. This seems to be the guideline in Template:Infobox_film "Insert the name(s) of the actor(s) who had major roles in the film.". A small number of articles are not consistent and have "See cast" links to the article body in lieu of a list in the infobox. (Disclosure: I am using a crawling tool to extract structured data about movies which expects the more commonly-seen format). I converted "see cast" to the cast list in Magnolia and Star Trek: The Motion Picture but my edits were reverted by article regulars. Is it worth pursuing further? Jimblackler (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:IBX: "Do not include links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function." The field should either contain actors' names or not be used at all. "Regulars" should be aware of this, but feel free to point out the guideline to them. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've seen this before, and remove it. I think it violates WP:SELF. And is lazy. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 10:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I am one of the regulars who reverted this change on Magnolia, citing a consensus not to list the cast because it is so large. It seems that this has been discussed here on the Filmproject in the past, and there was some accommodation for links to the cast section. If not, my preference would be to leave out the cast in such cases. More than 4 or 5 names seems like overkill to me. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Of the various discussions over the years the only thing that seemed to be consistently agreed on was that the infobox starring field should only include names that are on the film poster. While we probably should have changed the film infobox instructions to state this that hasn't happened. Of course not all posters list cast members that is one place where the "See cast" link has been beneficial. It has also been used when there is a large ensemble cast in a film. I can remember of at least one conversation (though I would have no idea where to look for it) where one editor liked the "See cast" link as do I but that is hardly a consensus. I can foresee one plus to applying WP:IAR to WP:IBX and using the "See cast" link. If we simply leave the field blank then every IP, newbie and veteran editor that comes along will start to populate the field with whoever they deem a star of the film. But that is just my preference. I would suggest (as others have done before me) that whatever we decide that we finally enter it into whatever MoS (filmproject, infobox, etc.) necessary to help us and others in the future. MarnetteD | Talk 00:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Onibaba (film)

I'm having a dispute with another user while adding information to Onibaba (film). I've given five sources for my additions, but they are still being reverted. I'd like to hear some opinions. Thanks. – Robert Kerber (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion has now moved to Talk:Onibaba (film). I'd be happy to hear some more opinions there. Thanks. – Robert Kerber (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Come on, no-one interested in participating? – Robert Kerber (talk) 06:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Well it's not actually clear what you are disputing, can you summarise the dispute please? Betty Logan (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The main dispute concerns the intro: "Onibaba (鬼婆?, literally Demon Hag) is a 1964 Japanese drama film based on a Buddhist parable. Thematically and visually, the film incorporates elements of the Noh theater and the horror film." User Joshua repeatedly reverted my changes although I had given 5 sources to undermine the categorization and influences mentioned.--Robert Kerber (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The Cabin in the Woods

Hello. I have started to do some major work on The Cabin in the Woods and I intend to get the article up to GA status. I've started a discussion on the talk page at Talk:The Cabin in the Woods#GA push. Comments and input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

"Uncredited" writers in infobox?

I see some film articles that list "uncredited" writers, and wondered if there is a rule about this. I have removed such credits in the past when the body of the article gave no indication or offered no source to back up the claim. In general, should these simply be removed? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It depends really. Sometimes the WGA will retrospectively assign a credit, and some writers weren't credited in the 50s due to being blacklisted but have since been acknowledged as the "true" writer. As a general rule I would say uncredited writers shouldn't be included, but there are legitimate exceptions and in those cases they should be backed up by a strong source. Betty Logan (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As long as it's verifiable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, as long as it's verifiable, then there's no problem. Same with directors who aren't credited. They still directed the work (see the Dogme films, for example), so it should be mentioned. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 18:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I say include them as long as it's verifiable, but don't put the "(uncredited)" disclaimer. The article body can explain the writers and why some went uncredited. If there are edit-wars over it, leave a hidden note in the infobox directing editors to read the relevant section within the article. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate these responses. You all make good sense. Your idea of not including "uncredited" disclaimer in the infobox is reasonable, IllaZilla. That information should be in the body of the article, with an explanation. Thanks! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it is fair to say that the standard for the infobox should be a little higher than for the article. For example, Robert Towne wrote a scene for The Godfather that Coppola mentioned when he accepted an Oscar, however the consensus on the page was that it was not quite significant enough to merit inclusion in the infobox even though it is well known and uncredited. There is some reasonable limit on the cast listed in the infobox, and by analogy I think a similar editorial discretion is all right for the writers. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, case-by-case editorial decisions should be made in situations like The Godfather. I was thinking along the lines of Alien vs. Predator, for which Shane Salerno co-wrote the script and stayed on for revisions throughout production yet went uncredited. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

As said before, the infobox and the lead should reflect the film's credits. I believe most uncredited writers do not belong in the infobox - some are mentioned even when they only wrote one scene. I am for describing such instances in the article body if they're notable. Case-by-case judgment is necessary. In a situation where an uncredited writer or director is deemed to have contributed enough to also be listed in the infobox, below the credited writer and/or director, than the name should certainly be tagged with "(uncredited)" - as most are that I have seen. I would be against any new policy that would put uncredited names in the infobox without that tag. - Gothicfilm (talk) 10:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

TCM database

For the last couple of days I have been getting error messages when I try to access the TCM database. This could be a regional block or something, so can someone see if they can access http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/80025/Jurassic-Park/ for example? If TCM have changed all the addresses it will have made a real mess, because over 2000 articles reference the TCM database. Betty Logan (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The page isn't found, though it takes me to the actual TCM site. If in doubt always try Down for everyone or just me Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

That's the message I'm getting...on every single TCM film article we use as a source! I hope it's a temporary glitch or we'll end up with tons of unsourced content. Wayback doesn't seem to have the TCM database archived either. Betty Logan (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It just worked for me now. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Works fine for me, too. So I'm OK. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 11:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• The database seems to be back online. Phew! Betty Logan (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Coordinator elections?

I am considering holding coordinator elections for this year, since it is almost that time of the year again. We've lost quite a bit of coordinators, so I think a new election is necessary. Shall we do it? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

What's the point? What can the co-ordinators do above and beyond this talkpage? The correct answer is nothing. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 12:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Not needed. jonkerz ♠talk 12:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, right. My apologies, and it has been almost a year since our last coordinator elections. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Eraserhead at Peer Review

Eraserhead is currently at peer review; if any fans of David Lynch, surrealism or mutant-infanticide-and-ladies-in-radiators want to swing by and offer their opinion I'd be hugely grateful. Thanks! GRAPPLE X 06:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Once again, excellent work on this and all the Lynch-related articles you've expanded! Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 09:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! There'll be more coming; it's the last round of this year's wikicup and his films are featured on enough wikis to garner additional bonus points. Long and short of it, expect The Elephant Man at GAN in a week or so. GRAPPLE X 17:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

James Bond

There is a suggestion to convert the James Bond film series article into James Bond (film character) instead of a film series article, see Talk:James Bond (character) -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood the page move request. The proposal does not involve doing anything to James Bond in film; an editor just feels that the current disambiguation term of James Bond (character) is not precise enough for the content of that article. The XXXX in film format is generally reserved for film adaptations in a franchise i.e. Batman in film, Middle Earth in film etc, so an editor cannot hijack the title for a fictional character biography. Betty Logan (talk) 04:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Expendables 2 issue

DasallmächtigeJ (talk · contribs) is using OR and POV to add cast to the infobox starring field and a list of cast in the cast section of The Expendables 2. I explained multiple times (and there is a breakdown on his talk page) of how it was limited to starring roles only and for a reason to prevent such POV/OR disputes. The user at first refused to explain what they were doing and even when warned about 3RR continued. I am not innocent I will admit, I lsot my cool with him in the discussion but the user has ignored multiple explanations and justifications and continues to further edit war and violate 3RR to push their POV/OR agenda about this. The guideline is to use those billed on the poster, we can also of course use the film when it is out, but the film credits support the article as it was before, giving the earliest billing like on the poster to the main stars. The user accuses me of picking and choosing but he ignores that there are other cast also billed that are not included but that he chooses not to include them, just the ones he has decided that are starring. User seems to think that cast being in prose form is somehow a punishment and makes their information "unreliable", unreliable in this case I assume meaning they aren't given enough prominence and thus the article is incorrect.

As stated the user is ignoring any attempt at reason and in his latest edit has ignored yet again my edit summary telling him to take it to the talk page of the article before undoing it again. Response was that he's spent enough time "trying to talk sense into" me and did it again. Believes that he isn't violating 3RR because he is right. Based on the posters, the trailers, and the film credits themselves which are in the production document used on the page, the top 11 billed remain consistent across all 3 while Nan and Adkins do not. I do not see any evidence of support for them being starring roles, but supporting ones but the user will not be stopped in this regard. I tried dispute resolution but I apparently mistook what they are for because asking them to resolve a dispute causes them to not resolve it, so I could use intervention on either side in this because the user has vastly violated 3RR and I can't undo it anymore. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean in the Cast section or in the infobox under Starring? The latter is more restricted. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Both, obviously the same guideline doesn't apply to the cast list thats just where it started because somehow it made the information unreliable for htem not to be in a list relative only to this article which is purely a layout choice. The last two cast were in the prose but that wasn't acceptable because he deemed them stars. I attempt to limit the list to who is in the infobox unless there is substantial info available that requires more space for a particular character. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Well ideally the cast list should be about the casting process, not just a credit list that you can pull off IMDB. For that reason I would limit cast lists to characters named in the plot summary (for obvious reasons) and to actors where there is RS coverage of their casting. If it's just a roll call of names you can pull off the credits why not list all the technical staff too like the lighting guy, the second unit director etc? It just becomes an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of credits. As for the infobox, we use the theatrical poster as a general rule of thumb don't we? Betty Logan (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is usually best, and I believe it should apply in this case. But this is unrelated to the technical staff you mention for whom there is no category. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It's related by virtue of the fact that we create dedicated sections for cast lists, but what I'm saying is that it's completely arbitrary to focus on the cast and omit the rest of the crew. Look at this for instance, it looks like a fan wiki for fucks sake; it's not really encyclopedic at all. My point is that the focus should be on secondary coverage of the production process, and if that covers casting of various actors fair enough, but it should be secondary coverage that determines what goes into an article rather than having these cast list sections. Ben-Hur_(1959_film)#Casting does this well, it approaches the cast from the perspective of covering the process of casting, and looks tons better. Another good example is Alien_(film)#Casting. Betty Logan (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree for the most part, and I have thinned out more than one cast section. But if you want to raise that as an issue, I would suggest not going into WP's lack of listing the whole crew - technical staff for whom there is no category. This is apples and oranges to the issue of how many supporting actors should be listed in a section that does have a category. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Flattered you brought up Alien, Betty; that one was mine :) Anyway, my opinion: The Expendables are ensemble movies that intentionally star every Hollywood tough guy the creators can round up. Listing them all in the infobox would result in a really long infobox, when many of them (even though they may be famous) play essentially minor or cameo roles and don't star, per se. This is a typical scenario for big films with a lot of notable cast members. The consensus has generally been to list only the top-billed stars (those typically listed on the film posters) in the infobox, and save the more thorough description of notable cast members for the article body sections (Cast/Casting, Plot, etc.). Keep the infobox to a reasonable length, and find a way to structure the Cast/Casting section that works best for the film in question. Alien is pretty simple because it only has 7 human characters; The Expendables films have much larger casts, a good deal of whom are notable actors worth mentioning. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well can someone come tell the user that at the Expendables page because it's like yelling into a goddamn tornado. I've justified the billing by the eleven big names at the top of every poster, the trailer and the first eleven names in the actual film credits which are in the production document. He's picking the brief cast list at the start of the document and even then he is cherry picking because he's omitting Charisma Carpenter and Amanda Ooms, which IMO just proves that he is using OR to choose who he thinks is up there. But considering he reverted 5 times to get his way, me removing it is not going to get anywhere. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I've taken it out twice now in the last few hours, as you probably noticed. So I'm done for today. The only way to deal with IP hoppers is to get page protection. I just went through this with two Planet of the Apes pages. It can be quite aggravating. - Gothicfilm (talk) 12:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed, thanks GF. It's a joke, I went to dispute resolution expecting them to deal with his revert war and I get told to come here. Useless. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I went to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. It took a little while, but the two POTA pages got 2 weeks semi-protection. - Gothicfilm (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well this user, DasallmächtigeJ, is an established user so a protection wouldn't be very useful anyway. Only hope is for him to again violate 3RR and then get him blocked temporarily. Also I think this is the first time I've ever seen Betty Logan swear.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Aggravation can do that... The last revert I did at The Expendables 2 looked like an IP hopper, so semi-protection would stop that. If the user returns to doing it while signed in, yes, you can get him on WP:3RR. The problem is as you know both of these are usually temporary .- Gothicfilm (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Concern about accusations of plagiarism in a film article

Recently, I and a couple of other editors have been disagreeing about whether or not the film Zinda can be called a "remake" of Oldboy. It was not an authorized remake and the producers of Oldboy (as the Zinda article reports) "initially expressed legal concerns but took no legal action as the studio had shut down". My position has been that for the Wikipedia article to call the film a "remake" is to say that the Oldboy producers are right and that the Zinda producers broke copyright law. But since the question is not a legally settled issue, to say so is potentially libelous, and thus should be excluded. The article can report what the Oldboy producers said (I did not remove that part), but it cannot endorse them. I would appreciate any input from others as to whether or not there is a legitimate legal concern here. Thanks.

See the discussion here: Talk:Zinda (film) 99.192.52.250 (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I checked this out and the source did not even mention Zinda; in the absence of a court ruling Wikipedia is on dicey ground repeating the accusation, but it's a thousand times worse when a fake source is used, so I've removed the sentence. I've left further comments at the talk page. If the editor keeps re-adding the information it is potentially defamatory and you should probably post your concerns at WP:BLPNB. Betty Logan (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, but the same editor has returned and reverted the page once again. He/She has readded the potentially libelous claims. He/She does not seem to really understand the difference between reporting that someone said something and endorsing the accusation. Intervention from other editors would be appreciated, here. Thanks. 99.192.52.250 (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)