Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

→

Archive 50

Talk:The_Shawshank_Redemption#Reopened_discussion

Any members willing to comment please do, I'm dealing with an editor who continues to restore a much older version and poorer version of the film plot which basically says some things in a longer and less clear way and adds in superfluous details. He did this a few months ago and there was a length discussion on it, he's now returned and making the same edits. This is a link to the subdiscussion of the previous discussion. I can't deal with him anymore, it's like feeling yourself die trying to talk any sense to him. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I already opened an RFC on the page so why have you come here? Unwilling to negotiate as usual. JTBX (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Because the film belongs to this project. Like I said, dying inside talking any sense. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I much prefer general Arts article users, but fine. --JTBX (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

AFI templates?

What's the project view on these AFI templates: [1]. An editor seems to adding them en masse to films articles. Some of them are pretty old so I'm wondering if there is a reason they weren't already inlcuded on the articles. Betty Logan (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that the AFI templates demonstrate a disadvantage of navigation templates: "Can take up too much space for information that is only tangentially related". There's nothing wrong with this commonality, but it seems more appropriate for list articles. (Not sure about categories.) I say this because this commonality is easily (and likely has been) extended to other accolade-type groupings -- Academy Awards, film festival winners, etc. I think direct links are sufficient; when something like AFI's 100 Years...100 Thrills is linked, the reader can click on it and see all the other films with ease. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed the "AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes" on the foot of the Scarface article. I don't see the point of this template at all. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

New article on film One Hundred Years of Evil

• One Hundred Years of Evil

I've created this new article. If you've got additional input for secondary sources, please feel free to suggest them at the article's talk page, I'd really appreciate it. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice work. I've done some minor fixes, mainly arround the infobox and release dates. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much! :) — Cirt (talk) 08:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of speech = New WikiProject

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

Hi there, I'm notifying this WikiProject due to its relevance to Freedom of speech. I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Order of starring roles

Is there a consensus somewhere, about the general order to list cast members of a movie? There has been quite a bit of edit warring on the article G.I. Joe: Retaliation, because some editors believe that certain actors are more important to the movie than others. Part of this stems from Channing Tatum possibly having a larger role, since he is re-shooting some key scenes before the movie is released. The order of the supporting actors has also been in dispute, alternating between alphabetical order, and the order on the movie poster, which clearly shows Dwayne Johnson and Bruce Willis as the stars of the movie. I've tried to get the interested parties to express their opinion on the talk page, but it is mostly IP editors that are constantly moving names around, which is just clogging up the edit summaries of this article. Can anyone help me come to some sort of consensus, so that we can end this senseless edit warring? Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it has been discussed before (I could go look, but...), and generally, cast list should be in the order of the credits or in the order given in a press release. BOVINEBOY2008 12:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Typically, we go by the starring credits as listed by the studio. This can usually be found at the bottom of a film poster or press release. If no starring credits can be found, you can use the order of the end credits.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The movie hasn't been released yet, so there are no end credits to use as a reference. The issue here, is that the movie poster puts Channing Tatum's name towards the end, because the credits are in alphabetical order, with the exception of Dwayne Johnson and Bruce Willis. Several editors keep moving Tatum's name to the beginning, because his role has supposedly been increased, and they are also moving the names of Dwayne Johnson and Bruce Willis after the alphabetical credits, when they are clearly the stars of the movie. I am willing to maintain whatever the consensus is, but I don't want to press the issue on this article, if there is a precedent for listing the cast a certain way. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You can always follow suit and go by alphabetical order until then. It is a NPOV method, and you do have the film poster to back you up. We did the same thing at The Avengers (2012 film) before the starring credits were released.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Just point editors here or to the guideline and otherwise tell them to knock it off. The lists are not based on personal preference, if hte credits are in alphabetical order and their favorite one is not at the top, its tough. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. If all you've got is a poster, then the credit order on the poster is what you go by. Obviously there may be exceptions if the actual credit order on the film itself is different, but if the film hasn't been released yet that isn't an issue. Revert it back with a link to this discussion in the edit summary, and if they persist ANI them. Betty Logan (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for your feedback, I really appreciate it. The question now is, where do we put the stars of the film, since the poster lists them at the end: ("A, B, C, with Bruce Willis and Dwayne Johnson")? Fortdj33 (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

In film credits, there is typically two forms: 1) Listing the actors in order of first appearance and 2) Listing the actors by prominence of the roles, lead actors first. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC).

Categorization

In the categorization of films, we request each film be put in its year category (i.e. Category:2012 films) per WP:FILMCAT. My question is, are we including those articles which are also included in its subcategories (i.e. Category:2012 animated films (with subcat Category:2012 anime films), Category:2012 horror films, Category:Indian films of 2012 (with subcat Category:Tamil films of 2012) and Category:2012 television films)? Also, should articles about broader topics that have subsections about films include these categories? There are several articles about film series, anime series, novels, etc. that include mentions of an individual film or a film adaptation that do not have an article and so the general article includes the category. BOVINEBOY2008 17:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Indian film category be Category:2012 Indian films and not Indian films of 2012? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that can be answered later. :) BOVINEBOY2008 18:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I've seen an increase of year/genre categories being created. I'm not the biggest fan of them TBH, but if they must exist, then they should be included in the article with the three prime categories. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Same film, two versions

Hi, folks. Cashback is a film that was originally created as a short, then expanded to a feature some time later. Today, one article represents both of these films. For notability purposes, I presume this is the appropriate decision. Do you agree? If so, should this dual-film article be structured like a normal film article, as it (mostly) is now—so that there is one infobox, one plot section, one reception section, etc., with descriptions of both films in those single units? Or should the films be described separately, as in something like a level two heading like "2004 film" with the relevant sub-sections about plot, reception, etc., above another heading like "2006 film" with the same sub-sections? And on these points, do you think the article's title should be changed? NTox · talk 22:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I think it should be one article. Compare with the Naomi Watts film Ellie Parker. Originally released in 2001 as a short, then expanded to a full-length in 2005. It might be a different scenario if the short film was released today, then a few years down the line, it was expanded (esp. if it was a very notable film director). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Just spotted a brewing edit war that's over my head

Over at Argo (2012 film). I think maybe if I'd had enough sleep I could figure it out but this sort of thing isn't my usual stuff and I know a lot of you are way more experienced. Short version of my interpretation: One editor removed some text in the historical accuracy section because the sources were from before the film was out and he/she doesn't find them relevant to the text anymore. ANother editor disagrees with that assertion. In any case, one of the reverts involved had an explanation that made me think perhaps the editor wasn't understanding just what WP:OR or WP:SYNTH actually meant (more the OR than the synth which seems a potentially valid concern on the content in question). I'm a little hesitant to weigh in there since this isn't my usual thing so I was hoping some of you could take a look and see if the text just needed a reworking, was fine as is, should be removed, whatever. Neither editor has begun a conversation on the talk page yet, I don't think. CHeers... and back to a plot summary and some cast pruning for me. Millahnna (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

They've only reverted a couple of times each so hopefully it will fizzle out. Our own guidelines cover this: WP:FILMHIST; just like like we don't list differences between films and books in adaptations unless there is secondary coverage of the alterations, by the same token we shouldn't list historical inaccuracies unless there is secondary coverage of them as inaccuracies. Most fact based films take creative licence, however not all alterations are relevant/important/interesting to the reader, so we require a source to justify their significance. If they start up again today, User:Wswears needs to be directed to the guideline. Betty Logan (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

That's what I'm hoping as well. It looks like most of the section, including the disputed text, has sources talking about the various differences. As near as I can tell, the dispute is over the fact that the articles for the text being removed/restored were published well before the film was released. So the removing editor feels that their commentary isn't valid (which doesn't really seem all that logical to me, but I'm guessing he/she actually has a different issue with it and isn't articulating it that well). Honestly, I couldn't make heads or tales over what they were debating since the paragraph had known, reliable sources. Which is why I'm guessing it's a synth problem (if it's a problem at all)... maybe the editor who wrote the text to begin with got a bit interpretive with it? Shrug... at a glance the text seemed fine with the sources it had, but I didn't read either article in great detail so perhaps I missed something. They were just super snippy in the edit summaries and got to that point in only a couple of reverts, as you noted. So I thought it best to ask smarter peeps than me. Millahnna (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Reception section discussion at The Signal (film)

Please see Talk:The Signal (film)#Reception. More eyes on this would be very much appreciated. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Cinema Score for Atlas Shrugged: Part II

There's been some dispute over the inclusion of Rottentomatoes user ratings in that article. I think if we could find a RS for user ratings, both the side that would like audience ratings to be included and the side that deems RT user ratings unreliable and against MOS:FILM#Audience_response would be placated. So, does anyone know someone who has a subscription CinemaScore? I checked their site to see if Atlas Shrugged: Part II was one of the ones they freely provide a score for, but sadly, it is not. Jonathanfu (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not a debatable point. IMDB/Rotten Tomatoes user submitted ratings are prohibited as per MOS:FILM#Audience response. Betty Logan (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

First, that is a guideline, not a rule. And the top of MOS:FILM#Audience response makes provision for exceptions like this:

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus.

It gives a link to WP:IAR, which says:

This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

WP is ruled by consensus, and the consensus at this article before WP:canvassing started was to include the clearly notable fact of the wide spread between the critics and the people who went to see this film, as multiple editors have put in various versions noting this. Even after canvassing, we got veterans like Collect who have well articulated how this inclusion is appropriate. See the Talk page. Jonathan Hemlock (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

MOS:FILM reflects the consensus of the regular film editors. If you believe an exemption applies to this particular article then you should state your case and let the Film project decide whether there is a valid case. If you wish to invoke WP:IAR against the MOS then you should file an RfC and get input from outside the project, and then there would be a consensus overruling the MOS. IAR is not a free for all so editors can do what they want; it is simply a way of letting editors that guidelines aren't set in stone, and previous consensuses can be overturned, but you must accomplish this through the proper channels. Continual reverting against established project consensus is just edit-warring. Betty Logan (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The Talk page discussion is underway. Why are you saying "Post an RfC" when that's already been done? Why are you plowing in on the article and doing what you want instead of going to the Talk page? There's been no 3RR violation by me, and it seems to me the page should be kept as it was - with its previous consensus before this began - until it's resolved. Jonathan Hemlock (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

What is your justification for including user ratings that makes Atlas Shrugged a special beast? Cinemascore is not always available for every film, but it is a score developed from answers given by people who have actually seen the film. Rotten Tomatoes user score is not. The only reason I can see is that the rating the film has gotten (and I'm only guessing here) wasn't good, so you want to mask that with user ratings. I don't think you're going to find much support for that stance. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time to repeat everything here. See the Talk page. The wide spread between the critics and the people who went to see this film is clearly notable, and belongs in the article. Multiple editors have put in various versions trying to explain this. Jonathan Hemlock (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

There's no problem with including an audience response, but it is well established that RT and IMDB user ratings are unreliable, another source for that information is needed. Hence why I was wondering if anyone has a CinemaScore subscription/if CinemaScore even polled Atlas Shrugged audiences. Also, I hardly think it is WP:CANVASSING to go to the Film WikiProject for a dispute over a film article. Jonathanfu (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Actress category at CfD

Please see this discussion at CfD, related to the post I made above. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

RfC on the Skyfall page

I have recently opened an RfC regarding the plot summary of Skyfall, the text of which reads:

Comments are invited on an issue with the Plot summary of the Skyfall article. A character is shown in the first scenes of the film and the plot summary currently contains a wikilink. Her surname is not revealed until the final scenes of the film and can be considered a minor twist, although not one that affects the film's plot. Is it more appropriate to link the name at the front of the summary, or to leave it until the end (and refer to the character by her first name throughout the rest of the summary)?

Comments are welcome regarding the above at at the relevant talk page section. - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved until I've seen it, but just tell them that cast are linked in the cast section. We discussed this a few weeks ago and its perfectly valid to not be linking in the plot, cast and characters when they are linked and discussed in further detail after the plot, and in the context of the plot and what is essentially a series reboot, redirecting someone to another article in the plot is not a good way to deal with it either. We don't want to be sending readers to another article unless there is specific gain in doing so, especially since it is apparently a newly introduced character, even if an old one, where the information provides no additional information whatsoever in the area of this specific film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Cheers DWB. I think this should close relatively soon anyway as it's moving in one direction, but there's still not quite enough agreement just yet. Hope you get to see it soon, and if you don't want to know the plot, don't look at the extensive plot section! The Chicago Trib seems horrified about the spoilers, but I guess it wouldn't be a story without the affected affront! (ps, there's no spoilers on that link, so you're safe to read on!) Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen it yet either (so won't be paying a visit to the talk page itself), but you don't need to be Einstein to work out who we are talking about from the description of the dispute! To address the issue in general terms, the plot is an 'internal' description of the movie's universe: if it is likely Bond would have been aware of her true identity at the start of the film then it is probably acceptable to disclose it at the beginning of the plot summary (since it would not impact dramatically on the plot, and is just a wink to the audience's knowledge of Bond); if Bond himself would have learned the nature of her identity at a later point in the film then her identity should probably be disclosed later in the plot summary (like Darth Vader/Keyser Sozer etc). There is nothing to prevent a piped link either i.e. Anakin Skywalker pipes to Darth Vader in The Phantom Menace plot summary. Betty Logan (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Cheers Betty: I have the piped link at the beginning (where the first name is introduced), although the surname isn't revealed until the final scene 9and makes not one iota of difference to the course or plot of the film). This appears to be a problem for a number of people, unfortunately. I'll leave the RfC running for another day or so and will probably have to change what there is now, although I suspect once the film is seen by the US audience, a lot of the complaints about the positioning of the link will die down! - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how you do it but tehre is a template to add to articles that says it was mentioned in the news. I will hopefully be seeing it in...2 hours or so, probably 2h30 with trailers -__-. I'm really not a fan of linking characters in plot, especially when there is tangential relation beyond a name. Most recent example is Silent Hill: Revelation, linking to a bunch of characters that are little if anything like their game counterparts in the plot AND in the following cast section. Unless it is a term that requires explanation, I don't see a positive in directing a reader elsewhere in the middle of reading a large chunk of text. In regards to Betty's response, I look at The Dark Knight Rises where one of the characters is revealed to have the same name as a comic character at the end, but its a nod to the audience and not a part of the plot. So if he doesn't find out until the end and it is just a nod, its debatable whether it should be in or not, but I fall on the side of not linking, and of course you can also argue EGG if they're clicking on Bob and being taken to Superman, which would just leave them confused. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I look forward to hearing further from you in about 5 hours then! The whole discussion will make much more sense to you afterwards. As I said, unless there are a few others who come down on one of the sides then I'll probably close in a day or so. We've got the press reference on the talk page already (3 of them at the moment, but I suspect there'll be more to come). Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Really, the only consideration I suppose is where the information is best placed in terms of its relevance to the plot. If editors are simply complaining on the basis of it being a spoiler then that isn't a legitimate concern in terms of a plot summary, since by their nature they include spoilers. In regards to linking character names (personally I can take it or leave it), but I guess you either do it for all of them or do it for none of them. Betty Logan (talk) 11:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Apart from getting into a fight with another patron I enjoyed the film Schro. I will head over to the article in a bit. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that - I hope it didn't spoil it too mcuh for you! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Nah it was all good for me at least. Bit long but a lot better than Quantum of SOlace. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

RfC now closed: too many people trying to edit without discussing (the protection lifted off earlier today) and it was largely heading in one direction anyway, sadly. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Megabox

Does Megabox (movie theatres) need to be disambiguated? It seems like there are different companies with that name:

• http://www.megabox.co.kr/Main/default.aspx Megabox in South Korea
• http://www.imegabox.com/ Megabox in Mainland China

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

AfD for Star Wars Episode VII

This is a neutral notice that there is an AfD for Star Wars Episode VII for those who wish to participate.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I have a bad feeling about this... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I find your lack of faith disturbing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Um, isn't a parsec a unit of distance, not time? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather visit Mos Eisely Cantina unarmed than get involved in that discussion. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a trap.--Tærkast (Discuss) 18:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Apocalypse Now Redux merge discussion

There is currently a discussion underway considering the proposed merger of Apocalypse Now Redux into the Apocalypse Now article. Editors involved here might be interested in said discussion. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The horror. The horror. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Pe de Chinelo ban discussion

Hi, everyone. A community ban proposal for the user Pé de Chinelo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is taking place at AN: WP:AN#Community ban proposal: Pé de Chinelo. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is now closed, since Pe de Chinelo is de facto community banned already. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

American actresses at CfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Vigilante Vigilante: The Battle for Expression at Articles for Improvement.

Dear members of the Film WikiProject. This notification is sent from the Articles for Improvement team to let you know that the article Vigilante Vigilante: The Battle for Expression, which has been tagged as part of the project, has been selected to receive a community improvement. Users and members of the project that are willing to help, may do so in the article's entry on the Articles for Improvement page.

Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 05:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Top Hat's GAR

Top Hat, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. GamerPro64 16:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Renaming lists of films by year

I have proposed the renaming of over 850 pages which list the films produced each year in a particular country. All these pages appear to fall within the scope of this Wikiproject.

The discussion is at Talk:Bengali films of 2012#Requested_move, where your comments are welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hobbit films and redirects

Hi. I've raised a point here about the current status of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey which is currently a redirect to the film series. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

No Country for Old Men (film)

No Country for Old Men (film), an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:Articles for Creation - Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 22, 2012 – November 21, 2012.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

There is currently an elimination drive at AFC, which reached some 1200 articles last month and direly needed addressing. We've fought it down to the 200-500 article level, but could still use some more help. At any given point, several dozen of the submitted articles are about films or actors, so may be of interest to folks in this project.

The Drive is awarding some cool barnstars for participation, even as low as 5 articles reviewed, so your participation could really help chip away at the backlog. There is also the handy Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script, no download required, you just turn it on in Preferences, which makes reviewing an article very quick, intuitive, and easy. I hope a few of you can come and help us out before the drive ends! MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like some advice, please

Some while ago, I created four movie articles: Best of Faces of Gore, Faces of Gore 2, Faces of Gore 3, and Just Can't Get Enough. What's troubling me about this is that I doubt that any of these films is genuinely notable. I'm not about to nominate an article I started for deletion, but I'm not sure at all that any of these articles would survive AfDs. I'd appreciate it if project members could give me their opinions about the notability of these films. If anyone does want to nominate any of those four articles for deletion, I don't resent that at all, BTW. In fact, I'd encourage it if people think that they aren't notable. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I merged the Faces of Gore films into Faces of Gore. Not sure about the notability of Just Can't Get Enough, but in marking film articles at Stub-Class, I've seen worse. And the fact that you created the article is irrelevant, if you think that it should be nominated for deletion, you should go ahead and nominate it. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I probably should, but I'm only human, dude. Anyway, thanks for dealing with the Faces of Gore films. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I've Prod'd them. Notability clearly hasn't been demonstrated. Betty Logan (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Japanese films by year

Can anyone see a reason why this category exists and the sub-cats beneath it? Why are Japanese films being catergorised by the year of release? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It reduces categorization by eliminating the need to place articles in one of the Category:Films by date subcategories and Category:Japanese films in accordance WP:OVERCAT. Furthermore, with respects to anime films, it eliminates an Category:Anime by date of first release subcategory and in some cases an additional Category:Animated films by decade subcategory as well. On top of that, both Category:Japanese films and many Category:Films by date subcats are very large and nearly impossible to browse through. So these categories would benefit greatly from diffusion as it would make them easier to navigate. That isn't something that is just limited to Category:Japanese films, but goes for all categories for countries with prolific film industries. I was actually surprised to find that these categories have been created by now. —Farix (t | c) 14:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we can get a consensus first to diffuse these categories, instead of picking off one at random and going in all guns blazing. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why bold actions cannot suffice. What you appear to be saying is that editors needs "permission" before taking a rather obvious actions, which smacks of ownership. —Farix (t | c) 10:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

No, this is to with a long-standing way of doing things here. I'm not saying don't do it, but a change of this scale would benefit everyone's time with a pre-discussion regarding the change. If it was so "obvious" it would have been done years and years ago. Now off you go and crack on with the 70,000+ film articles this affects. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Furthmore, the template in the infobox for film release date forces the year category into the article anyway. How do we get around that then, professor? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I see no harm in it. We do genres by year, given people's interest in slapping nationalities on films it makes sense to pair that up with a category. GRAPPLE X 11:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going to copy-paste what I've already said about this on my talk: "Per WP:DUPCAT, "there is no need to take pages out of the parent category purelybecause of their membership of a non-diffusing subcategory". Because there are only limited number of subcategories and their exact further subcategorization type (ie by country, by genre, by format, etc), it does not make sense to remove them from the main category. [For example, why] would Category:2007 films contain all 2007 films except Japanese films? And there are discussions pertaining to this topic, albeit not about year and not using the terminology. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Categorization#Australian film categories,Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Categorization#Splitting categories." There is good reason why each film year category is non-diffusing. It is the only location where all films released in a certain year a located. It does not make sense to remove films from a certain country from the category. BOVINEBOY2008 12:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks BB. I see that Farix hasn't bothered to reply here, but continues their crusade to go against consensus. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Requesting someone to write more about SAG-AFTRA.

This article, SAG-AFTRA, really needs to be expanded if anyone is up to it. RGloucester (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I recall running into a German screen writer who told me the hardest part of his work life was to keep undiscovered writers away from the "manger". I know how professional authors look down at those who are not paid for their writing (actually the Wikipedia is built on that idea) and it doesn't propel me to write for them or about them... NordhornerII (talk) _The man from Nordhorn 22:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit war on Princess Mononoke

While I am improving the Princess Mononoke article to Featured Article status, there is unfortunately an ongoing edit war regarding the plot's length between me and 188.242.61.168 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I am trying to keep the plot concise, but the IP has been adding in details which he feels is important to the plot despite my efforts in trying to help cleanup the section ([2], [3], [4]), which unfortunately exceeds the relevant 400-700 word limit guideline at WP:FILMPLOT. I am trying to reduce this plot summary to keep with the guidelines, but the IP is on the verge of violating 3RR and has repeatedly added to the expanded plot summary against the recommended 400-700 word limit. As it stands now, the plot summary is 819 words (and appropriately tagged) and as I do not wish to be blocked for edit warring, I am taking this discussion here per WP:BRD to see if anyone can voice their opinions on this matter here. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sjones23, you are the one who making edit wars, because you are the one who destroying consensus version. And after that you blaming me in war edits?! Lol. What the nonsence. And this starts long time ago, in the september. And it is important that other members explained this to you too in the past. But now you thought that I'm no longer in WP and you may push plot section again... not ashmed? Not beautiful. I explained many times to you that there is more important things than your beloved film plot rule. Common sence. Look WP:5 and WP:IAR. You prevent to improve Wikipedia and in particular this Princess Mononoke article. I warned you, so, now I must adress to administrators. And just like at that time I ask another experienced members to explain to Sjones23 that he is not right and to help with article. Thanks for attention and sorry for not perfect english. "Anonymous with IP" 00:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The "consensus version" you were referring to was probably this passage, "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus," but I think this does not really applies here, since this article has not gotten much good attention historically. As indicated in my last difference, TheFarix tagged the plot section for excessive plot detail. As a rule-abiding editor, I am trying to improve Wikipedia to comply with the rules and the guidelines. Unfortunately, you were already on the verge of violating WP:3RR, and I are trying to come up with a good discussion with other users of the project to weigh in on this matter. Plot summaries in film articles are immutable and can be changed at anytime by anyone, but the rules are that WP:FILMPLOT states that the plot summary's length should be between 400-700 words and to summarize the article, simple as that. I do know the the five pillars very well, and I am also being civil while maintaining common sense in applying the guidelines and policies when editing film articles, but please note that anyone engaged in an edit war is automatically wrong. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Again the same. I think now I truly see that it's useless to talk to you and explain. But I will say anyway. Historically there was consensus. Other Wikipedia members explained to you in the september that you were wrong. You admited that. But now you again on the wrong way and trying to push your vision and make it looks like I'm wrong here. It will not works. Not worked at that time and will not work now. ... And yes, I'm glad that in the last sentence you completely admit that you are wrong. But why then you continuing all this? Interesting... Maybe like rule-abiding editor you really and sincere trying to improve Wikipedia, but in that case you are working just as barrier in the way of improvement. Make more constructive things, not this absurdity, just as I told you monthes ago. Stop acting like bull. "Anonymous with IP" 01:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:FILMPLOT is an excellent guide, rather than a hard and fast rule, so there's no need to count words. The two of you should discuss the best summary. Anyone who can describe the plot of Princess Mononoke in 700 words is doing well. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Elen. Since the Princess Mononoke plot summary is very complicated, we should discuss the best summary to use among the editors here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, this film has a great plot. Quite complicated? Well, maybe. And becouse of that it can't be so briefly described. Really I wanted to write more, there are very important things and moments that are not writed in plot section at all. And after that Sjones23 wanted to delete critically important text in plot section. It's nonsence. I just don't understand - why you are so attached to those 700 words? Common sence is higher than this. After all, always there is exception. Just CAN'T write plot so briefly of this film. If you will delete something you will delete plot itself. It's equivalent of deleting plot itself, again. So, please, think about it. Don't let WP:FILMPLOT beat you from commoon sence. "Anonymous with IP" 02:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
• Don't forget:"The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as...", well, after dots I really can add "Princess Mononoke". You can't? Why? Well, you are right, plot is complexity enough. And this is again fact rather in favor of my vision of solution, don't it? Then don't delete important text that discover plot itself. I hope I will knock to you after all :) It is called logic, common sence. Nothing more. So, please, listen to me. I suggest to write plot section of Princess Mononoke even more. There are a lot of things that are not described at all. So... Sjones23, are you at last agree or still not? What about others, dear Sirs Wikipedia members? "Anonymous with IP" 02:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I tend to disagree, as we logically cannot exceed the 700-word mark per WP:FILMPLOT and also, Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries. Also per WP:FILMPLOT, complicated plots in films may occasionally require clarifications from secondary sources, so cite these sources in the section. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry Sjones23, are you ok? You read what I wrote? Look again in your beloved rule. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction's non-linear storyline, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. Ideally suited to this case. You will argue? I don't see any rational arguments. Sorry. I explained my vision. Can you explain yours? Not only by "it must be not more than 700 words". I'm saying that it's like "they went and jumped from building, newspaper wrote it, let's go and jump too?". Silly. Same here. 700 words - not dogma. How you can't understand? "Anonymous with IP" 02:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I am all right here and I appreciate your thoughts on this matter. As for the plot summary, it's not important to cover every plot point or twist in the film. This allows readers to understand the general flow of the story without knowing each detail. A good analogy, appropriately, is how we handle video game articles. Per WP:GAMEGUIDE, articles on video games focus on how the game is generally played and don't devolve into strategy guides. For example, explaining how a given level of Angry Birds is played isn't appropriate, while describing the general flow of the game is appropriate. I'm not saying that this current plot summary is the final result. On the contrary, you're more than welcome to bring up these points and see if other editors agree with you (or you can sway still others to agreeing with you). This is part of a philosophy called "bold, revert, discuss", and it's an important part of how Wikipedia articles evolve, and is also a part where all editors play, whether they are veterans of Wikipedia or just newcomers. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

With Mononoke, I would think it was actually more important to try to convey the purpose and meaning of the scenes. The present 'he went there then she went here' version sounds a little random. Might need some sources for that though.Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree that it does sound a little random here, Elen, and I also think that is more important to convey the purpose and the meaning of the scenes in the film. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• 1) So, finally, after my message on administrators edit warring page Sjones23 excused and admited that there is no need to shorten plot section in Princess Mononoke article - quoting Sjones23 :"I don't want to shorten the plot to make readers unfamiliar with the film's plot summary, and I agree that the film's plot is quite complicated". Honestly, I didn't believe my eyes when readed this, coz literally 1 hour earlier he said right here, on this page, that:"Unfortunately, I tend to disagree". Duplicity? I hope no, and he really changed his opinion. So, I think now we can remove billet (tag) "may be too long or excessively detailed". I'm truly glad that I managed to convince Sjones23. What about other members? Do you agree? If yes, please, delete tag.

• 2) Elen of the Roads, quite true. But honestly I prefer variant that we have now and I will explain why. In present variant we have main sourse - film itself. We just describing dry facts from film, truth. In this approach easy to correct someone possible mistakes and so on. But if "try to convey the purpose and meaning of the scenes" this might be OR, neutrality violation and many other violations... it can generate tons of disputes. Many members will spend time on non productive things. Or it needed very strong and authoritative sourses. And what I don't like even more in this variant - even authoritative sourses can write shitty delirium. After all there people writing it too. And they can be deeply mistaken... I know WP rules, please, don't write them here. I know that WP info must be based on sourses and so on. Just share with you my own opinion. Rules give birth to other problems and sometimes made hostages itself. WP itself is good example... So, how I said, coz all of that I prefer real present variant. And even if write purpose and meaning of the scenes I bet plot section will be not shortened - but vice versa. Btw even we have quite dry description, there are meaning of scenes in section too... And in the end, this is just words. If you want to suggest something, please, do it specifically. Then it will be faster and what more important - better. Let's not "spread over the paper". Just specific suggestions. P.S. Ah... sorry comrades again for not perfect english. But I hope you understand all what I mean.

• 3) Btw I'm seeing user:TheFarix making strange edits in categories in anime articles (including "Princess Mononoke"). Look at his contribs. I don't understand such edits, do you? I don't see reasons to move categories like this... hm... can someone explain? Best explanation that I have - just silly tamping of edits. Sorry if I mistaken, TheFarix.

• 4) Btw I have doubts about need of to say "Ashitaka and San starts to develop romantic feelings for each other" or not in plot section. Well, it's it is obvious that they like each other, but "romantic feelings"... what do you think? And I bet few know this, but Ashitaka is engaged to be married to Kaya (young lass in start of film, who gave him amulet or charm (that beautiful stone like knife, which later Ashitaka will pass to San)). So really have doubts... Your visions and opinions? Maybe better to drop such phrase?

• 5) I ask everyone who interested in this case, in this discussion, in improvement of Princess Mononoke article, to move to the Princess Mononoke talk page. I just copy-pasted this my message there. Let's continue there, please. Write further there if you not against. It will be more comfortable to me. And no, I'm not egoist. Just thought it will be more rightly (correctly) besides comfort. On this page we attracted attention. Let's continue directly on the article under discussion. "Anonymous with IP" 06:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment WP:FILMPLOT doesn't set a limit, it advises a range of 400–700 words. The standard response for breaching this guideline is that the film is "complex" or "long", but this in itself does not justify breaching the guideline (since that is the standard excuse for plot bloat): in most cases a responsible editor should be able to select a level of abstraction that meets the guideline. If someone can reduce the plot to within the guideline limits then generally they should be allowed to do so, provided the premise of the story is still adequately conveyed; it is not necessary to include every single plot development. When we invoke an exception to the guidelines, it is usually in cases of narrative complexity i.e. where there is more than one major plot strand: a film like Memento had two internal narratives, Pulp Fiction had three, Rashomon had three, The Godfather 2 had two, portmanteau films have more than one, and in such cases it may even take 400–700 words to reasonably describe each individual narrative. Now, I haven't seen Princess Mononoke and have no wish to read the plot of a film I haven't seen, so I cannot honestly say if the exemption from the guideline is applicable, but in resolving this the involved parties should consider the number of internal narratives. If the film is broken down into perspectives, or an episodic nature with very little plot continuity then the exemption may be justified, but plot complexity is not the issue (since a greater level of abstraction can be adopted), narrative complexity is. Betty Logan (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I've taken a stab at reducing the plot wording without removing necessary detail. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Two biographies of the same artist

Hello, when I went through the list of César winners I saw that there are two biographical articles on the same actor, Mister Sergi López, who is also known under his full name Sergi López i Ayats. Who can fix that? NordhornerII (talk) _The man from Nordhorn 19:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have redirected Sergi López to Sergi López i Ayats since the former was a copyright violation of of the latter (it was and cut and pasted October 26, 2010) without any copyright attribution. Sergi López is possibly the WP:COMMONNAME though, so perhaps Sergi López i Ayats should be renamed to Sergi López. Betty Logan (talk) 01:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response and also for providing these details. NordhornerII (talk) _The man from Nordhorn 21:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

When is the film accepted as a source for the film's content?

Once again the plot description in a film article of mine was flagged as unsourced. I have got this film at home and I watched it nearly ten times (either the dubbed or the merely subtitled version). I also read the French and the German Wiki article before I wrote the plot description and I watched it while I wrote the plot description. Some time ago I used to add references to the plot descriptions until I was ridiculed for that and told that the film itself was a sufficient source for the plot. Well, obviously it is not. Or is it? NordhornerII (Talk) _The man from Nordhorn 02:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The film is a primary source, and as per convention we don't reference the plot (since the infobox includes the relevant bibliographic details). Provided you only relay the events of the plot and don't interpret it. It's difficult to judge the situation individually unless we know what the film is and the specific circumstances for its tagging, but WP:FILMPLOT coveres the general case. Betty Logan (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Betty, it looks to me as if encapsulating the plot (or a part of it) is already considered an interpretation. Well, at least the English Wikipedia tags don't accuse anybody of "freies Fabulieren" (which means that an author allegedly makes up fairy tales as he goes)...

NordhornerII (Talk) _The man from Nordhorn 04:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Betty, of course. Plot sections are verifiable by watching the film. The section should describe the action taken by the characters, with a minimum of context:

Bear and the girl run through the room, diving through the closed glass patio doors, shattering them in slow motion. They collapse within a few yards. In closeup, an eye looks around frantically, slowing to a fixed gaze to camera. The camera slowly ascends, revealing the shard-riddled couple, in expanding pools of blood, as the film ends.

Anyone tagging a plot section as "unsourced" needs to be gently educated about WP:FILMPLOT. If a plot section is wrong, as the above one is for the film Mary Poppins, the template {{failed verification}} might apply. Better to just watch the thing again. --Lexein (talk) 05:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Many film articles consist of information which can also be found (and verified) at the IMDB and www.allmovie.com and besides that there is only the plot. If these articles receive a tag for being unsourced, it is usually on top of the article. But it can certainly only refer to the plot section, for all other informations is all too easily verifiable. Unfortunately the editor in question doesn't always point out what seems to be the problem. NordhornerII (Talk) _The man from Nordhorn 21:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As long as you are just describing what happens then the film is acceptable. You get into trouble when you start interpreting situations or characters motivations, even if it they are obvious. I would argue that anything in a plot section that can not be referenced to the film itself belongs in another section. AIRcorn (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

From my childhood I remember Arthur of the Britons (episode "The Duel") saying "stating the obvious is tedious". But how can stating the obvious be an interpretation? I am afraid this seems to be a contradiction in terms. As a matter of fact many experts say that a translation is already a kind of interpretation. So dubbing a film is already an interpretation and a description of dubbed scenes therefore consists of existing interpretation and subsequently cannot be anything else... Correct me where I went wrong, please. NordhornerII (Talk) _The man from Nordhorn 22:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I am thinking of something like "Inept slacker John Doe is devastated because his perfectionist girlfriend Jane Smith is head-over-heels in love with the despicably charming Bob Jones." That was just off the top of my head so may not be the best example. Look at One Foot in the Grave#Characters for an extreme case of interpretation based off, in this case, a TV show (I know it is in the characters section, but you sometimes see this stuff in plots). As for dubbing I guess since you are not making the interpretations then there is some leeway. If you are worried you could always leave a footnote saying what the translation was. Just my two cents anyway as I was watching this page and thought I might be able to help. AIRcorn (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Aircorn, I do appreciate your response. It is certainly out of question that bad style should be rectified. Moreover I feel Wikipedia film articles should be better than the average of printed film reviews. I met once a professional film critic who admitted that many film critics of local papers don't watch the films in question at all, because they like to fatten up their puny fee for writing by selling their free tickets. They justify that by saying something like "If you've seen one film starring XY, you've seen them all" and then they just make something up. (That's why I consider it justified to add references to a plot description.) Whenever I complain about that outside the Wikipedia, I am told I took film reviews much to serious because nobody would attach significance to film reviews and so it didn't matter. Actually I love to meet soulmates, even if I am struggling to express that. NordhornerII (Talk) _The man from Nordhorn 22:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Which filmmaker belongs in Wikipedia's Vital Articles?

There is a discussion on this right now at the talk page of Wikipedia:Vital articles. Walt Disney is presently preferred, with some suggesting Andrei Tarkovsky. Your contribution would be appreciated. Narssarssuaq (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:American actresses

Category:American actresses, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for rename. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Any chance you could link to the correct page? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Link has been fixed. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

FA status concerns for Jurassic Park (film)

I've voiced some concerns about the Featured status of Jurassic Park (film). Comments are welcome at Talk:Jurassic Park (film)#FARC? --IllaZilla (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Bollywood

Portal:Bollywood has been nominated for featured portal candidacy (nomination page). Please leave your comments and help it to achieve featured status. Thanks and regards. — Bill william compton^Talk 15:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Additional disambiguation info in navboxes

I'm having a dispute with another editor regarding abut what to include in navboxes. Anyone have anything to add anything on my talk page? --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Multimedia templates

I have created about 200 multimedia templates (see multimedia works towards the bottom of the templates section at User:TonyTheTiger/creations) in the last 2 months. Many have dozens of links such as {{Cinderella}} and {{The Three Musketeers}}, while others have just a few such as {{The Old Man and the Sea}} and {{Gigi}}. I have been trying to make them look as uniform as possible so that if you go to the bottom of a page like Oscar Wilde they all look the same. On that page all of the multimedia templates were created by me. However, on pages like Charles Dickens or H. G. Wells many of the other templates were created by others. I have even tried to make the titles of the templates on these pages look like the ones I have created. After two months of work creating these templates, Robsinden (talk · contribs) has started undoing a lot of my efforts, but in a fairly consistent way. We have reached an impasse on two or three issues:

1. Should we include dates in template titles? See Oscar Wilde vs. Charles Dickens.
2. Should include foreign languages in multimedia templates. E.g. Rob removed many foreign languages. I think the old version was better, but Rob thinks only disambiguation justifies parenthetical text.
3. In the case of ballets or operas such as {{Swan Lake navbox}} and {{Cinderella}} should we include the composer.

Since I am pinging many projects, please hold all the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Navigation_templates#Additional_disambiguation_info_in_navboxes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Poster concerns on The Fifth Element

There is a discussion on which poster we should use for The Fifth Element article. It can be found at Talk:The Fifth Element#Infobox poster. Input and comments from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up: An RfC has been filed here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Vietnamese movie posters

Several Vietnamese movie posters have been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 November 15 -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies: Rescheduled for December 1

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies has been rescheduled for Saturday, December 1, from 12 noon to 5 pm. Sign yourself up on the signup page (not manitory), bring your laptop or tablet, and take advantage of the resources of the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts. -- kosboot (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Themes section advice

Hey gang, I'm developing a themes section for Prometheus before sending it to FA, but I've never written one before and I'm not 100% clear what goes into one so if anyone is willing to take a look at what I have done at User:Darkwarriorblake/Sandbox#Themes and give me some input it would be much appreciated. I know it needs copy editing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Country of production on Cache

Please participate on the discussion on Caché (film). After providing six citations involving the countries production there is still continued discussion to what the production countries for the film are. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This editor is not stating the issue neutrally. The fact is that not all the sources agree, so, per the guidelines, the disputed countries have not been included. He wants to change that, but the sources still don't agree. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Uhh, i've provided six sources that agree. You showed one that disagreed. That's against WP:UNDUE. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Without wanting to wade into this, I'll just offer that the BFI generally have good information about this kind of thing, their film database here can be useful for finding out production companies and countries, and being an institute of high standing should be a good source to use. GRAPPLE X 20:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

BFI was one of my sources removed.... Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Caché was on Film4 in the UK last night. And Amour has a limited release here too. Happy days. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Plot synopsis before public release

I've posted a question at Jack Reacher (film). Since the sourcing for movie plots is the movie itself, do we do full synopses before a movie has had a public release, which editors can theoretically use to verify details? There's a long, unsourced plot at this page, and I'm not sure how accurately to treat it. I couldn't find a guidelines for this at Film MOS. Anybody know? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

From past experience, I think it's generally acceptable to have a sourced "Premise" section prior to release, which can then be fleshed out into a proper Plot section post-release. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no way to prove that plot is real, according to the article the film is not out for over a month. And I don't even know what is going on in it, it reads like a copy vio but too detailed to be a public release. I'd scrap it till whoever added it provides a source. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

If the film has not been released then the source isn't verifiable, and therefore contravenes WP:V. Prior to release any plot details should be cited to secondary sources such as press releases etc. Betty Logan (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute - Herzog starring alongside Tom Cruise?! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Grave of the Fireflies FA push

Hi, guys. There's a discussion regarding a possible push for FA on the Grave of the Fireflies article with the intention of putting it up as TFA on April 16, 2013. The discussion is at Talk:Grave of the Fireflies#FA?. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Conflicting Box office figures

What is the general idea when sources offer differing BO totals? For instance Dredd has earned $28 million according to Box Office Mojo while Boxoffice.com says its at $36 and so does The Numbers. I'm not a big fan of Box Office.com because it can't be archived, at least not any time I have tried and some of its figures are massively outof whack, like the $72 million budget it reports for Dredd where everyone else reports $45-50 million. I'm asking because this is also an issue at The Expendables 2 and others, but I don't know how reliable the latter two sites are for BO figures. If they're right then BOM seems to be slacking heavily on collecting foreign figures. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

With such a (comparatively) new film, different sites will take different lengths of time to properly collate the figures. In my experience, both Box Office Mojo and The Numbers usually end up with around the same figures, especially for prominent releases like Dredd, even if at first they differ. If in doubt, attempt to use more "high quality" sources, such as Variety, to smooth it out or replace these sites entirely (or indeed, just report all three with proper attribution as to which site said what). As for budgets, some sites quote production budget, others production + marketing/distribution. It's not always clear, admittedly, but again, with high-profile releases it should be possible to eventually find reliable sources that properly break this down, or at least provide useful commentary on the stated budget (as a lot of the time we're reliant on what studios say the film cost to make). In other cases still, it's not possible to discern either budget or profit until long after the fact. Until then, we just have to work with what we have. That's not such a big deal; wikipedia is for the ages, but it's still a work-in-progress. Steve ^T • C 00:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'll go with the higher figure that appears on two sites then, thanks for the input Steve. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

If you have different figures generally it's a good idea to corroborate them, since any source can be wrong no matter how good it is. If you can only corroborate one figure use that figure, if you can corroborate both simply do a number range, since there is no way to ascertain which is figure is correct; it's not our job to determine who is correct. It's quite a common occurrence with budgets since it is rare to get official confirmation. As Steve alludes to above, Boxoffice.com always seems to have higher budget figures, so it's possible they include the marketing costs. In the case of Dredd, it seems BOM stopped collating the foreign revenue at the end of September: [5] Betty Logan (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Logically, considering how little it was advertised, unless someone was skimming I don't believe they spent $25-30 million on advertising for Dredd. The 45 mil is widely backed up so that's fine, its just the gross because obviously we tend to default to BOM, but fans won't tolerate that they want the highest one, so wanted to know if BOM will ever get around to updating its gross if it is in fact inaccurate. Thanks for the input Betty. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Question re: Run times on silent films

I wanted to get some opinions and options regarding the run times field in the infoboxes for silent films. Many (most?) of said infoboxes that I have come across have the number of reels needed to show the film rather than an actual hour/minutes run time. I suspect that will be meaningless for the average reader. Recently I have encountered a few infoboxes that include this link [[reel#Motion picture terminology|reels]] which does lead to this reels which does help to explain the term. This leaves me with a couple thoughts

1. Should we go through and change the reels to an actual run time. This has the problems of sourcing and the fact that there are probably various run times listed due to the nature of the way silent movies were filmed and shown.
2. Add the "reel" link to the infoboxes that don't have it. Problem is that is a big task. I wonder if it is something that a bot can do.
3. This might not be a big deal so we could leave things as they are.

I just wondered what others of you think. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 19:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I say change reels to run time. No reason why silent films should use reels while all other films use run time. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that approach is that there was no standardised film speed (i.e. 24 frames per second) back in the silent era, and films would play 16–22fps. Video releases of silent films may have running times attached now (based on our 24 fps), but they misrepresent the contemporary running times, which would vary from theater to theater. Silent film length was counted in reels, it was the metric of the time so I think we should retain that information. That said I agree we are writing for a modern readership so perhaps we can include a running time based on the video release i.e. 12 reels (DVD release: 190 minutes) Betty Logan (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

"Silent film length was counted in reels, it was the metric of the time so I think we should retain that information." - This, pretty much. And second the follow-up comment about a DVD release runtime. It would be original research to start converting all reel lengths to minutes too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Based on the responses so far I think that we might follow suggestion 2 and add the reels link since it covers the info about fps and its variability that Betty Logan mentions. It also gives readers who have no idea what "number of reels" means in relation to a films length a chance to learn. As to adding an hours/minutes if we can source it then that can be added also. As I wikignome adding the link would keep me nice and busy but a bot would get to more articles in a day than I could do in a month or year depending on energy levels so does anyone know if adding the link is something they could be programed to do? MarnetteD | Talk 14:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Couple of film lists up for deletion

User:Erik recently created List of films featuring home invasions and List of films featuring diabetes, both of which are up for deletion. I'm posting this here as Erik doesn't seem to be about again. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Academy Award Featured Topic?

Hello. With the 85th Academy Awards fast approaching, I am going to start working on making the Academy Awards a Featured topic in the next couple of weeks. I am thinking about improving all the Academy Award lists to FL status and improve the Academy Awards article to GA status. All are welcome to assist in this process, and any input, suggestions or comments from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that sounds like a great idea. I'd be happy to help. I've been wanting to bring the one for Costume Design to FL for over a year now, and have a few others I'm quite fond of (Original Score for example). I probably won't be able to start seriously editing until late December early January though. Ruby 2010/2013 06:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Is Casablanca iconic?

There is currently a discussion underway at the Casablanca (film) article on the issue of whether the film can be considered iconic. Participants in this project are encouraged to add their two cents worth. In my opinion, it is, and the person who started the discussion seems to be ignoring the sources provided. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

AFI template for deletion

The above post goes to the Casablanca article. I noticed at the foot of the article, it's over-flowing with AFI templates, one of which is listed for deletion. What do people think of the other templates? Are they necessary? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete 'em all, the articles make more sense for carrying the information. BOVINEBOY2008 01:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content from The White Ribbon

Hi. Can we have some neutral eyes looking at the intro to The White Ribbon. Additions have been made about the full title, which have been sourced by multiple reliable sources, but another user disagrees and removes said sourced info. More can be found here and via the article edit history. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I've commented on the article talk page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rob. I'd appreciate if others would be willing to look at this - one user still has an issue... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, some input from other editors would be appreciated for what should be a very simple issue, seeing as there are guidelines. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

American actresses at CfD, part 2

The American actresses category has now been deleted. As a result, I've listed the other actresses categories at CfD. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

French Style Infobox Template

Hello, I noticed the Modèle:Infobox Cinéma (personnalité) template -> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod%C3%A8le:Infobox_Cin%C3%A9ma_%28personnalit%C3%A9%29 <- had some wonderful features, such as the actor/actress name in color with a reel. It can also be seen here: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Monroe I'm wondering if anyone is interested in building and implementing such a template, as I do not have the experience to do this too well.

Twillisjr (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. The infobox that the film project developed for actors had something similar at one time. The color bar even changed from gold to silver when the person passed away. This was taken away when the actor infobox was merged with the person infobox. I suspect that you would have to get a new consensus to change it again. MarnetteD | Talk 19:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I like the film reel aspect, adds a nice flair to the otherwise drab infobox, but the easiest problem you will run into is that people aren't generally just one discipline anymore. Despite there being lots of people desperate to be actors they keep casting people like Jennifer Lopez, Beyonce and 50 Cent to deliberately ruin the film out of some sense of misguided self-harm. So obviously the music project will want their own header theme, which do you go with when the person is both a musician, film star, television star and put in prison for tax evasion (the jail bar header theme, looks pretty boss). If a methodology could be found I'd like the ability to add the header theme at least. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: studio locations

A thought for anyone well informed who wants to follow up on this idea. I've just been skimming through some wiki-articles about the big Hollywood studios in the Golden Age and realized that it's very difficult to learn exactly where in the Los Angeles area those studios were located then. Sometimes a location is mentioned far down in the text, or not mentioned at all; or a vague area is named (e.g., Culver City), which means little to people not familiar with the area.

It might or might not be a good idea to create an article giving those locations (and perhaps what businesses are located there today) - but adding a subsection on studio locations to the articles on the Big Five and Little Three studios would be a nice project for a knowledgeable editor, and very helpful to readers interested in the history of Hollywood. Just sayin'. Textorus (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Reliability?

A quick skim of the archives shows nothing, but has anyone looked at [6] from a reliable source point of view before? Are there any issues with this location? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I had a thorough look at this site last year when I needed information on Venice locations. Unless there is a good reason to doubt it, I would generally say it's reliable. The guy who runs the site has published a book, and the site generally seems to be an online edition of the book. The author is a published writer, gives talks on the subject at film festivals and universities, so he probably has a legitimate claim to be the world's leading expert on film tourism. Betty Logan (talk) 07:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Betty. - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

AFI templates, part 2

Following on from the above discussion, which resulted in delete, I've listed the other AFI templates at TFD. You can find the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Practical Magic genre discussion

Hello. There is a discussion about which genre(s) we should use for the lead section of Practical Magic, which can be found at Talk:Practical Magic#refinement of genre categorization. Participants in this project are encouraged to add their two cents worth there. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Overexposed

The usage of Overexposed is up for discussion, see Talk:Overexposed (album) -- 70.24.245.16 (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Prometheus (film)

Comments from project members would be welcome at Talk:Prometheus (film)#RfC: Is poor scientific awareness in movie Prometheus screenplay relevant? --IllaZilla (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

More members of this project need to be making their opinion known about this, it can set a very bad precedent for the project if fluff sources can be used to demand that we mention every time someone complains that a fictional work is not a real world documentary. Especially for science fiction. The kind of complaint being raised is like complaining that tehre are tall, blue cat people in Avatar.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Film Studio template discussion

A few weeks ago, an edit war occured on Template:Film Studio, and as such, it has been protected for a couple of months by an administrator. I have started a discussion as a third-party, involving whether we should list conglomerates in film studios or not. Project members are encouraged to add their two cents there. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

RFC on non-free soundtrack album covers within film articles (and other cases)

I've started an RFC here to discuss the use of non-free soundtrack and other cover art that form related media to articles on film, among other cases. Input from the film project would be helpful. --MASEM (t) 22:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Clash of box-office issues in 2012 in film

There is a clash of issues over number-one box office films in different countries in the article 2012 in film. Some users, two of them name Grapple X and Phil Bridger have deleted the list of box office number-one movies in various countries, including United States and United Kingdom in the 2012 in film#Highest-grossing films section and replace it with Lists of box office number-one films which only lists number-one box office films from various countries in different years. They also deleted the highest box office gross numbers in North America, UK and Austrilia. They deleted those links and those box-office gross numbers because they said it is bias to have number one box-office movies to have links with english-speaking countries because they beleive that they should have worldwide view of box office numbers.

Although I, at least understand, the reason for it, I do not agree with this because the Lists of box office number-one films only has number one films are in different years in various countries. Highest-grossing films section of that article should only have links to any box-office films that have been released specificly in that year. The link on that box-office section on the 2012 in film article doesn't have any box-office link that leads to any film that has been released in 2012 specificly. Lists of box office number-one films has number-one box office films in various countries in different years That would only frustrate many readers from different countries by going that Lists of box office number-one films to find number-one box-office countries in that year and not a lot of countries have number one 2012 box-office film links. For example, in 2011 in film, at the section 2011 in film#Highest-grossing films, it has number-one box-office films from Ecuador, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Venezuela with the year 2011 on them, which means the links have films released in that year. 2012 in film doesn't have anything that's related in flims in 2012 as seen in 2012 in film#Highest-grossing films, other than Lists of box office number-one films which lists various countries in diffrent years.

What I'm trying to say is that we need to keep whatever year in film with links with number-one box officer films released specificly in that year and make it bias-free as possible. Find a way to set up a compromise and a solution to this problem. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

If anyone has got a bright idea how to plan out to settle the problem I mentioned above, please do so. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I created the page Lists of 2012 box office number-one films, which I am aware that it duplicative to List of box office number-one films, but we need to find a way to settle a compromise to keep highest-grossing box office numbers in pages, like 2012 in film with films specificly released in that year and such and without having any bias issues of worldwide viewing of box office numbers. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:21st-century actors

There is currently a propsal to split Category:21st-century actors. Imput on this matter would be helpful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I see a discussion about deleting it, is that the same one? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic 2012

• Another editor at Talk:Apocalypse Now/Archive 2#Rotten_Tomatoes pointed out excessive references to Rotten Tomatoes in Apocalypse Now. I agreed and minimized RT use to the end of the reception section
• I wrote "User:Lexein/Review aggregators reconsidered" to fully explain my continuing advice against using aggregators, or if used, only minimally, at the end of reception sections (not the beginning, and never in the lede). Other editors may certainly paste in toto here, but I'll refrain. A new concern as of 2011 is Warner Bros.' ownership of Flixter and Rotten Tomatoes, among all the other problems. --Lexein (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

If you want to overhaul the guidelines on aggregators, there have been various discussions in the last few months in regards to different aspects:

• A useful essay: Wikipedia:Review aggregators
• A question of statistical validity: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Critical reaction for older films
• The issue of editors interpreting aggregator stats: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 39#Neutral language in critical reception
• Another recent debate on the subject: Talk:Skyfall#Acclaim VS positive

Personally I don't think they should be included on articles about older films where they are of limited value, and the problems with editors offering their own interpretation of the stats rumble on i.e. when RT provide a score it shouldn't be extrapolated to the critical reception in general. Betty Logan (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

If there are 30 reviews, I don't see what the problem is with covering older films, unless they wrote reviews different back in the day and good meant bad and bad meant worse than bad. I also don't see what positive is intended by positioning RT at the bottom rather than the top as part of the opening summary. Being owned by Warner Bros sure didn't help the reviews for Project X either. No, RT should not be being referenced in the lede. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the main problem with RT on older films is that the reviews tend to be revisionist rather than contemporary, so they are not really indicative of how the film was originally received, which is basically what the reception section should be about. Betty Logan (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Duplicative content

Lists of 2012 box office number-one films has now been created, the content of which is 100% redundant to Lists of box office number-one films. The latter list is still of a small enough scope to be easily navigable and certainly doesn't warrant such narrow forking; but I'm unsure where a simple merge discussion or an AFD is called for. I'd appreciate any further thoughts on the matter. GRAPPLE X 00:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be AFD'd. It is entirely redundant. The main list can be easily coded to be accessible by year as I demonstrated here. Betty Logan (talk) 10:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute. I think it should merge. Replace the sections with this this on Lists of box office number-one films and we can link this section with in the highest-gross box office section on 2012 in film with the years section on there. Why can we do that? BattleshipMan (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Category proposal

I propose creating new categories for films by year and genre, like the ones that already exist for animation (ex: Category:1989 animated films) and horror (ex: Category:1989 horror films). Not necessarily for all genres or all decades, but at least for ones with the most number of films, like action, comedy, drama and the most recent decades (ex: Category:2000s drama films has over 3,000 articles, Category:2000s comedy films has over 1,600).--Cattus ^talk 23:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Didn't someone just delete a bunch of these categories? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Article assessment and cleanup

As a member of WikiProject Stub sorting and WikiProject Film, I have spent some time recently going though film articles with stub tags, and adding them to the appropriate film task forces. Please be aware that there are now shortcuts for adding articles to task forces ("Awards=yes", "British=yes", "Comics=yes", etc.) However, there are several more tasks that need to be done, so I took the liberty of creating a to do list for the project. If you are a member of this project, or any of the film task forces, please consider checking out the to do list, for suggestions on helping with the assessment and cleanup of film articles. You can also refer to {{WPFILM Announcements}} to find specific requests by task force. Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

BBFC Website

Just a headsup, the BBFC have decided to update and screw up their website at the same time, making any existing links useless and the current site itself more difficult to navigate. So if you havne't archived a ref from them, it is more than likely dead. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Fuck beans. GRAPPLE X 23:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually some links are still working but the information they're giving seems to have changed; Nude per l'assassino is now listed as having passed uncut (despite their listed time being 9 minutes shorter than the Italian release) when it previously stated five minutes had been removed. GRAPPLE X 23:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah was just about to say, prometheus is still working, so it seems to be an random thing. The search now seems to be harder to use, at least for me it wasn't giving me clear information that it was the right version of a film I was looking for and not a trailer or home video version, it does however now include Genres, which might come in handy in genre disputes. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It might be that they have fixed something between me noticing this and now because most of them seem to be working now, that's good, didn't relish the idea of updating them all. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Nude per l'assassino isn't showing up at all under the search for me. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Try Strip Nude for Your Killer, Strip Naked for Your Killer, Naked for the Murderess or Tenebre braccia della morte (and that's nothing compared to the list of names for some of these films). GRAPPLE X 00:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

De nada, not a big deal was just confused because you said it had changed for you but it isn't appearing in the search at all for me. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

BRILLIANT! YOu have to bloody enable Adult Content every time for them to show up. This Particular one says there were CUT versions. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Source reliability question

Could I ask for comments on the source Bad Ass Digest, which appears to be connected to Alamo Drafthouse Cinemas. Would this pass a reliability test? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Alamo Drafthouse Cinemas is obviously a reputable business so its offshoot website should carry the same reputation I imagine. A quick investigation online tells me that Baddass Digest's Editor-in-Chief is a guy called Devin Faraci who has reviewed for, amongst others, Empire (magazine) here. He has also been approached for his movie views by The New York Times here and GQ Magazine here. Although not an exhaustive search on either the website or Faraci himself, I'd be happy with its reliability based on what I have seen so far. -- Cassianto^Talk 00:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Cheers Cas - much obliged! - SchroCat (talk) 08:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Film rating boxes

What's the current thinking on "review boxes"? One has been added at The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey#Critical response. I am pretty sure they are persona non grata on film articles, but the MOS doesn't comment on it and I can't find the a discussion about it. If I recall, the view was that they placed too much emphasis on individual opinions, rather than reflecting the collective weight of opinion that prose offers. Has this view changed, or does the review box need to go? Betty Logan (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

They're bad on the game articles and they should be nowhere near films. We're not RT, not here to give a score overview when scores are arbitrary, what matters is the content of the review. And definitely, no review should exist in the box that is not represented adequately in the prose. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

+1. Doniago (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that listing review scores is a good idea, and I know we have had discussions about this kind of template in the past. My recollection is that the consensus was against such a template. I think I might be okay with having such a template that only lists aggregate scores. That way such scores can be seen at a glance. However, I would want the same scores repeated and explained in prose as we normally do. That may warrant a different design, though. What do others think of that? As for this template, perhaps we should put it up for TfD? Erik (talk | contribs) 21:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Here are some discussions: January 2010 TfD, July 2011 WT:FILM discussion, June 2012 WT:FILM discussion. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we should TfD it. It seems to have sprung up a few months after the previous incarnation was deleted. It will be easier to TfD it, I don't really fancy taking on the Hobbit crowd; it will be kinder if they just wake up one day to find it gone. Betty Logan (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Why isn't its creation blocked if it has been deleted in the past? But yes, TfD it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It was created at a new title, so evaded normal detection. Anyway, I've nominated it for speedy deletion since it just resurrected a template that was deleted a few months earlier. Betty Logan (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Another editor removed the "speedy deletion" template. I've put Template:Film ratings up for TfD at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 December 14#Template:Film ratings. Please visit the page and make arguments for/against its use. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 18:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the double nom, Erik, we obviously overlapped. Anyway I've added my comments at the deletion discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Revamp of Superhero film

This page has for a long time needed some attention. It is little more than a list of superhero films presented in prose. Because of this, the page is messy, and hard to read. It could greatly improve by reorganising the films into a more logical structure (perhaps by studio), quoting academics and scholars, and perhaps using lists or tables to break up the prose. Perhaps a merge with List of American superhero films would be appropriate? I've brought up the matter here. Anyway, it'd be great if we could have some opinions, and some work done on the page. Thanks --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Highest-grossing films in overseas markets

Could we get a couple more opinions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highest-grossing films in overseas markets please, I'm having a rather frustrating experience trying to explain why the article should be deleted, and why it should not be merged. The article was an "overseas" box-office chart (i.e. box office outside of the United States) set up by a sock so I nominated it for deletion, since "overseas" box office is determined by a country's point of view. The problem now is that several non-film editors want to merge it into List of highest grossing films which adopts a worldwide view and only uses global figures. It would be ridiculous to merge non global data of an American perspective into the article. i.e. here is a chart of worldwide box office, he is a chart of the top film each year at the worldwide box office, here is a timeline of the highest-grossing films at the worldwide box office, and here is a chart of the top films outside of America and the "overseas" box office! My comments seem to be getting blanked, either by editors who don't understand the issues, editors who don't care, or by the AfD cabal who will resort to anything to not delete content. They already tried to close it once but I got it relisted, so a few more opinions would help. It's ridiculous we're having to go through this to get rid of content created by a sock. Betty Logan (talk) 09:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Our Brazilian sock master is back at it

Just a little heads up to warn everyone that Pé de Chinelo has returned. So far I have only found this IP 201.19.167.1 (talk · contribs). As was done so often here he is adding people to film article that had nothing to do with said film. His pattern over the last few months has been to edit for a day or so and then disappear for a couple weeks so he may be done for now but I thought I'd let you know so you can be prepared. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

201.19.66.160 (talk · contribs) and here is another. MarnetteD | Talk 23:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Seems like Cluebot should start auto-reverting IP edits from a particular address after that IP has been reverted for vandalism manually three times in a row, with no intervening kept edits. Has this already been proposed? Or is there already such a Cluebot training widget available - I imagine it would (like Twinkle) revert, warn, and add the IP to the Cluebot rvlist. Proposed at User talk:ClueBot Commons - discuss there. --Lexein (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm thinking that we should we use an abuse filter for edits made by Pe de Chinelo. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Good, too. Is there a low-barrier tool to add IPs to the filter? --Lexein (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I have little understanding of how the bots or the edit filters might help with this persons edits. His main editing seems to take two different tacks. One is, like the recent edits by the two IPs above, adding false info about actors, directors or producers to films that the people were not part of. His other is to make genre changes to articles like Léon: The Professional. The one other thing that often winds up happening is that he either leaves personal attacks on User:Andrzejbanas talk page or in his edit summaries. For several years his edits came exclusively from IPs that tracked to Rio but in the last year he has also edited from Sao Paulo. As I say I don't know if filters or bots can be programmed to catch any of this so any help or assistance that either of you can provide will be much appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 21:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess I was intending manual reverts to "prime" the bot to revert following edits... So catching the first few by hand would result in the rest of the chain being reverted as they happen. Depends on sharp-eyed RC patrollers... --Lexein (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The Brazilian individual's edits are bothersome and the edit filter can make their edits easier to catch. His simpler edits would not be caught by the edit filter and can be easily reverted. We might also file an abuse report on the ISP. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Michigan category, original research if not mentioned?

In a film there is a scene where they zoom out to a sattelite view of the planet, and we can clearly see that the movie it taking place in lower Michigan, however, they don't specifically mention the WORD Michigan in the movie. Is it legitimate to add the "Films set in Michigan" category to the movie? Some editors said it's original research, but it doesn't seem to be that researchy to me. I see Michigan clearly on the screen, so I should be able to say the film is set there. Mathewignash (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Which film? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't really matter, but Megamind. Mathewignash (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that point that out, to at least determine the relevance of that category? If we're only operating on a satellite zoom-in, and nothing else from the film itself, it does not seem worth categorizing Megamind as a film set in Michigan. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

There are none I'm aware of, I figured the criteria for a film having that category would be that the film depicts the plot happening in Michigan. I didn't think there had to be a long talk about it in the dialog or press to qualify as a Michigan setting. The actual location of "Metro City" seems to be pricisely on Detroit when seen from orbit. Detroit is often referred to as "Metro Detroit" in real life, but I figured calling Metro City an analogy to Detroit would be original research unless I could get some source to back it up. Mathewignash (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Top Critics at The Hobbit

There is a discussion about the mentioning of Top critics of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey's critical reception section. The discussion can be found at Talk:The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey#Top critics. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Follow-up - An RFC has been filed at Talk:The_Hobbit:_An_Unexpected_Journey#RFC:_Is_it_relevant_to_mention_top_critics_in_The_Hobbit:_An_Unexpected_Journey.3F. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick comment - This is a potentially very important discussion, because there are a lot of Wikipedia pages that list the scores for RT's "top critics". If it cannot be used on the page for The Hobbit, then the same reasons would make it inappropriate to use on pages like The Lord of the Rings (film series), Critical response to the Harry Potter films, Critical response to Star Trek, Critical response to the Chronicles of Narnia films, Avatar (2009 film), The Social Network, Inglourious Basterds, and possibly hundreds of other pages (just pop site:en.wikipedia.org "top critics" into google to see a list of several hundred Wikipedia pages that report "top critics" scores). 99.192.52.131 (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It's long been consensus practice that we don't use "top critics" since it's an arbitrary distinction, and some editors have indicated that the list of top critics change depending on the geographic location of the user. Also, simply because other articles include things they should not doesn't mean we extend bad practices to other articles. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I certainly was not suggesting that "bad practices" should be extended. I was merely pointing out that if it is decided that listing "top critics" is not permitted, then it would be a decision that says that hundreds of pages should be changed, not just one. It is useful for people to understand the extent of the effect of a decision when discussing it, so I was doing that. 99.192.52.131 (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Prometheus up for Featured Article

I have added Prometheus to the FAC nomination process, I don't know if you have to have not had a significant influence on it to vote, but if you are interested, please do add your comments. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you informed Tumadoireacht? I'm sure he will have a few 'suggestions'.Betty Logan (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

God no, would rather nominate the article for deletion. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

LOL --IllaZilla (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Liz & Dick

Hello everybody! I have a request for someone. I have been working on this article for a few months now, and I am no good at writing plots (also haven't seen the film yet, so I can't really do that). I was wondering if anyone (who has seen the movie, of course) could write a plot summary for it? Thanks in advance. Statυs (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I just want to complain in the strongest possible terms about being made aware that this film exists. :( GRAPPLE X 02:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear god. And I thought the baby death in Eraserhead was disturbing. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Come on guys... Even bad films need a lil love and support... :( Statυs (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Guidelines for cast sections

I wanted to notify editors here that I updated MOS:FILM#Cast with rewritten guidelines for cast sections. This rewrite was based on the discussion we had last September, which can be found here. If you have a major dispute with the rewrite, we can revert temporarily. If there are minor qualms, we can revisit the previous discussion and see about updating the rewritten guidelines further. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Precious - move discussion

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Star Trek into Darkness vs. Star Trek Into Darkness title capitalisation issue

I thought that this had been put to bed, but there seems to be another call to ignore capitalisation guidelines. Anyone want to join in at Talk:Star Trek into Darkness? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I've commented there. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I also notified the other two projects that include the movie. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

There's now a move request in place. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Not to spark a debate on here, more of a suggestion. But if there is "another call to ignore MS:CT" then surely possible exceptions to this should be discussed about writing this into guidelines for future clarification? MisterShiney ✉ 18:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Holy Rollers

I have a content dispute with another editor at the article Holy Rollers. I would appreciate it if project members could take a look at the dispute and express their views. Thanks. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Direct link to discussion here. I've attempted a solution but additional opinions are welcome about the nature of the situation, which has to do with defining the film's title. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Too Much Johnson, not enough proof.

Too Much Johnson claims an incomplete print exists and was screened in October 2010, but the reference[7] says nothing about it. I haven't had much luck finding out either way. Maybe somebody else can figure it out? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I cannot find anything either. Mbroderick271 (talk · contribs) added the content with the URL you provided. I also checked the URL in the Internet Archive but the 2011 archived page is the same. I searched Access World News but there was not a single mention of the film being screened at Berkeley. Maybe you can message him, but it seems like a piece of information like this would have been more widely reported. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the lack of news coverage smells fishy to me too. I'll email the Pacific Film Archive people. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The Intouchables - Box office

What do others think of this section in the article of the French film The Intouchables? I've never seen this on any other film article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It does have a whiff of WP:INDISCRIMINATE about it, but it's an unusual case, especially in regards to how it has become a global hit comparable to a major Hollywood blockbuster without penetrating the US market. I think some of the data could be useful in developing a more comprehensive and typical box office section. Betty Logan (talk) 03:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The info itself seems okay but the presentation is wild off. Bullet points should be avoided at all costs; a nice prose section would be much more preferable. Other than that I see no issue with it. GRAPPLE X 03:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Betty and Grapple but I would add that, per WP:FLAG, the table with the box office figures needs the flags removed, at the least, and if those figures could be incorporated into the article that would be even better. MarnetteD | Talk 03:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all. Merry Christmas! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Distributor rentals/box office gross

Following a recent discussion, it was suggested that I raise this question here. What is the preferred formatting/wording for including distributor rentals in the box office field for Template:Infobox film? Obviously it needs to be made clear that the amount does not refer to the box office gross, but referring to the amount as 'rentals' could confuse readers who might think it refers to video/DVD rental grosses. Here is an example of what I'm referring to. Thanks, Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 10:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

We changed the field label to "Box office" for that reason, I believe. We can't exactly change the field name itself without affecting a lot of articles that already use it. Unless I'm mistaken, rentals should not fall under "box office", and such errors should be fixed. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Theatrical rental is box office though: you have the box office gross which is the quantity we usually document, and the box-office office gross rental, which is the distributor's share of the box office. They are both box office metrics but one is the modern day quantity we usually associate with the term and the other is a historic concept. The rental was usually reported for films up to the 70s, and both quantities are known in some cases: The Godfather earned $86 million gross rental from a box offfice gross of $135 million at the US box office. Ideally it's best to report the gross where known (since the same gross can generate different rental figures depending on the deal between the distributor and exhibitor) but in the case of older films only the rental may be known. We changed the parameter to "box office" since overwhelmingly that was the figure that the infobox used, and precluded home video and television income which is usually unknown or incomplete and ongoing. For films like The Big Parade, MGM only tracked the rental, and it is still a measure of its box office success, so I see no reason to preclude it, but it probably needs to be clear what the quantity is. Bar excluding it, there are several options I can see: split the parameter into two (box office gross/box office rentals) with the proviso that the rentals parameter should only be utilised if the gross is unknown; clarify the term with a wikilink: $18 million (gross rental); add a footnote to explain the distinction; add a hoverbox: $18 million (gross rental). I'm fine with any of those, it just needs to be clear. Betty Logan (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think any of these solutions would be workable. The article that gross rental links to loads rather slowly for me, and while I like the blue box explanation there quite a lot, it seems strange to me that a definition for the term drops readers in the middle of the List of highest-grossing films. A footnote would do the trick and a hoverbox is an elegant solution. I would favour splitting the infobox parameter and perhaps incorporating a hoverbox into the parameter. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 13:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The parameter should not be split into two (box office gross/box office rentals) because too many people will put the wrong figure in the wrong box. I agree the gross should always be used when known, rentals should be used if they're the only option, with a note of some type identifying them as such. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Holiday Cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing all Project Film members Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Feel welcome to spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be a newbiem someone with whom you had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

Thanks Michael! I hope everyone is watching It's a Wonderful Life today. I see Film4 has Oldboy on tonight. Perfect! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Everyone knows Die Hard is the ultimate Christmas film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

LOL at Oldboy and Die Hard. It will be Les Misérables for me and my family today. Merry Christmas, all. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Les Miserables discussions

There are two discussions going on with the Les Misérables (2012 film) article. They can be found at Talk:Les Misérables (2012 film)#Plot summary and Talk:Les Misérables (2012 film)#Cast billing. The cast billing discussion is whether to include prose format or all bullet format. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

How to categorize/title Teleplays?

Hi everyone. I'm working on articles from the CBS Playhouse series, and many of the titles need to be disambiguated. They're long-form dramatic broadcasts, would probably be considered films, but they're more accurately teleplays. Is there a standard we've accepted to use on these? Please see The People Next Door as a significant one that's giving me some issues. Thanks! Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I would say to treat them as episodes of a television series and use "(CBS Playhouse)" as the disambiguator when it's needed (so your example would be The People Next Door (CBS Playhouse)). GRAPPLE X 20:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

My Darling Is a Foreigner title

Hi! I posted a comment for discussion on Talk:My Darling Is a Foreigner not long ago. The title has a couple of somewhat odd issues (the "official English title" used on the Japanese and Hong Kong posters doesn't use any capitalization) and I'm not sure how to deal with it by myself, so I haven't directly made a move request. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Un singe en hiver with Jean Gabin and Jean-Paul Belmondo

Main article: Un singe en hiver

Hello, this film features two of the greatest French filmstars of all times. Moreover it is listed at the Internet Movie Database, the TCM Movie Database, Rotten Tomatoes, www.unifrance.org and www.allmovie.com. What else is required to prove notability? Nordhorner_The man from Nordhorn 23:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi NordhornerII. Our notability guideline for films can be seen at WP:MOVIE. Films are considered notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 06:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. The film had a national theatrical release in France (where it was a considerable commercial success and an acclaimed milestone for Belmondo's career) and it was also released in English-speaking countries. Before my article Un singe en hiver there have also already been Wiki articles in other languages (to which I connected my article). Four of the five above mentioned sources are appreciated well enough to even have their own Wikipedia-template. Moreover there is a plethora of film clips from this film available on You Tube. If you google the film title for pictures you will have an overwhelming harvest. So from my point of view the notability of this film (but I may be biased because I am the author of Jean Gabin's and Jean-Paul Belomondo's filmography-wikitables and I wanted to complete those) is beyond question. But the tag says otherwise. Nordhorner__The man from Nordhorn 08:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice work on creating the article. I'd say it's notable with the director and the main cast already having articles in the first place. There's several sources in the French artice that could be used too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for help! I appreciate the contributions. It is indeed now a much better article.

NordhornerII (talk _The man from Nordhorn 04:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

"Cult film": Hundra

Main article: Hundra

Hi, I've written another film article. This time it is not a French film but an international "cult oddity". The plot description might appear somewhat peculiar but that's because the plot is peculiar. However, the article has been tagged. Please check it out. NordhornerII (talk) _The man from Nordhorn 04:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

International Online Film Critics' Poll

Excuse me, I want to create a page about the International Online Film Critics' Poll. It is a film award voted, every two years, by film critics. The award was created in 2007 and this year there was the 3rd edition. Do I have to respect any standards?? 79.44.63.129 (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Yes, we would want to determine if the award is notable by Wikipedia's standards. The general notability guidelines say, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Basically, if there are periodicals that have covered the announcement of awards by this circle, it would warrant creation. For example, if this by Yes! Weekly is considered a reliable source, that would count toward notability. (I'm not quite sure if it is; I think we could find better sources.) Erik (talk | contribs) 17:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello! There is IMDB here! There is also... HitFix here 79.44.63.129 (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I've found a polish site as a reliable source: Filmweb! Here 79.44.63.129 (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, I need to know if I can create the page... with these reliable sources, I think I can do it, but I would (and I need) your permission... Best wishes, 79.23.181.41 (talk) 08:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that these are very reliable sources: especially IMDB and HitFix. I think that the page about this film awards should be created. But to create this page you need other favorable opinions in addition to mine. Augusto Antonio (talk) 13:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Thank you Doniago for your answer. But there are also Yes! Weekly, HitFix, Filmweb and other american and foreign sources... Best, Augusto Antonio (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Can I create the page? I'm quite thrilled... All the best, 79.18.193.254 (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

So far there are no dissenting opinions, can I create the page? Cheers, 95.239.177.113 (talk) 07:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm now registered, I'm ready to create the page... and actually I'm creating the page in my Sandbox! PassionFilm (talk) 12:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Here you can find the example of the article: Wikipedia:Articles for creation/International Online Film Critics' Poll. What do you think about it? PassionFilm (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• I have serious reservations that this is a notable poll. There is a distinct lack of secondary coverage in the mainstream and industry press. The sites that cover it look like they are borderline RS cases themselves: no clear cut RS coverage such as coverage in Variety or The Hollywood Reporter which is something you'd expect. The most telling problem is that the site itself is hosted on Google Sites [8] which elicits some WP:SPS concerns; no criteria for how the critics are selected, who selects the critics etc. In short, there is nothing to stop any of us setting up a site like that. Betty Logan (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I checked several times: also the ­Southeastern Film Critics Association, the Iowa Film Critics, the Detroit Film Critics Society, the Indiana Film Critics Association or the Dublin Film Critics Circle aren't nominated by Variety or The Hollywood Reporter, but this doesn't mean that these awards aren't notable. Am I wrong? 79.2.179.16 (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Quite a few of those look like they have notability problems to me. I'd say it's quite likely they wouldn't survive an AfD. Betty Logan (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but if there are pages about these awards, it is right the existence of a page about the International Online Film Critics' Poll too. Am I right? All these awards have a great notability and deserve to be mentioned on wikipedia (even if all of these aren't mentioned by Variety or The Hollywood Reporter). Best, I wish you will change idea. Robert Hardy (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Spirited Away

Just so everyone's aware, Hahc21 (talk · contribs) and I have agreed to help get Spirited Away up to FA status as a joint work. Any experienced editor here who is willing to help work on this article with us would be great! The discussion is at Talk:Spirited Away#FA discussion. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Chess in The Seventh Seal

I have just suggested on Talk:The Seventh Seal that the section of the article called "Chess in the film" be removed. If you are interested in the matter, please take a look at the section here: The_Seventh_Seal#Chess_in_the_film and drop by the talk page to make a comment. 99.192.64.215 (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Check, mate. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Halloween II/archive1

Halloween II is under Featured Article review; join in discussion. --George Ho (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The Girl (2012 HBO film)

Hi, there's currently a discussion going on at this article's talk page that might be of interest to members of this project. It concerns the content of an article that appears to be a rebuttal of this film's portrayal of the director Alfred Hitchcock, and its reliability as a source. Please feel free to add any thoughts. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The Matrix (film) article needs more experienced contributors.

Topic. This film should've been a GA long ago, but it hadn't, and now almost nobody cares about it anymore. I want it a GA, but at the moment, there are only two active contributors there who know what we're doing, and the other contributor doesn't seem to have time these days. As a result, I've been doing this almost alone for weeks now, and there are only so much I can cover. For instance, I don't live in an English-speaking country, so reliable physical sources are scarce to me, and it seems that the article have gaps those references can fill. People in my country also don't grow up watching The Simpsons or Family Guy, we grow up watching Saint Seiya or Doraemon instead, so when there's an unsourced statement saying that Family Guy or The Simpsons parodied The Matrix in some episodes, I just have no idea how to look for those references because I don't know the series. Many sections of the articles are still uncomfortably short too, but despite actively going out hunting for sources, I find no reliable info for expansion. So... if you recall yourself going wide-eyed when you saw Trinity's kick in bullet time for the first time, or when Neo dodged bullets, can you help us? It's such a pivotal and revolutionary film that I want to see its article go GA.

So... the Matrix has you (hopefully.) Anthonydraco (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The Matrix is a major enough film where there should be enough sourcing to possibly bring it to featured level. I'm willing to help. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Please do. I look forward to your contribution. Anthonydraco (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Anthony! I saw that you were adding references to the "References to use" section on the film article's talk page. I appreciate that! I think the challenge with The Matrix is that it is an immensely influential film, so a lot has been written about it—books and lengthy articles. My personal opinion is that when that is the case, such sources should make up the core of the Wikipedia article. I think this is the hardest part of writing about a film of this notoriety—being able to access all the sources that cover it. One can tell the limit of a given expansion by seeing how many references are online, like with this very article. There's going to be information locked up in print sources that should at least be reviewed. In such cases, you have to have access to a really good library and/or buy the books themselves. (I did the latter with Panic Room to write about its production, and for the analysis, I've been able to retrieve the other offline sources via the library system. Still a work in progress though!) My suggestion is to figure out your area of focus. If it is production, then surely there's DVD content about the making of the film or even a book about it (to my recollection). That could be used to overhaul the appropriate section and contribute to other sections as well. In case you were not aware, we have WP:FILMRES. I also have a write-up about research here if that helps. One thing I could do is provide a list of resources from British Film Institute's Film Index International. (A similar list is under "Unformatted" at Talk:Batman Begins/references, to give you an idea.) Most of it is not online, but I have a university account with which I can look up certain periodicals for you. (If you start a discussion at Talk:The Matrix, we can continue there.) Erik (talk | contribs) 03:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Erik. Thanks for your suggestions. Am I correct to understand that you want the article to rely on those physical sources?

I'm trying to look for people who can help me add offline sources, actually. My country just don't have enough of English ones for the article, so using physical sources as the core references isn't going to be possible without someone providing those references themselves. I'm sure a list of resources from BFI Film Index International is going to be helpful to people who have access to the books. But not to me, I'm afraid. Because I just don't have access to the books even if I have the names. Which means that I won't know what's in them and what I can quote from them. So if you provide names of books, I'll have to ask to you to search those books for me anyway, because I can't. Anything English here must be imported, and if I do that, it'll cost me a fortune. And even if there are some English text books in libraries, chances are that non-fiction in a not-so-necessary field like films and entertainment isn't going to be included. I need someone who can expand the articles with offline sources. Do you like The Matrix enough to provide sources, especially offline sources, for it?

Or... do you have a way to read physical books online, like, an online library that let me do that? Anthonydraco (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Update: Erik is not willing to commit. So, with Thargor Orlando there, we have three editors in total. We're still short on editors! Please help! Anthonydraco (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm an admin at the Matrix Wiki; I've been meaning to get around to dealing with the secondary sources, so count me in. What's the best way to co-ordinate this? --xensyria^T 08:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Awesome. I'll leave you a message on your talk page. Anthonydraco (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Halloween series navbox

Hi, there's been some discussion on the Halloween series navbox about how best to format it, and I'd like to invite any input or feedback about the current or proposed templates to try to establish a consensus. Much appreciated! --xensyria^T 08:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Film review aggregators - RS?

(This is a narrow-topic discussion of fundamentals, not intended to detract from or stop any discussion elsewhere):
Film review aggregators fail some WP standards as reliable sources:

1. Aggregators are derivative sources, solely based on "secondary" independent RS (reviewers), writing about the primary event, the film. Aggregators should be treated like all tertiary sources (like dictionaries and encyclopedias): ignored, per WP:V and WP:RS.
2. They are not considered reliable by other reliable sources, or primary sources:
   • They are not quoted or cited elsewhere, especially not by other reliable sources.
   • They are not quoted in film advertisements or blurbs.
3. Their aggregation algorithms are unverifiable, subjective, and inconsistent for ambiguous reviews:
   • The Rotten Tomatoes evaluation of "fresh" or "rotten" based on prose reviews which lack scores or strongly expressed opinion, is inconsistent.
   • Metacritic subjectively extracts numeric scores from prose reviews lacking scores or strong opinions.

The only place that cites RT or Metacritic is us; this puts us in the awkward position of elevating the importance of anonymous, unaccountable aggregators to that of reliable encyclopedic source, which in my opinion, they do not merit, by our own standards. This (to me) is a sound reason to relegate aggregators to External links sections only. If there is countervailing discussion, consensus, or guideline about aggregator assessed reliability, point me there. --Lexein (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think RT counts as a tertiary source (at last not for their scores), they're a primary source since they are specifically performing analysis and publishing their findings. They are obviously reliable for their own analysis, the question I suppose is whether including RT satisfies WP:WEIGHT. Betty Logan (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are definitely reliable sources. They have been frequently referenced in Good and Featured Articles. They are often in other reliable sources such as newspapers reporting on films. I'm not sure where your claim that they are not quoted elsewhere comes from. The consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of using these two sources. I would say that there are other aggregators that are more questionable, but I have seen a couple brought up in coverage about films, such as Movie Review Intelligence. I'm happy to discuss a less common aggregator like that, but Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic have been definite mainstays that allow us to summarize the balance of reviews, not just for the readers, but also for editors to know how many positive and how many negative reviews to reference in a "Reception" section. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to agree here - as long as they are just being used to say, along the lines of "The film received X positive reviews of Y, according to RT." That puts the OR on RT's site for how they claim positive reviews. The important thing about RT/MC is they provide numerous review links for people researching about films can go review, something that we'd likely not be able to do on WP due to the number involved. I know that MC is very important in the VG industry as it can make or break a game and its developers in terms of financila bonuses or the like, and RT seems to be equivalent for films. --MASEM (t) 21:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Erik, I was just about to write you, since I just read that you started the essay, originally called WP:Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. I know there's strong feeling about using RT and Metacritic, there are even editors with strong feelings about mentioning RT's anonymous, unaccountable, inconsistent findings in the lead paragraph of Wikipedia articles. No source is reliable unless it meets WP standards of reliability, which is policy. What I don't see in your essay is any sort of use limitations, like "not in the lead", or "not the first thing mentioned in reception sections." Why would any editor claim that an anonymous, unaccountable, inconsistent aggregator's number matter more than the actual words of human reviewers? As for mentions of RT: there are interviews about Rotten Tomatoes, so what? And Fox News lets someone from RT "announce" their scores about some movies - so what? That's one. I suppose we could cite those sources which quote RT in specific film articles, but that still leaves RT in the cold as not RS on its own for every film. And I'd like to get your answer about RT somehow getting to a numerical score, where reviews are internally inconsistent, vague, and lack their own numerical scores. I'm just extremely skeptical about Wikipedia promoting these unaccountable, anonymous commercial entities without restriction. I'll be more than a little annoyed if editors who work for RT or Metacritic have been pushing their agenda here, to drive traffic. --Lexein (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• You say that Rotten Tomatoes has "anonymous, unaccountable, inconsistent findings" and that its "reviews are internally inconsistent, vague, and lack their own numerical scores". What is the source of these claims? This community has been comfortable with using Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic for a long time now; wording attribution has been the only main challenge with these sources. In addition, reliable sources have referenced the aggregators not only on their own, but when covering individual films. This to me is an endorsement of the credibility and relevance of such scores, which are worth reporting in Wikipedia articles. On another level, you want transparency of how they determine their scores, which I think is irrelevant. We do not question how a journalist from Variety summarized critics' reaction to a particular film; we do not ask if that journalist took a head count or some other approach. Since the consensus is strongly in favor about using the sources, it would help for you to cite specifics about why the aggregators are not reliable enough sources to be referenced. For what it's worth, we have an understanding of how each aggregator works, and each one's staff makes a judgment call in scoring each review. In particular, I think Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic serve well back-to-back because they are inherently different systems. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Correction : I wrote "where reviews are internally inconsistent, vague, and lack their own numerical scores", not that "RT's reviews" are such. I meant that when a review is internally inconsistent(gives two recommendations), vague (gives no strong recommendation), and lack its own scoring system, how does RT calculate some sort of "score" from that? Answer: they make one up. That makes me quite confident that their numbers are bullshit. Correction 2: "This community has been comfortable with using Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic for a long time now". You don't get to say "comfortable" at all: RT and MC have been disputed every year they've been used. I've always disputed their use anywhere but in EL and at the end of Reception sections. That they're derivative is obvious. That they quantify unquantifiable reviews is obvious. That their numerical results are internally inconsistent is laughably obvious. That their numerical results cannot accurately reflect an "average" opinion unless the reviewers are unanimous, is manifestly clear in any case. --Lexein (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with MASEM that we are just saying that "according to these widely referenced aggregators, the films received this percentage of positive reviews based on our sample of X number of film critics," the number of which we give at that mention. And I generally agree with Erik that Rotten Tomatoes is considered useful by industry sources such as Sirius XM radio, and that trade journals such as The Hollywood Reporter call it "popular" and that its doing are newsworthy, both point of which are exemplified here. And these examples come from only a 90-second skim of the Internet. I think it would burying our heads in the sand to ignore RT, and moreover, it casts a wider eye to capture film-critic reviews than anyone on his or her own could reasonably be expected to do in order to gauge critical sentiment. It's an imperfect tool, but so are many things: Even The New York Times best-seller lists can and have been manipulated by publishers. Does that mean we don't mention that list? No, it simply means we put that list in context: "Here is what this widely used resource says. Take it for what it's worth." --Tenebrae (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me WP film articles often have RT at the beginning of Reception sections so the reader immediately gets a consensus - while imperfect, there's no better objective way to do it. The reader can then read on, getting specific examples of critics opinions. And RT scores are often mentioned in newspapers talking about various films' receptions. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. Articles often have RT shoved to the top of Reception sections by zealous RT fanbois who won't have it any other way, and it is now starting to appear to me, by RT employees. I am rather unconvinced that RT adds any value which justifies a lead spot in our reception section, or the lead of the article, or multiple mentions in the article, your revert not supported by consensus notwithstanding. It adds no value higher than a review by Maslin, Ebert, and other "name" reviewers. RT numbers do not convey any "sense" of anything, especially since they are based (especially for unclear reviews) on questionable numeric assignment of specific values, where the reviews make no such absolute statements of value. RT numbers echo a sense of clarity when a vast majority of reviews agree, but in no other way, and at no other time. Still, because RT is derivative, and is not a person, it has no place being listed before authoritative, well known reviewers. --Lexein (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless you have evidence that RT employees are pushing the RT inclusion, that's a bad faith assumption. It does provide the perfect lead in sentence for most film reception sections, setting in mind for the reader which side of good or bad the film is on. While it does have its own mechanics to determine - for nonnumerical/grade scores - whether a review is positive or negative of a review, it is internally self-consistent, which is important; again, as long as we state "The film got X of Y positive reviews, which RT considers "fresh".", there is OR going on, but it is in the hands of RT to make that assessment, not Wikipedias. Without that, it would be very difficult to have an opening sentence that describes the scope of reviews truthfully without introducing original research or peacock words , barring the obviously best or obviously worst films. Your concerns really aren't well justified in these cases. --MASEM (t) 00:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Who pushes RT/MC numbers to the front of the lead sentence of Reception sections, and lead paragraphs of articles? Which epithet should I use: lazy, fanboi, misguided, conflicted, or merely overzealous? They're all bad reasons for PROMO and UNDUE use of RT and MC. This was supposed to be primarily about lack of reliability. But since you bring it up: Lead in sentence to reception sections are not necessary. This has been demonstrated in many places, without controversy (other places, with extreme controversy). "Perfect lead in". Prove to me why derivative statistics, formed after reviews are published, and universally recognized as less important than the reviews from which they are derived, should now, here, take precedence over flesh and blood reviewers. Per PROMO and UNDUE, we're not here to drive traffic to these for-profit companies based on, (be honest), bad numbers. The only time the numbers aren't bad is on near total reviewer unanimity. If reviews are unanimous, why mention any aggregators at all except to dot that i? This is an encyclopedia of prose, not a catalog of statistics. --Lexein (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Please assume good faith of our contributions. We've explained why we think Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are appropriate as reliable sources. As you saw in the essay, they do have to be used with care under certain circumstances. I think you raise a good point about scores when the film is not universally acclaimed or panned. We try to report the scores as accurately yet as succinctly as possible from each source. It can be a challenge to nail down a good prose description for how a film was received in general, so additional sources can help with that. Still, I'm still not sure why RT and MC are being so denounced. We can talk about using them better, but I do not think there are grounds for dismissing them outright. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

My faith in use of RT and MC will be restored after it stops being broken by PROMO and UNDUE placement of derivative statistics in front of actual prose reviews. Why should ad-based for-profit corporations (one of which is now owned by a content producer, Warner Bros), whose only notability comes from surviving the dot-com bust and pushing low-quality statistics (and appearing on Fox, oh my), take precedence over the review authors which they claim to represent, but factually misrepresent? --Lexein (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• This is where I stand on RT: first of all they are obviously a reliable source for their own analysis, the question is one just one of WEIGHT. Aggregators aren't perfect and I can understand why people dislike them, but they can be a convenient utility for gauging a film's critical reception. However, I do think they should be used with restraint: I don't think they should be used on older films because most of the reviews are revisionist i.e. they are not indicative of the contemporary reception of older films (Vertigo for instance gets a 98% score yet was slated on its original release). They should be used with caution on foreign language films too, and perhaps some independent films where the number of reviews are low. However, this just applies to the scores, I have no objection to them as external links since they provide an index of reviews so satisfy the EL requirement. The bigger problem is the way in which their scores are used. RT do not extrapolate their scores to all critical reception, so for us to take a 90% RT score and state that critical reception is "mostly positive" etc, while may be true is OR. I would prefer to see the information presented in a more statistical way: "Rotten Tomotoes sampled 200 reviewers, and judged 90% of the reviews to be positive". We have to remember that RT uses its own judgment in determining whether a review is positive or not, and its sample may not be representative of critical reception in general: in fact it is not, since its sample is restricted to English language reviews. They are a useful tool, and like most tools, they do their job when used correctly. I do think the guidelines on their use needs to be tightened up though. Betty Logan (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with most of this, except that we have to be very clear: RT and MC are primary sources about their own analysis, yes, but secondary about the reviews, and tertiary (if anything) about the films. This is my argument for listing them last: their analysis doesn't exist until after the reviews exist, which don't exist until after the film is finished. The reviews are not merely chowder for the RT and MC maw. Derivative results simply do not and cannot take precedence in time or importance. Film articles are first about the film, then the reviews, then metareviews, if at all. --Lexein (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Lexein, putting RT and MC aside, would you not start a "Reception" section by referencing sources that cover the critics' consensus in retrospect? Such an introduction is intended to be an overview, regardless of the source. I do not think it makes sense to reference Critics A, B, and C and then mention that in general, critics liked it. The reader should have an impression upfront. Is this particular flow a problem in general? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed some of your contributions, and I think you're fine with that particular flow. Looking at El Gringo and Return (1985 film), you started the "Reception" sections with the sentences "The film received mildly warm reviews" and "Reviews varied from mildly to strongly negative", respectively. You apparently base these conclusions on the reviews you included in these articles. The reason that I support use of RT and MC and other sources is that it helps us avoid weasel words: "A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority with no substantial basis. Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed." Obviously, not all films will have aggregate or retrospective coverage. So how do you accomplish determining overall consensus with individual reviews? Erik (talk | contribs) 20:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Good. For reception sections, we have a lead sentence. We as editors are allowed to name things for what they uncontroversially are, and we are not required to cite that the sky is blue. We are allowed to paraphrase (summarize in our own words), because the source is right there for the reader to check our every word. I prefer to paraphrase in the lead, but quote the reviewer, so there can be little doubt. Other editors paraphrase the reviews - I dislike this. For small numbers of reviews (if that's all there are), I trust my judgement more than I trust RT & MC. If the reviews I find agree, I feel justified using the single phrase "mildly warm reviews" because they all were mildly warm (for example: "I liked the film well enough, but it's slow; best for a lazy afternoon with nothing else to do"). Rotten Tomatoes would just label that one "fresh." Prose, please, not numbers, and not absolutes. Where reviews disagree, I feel justified to explain that in the lead sentence in two clauses, maybe more. For example, "Reviews varied from mildly to strongly negative", tracked the reviews well, because none fell outside that range. (You don't say whether you disagree with my assessments). I strongly feel this works because we're all readers of English. I'm not using weasel words, I'm using language analogous to the reviews themselves. My job has been made a bit easier by working on films with a small-ish number of reviews. For high numbers of reviews, I try very hard to find "representative" reviews, center and edges on perhaps more than one axis: sometimes as many as 5 or 7 of them, to give the reader a sense of scope. Some films are quite difficult due to strong reviewer "cultural biases" - a great film might be hated and loved for wildly varying reasons. These require even more careful representative analysis. In none of these cases did RT or MC help my editing process, or add any clarity of any kind to a reader of the article: just mute, useless, contextless numbers; the more film articles I research, the more reviews I read, the more RT/MC I read, the more I am continually convinced that they are not reliable, and should not be depended on for their "statistics".

I have more to write about this, but I'm pretty sure that it won't help you shake off that quizzical stare at my ramblings.

It's a wiki. If people really disagree with the reception sections which I initially wrote, they can be edited: they're CC, after all. So far, some, but not much of that has happened. Why? Because I always ask for sanity checks and spot checks from editors on IRC, and have requested assessment and reviews as well. I'm not doing this in a vacuum. --Lexein (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You do write a lot. :) I see such lead sentences as weasel wording (or at least bordering on it) because I do not think they are truly sourced to the individual reviews that follow. To me, it is a slippery slope compared to summarizing "Production" in a film article's lead section. Like you said, you prefer your own judgment of the reviews and conduct "careful representative analysis" in complex cases. I personally cannot speak of a consensus based on sampled individuals. My judgment could be wrong, or the sample is not large enough. For example, I notice that the reviews you sampled for Return (1985 film) are all online. How many reviews are not available online? Enough to have a different kind of lead sentence? In a way, I think the limitations we put on Rotten Tomatoes should apply to us, to exercise caution with older films, especially lesser known ones. For example, for the 1993 film Surf Ninjas, I sought all the reviews I could find, and most of them were not online. It's also a film that nobody cares to write about retrospectively. It looks like I wrote "being received generally unfavorably by critics" at the time (~2007?), though I question that now. I'm sure it's probably in the ballpark, like your lead sentences may be; I just favor direct attribution of the overview itself rather than us editors drawing such conclusions.

I know that you do not endorse referencing Rotten Tomatoes, but it is used for that attribution. I know the aggregation system is a dichotomy of positive/negative judgments, and I believe that's why we pair it with Metacritic, which judges more precisely. (I personally like Metacritic over Rotten Tomatoes for that reason.) We also avoid parading around simplistic "Fresh" and "Rotten" labels and try to extract value in other ways. I try to take into consideration the limitations; I do not reference them for Surf Ninjas, Fight Club, or Apt Pupil (film). I don't think it has to be either/or about using a source, though it happens in some cases, such as the community at large eschewing online user ratings, such as those from IMDb even though reliable sources cover it from time to time, like recently. So my question is, how do you think Rotten Tomatoes should be used, if at all? Some thoughts: We could emphasize finding other sources attributing consensuses to either put such sources in front of RT/MC or to relegate them to the end. We could use only Metacritic in the article (if that is considered a better system). We could be stricter with RT/MC limitations, elevating them from essay to guidelines. We could outline how to make our own judgment of the reviews (though I'm personally not keen on that). What do you think? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I have to say I am totally against an editor using their own judgment to decide whether a film reviewed favorably or not. A good faith editor is limited to what they can find, and as we have seen on an article like The Hobbit recently you will simply get editors who simply go out and find a stack of positive reviews. What Lexein is advocating, is basically an approach similar to the film ratings box but simply without the box. When we summarise a section, such as a lede, each statement should still be directly attributable to a source: you can't do this with reviews, since each review only expresses one opinion, not a collective view. To take a bunch of reviews and summarise them as positive or negative is WP:SYNTHESIS whichever way you look at it, regardless of whether it is accurate or inaccurate. If people want a nutshell overview of how a recent film reviewed then aggregators can serve that purpose. They aren't perfect, but they are preferable to the alternatives. You've got to consider the practical side of things too: if editorial judgment tried to trump RT and Metacritic, then how do you think that would play out if it were challenged in an RFC? It simply wouldn't fly, so for better or worse I think we are stuck with them, and we should be focusing on their correct usage. Betty Logan (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that my intro sentences are wrong? I heartily disagree; in each case, I have correctly summarized, meaning paraphrased, then bracketed. I'm not creating any new idea, nor synthesizing one from others. Seems like you've sort of gone off on proper paraphrasing. Or are you saying we should quote and cite every review we can find? The alternative, relying on RT, or MC, or RT & MC, is horrifying, and seriously undermines the credibility we're trying to achieve here. We're encyclopedists, and encyclopedists do exercise a degree of rational skill in summarizing and paraphrasing, do we not? --Lexein (talk) 08:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you asking me or Betty? I was saying for Return as an example, there could be additional offline reviews to be included that could require rewriting the summary sentence, if you are basing such sentences on the reviews you cite in the Wikipedia article. The fact that this can happen reflects that you are trying to extract an overall consensus from individual reviews. Betty calls it synthesis. Like I said, it is not the same thing as summarizing the production of a film; it is more subjective than that. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Quick note about "online" reviews: AFAIK RT and MC never seek offline reviews. I at least search all the EBSCO/Highbeam/Google archives/all others accessible via library, still, "online", even if necro-online. Lucky for us, the L.A. Times, New York Times, and many other large-market papers have started bringing their old reviews back online for lots of films. Unluckily, that's bias toward large-market papers. --Lexein (talk) 08:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

This is why we discourage RT and MC for older films. What you said above about their use at all being "horrifying" is not helpful and not a statement generally supported. They're not going to be excised from Wikipedia articles anytime soon. I asked you a few questions above about ideas on how to use them better because I think we can find some middle ground in that regard. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Claim: people are pushing Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic to the intro/summary.
Counter-claim: editors write that a film received good reviews/bad reviews, then other editors mark it as "citation needed" as a result editors often use of Metacritic because it very specifically says that their score indicates "generally favorable reviews".
It is not appropriate to put specific RT or MC scores in the lead/summary, if some editors are actually doing that it is not a very good way to summarize, and it also fails to take into account the advice in WP:RTMC about presenting the numbers with some context. Review aggregators are not without their flaws, but as others have said above they are better than Wikipedians subjectively interpreting.
We start articles with a summary, starting the Reception section with a review aggregator as an overview of the critical response only seems consistent with our existing approach. On a general note I'd like to see more of WP:RTMC brought into the WP:MOSFILM guidelines. -- 109.77.106.153 (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Are IGN Best of Year awards something we recognise?

I was looking on http://uk.ign.com/wikis/best-of-2012 for video game awards and noticed they did them for films and tv too, with films such as The Avengers, Dredd, Prometheus, Django Unchained, etc being nominated or winning. Obviously I don't think they are prestigious or even an award, its just naming them the best, but is it something worth mentioning? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally it just looks like corporate self-promotion to me, and completely un-notable. Unless there is independent secondary coverage somewhere I'd leave it out. Betty Logan (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

IGN is a notable and reliable site for popular consumer media coverage. Because they are selective about which films/shows they cover, the "importance" of their awards should be considered far less than some like the Oscars or a NYTimes top 10 list, but in popular films (Avengers, etc.) its not wrong to include them. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I definitely wouldn't consider the awards Oscar level, and it doesn't seem to be awards so much as in there is no show or recipient to receive a statuette, just a list like any general award, but I wasn't sure if it would be applicable to the film project as much as it is for games where there are less notable bodies giving out recognition. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this is something we have not fully discussed about awards. Our guidelines do not quite cover sourcing. I'm not sure what we've generally used as a threshold for inclusion. At the most extreme, we would cull the list from IMDb and try to find outside sources to instead use as references. However, not all awards even have Wikipedia pages, and even if they do, such awards may not be covered independently. In this case, it does not look like IGN's awards have been mentioned elsewhere, and I doubt we'll see a Wikipedia page, even though the host is notable by Wikipedia standards. Is it possible that we run the risk of indiscriminately listing awards, especially in tables? For example, Panic Room#Accolades is a bit more parading in terms of presentation compared to Apt Pupil (film)#Accolades. What do others think? Erik (talk | contribs) 13:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It reminds me of the time Tenebrae was lynched by Harry Potter fans after he removed the "Wizards Council of Britain" awards from one of the Harry Potter articles. I think we can immediately agree on what should be included and what shouldn't: any recognized national or international film body (i.e. BAFTA, Oscars, Golden Globes) are notable, while polls that solicit votes from the general public (Orange Film Awards) are not. Beyond that you have a huge gray area: are the New York and London Critics Circles notable enough to be included? Are the MTV Movie Awards anything more than corporate promotion? There seems to be a limitless number of film festivals around these days, and some films make a career of playing them: so how do you distinguish between the best film award at the Cannes Film Festival, and with the greatest respect, the Bradford Film Festival? I think generally we should allow plenty of discretion (since it's not usually a problem unless a film wins lots of awards), but if there is a fundamental dispute between editors we should let Wikipedia's notability criteria do the job for us: if the awards themselves (as opposed to the company/institution that host/sponsor them) have an entry on Wikipedia they implicitly satisfy notability; if you disagree you can always AfD the awards page and test your argument. If an awards page doesn't exist, then any editor wishing to add the award to the film article can test their argument by creating an article about the awards. Betty Logan (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe something like IGN, you'd just add as recognition rather than as part of an award table. Don't think its sufficient to class as a Legacy item. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Based on what I've seen in good articles and featured articles, I wouldn't include IGN in isolation, but if you had a film that appeared on several "best of year" lists I would create a subsection and include IGN and those other best of year lists too. -- 109.77.106.153 (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Box office success/failure

I've seen film articles calling the film a box office success or failure based on seemingly nothing. Some films are called successes despite barely recouping their budget, others are called failures despite hauling in three times or more than their budget. The Guideline's box office section currently says nothing about the issue, so I decided to ask here, whether any suggestions should be created and added to the guideline. --89.0.201.94 (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The WP:NOR guideline covers this adequately. Calling something a success or a failure is analysis, and thus should be sourced. The profit margins are complex due to marketing costs, profit participation, secondary markets, so cannot be simply deduced from the gross and production budget of the film. Any unsourced claim of that nature should be removed. Betty Logan (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hm, ok if you say so, but many if not most film articles try to qualify the box office returns in some way, calling it either success/failure or other qualifying terminology such as "disappointing" etc. I agree that NOR and also NPOV cover this, but the problem is rampant. --89.0.201.94 (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOR is your starting point. The next point is Hollywood Accounting makes it almost impossible to draw any conclusions. Many editors seem to like presenting the production budget and comparing it to the gross. This is only useful as a very rough indicator, for starters the production budget does not include many other costs such as the marketing budget for example. Also a film might cost $10 million to make and then be bought up by a big distributor for much more than that. So mentioning the gross and mentioning the production budget is fine (if a little misleading) but it is incorrect to assume that just because the gross was more than the budget that it must have been profitable. I will usually delete the assumptions but leave the comparison.

Having said that you can get predictions of what a film was expected to take in on the opening weekend (often from the LA Times or articles at Box Office Mojo) and then compare it to what it actually earned and that is usually enough to say it was a box office disappointment, or exceeded expectations.

The box office section of WP:MOSFILM should be updated to warn editors to only present the numbers and not interpret them as meaning a film was profitable or a failure. -- 109.77.106.153 (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Character name

Mary Pickford's character's romantic interest in The Hoodlum (1919 film) is given in IMDb, TCM and AllRovi as "John Graham". Yet when I watched it last night on TCM, the name on the title cards was "William Turner". Some other sources[9][10][11] agree. What the heck is going on here? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I imagine that one of IMDB, TCM and Allrovi posted the incorrect information first (probably as a geninue mistake), and the other two copied it to compile their databases. As you've actually seen the film & credits and have sources to back this up, I say go with them. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right. It feels faintly sacrilegious, but the Holy Movie Trinity are all wrong. Just to doublecheck, I watched the opening credits again on youtube, and sure enough, it's Turner. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Trust me, IMDb's credits aren't part of any Holy Trinity. Given how anyone can post anything there, it's more like the Apocrypha. I'm disappointed in TCM and AllRovi for evidently accepting IMDb as gospel, which Wikipedia does not.

And my compliments to two fellow editors for excellent work! We might want to add a footnote to this effect and a link to the YouTube video of this public domain work, to help prevent someone down the line seeing the wrong name again in IMDb or elsewhere and reverting. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you've already entered that link and information there! You guys are great! I hope you don't mind if I de-clutter and put the note in a footnote.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Marvel Studios RfC

There is an RfC regarding if Disney's ownership is relevant to mention on the Marvel Studios article. The discussion is at Talk:Marvel Studios#RfC: Is Disney's ownership relevant?. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

RFC

A request for comment has been placed here Talk:James Earl Jones#Request for comment and any input will be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 22:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Artist page move discussion

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for a third-party opinion on Red Tails disagreement

A submission that "Allied fighters abandoned the bombers to chase German fighters" is to be included in the article as part of "historical inaccuracies" has been challenged on the talk page: under the sub-title: "Lies and inaccuracy". FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC).

Request for comment

This is just a notice that I have opened a RfC at Talk:The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey#RFC: Is it necessary to mention if reviews were mixed, positive, etc. in the opening of the Critical response? TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Tron: Legacy - Wholly Shot in 3D?

Hi there. Could someone weigh in on a comment I left in Talk:Tron: Legacy regarding what appear to be some contradictory statements about its filming? The lead and one other section in the article state the film was "wholly shot in 3D", while the film itself (in the theaters at least) stated that some portions were deliberately presented in 2D and interviews around the time of release also mentioned the real-world sequences being in 2D. I left a comment about this in November, but so far nobody's responded or done anything related to that in the article, and I don't have the factual info handy to decide which account is correct. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film)

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film) is up for GAN at Talk:Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film)/GA1. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Air Diary

Hello! Air Diary was really produced by Jackie Chan? I don't can found article abou this [12]. Eurohunter (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

http://www.china.org.cn/2007-09/03/content_1222970.htm seems to say his company is behind it, but I can't find him credited as a producer either. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The Fugitive (1993 film)

Fellow Filmproject editors are asked to take a look at the recent edits to The Fugitive (1993 film) and the relevant talk page discussion and offer their input. One editor has taken it upon himself to completely rewrite the article, making some positive changes, along with quite a few that are questionable. I would like him to slow down and discuss these changes in more detail on the talk page, and it would help if other editors encouraged him to do likewise. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Use of "Top Critics" scores from Rotten Tomatoes

The issue of whether or not it is appropriate to report "Top Critics" scores from Rotten Tomatoes was raised at Talk:The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. It was widely agreed that they should not. Following that discussion, editor "2nyte" and I have both changed a number of pages to remove the "Top Critics" scores. Editor "DrNegative" has noted that WP:RTMC is an essay without binding authority and so if there is to be a general policy about "Top Critics" scores that it needs to be done here and editor "TheOldJacobite" has objected to several of my edits removing "Top Critics" scores. So I am asking for input to settle the matter as to whether or not policy should allow reporting "Top Critics" scores or not. 99.192.91.3 (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Do the disputing editors explain why they think the "Top Critics" scores are valid? Reviewing the arguments at the RfC, I agree that "Top Critics" is a problematic measurement because it is region-based. It does not seem possible to get a static measurement. In addition, it is not accurate to talk about establishing policy about whether or not to use "Top Critics" scores. It is too granular for policy level. The better approach would be to discuss updating the guidelines at MOS:FILM, though not all WikiProject Film consensuses are necessarily reflected in these guidelines. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(1) It is probably not constructive to dscribe editors who have supported using "Top Critics" scores as "disruptive". I supported using it until I was informed that there is a regional variation as to who counts as a "Top Critic". I would suspect that others who support the use of "Top Critics" scores are similarly unaware of this. Disagreement is often not disruptive. (2) I really don't know what all the ins and outs are about setting policies, so that's why I posted here. I'll make a post at MOS:FILM to see if that gets some action. 99.192.91.3 (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I said "disputing", not "disrupting". :) It just means that they disagree with removing "Top Critics" scores. Would like to know if they think the scores have value despite the regional trickiness. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. I misread your post. 99.192.91.3 (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the core problem is similar to that of the Film ratings template, in that we should be striving to provide an overview of the film's overall critical reception rather than focusing on a select array of opinions. I don't know what the criteria is for being a top critic, but it still serves to elevate the opinions of some critics above the opinions of others, and it seems a bit counter-productive to the aims of the section. It seems to me that the critic's opinion is deemed valid by the site or it isn't, and the "celebrity" of a critic shouldn't give them more of a 'say' in the film's critical evaluation. Betty Logan (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Were it not for the fact that "Top Critic" status is region dependent, I would disagree with you. RT makes a judgment when the decide whether or not to count a critic at all, and so them making a judgment about who is a "top" critic and who is not is no different. I would not presume that they do it based on celebrity so much as based on whether or not the critic is a full time critic (as opposed to a newspaper columnist who also happens to review film), how major the publication is that employs them (A NYTimes reviewer being preferred to a small town penny saver writer). But however they do it, if it were a single, stable, location-independent designation then I would not object to including their scores any more than the general score. 99.192.91.3 (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Basically what we are trying to do is sum up the critical consensus in general terms i.e. what critics collectively think of a film. Any sane person would put more stock in Roger Ebert's opinion than Paul Ross's opinion, but that doesn't mean Paul Ross's review is inherently less of a critique. Say for instance your top critics are your Pauline Kaels, Roger Eberts and Dilys Powells of the world, and the regular score also takes account of the low-rent tabloid journalism, does that mean it should receive less representation? It just seems to me the TC scores are not consistent with our aims of summing up the critical consensus since it is omitting opinion it has already implicitly accepted as valid critique. Betty Logan (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If someone were arguing that pages should only report the top critics score and not also report the overall score for all critics, then I would agree that "low-rent" reviews would be given less representation, but not if both are given. When the scores for all critics and for top critics are almost identical (as they often are) it serves no purpose to report both. Just the general one will do. But if, as in the case of The Hobbit, the "all critics" score is 65% and the "top critics" score is 42% (as it is as I write this), then that difference surely says something about the critical response to the film. In fact, if you do the math (and I realize that this would never be allowed on a page for WP:SYNTH reasons) it actually turns out that 71% of the non-top critics liked the film while only 42% of the top critics liked it. That's a pretty significant difference that tells a reader something about who the film does and does not appeal to. You need to represent both statistics equally to see that difference. 99.192.91.3 (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem for me is that Rotten Tomatoes has no inherent value, its validity comes from quantifying a representative sample of critical opinion. However, if the top critics are representative of a minority of the critical reception then I suggest that deviates from our mandate for using it in the first place, since the very reason we use an aggregator is so that undue emphasis isn't placed on a minority of opinions. We are trying to quantify what the majority of critical opinion is, and while the manin score seems to meet with that aim the TC score doesn't IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Where does it say that it is region dependent? I don't know the criteria for the Top Critics, but it seems like a good way to get a broad consensus of a variety of views of the general public. I may not agree with the reviews themselves, but that is my personal opinion and I have my chance to give it by partaking in the project that is Rotten Tomatoes. Just because we don't agree with what they say. MisterShiney ✉ 21:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

A previous discussion on this matter can be found here. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It also says that they are region dependent in the section "Top Critics in Rotten Tomatoes," the exact same section of WP:RTMC that you just re-edited. 99.192.91.3 (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Clarification: I was asking for a source outside of Wikipedia that backs this up, as Wikipedia I am sure we all agree that it can be edited by anyone, and that page does not any that they are region dependent. MisterShiney ✉ 22:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If we do not establish some sort of policy or guideline in regards to this issue, we are merely suggesting that editors do or do not use it. In this case. you are going to have a disagreement at times, possible revert war, and then we are right back here talking about it again. I would really like to see a good consensus on this and a guideline written which addresses it. That way, we have a foundational rule so to speak of which to base our arguments other than personal opinion. Quite simply, we allow RT's selection of critics, but shall we disallow their selection of the most prestigious to be represented in our film articles? DrNegative (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

re: MisterShiney's request for an outside RS. I'm searching for one. I realise we don't accept "original research" and so my following comments don't bind wikipedia and have no policy weight. However, for Stargate (film)

US IP: Top Critics : 20%

Average Rating: 4.7/10

Critic Reviews: 5

Fresh: 1 (Hal Hinson)| Rotten: 4 (Owen Gleiberman, Roger Ebert, James Beradinelli, Owen Geliberman again!)

Oddly it lists several other top critics but doesn't use the "fresh/rotten" icon next to the listing. These critics are: Leonard Klady, Variety; Stephanie Dolgoff, New York Times; Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle.

UK IP: Top Critics : 0%

Critic Reviews: 1

Fresh: 0 | Rotten: 1 (Roger Ebert)

It too lists several other top critics but again doesn't use the "fresh/rotten" icon next to the listing. These critics are: Leonard Klady, Variety; Derek Adams, Time Out; Stephanie Dolgoff, New York Times.

I used two proxies to get these results: docoja (dot) com (UK) hidemyass dot com (US). If we eliminate the extra "rotten" vote that occurs when RT counts Owen Gleiberman's vote twice, then Stargate has a US 25% fresh rating and a UK 0% fresh rating. - Fanthrillers (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me just say to Fanthrillers: Admirable work. Above-and-beyond-the-call-of-duty editorial research. That amount of work and effort should be acknowledged and thanked. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

DrNegative, I personally would not mind discussing the usage of "Top Critics" scores in articles, but we have to address the regional trickiness first. Like Fanthrillers outlined above, an editor in the US will see a different "Top Critics" score than an editor in the UK for the same film. If we cannot get a static measurement, we cannot be accurate in including it. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this discussion indicates a larger problem with using Rotten Tomatoes in the first place, i.e., many of the critics it lists would not be considered notable on their own. The critics we would tend to quote in a critical reception section would be those RT considers "Top Critics," because the others are just a bunch of guys who started film review blogs. This is also why I have consistently removed the RT "consensus" whenever I see it quoted in a film article: RT's opinion, or summation of opinions, is not notable in and of itself. We only consider RT reliable because it posts the opinions of critics who were already considered reliable and notable apart from RT. This also relates to the problem that has been discussed elsewhere of using RT scores for films that existed long before RT. In those cases, the opinions of contemporary reviewers is largely irrelevant. RT is a dubious source, quite frankly. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

My impression is that we include Rotten Tomatoes because it has been referenced elsewhere, which to us meant that it is recognized as authoritative. The rest are details we have to discuss how to use for clarity and encyclopedic value (such as how to best report the score). I can't see it as a dubious source; it (and Metacritic) continue to be effective ways to report the consensus for recent films. To me, the aggregations have not been out of step with award outcomes. Here, though, we have the "Top Critics" score, a detail which we're discussing. I could see a case for including it if it was not for the regional trickiness. On that particular level, do you think that warrants excluding the "Top Critics" score from film articles? Erik (talk | contribs) 13:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Erik and the years-long de facto consensus on using RT simply for what it is, a review aggregator, which we state upfront. "Top Critic," even without the regionalism issue, is an arbitrary choice: To give one personal example among many I could give, I'm a "Top Critic" when I write for one certain publication, but not a "Top Critic" when I write for another, equally esteemed publication (or at least equally esteemed everywhere outside RT). Yet I'm the same critic writing the same thoughts. What RT calls "Top Critic" is too arbitrary for any sort of meaningful use.

On an unrelated note, it also seems a bit much: We have two review aggregators and Cinemascore. Three things that give a balanced overview. Beyond that I think we're parsing way too minutely. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment 99.192.81.168 (talk · contribs) [who I assume to be the same person as 99.192.91.3 (talk · contribs)] is going around removing any mention of "top critics" from film articles en masse, citing this discussion as rationale. I believe this is wholly inappropriate since the discussion was started less than 2 days ago and has only a handful of participants. If the end consensus is that this content is not to be included, then fine, but for this anon to go around numerous articles removing content they don't like, based on their interpretation of which way the discussion is leaning after less than 2 days (not to mention obvious bias) is totally unacceptable, especially when they have already been spoken to about this type of behavior. A clear consensus must be established first, and the project's guidelines changed to reflect it, before such a mass culling is undertaken. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• I concur that it is too soon to make such edits. There's no rush here. I'm sure the scores have been on the articles for a while, it won't hurt for them to be there a few more days. I've messaged the IP saying so. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah when I saw that I tried to warn said editor (and removed his addition to the said essay he was quoting citing a conflict of interest/lack of consensus/sufficient discussion for change). Erik has spoken to him. MisterShiney ✉ 18:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Personally I dont like RT. I read some of the reviews of a film that I thought was really good and they irritate the hell out of me! So much so I stopped reviewing films because I personally thought they got it all wrong. I would prefer to go with the general consensus (with wording of articles to reflect that it was the general consensus). But we should be careful when providing extracts of reviews. MisterShiney ✉ 18:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• I think as long as they are relevant, especially if they are from the country of origin. 109.149.37.65 (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• The problem is that we cannot tell. Editors in the US working on a UK film would not be able to determine the "Top Critics" score in that region unless they use a proxy (like Fanthrillers did above). Same situation vice versa. We just do not have static measurements that are readily verifiable by any one person. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Erik, I disagree with your argument, but still agree with the conclusion that we should not use "Top Critics" scores. The problem with your reasoning is twofold: (1) Because proxies do exist, any editor in any country can do what Fanthrillers did and access the "Top Critics" score that is given in some specific country. So there is no problem of accessing the information. (2) Even if there were a problem getting the relevant information for some editors, that would not be a good reason to exclude it. Sometimes people forget that there are valid sources for information that are not even on the Internet at all. So, for example, books are often used as sources on Wikipedia pages even though you might have to go to a library or book store to access that information, and, especially with older or specialist books, many editors might not even be able to get them that way. Lack of availability to many editors does not make the source any less appropriate to use.

But I still agree that we should not use "Top Critics" scores for three different reasons: (A) A lot of movies are international co-productions. Taking, for example, the film page that launched this entire discussion, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, that film is listed as a New Zealand, United Kingdom, and United States co-production. So for a film like that there would be no way to settle which version of RT's "Top Critics" to use. Since many films are international co-productions, this would be a frequent problem, and so it is best to avoid it by not using the "Top Critics" scores from anywhere. (B) Even in cases where there is a clear country of origin for a film, it does not follow that there will be a "Top Critics" list for that country. RT does not have as many different versions as they are countries, so if, for example, there is no "Top Critics" list that is specific to Sweden, then it would not be obvious which "Top Critics" report to use for any Swedish film. So again, this is a problem best avoided by forgoing the "Top Critics" scores altogether. (C) Even in cases where there is one clear country of origin of a film AND there is a local version of RT's "Top Critics" there, it still is not a good reason to use that score. Yes, Wikipedia guidelines suggest being attentive to reviews of critics from the country of origin for films, particulalrly non-English language ones, but there is no reason to think that this is accomplished by being selective about which version of RT's "Top Critics" one uses. In the example Fanthrillers gave above for Stargate, the UK version of RT reports only one "Top Critics" review, and that one came from an American critic (Ebert). So using the UK version of RT's "Top Critics" offers no assurance that British critics are being counted at all.

One final note: Editor 109.149.37.65 is, so far, the first and only person to say, in effect, "yes, I am aware that RT's 'Top Critics' are region dependent, but I think it is ok to use it anyway." Everyone else (both here and in the original discussion at Talk:The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey) has either opposed using "Top Critics" or advocated using it while still ignorant of the fact that it is a region-variable number. So unless I have missed something, at this point there is near unanimity on the matter. 99.192.48.33 (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.91.3, =99.192.81.168)

It has been 2 days since the last comment (mine) was added to the above discussion and I am wondering how one is supposed to know when a discussion is over. Also, how is one supposed to know what the outcome of a discussion is? It looks like people contributing have just been happy to have their say and now have wandered off to other things, but I would like to edit some pages as a result of this discussion, so I'd like to know how I will know when we are at that point.

I just recently discovered this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film/Archive_8#Rotten_Tomatoes. In short, 23 months ago four editors contributed to a discussion about using RT's "Top critics" scores. All four agreed that they should not be used. One editor, who has also participated in this discussion (Erik) suggested that WP:RTMC be edited to reflect this. He wrote, "We can modify the 'Top Critics' bullet under 'Limitations' to indicate not to use it." Betty Logan (who also has also participated in the discussion above) agreed, writing "covering it at WP:RTMC should be sufficient". At that point the discussion ended. WP:RTMC was never modified nor was there any further discussion of so doing that I could find. I worry that the same thing could be happening again. 99.192.75.232 (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.48.33)

Indeed, I'm not seeing any consensus in favor of Top Critics, and this has been discussed previously on WP:FILM with a consensus against it. I would say give this discussion a week (another three days, since this began on Dec. 17) and unless the pendulum suddenly swings wildly in the opposite direction, that's enough time to have gathered a consensus. If the editor who wants to use Top Critics wants to call for an RfC then — or even now — that's perfectly his right and I'm sure we'll respect it and marshall (or even copy-paste) our same arguments. RfCs have a default duration of 30 days. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'd actually be quite happy if there were an RfC next week, since then there would be a clear basis for edits that I could cite in edit summaries when making edits after the matter has been settled. It also might be nice (assuming, as seems safe, that the decision goes against "top critics") to also take steps toward amending WP:RTMC as Erik and Betty recommended two years ago, 2nyte recommended 5 days ago, and I attempted to do four days ago. If there is a further special process that needs to be initiated to make that change happen, I'd be glad to get it started as well. But for now I'll just wait until after Christmas to let this discussion conclude first. Thanks again. 99.192.80.43 (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.75.232)

It's probably not a great time for a discussion due to the xmas break, but if TC ratings are going to be prohibited the ammendment would be best in MOS:FILM#Critical response, since ammending an essay won't compel anyone to anything, it's just a piece of advice. It might be best to break off until after the holiday and do a straw poll when we get back. If people are happy to scrap them we can alter the MOS; if there is no consensus to do that, we have to figure out how to make them properly citable. No changes should be made now anyway, since some key editors may not be present. Betty Logan (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Does it matter if people are happy about it? It's fairly provable that the Top Critics is both regionally dependent and statistically too small a pool to be useful. It's time to start being the great future Oscar winner Ashton Kutcher in Dude, Where's My Car (the greatest film ever made) and taking charge of this motherlovin' 'pedia on this motherlovin' internet, and not like the great future Oscar winner Ashton Kutcher in his worst film, everything else he has ever made or will ever make. He Marisa Tomei's that oscar. As future President Arnold Schwarzenneger once said, "You have to go back to the Future Marty". Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Normally, Betty Logan and I are pretty much in sync, and I think this time we're in at least half-sync. I would have thought a week was plenty, given the previous discussion and what looks like a WP:SNOWBALL no-consensus to use Top Critics. But I'm certainly not averse to her suggestion of giving it, say, a week past Jan. 1 (i.e., Jan 8). Unless there's much movement demanding the use of Top Critics, though, I'm really not sure of the need for a poll. Wikipedia really doesn't use a voting model for guideline changes, but rather discussion-derived consensus. And I think we have one already. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. For me the more important thing is that there be some sort of a clear timeline for dealing with the matter and not just that it be dealt with quickly, so your suggestion of January 8 sounds fine to me. If there is no further movement on the discussion here between now and then I'll take that as an "all clear" to remove "Top Critics" scores from film pages. By then people will have had three weeks to make any case there might be for using them. Thanks again for your help, Tenebrae. 99.192.57.31 (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.73.22)

Since to my thinking, the purpose of using RT is to get an overall consensus rating, the regular rating is better because it encompasses more reviews. Therefore a top critics rating is not needed. BollyJeff | talk 00:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

If we do change WP:RTMC, then as long as Erik and Betty Logan still agree that we should not use "Top Critics", I'd prefer either (or both) of them edit/re-write the policy. Then and only then can the rest of us tinker with it (which probably won't be necessary). - Fanthrillers (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to jump the gun on making changes, but if you want a suggestion for a revision to WP:RTMC to consider how about this? [13] It's a relatively simple change and with the text already there explaining the problems with RT's "top critics" it fits nicely. This is the text I tried to add (twice) already only to be slapped down for it. I should also add that I worry that a change to WP:RTMC might not be sufficient, because when I previously cited it as the basis for removing RT "Top Critics" scores a couple of editors objected that essays are not policy, thus it is invalid to cite them when making a change. 99.192.81.148 (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.57.31)

I only ever found the RT Top Critics notable when there was much of a difference from the overall score. Top critics are more willing to highly rate arthouse films, and less likely to take the time to try and find anything good to say about the latest lowbrow comedy or dumb action movie.

The only other reason I use the Top Critics is that the number of critics sampled is about the same as Metacritic, and the scores are often comparable. So if you object to Top Critics because they only use a small number of critics you'd have to reject Metacritic too. (My reading of WP:RTMC is about how to use aggregators in the best way possible, not a call to stop using them, but instead advice for readers and editors to remain skeptical, just as you should be with any reviewers opinion.)

I don't normally get involved with these discussions, I think people who object to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are more likely to comment than the many editors who don't. Rather than a total ban on the Top Critics score, I would suggest that editors should only include it when they can say it is notable. -- 109.77.106.153 (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• The consensus seems to be to have a prohibition on Top Critic scores so I have drafted out the guideline ammendment at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film#Rotten_Tomatoes_Top_Critics. While there was a consensus to do away with them, the reasons varied so I have summarised them. It's important to note them, since circumstances may change at some point leading to reconsideration. Feel free to comment, offer any revisions etc. Betty Logan (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent as always, Betty. I'll comment on the MOS page. - Fanthrillers (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me also add my thanks for doing this. I, too, will comment on the content on the MOS page. 99.192.78.59 (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC) (all the other 99.192's above)