Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 51

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

→

Archive 55

Some possible new parameters for Infobox Film

While of course it isn't necessary to list full crew, I think the infobox is missing some important parameters. Some art directors, casting agents, costume designers, and production and Second Unit directors in particular might be notable enough to have articles. Particular for the Golden period of Hollywood you'll notice than many of them worked on many films and are certainly notable enough. In reading biographies I frequently come across mention of such people and when I visit the articles I see no mention of them! I just think if we opened up the opportunity to add the parameters for any of the above in the infobox this would be a positive move forward. I propose the introduction of the following parameters initially which any editor may add to an article if the person has an article or they intend adding an article. They wouldn't be compulsory parameters, but where they're relevant it would give editors the option to add them.

• Art director
• Casting director
• Production designer
• Costume designer

♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

For instance 2001 Space I would immediately like to know who the production designer and art director was, more so than film editor. The infobox should list John Hoesli etc.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

My feeling is that if we add these fields, they will be filled out regardless of prominence or lack thereof. My preferred alternative approach is to include a "crew list" in film articles like there exists a cast list. After all, the "Starring" field in the infobox is the upper echelon of a cast list. I like to think similarly for the crew. I think such a crew list works best if most of the people are blue-linked. I've added crew lists at Panic Room#Production and Interstellar (film)#Production. I think we need to get away from the false assumption that the infobox is the only place to list crew credits, especially considering that we do not impose that limitation for cast credits. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that a crew list in the body of the article is preferable to more infobox bloat. It also allows for a fuller description of the persons contribution to the film when there is sourced info available. MarnetteD | Talk 16:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't provide for mobile readers though who may want a quick reference point and find out who designed the sets for a given film though. They'd have to read through a long article and let's face it, most film articles, even very good ones, tend to ignore things like art directors and set designers. We could of course add a collapsible section of the infobox for things like this... The problem is that some aren't notable and I can see people adding like the full crew from imdb..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Lead vs supporting lead

Can someone please comment on the quality of ths edit. I have no idea how lead vs supporting lead is sourced for article purposes. Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Personally I would refrain from categorizing roles in that way. I don't think it's necessary to stipulate whether a role is a lead or not. Betty Logan (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

"Award" to "Awards"

There is an ongoing requested move at the Golden Globe Award talk page regarding several awards that should possibly have their titles pluralized, due to the recent moving of Academy Awards. Click here for the discussion. All opinions are appreciated! Corvoe (speak to me) 21:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Samar

Since a few hours Samar Island occupies the title Samar, which is the title of some films and other things.

Please see Talk:Samar#Requested move (February 2014) - Androoox (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Transformers 4

If anyone has a bit of spare time, help would be appreciated over at Transformers: Age of Extinction. I recently removed much of its sources, as they were all to TFW2005.com, a fan forum site. The page now needs reliable sources to back up its information. (Also, if anyone knows of a discussion where TFW2005 was deemed reliable, please let me know. But just by looking at it I know that it is not.) I don't have a ton of time to spend on the page, but will try to assist when I can. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Marital rape mention in the Plot section of the Gone with the Wind (film) article

Opinions are needed from this WikiProject on this matter: Talk:Gone with the Wind (film)#The marital "rape" in the plot summary. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Film Review

Hi, guys. Anyone has this issue of Film Review that reviewed Space Adventure Cobra? And, someone knows if the Film Review in the link is the same as this article. Thanks. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment

Anybody cares to comment on Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#An_article_on_a_movie_before_release.? AnupMehra ^✈ 15:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Film projector move discussion

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Shutter Island (film) article -- Critical reception section...again

As some or all of you will remember, I brought this matter up the previous month; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 50#Shutter Island (film) article -- Critical reception section. Well, the matter still is not resolved, perhaps because the main discussion did not take place there at the article talk page. So I am asking all of you to weigh in on this, and to do so there at the article talk page. For those of you who don't know, the dispute concerns whether or not to categorize the film as "mixed" when Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a 68% score and Metacritic gives it a 63% score. In the previous WP:FILM discussion about this, the WP:Consensus is that such scores do not equate to "mixed" (not in the general way that the term is used). There was also sentiment that we should remove any unsourced lead-in summary, such as "The film received mixed reviews.", or explicitly source the summary. Explicitly sourcing is not enough if the source is at odds with what critics generally state about the film, however. We should keep WP:Undue weight in mind. The categorization of "mixed" to describe Shutter Island is unsourced and generally at odds with what the sources relay about the film, and that should be remedied. Discussion is here: Talk:Shutter Island (film)#Critical reception section -- mixed reviews?. Flyer22 (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

In the archived discussion, I linked to numerous sources to help detail how critics responded to the film and not to just depend on the numerically subjective nature of RT and MC. The sources should be used to provide a better picture. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but now it is known that there are two editors at that article who want to call the critical reception "mixed." So comments with regard to that view are still needed at that talk page. It solves nothing to change the Critical reception section in a way that might be reverted. We need to arrive at a WP:Consensus about this matter there at the article talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

At the video game project when we have reviews that's hard to obviously say good or bad, we often fall back to what MC calls it; in the case of Shutter Island, MC is calling it "generally favorable"; if necessary we actually quote that phrase, so that we aren't introducing original research on how to classify it. I would then expect - given that the reviews are all over the scale for SI, that the reception section covers includes comments from the highing scoring reviews and the lowest scoring ones. (If there is "meta" information from sources about how wide the disparity on reviews were on the film, that should be mentioned too). --MASEM (t) 16:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Masem, will you comment about this there at the article talk page? Like I stated above, that is where the discussion needs to be had. We already had the discussion at this talk page, and, as you can see, that did not resolve anything. Flyer22 (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Pictures in the tables of Academy Award pages

What do others think of this edit? Is there any value in adding pictures to these tables? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the images could improve the article, move it above just a list of the winners and nominees. However, we shouldn't be putting the images in the table; the images are too small and are not really serving a purpose. BOVINEBOY2008 13:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree about not having them in the table. 84th Academy Awards is a FL and the images are placed outside of it, and I've seen this on other articles too (cricket lists, for example). Thanks BB. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is IMDB being duplicated?

I have noticed increasingly when I Google a film, it has it's own Wiki page. Often, the content is a cut and paste from IMDB. However, I am becoming increasingly of the view many of these pages are "ego trips" by wannabe contributors, as many of these reviews are of films that have little or no importance in the History of cinema.

I am not to sure about the aims and objectives of Wikipedia, but it does occur to me the proliferation of film reviews of dubious or no importance is like opening a page for Joe Schmoe, because his sixth time great-grandafther was a minor official at the court of King Nobody. IMDB lists in the region of 1,000,000 films and TV programmes, but it seems that there are contributors to this forum who want to duplicate the entire contents of IMDB solely for the glory of being published by Wiki. If that is the trend, then how long will it be before say a TV series, has individual pages for every episode? Coronation Street, a UK "soap" has had well over 5,000 episodes in case anyone is having trouble understanding where I am coming from.

Can I suggest that what is needed here, is a "Film and Tv committee" from whom approval should be sought prior to undertaking a project, where an explanation should be given as to why the contributor thinks their project should be included in Wikipedia. To give you an example of my thinking, I read a review of "Somebody Killed Her Husband". The film itself, in my opinion, rates as "dire", but the review was important to the extent it mentioned this was Farrah Fawcett's first film since "Charlie's Angels" and one critic entitled his review, "Somebody Killed Her Career", which gives the film some distinction or notoriety and therefore might merit inclusion on Wiki.

I am not saying bad films should be excluded from Wiki. For example, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" is often regarded as the most technically inept film ever made. However, I feel that most of the film pages on Wiki are of totally insignificant films. I am not against "bad" films being included on Wiki as long as there is significant reason for the review, but I am totally fed up seeing pages that have been included just because nobody else has done this and then reading a C&P of IMDB. Perhaps it's time for some contributors to think that perhaps the reason why nobody has reviewed this film, is because generally, nobody think's it's a worthwhile project.80.111.155.138 (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Some examples might help you. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When you talk about copy-pasting, do you mean the explanation at WP:COPYPASTE that it is a copyright violation? Or do you just mean that the Wikipedia articles are just similar to the IMDb pages in terms of basic layout? It sounds like the latter, based on your complaint. Wikipedia creates articles about films based on the general notability guidelines and/or the notability guidelines for films. If you think a film article is not notable under either set of guidelines, you can nominate it for deletion per WP:AFD. Really, most articles are never going to be complete. I would encourage you not to be bothered by the simplicity of such articles. At the very least, any article should mention what is a film is about and who is involved. If it develops beyond that, great, but their presence is not detrimental to this free-content encyclopedia if they meet the notability guidelines. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Next troll please. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Erik. However, my point is that many of the reviews do nothing to enhance the seriousness of Wiki. My complaint is not about the completeness of articles, it is about the pointlessness of many of the articles, and that in many cases, the more pointless the article, the more likely it is to be a "rip-off" from IMDB. I have a general rule of thumb about this, being that if you fail to learn anything new from the page, then it is almost certainly going to be a rip-off from IMDB.

As to Lugnuts, why he should think that I am trolling is quite beyond me. I see Wiki as being meritorious, and though I might be wrong in my opinions (I appreciate they look elitist), if trolling were my hobby, I would be on the live news feeds where it is possible to get an instant reaction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.155.138 (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what you're complaining about. If you think a film isn't worthy of being here, head to WP:AFD. If you don't like the "copy and paste" article, expand it. Next troll please. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the "pointlessness" of such articles, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means this encyclopedia is going to have articles about as many notable films as possible. Another concept to consider is that Wikipedia is "selfish" in the sense that it wants to give information to you through a free-content prism. It sounds like you are saying that IMDb suffices over Wikipedia for less important films, and I don't think that they are comparable like that. IMDb is a database which will have both notable and non-notable films (from Wikipedia's standpoint), and Wikipedia will have articles about notable films and unlike the database, provide an article space to which verifiable information can be added freely. Another aspect of Wikipedia to consider is cross-navigation. By cross-linking film topics, Wikipedia lets readers go from topic to topic within the encyclopedia, rather than switch over to IMDb. So like I said, don't worry so much about some articles' simplicity. The encyclopedia has plenty of room for film articles of all shapes and sizes. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Concur with Erik and Lugnuts (though not the unnecessary and uncivil remark biting this new user by calling him a troll). 80.111.155.138, go to the Five Pillars of Wikipedia for some grounding in what Wikipedia is and does, and that'll probably help clear up some of your questions. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Troll. Duck. It's all the same with these IP editors. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

To paraphrase my previous comment on this kind of hostility, "Assuming good faith applies to everyone. Per the nutshell summary at WP:CIVIL, 'Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.' Even if you believe that IP editors more often than not do not try to help Wikipedia, the point of the principle is to not prejudge. It is worthwhile to try to communicate with IP editors (who have less editing experience and guideline awareness) before determining that good faith cannot be had." To prejudge is to poison the well. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

While I agree that Lugnuts is being incivil here, I also believe that he has a point. Empty complaints are no good here in talk space. It is policy that talk pages are not a forum for general discussion, but rather a venue for discussing how to improve articles. There has been no suggestion here to improve the articles in question. Please, IP, if you wish to contribute fruitfully, tell us what we could do to improve. Is that by deleting mass articles? That is not constructive. Removing content? It sounds like that is what you want us to do here, and it isn't going to happen. Elizium23 (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Look at the edit history of this user. Now why you see I have no reason to assume any good faith? Now if they can point out specific issues, I'd be happy to listen. This general complaining isn't worth anyone's time or effort. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems you have a different definition of what constitutes a troll to many others. Either that or the charm school you attended should give you a refund. So I may well have misunderstood what the purpose of these apparent IMDB clones are as far as Wikipedia is concerned, but it seems that your definition of a troll is anyone that writes something you don't like. 80.111.155.138 (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Trying to go back to the topic of 80.XXX's post, one thing to consider is what an "important" film would be defined as. Is it, say, important globally (Jaws, Star Wars)? Is it important in a particular country? (Darah dan Doa, Pengkhianatan G30S/PKI)? Is it important in a director's oeuvre (Frank's Cock)? That's why I prefer "notable": if people discuss it in reliable, independent sources, we should consider presenting that information as well. Yes, many articles will not be expanded past start class... but even that is more than some of these films get elsewhere (compare IMDB's coverage of The Mirror Never Lies to our own, for instance, or even more dramatically of Gagak Item to our own). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

If you feel that a film is not important, you can rate it as Importance=low in its assessment template. That isn't a reason to exclude it from the encyclopedia, as long as we have enough information to write a neutral, verifiable article about it - this encyclopedia is not about "famous" or "important" topics only. Diego (talk) 07:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

New article

A controversy occurred recently when the Academy Awards committee revoked a nomination for the Best Song Oscar at the 86th Academy Awards. Here is the source: Scott Feinberg (January 29, 2014). "Academy Disqualifies Oscar-Nominated Song 'Alone Yet Not Alone'". Hollywood Reporter. So, this got me to thinking. Maybe we should create an article entitled "List of Academy awards and nominations that have been revoked or rescinded" (or some such wording). Any thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

How many such awards are there? Betty Logan (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It probably doesn't happen all that often. I know that plenty of foreign-language films get disqualified for various reasons, but that's usually from the long-list of entries, before the final five films are nominated. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, it doesn't happen very often, making it that much more notable. I quickly scanned that source article; it states "a handful" of times. It looks like perhaps six times or so, from a quick scan of the details at the bottom of the article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we need a list for just 6 films. Maybe just create a section in the main Academy Awards article? Betty Logan (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The Academy Awards article is very big, probably too big at this point. I think the fact that there are so few films makes it that much more notable. There have been lists with less than this, as well. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Better than a list page would be a page with a title something like "Revoked Academy Award nominations" where the page explained in general how and why this might happen and then had sections for each case where this has happened explaining the specific circumstances of the case. A list page is not really the right sort of page for what is better explained on a prose page. 99.192.74.44 (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I believe this merits its own article, but if the consensus is that it does, I'd definitely prefer the above approach to yet another list article. DonIago (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

This is essentially all semantics. A prose article would be six paragraphs, each paragraph describing one of the six incidents. A list article would be a list; the list would be composed of six bullet points, each of which describes one of the six incidents. So, no real difference. Or am I missing your point? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we should go ahead with a list article. Would it be possible to do a table format where we can list the film, the year, the award category, and a "Incident" column explaining each item? Found this that we can use in such an article. We can do some bidirectional navigating by including this article in "See also" sections so readers can go from one topic to another. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Lists of British films at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be leaning towards what could be a change in philosophy of having 'List of xxxish films of the YYYYs'. If people agree with this change it should be done at this project and it should be the project that implements it more widely. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 10:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Japanese film at AfD

You might be interested in this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The Grand Budapest Hotel

Two questions about The Grand Budapest Hotel - 1) Are all those names in the infobox's starring field needed? and 2) Is it OK to use Youtube as a reference to cite the cast? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I count 16 names. Definitely would favor a higher cutoff based on some rule of thumb. Alternately, could use David Fuchs's approach of just using that field to link to the "Cast" section. As for YouTube, it looks like it is an official Fox Searchlight Pictures channel, which is acceptable. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Erik. I couldn't quite make out how many names are on the actual poster, from the low-res image. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I meant in the "Starring" field. For high-resolution posters to read the billing block, I go to impawards.com. For that poster, this is an extra-large image. Even if the poster says 17 names, an infobox is supposed to summarize key details. It seems best to defer to the "Cast" section in this case unless we can find a better cutoff somewhere. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Linking to film year page

I added a link in Amarcord linking 1973 to List of Italian films of 1973. The MOS guidelines state that you can link year if it provides some useful purpose which this does. I think it's an appropriate link and useful to link to that year in Italian film. I've been twice reverted by Bovine who claims I'm violating "WP:EGG", yet I don't see how it is misleading or inappropriate to link, and I think it's much more useful for navigation for the reader to link it than not. Any thoughts?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:EGG? Sounds like a Communist plot to pollute our precious bodily fluids...

Bovineboy2008 means that when you blue-link 1973, you cannot tell where it is going to go. It could be just the year article, it could be the year in film article, or the one you mention. That's what he means by citing WP:EGG. What about a "See also" section where you can place that list link, plus whatever else you can come up with? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It has to be at least seven years ago that all "Year in" links (not just film - literature, TV etc as well) were deprecated. Mostly due to WP:EGG but I think there was some other reasons given at the time - not that I would be able to find them for you. I agree with Erik that a "see also" mention is the way to go. MarnetteD | Talk 20:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Move your mouse cursor over the WP:EGG for a few seconds, and it shows you where it goes. Egg! He said egg! I hate hens! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It's tidier to simply link it though. What actual problem does it cause? I'm not a fan of see also sections. I did make an italian film nav a few years back which links all years but I'm not really a fan of them at the bottom of film pages. Per WP:BACON :-]♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I was under the impression that we weren't supposed to do this, but reading WP:YEARLINK, the example given there seems to suggest that it could be appropriate here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

All I can tell you is that they were removed with "extreme prejudice" at the time. Who knows how many editors are left from that era though and Consensus can change. One suggestion is don't pipe the link - then it wont be an EGG violation. MarnetteD | Talk 22:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I think YEARLINK would advocate a link to 1973 in film would be acceptable, not List of 1973 Italian films. BOVINEBOY2008 22:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that's true only if "germane and topical to the subject matter" were read in the broadest way possible. From what I saw at 1973 in film, I can't see any reason, if we're linking Amarcord, why we wouldn't list every single film in Wikipedia to a "19xx in film" or "20xx in film" article. That seems excessive to me. An article like "1973 in film", I believe, would be linked to if we're talking about a business or cultural topic — for example, saying (and this isn't a real example) something like, "By 1973 in film, no Old Hollywood actors starred in any of the top-10 grossing US releases." But to have "Amarcord (1973)" every time we first mention a film? I'm not sure that's helpful to a reader. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I think 1973 in film would be too broad per WP:YEARLINK. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess my main problem with this, other than the link being slightly deceptive, is that I don't understand what use this link is. Why do we need to link to a list of other films that were released that year from the same country, let alone why is it being linked in the lead sentence, usually the first link? Imo, we link too much in the lead sentence, to the point where the only things that aren't linked are the title and verbs. BOVINEBOY2008 15:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Late reply, but in my editing I never add the year in film links, I remove them from the infobox, but I leave them alone in the main article text. In my opinion, in the infobox it is usually the date or year that is linked, which most editors would assume would link them to the date or year not the year in film article and in the main article text at least there is something like "X is a 2014 American film" so there is other text around it that some readers would think they were going to the 2014 in film article. Maybe I am doing this wrong and am willing to change if a good argument could be made for the infobox links. The way I have been editing seems to be consistent with most film articles that they will have the links in the opening sentence but not in the infobox. Aspects (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Aspects. In regards to the date in the infobox we use this template {{Film date|Year|Month|Date}} and I don't think it works if you link the year with a "Year in" link - if I am wrong others will correct me. MarnetteD | Talk 19:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Bollywood?

Hi, anybody know if articles about Bollywood films are governed by MOS:FILM and are they within the scope of WikiProject Film? I perceive the answer to be yes, but I thought I'd check. I see a lot of stuff at articles on Bollywood movies that don't make a lot of sense to me, that is, they are heavy with strange attributions like "such and such achieved Blockbuster status". Anyhow, before I start rambling and posting links to other articles, I'll just leave. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they all are inscope of this project. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

No probs. A few weeks ago, I was browsing through the category Category:2014 films and noticed a high number of Indian cinema/Bollywood titles. Most I looked at seemed to be littered with fan-boy text, such as the wording you've quoted above. There are alot of good edits, but there is obvious stuff that needs to be cut. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I was reviewing articles and was contemplating whether or not to approve an edit at Bollywood films of 2014 when I noticed the "verdict" column in this revision. "Blockbuster"? "Disaster"? OMG! I removed the column and added a note to the talk page in case anybody wants to chime in. :D Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

That's terrible (the column, not your edit to remove it)! Seriously, that's one of the most WP:OR/WP:POV thing I've ever seen. Well spotted and well removed. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Ha, thanks, @Lugnuts:! Actually, I could use some input from the community since I'm engaged in a discussion at Talk:Bollywood films of 2014. A user insisted that "disaster" is a legitimate attribution because it is provided by reliable sources. While digging through the articles, I found one reference to Boxoffice India, which declared Karle Pyaar Karle a "disaster". So I guess my question is this: RottenTomatoes is a reliable source and we use their percentage rating to summarize the critical response. If we consider Boxofficeindia a reliable source (and I am assuming that we do ?), and they describe a movie's financial response as a disaster, then would it be appropriate to reinstate the column that summarizes these movies in this way? I appreciate any input from the community. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

While we reference Rotten Tomatoes, we do avoid the "Rotten" and "Fresh" labels that it uses and instead stick to the numbers. I think that it is a bit slangish to use the term "disaster" in a categorical way. We can report in prose that commentary about the film has labeled it a "disaster" in terms of box office performance, but it should be surrounded by context. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, @Erik: thanks for your input. What one user is arguing for is the inclusion of disaster in this table, and that doesn't leave much room for prose. I agree that "disaster" is slangish. Since I like to try to find fault with my own arguments, I looked up Ishtar (film), which describes the film as a "notorious failure". We also have articles like List of box office bombs, where "bomb" could be construed slangish, though it is a common word. So I guess I'm still not sure if it's appropriate to include. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Erik and Lugnuts (and yourself Cyphoidbomb). It was right for you to remove that column and info. Because we don't have context stating why it is a disaster per Erik, it does not fit in that table. Yet, if we provide a source and context that says it specifically was a disaster, then we should add it... but still not in the table. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Back around August 2013, I removed all of these columns based on what I thought was original research because I started with the older articles and worked my way towards the newer ones. I then noticed that the 2013 list at least had references, so I realized it was not original research based on the editors and they were using a source, but I did not feel it was reliable for what was being referenced, but I did not feel like getting into an edit wars with a series of IPs over the issue since no one seems to use edit summaries in these articles. As a side note, does anyone else find the tables where the month names run vertically annoying. Maybe I am just more used to concert tour articles where every date is spelled out in each cell for the performance. I also would guess that the tables are split into quarters to make it easier to edit, but overall the colors used, the months running vertically and the quarter sections make the tables harder to read then they should be. Are these similar to other year lists or more exclusive to Indian cinema? Aspects (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I appreciate your thoughts. I think the problem I have with "disaster" is that we are essentially stating as a fact the opinion of one or more cherrypicked sources without context to understand "no, it's not an indisputable fact that the movie was a flop, it is the opinion of this (or these) sources". A table doesn't provide that context, and requires the user to check sources if they want to figure out what "disaster" means. The conversation is at Talk:Bollywood films of 2014 in case anyone wants to make like Garfield and weigh in. Otherwise I'll have to do a WP:3O Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Byzantium

In regards to the lead for the film Byzantium, I added a template saying the section needed to be expanded upon as it is very short. However, it has been removed several times by a user saying it is perfect as it is. I was wondering if other users feel the same or if it is indeed too short and lacking in relevant info. I have been directed to the Manual of Style section about it's length, but it doesn't seem to meet the required criteria. Thanks for the help. - Over Hill and Under Hill (talk • contribs) 19:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I added a couple of sentences to the lead section. With the article body being very light, I think a template concerning the lead section was a bit much. The article as a whole could use an expansion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and edit. Should I add a template relating to the entire article so do you reckon? - Over Hill and Under Hill (talk • contribs) 20:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. It's obvious that the article is just a stub. Adding a template does not really heighten that awareness. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the help. - Over Hill and Under Hill (talk • contribs) 20:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Shared universe information

On the Marvel Cinematic Universe page, a recently new section (since November) was added under the critical reception regarding the impact it had on other studios with comic book character rights in also creating shared universes. However, there were two cases (Here and here (this one doesn't really count because they are both Disney properties so they can't really "copy" anything)) were editors saw this section as an opportunity to add all accounts of new shared universe talk, some which do not specifically mention Marvel's influence or does not really fit with the scope of the page (ie. non comic related). However, I don't think this info should go unused, and was wondering if there is a better central section or page where all of this info could go. Currently Shared universe#Film universes is pretty lacking of info, so maybe there? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Laundry lists of awards

As awards season continues at full speed, I believe WikiProject Film might want to have a serious discussion about the plethora of meaningless regional and even film-club "awards" showing up on some movie pages. The Phoenix Film Critics Society, for instance, includes non-professional, amateur reviewers as well non-notable WP:SPS bloggers and free weekly penny-shoppers. The Oklahoma City film critics? The Central Ohio film critics? The Indiana film critics? It's WP:INDISCRIMINATE to list 50 different critics groups, one for each state — or more, given that there's both a Houston critics group and a North Texas critics group. Giving the North Carolina critics group equal weight in an awards chart as the Academy Award or the New York Film Critics' Circle is giving it undue weight, wouldn't you say?

An encyclopedia is supposed to present things with balance and perspective, and not be a fannish catch-all for everything anybody ever calls an "award." I believe it's in the best interest of this encyclopedia that we work to come up with reasonable, responsible guidelines. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

If the organization is notable enough for its own article, it indicates that there has been significant coverage about it from reliable sources independent of the organization. The Phoenix Film Critics Society could use some scrutiny to that end, though I found this available. When we have lists of items, we do not sort them by prominence. A filmography is sorted chronologically, and a list of accolades is sorted alphabetically. The guidelines about undue weight do not apply to such lists, but we can apply the criteria that items in a list should be notable on its own. (Hence why I mentioned scrutinizing the Phoenix Film Critics Society.) Due weight applies in prose. The lead section of a film article (or the accolades list sub-article) will mention the Oscars, the BAFTAs, etc. but it is not going to mention recognition from the Phoenix Film Critics Society specifically (though perhaps it would be done collectively, such as saying regional critics liked so-and-so film). However, one approach that could be taken is to separate the list of accolades into sections, like on a national level for the United States, a regional/state level, and so forth. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with every word Erik said. But Tenebrae, you probably shouldn't just start removing awards until it's been agreed upon for what we should do. So far, you seem to have two disagreements. Corvoe (speak to me) 02:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Barely a day had gone by when the above was posted, so I think the implication was premature. In any event, just because an organization has gotten enough press that its existence is notable does not mean that every thing it says or does is notable and that we're required to include their awards. In fact, WP:INDISCRIMINATE says the opposite: that we do not throw in everything automatically.

Take the Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film. It's a movie-fan club that anyone can pay to join. It's not an organization of professional critics or (like the Oscars or the SAG Awards) of industry professionals. Its awards, which are essentially fan polls of its primarily Boston-based membership, are completely meaningless. Just because they have a Wikipedia entry doesn't mean we're required to include its hundreds of awards and nominations all over Wikipedia.

And with all due respect to Erik, with whom I've worked and who I consider a knowledge and responsible colleague (not to take anything away from User:Corvoe, with whom I'm unfamiliar), WP:UNDUE does not apply only to prose. It applies to the entire article, and says specifically, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." I think we can all agree that a film being nominated for best-such-and-such by the North Texas Film Critics does not have anywhere near the weight of being nominated for an Academy Award, or a Golden Globe, or the NY Film Critics' Circle Award, or a BAFTA. Equating the North Texas Film Critics Award with those is giving that aspect a weight completely out of proportion "to its significance to the subject." --Tenebrae (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

In regard to due weight, what I am saying is that in a filmography, we do not exclude a notable film because an actor just had a cameo in it. In a general list of actors (by nationality or whatever), we will have a barely-notable actor listed, an extremely notable actor listed, and all the actors in between. That is a common criteria for list inclusion, though sometimes red links are included if backed by citations. Due weight applies when recapping filmographies or lists of actors. We're not going to write about the actor's cameos but their most prominent roles. We're not going to write about the barely-notable actors but the extremely notable ones. In the same vein, in a list of accolades, the recap is going to talk about the most prominent awards. Regional critics are quite numerous. You can see a list of them mentioned here. I can see how navigation is a concern, but are there not ways to do that without removing content? We could create a stand-alone section for regional critics. We could create anchor links so readers can jump to the Academy Awards row from the lead section. We could figure out a column to sort alphabetically, category (national vs. regional), etc. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we sometimes do list cameos in prose sections if they're significant for some reason, such as (and there are many examples; this is jut the first to come to mind) Suzanne Pleshette's in the final episode of Newhart. So we do exercise reasonable judgment in terms of weight and perspective.

I guess my big question outside of our interpretations of WIkipedia guidelines is: Of what encyclopedic importance is it that "American Hustle" won the North Texas or North Carolina Film Critics Award? If a movie's got Golden Globes, Oscars and BAFTAs, what does winning the Indiana Film Critics award add to that, or even mean? These places are just award mills. Do you really believe we should include the mountain of Chlotrudis awards at every movie? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Would it not depend on what kind of coverage it got? I mean I assume the North Carolina Film Critics award is not going to be getting much coverage outside of its own site, if it has its own site. So that would by definition be pretty unnotable. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Regional awards could be of interest to readers from these regions. The North Carolina Film Critics' Association's awards are independently mentioned here. While we could say that such readers should go to these organizations' articles directly to look up the awards, they may not even be aware that this organization exists. Someone with a connection to a given region could browse a film's awards and see their region jump out in the list. They could go to the article to learn more about the organization and what they have recognized in the past. If we are looking for stricter criteria for whether or not to list a certain organization in a film's accolades table, my concern is that coverage will be sporadic. Indiewire reports on the NC Film Critics' awards this year, but maybe for some years, there is no coverage that can be found. Does that mean we should copy that spottiness even though we've established the organization as notable? I don't think it should, especially when full lists exist on the official sites, and I doubt we could control that either. That's why I'm suggesting other ways to sort through these organizations on a given page. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

And Pennsylvania diary minutiae might be of interest to Pennsylvania diary farmers. That doesn't mean it's of interest to general Wikipedia readers.

I ask again: Of what encyclopedic importance to anyone outside each limited, specific regions is it that a film won the North Texas Film Critics Award? If a movie's got Golden Globes, Oscars and BAFTAs, what does winning the Indiana Film Critics award add to that, or even mean? Do you really believe we should include the mountain of Chlotrudis awards at every movie, when there's no criteria for membership? Or from the Phoenix Film Critics, which includes amateurs and non-notable bloggers? What is the encyclopedic value of that? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any criteria in mind on what organizations to include and exclude? What are your thoughts about separating content or making it more sortable? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I thank you, Erik. Moving the conversation forward with reasonable give-and-take is how Wikipedia progresses. Thank you.

I agree that some objective standard would help provide clarity and make this particular content more encyclopedic.

Perhaps something as simple as the film-critics groups of, say, the five most populous English-speaking cities in North America? (If there are similar film-critics groups in other English-speaking countries such as the UK and Australia, for English-language Wikipedia, we can address them as well.) This would cull the smaller, less consequential cities and towns and rural regions (Central Ohio, North Carolina). The top five are NYC, LA, Toronto, Chicago, and Houston. The one glaring omission I see here is Boston, which has a cultural and intellectual footprint larger than its size — I don't think any of would disagree that Boston is more culturally and intellectually significant than some of the larger cities on this list, such as Phoenix (and we've already seen their penny-shopper and amateur-blogger roster of "critics"), San Antonio and Dallas.

What are your thoughts on separating content or making it sortable? The top five regional critics are still not of equal weight to the Academy Awards, so why could one not say these should not be included? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The Miami Marlins and the New York Yankees aren't of equal weight either, in a literal sense, but they're both Major League Baseball teams, so they're of equal weight by being in the same ballpark (so to speak). The New York Film Critics' Circle Award is a widely cited bellwether (among others including the Golden Globes) of the Oscars, and is widely considered one of the major film awards. Except for Chicago, largely because of Roger Ebert's legacy, I'd say you're right — none of the other regional awards are of relative equal significance. But I'm trying to seek middle ground and offer an objective criterion, as you asked.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

That's why I am asking about separating or sorting content, which you have not said anything about. For separating the content, we could have a "Regional critics" section below whatever we call the organizations that are in the big leagues. That way, readers can navigate such a list of accolades better without cutting out any content that some of them may be interested in seeing. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Before we can get to sorting, we need to figure out, as you say, criteria for inclusion. Saying we must include everything because it's interesting isn't a Wikipedia best-practice. I can't say I even believe the North Texas or Central Ohio Film Critics are so much "interesting" as "trivia," in any case. I'm surprised because it seems you're saying you believe we have to include everyone everywhere who ever gives any movie any award? (As for the issue of "Well, if they have a Wiki article," that's dissected below: WP:NOTABILITY is only about whether to create an article or not.) --Tenebrae (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I never use any form of the word "notability" when it comes to article content. It just confuses the matter with determining whether or not a topic deserves a stand-alone article. In regard to avoiding indiscriminately listing organizations, the principle that I mentioned earlier is reflected at WP:CSC #1. An organization being notable means that reliable sources have covered it significantly, and its activity is going to be film recognition. We do not include everything on this encyclopedia, but if an organization is considered notable, then I do not see why its primary activity—for which it is known in independent sources—should be barred mention where it is relevant. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

So you think awards by amateur bloggers and unpaid critics writing for penny-shoppers are notable. OK. And if the primary activity of such a group is simply to give awards — as opposed to organizations where awards are just part of their educational / cultural / professional-guild functions — then, as I said earlier, these are just award-mills whose awards are meaningless.

Do you really believe that just because the Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film — a movie-fan club that anyone can pay to join and isn't an organization of professional critics or industry professionals but just a fan poll, essentially — has a Wikipedia article that we should include its plethora of meaningless awards in hundreds of movie articles? I honestly don't believe you believe that.

How about a criterion of just film-critics groups comprised only of professional film critics? Is that basic standard unreasonable? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:CSC #1 states the common selection criterion to be that each entry meets the notability criteria (e.g., has a blue link). Furthermore, WP:LISTPURP says that lists are for informational purposes and can be "grouped by theme". This is why I advocate sorting. We can group the most prominent organizations in the first section and the others in succeeding sections (regional, etc.) so the organizations are all identified per WP:CSC but appropriately grouped for clearer navigation. I don't have any personal opinions on the organizations' structures other than that they're notable. Not to mention that organizations vary in type -- MTV Movie Awards, Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards, and People's Choice Awards certainly do not consist of professional critics but are prominent nonetheless. It would be worthwhile to sort so no content is lost but instead is easily navigable. We should ping editors who have Featured Lists of awards because this particular exchange is getting long in the tooth with no additional opinions. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, an RfC would be good for that. You seem to have left out the contradictory point from [{WP:CSC]] #3 that refers to "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short...." (emphasis added). Having every item in the case of the multitude of trivial awards gives us an extremely long and cluttered list. Even CSC #1 says we should not have "an indiscriminate list ... too large to be useful to readers." --Tenebrae (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

No, #3 does not apply like that. It is supposed to be applied to predetermined lists where it is okay to include an entry regardless of whether or not the entry is notable enough for its own article. That's why #3 ends with, "However, if a complete list would include hundreds of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list." This is referring to #1, so #3 is actually a broader criterion for inclusion. Going back to #1, it clearly states that the criterion is to ensure that every entry is notable to prevent "Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list". For example, I researched the North Carolina Film Critics Association to see if an article could be created, and I could not find enough sources for one. That means no notability for its own article, and per #1, no entry, which keeps the list discriminate. It is just that we deal with especially long lists for award-winning films, hence the case for sortability. Go ahead and set up an RfC. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I will, when I have little more time maybe later today or tomorrow. In any event that CSC section refers only to list articles, not to awards lists within articles themselves.

So you're OK even with a trivial awards-mill like the Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks like it skirts notability. It could be nominated for deletion, and we can have a discussion there. It seems local to the Boston area, and I am seeing a few results with the domains boston.com, bostonglobe.com, and bostonherald.com. It might fall short of meeting the notability guidelines, and if that's the case, it shouldn't be a routine entry per WP:CSC #1. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

If it's notable enough to have an article here, then there's no valid reason not to include it in these lists. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

That's based on a false premise. It's well-established on Wikipedia that just because something's existence is notable, not everything it does is notable. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

If it's notable to be on here, it's notable. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

No. Show me where it says that everything that anybody with an article says or does is notable. Show me, please. That's simply false. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Read WP:N. If it's notable to be on here, it's notable. If it's not notable, then we have a little thing called WP:AFD. Maybe you've heard of it? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. What you're referring to is only about whether an entity should have an article or not. It does not say that everything anybody with an article does or says has to be included. C'mon, you know this. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

A couple of questions. If an award is listed on imdb, then why shouldn't it be included on wiki? And what's the reason for the difference in treatment of List of accolades received by Blue Is the Warmest Colour when other films' accolades pages such as 12 Years a Slave, Dallas Buyers Club, Gravity and Life of Pi can have a comprehensive list? Gomuse17 (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The case for adding non-notable (by WP standards) film awards/festivals to a film article's page is even weaker than adding ALL the notable ones. Suppose I founded the Lugnuts International Film Festival and awarded Blue is the Warmest Colour the Palme d'Lug, and this somehow got into the IMDB page, or was reported somewhere in the press. Is this worthy of inclusion here? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Other stuff exists. Just because something may or may not be done in one article in a way that contradicts guidelines or policies doesn't meant it's OK to do it elsewhere. The goal is to being everything up to the highest standard, not bring something down because some other article does it that way. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

There is some misuse of the notability standard. Notability is the standard for deciding if a subject should have its own article. It is definitely not the standard for determining if something belongs in an article. Most of the facts in an article are not by themselves notable but they are necessary to cover the subject at hand. This misunderstanding is chronic so I think those of us who supposedly know what we're doing should not misuse it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

On the subject under discussion, I think that outside a list of awards -- which might as well be comprehensive -- it is best to mention the top two or three awards a film receives. So if you win the Oscar, leave out the minor stuff, but if minor stuff is all you got, that speaks for itself. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I concur with your note about the chronic misuse of of the notability standard; it's simply about whether something should have its own article. I'd have to disagree on "comprehensive," since then we'd include things like the Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film, a movie-fan club that anyone can pay to join and isn't an organization of professional critics or industry professionals but just a fan poll, essentially. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear. I was trying to say that if we make list of awards then we should make it comprehensive. But if we're just doing a section on a film's accolades, mention of the top tier seems to be adequate. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree. This isn't paper. If we are creating articles of list of awards for X film, every (notable) award should be included. What rationale is there not to include certain awards? What is deemed more notable and what isn't? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

That's precisely the question I'm asking. Since [{csc]] specifically applies only to list articles and not to sections within film/actor/director articles, that deliberately allows for WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:UNDUE discretion. WikiProject film can reach consensus on whether to include such objectively minor awards as those of the Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film, or the Golden Collar, for instance. It's not subjective or opinion to call these minor awards: These are, factually, minor awards. (I would note that WP:NOTPAPER doesn't mean we can be completely WP:INDISCRIMINATE.) --Tenebrae (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to get away from the notable/not notable scale and use the major/minor scale (insert pentatonic joke here). I am a little uncomfortable with anyone declaring by fiat that one award is major and another is minor. Instead, we should focus on how we know the difference. Oscars are different from other awards how? They are apparently sought because they are bestowed by the organization whose membership is most knowledgeable about what is good or bad in film due to their experience in the field and their unimpeachable interest in what is best for the film industry. That is different from saying they are always right. The awards I personally give (to borrow Lugnuts thinking) do not deserve the same respect because I can easily be seen as ignorant or biased or lacking expertise. Isn't this more or less what we are trying to get at here? --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you're onto something. Erik was approaching this idea earlier as well, when he mentioned having a "Regional awards' subsection. I think that's more appropriate and less indiscriminate/undue for standalone-list articles than for movie/filmmaker/actor articles, but it's a starting point.

Off the top of my head, I can think of • Academies (i.,e Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, The British Academy of Film and Television Arts, etc.) • Professional Guilds (i.e. Screen Actors Guild, Writers Guild, American Society of Cinematographers, etc.) • Nationally Televised Awards not already in the above (i.e., MTV Awards, People's Choice Awards, etc. — this gives us an objective, bright-line criterion for such miscellanea); • Professional Critics Groups (i.e., New York Film Critics Circle, which does not include non-notable amateur bloggers or non-professional movie fans, like the Phoenix Film Critics does); • Regional Critics Groups (the ones that include unpaid amateur, hobbyist critics).

This could be a start. Other editors might have ideas on where something like the venerable, quasi-academic National Board of Review or miscellanea like the Alliance of Women Film Journalists or the Online Film Critics Society would go. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Some similar thoughts about groupings have appeared at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Request for comment, and I've left a note there suggesting editors bring their groupings suggestion here for a centralized discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It's been a while and I can see that with all the new topics on this page since we began this that attention has waned. I'll put a full-blown proposal here in a few days, incorporating categories other editors have suggested, and I think working together we can clear up these issues once and for all. Giving the North Texas Film Critics the same weight and significance as the Oscars is just wrong. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion to split Batman in film to separate articles

Discussion here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Fuck (film)

This is a note to let the main editors of Fuck (film) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 1, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 1, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Fuck is a 2005 American documentary film by director Steve Anderson, which argues that the word is key to discussions about freedom of speech and censorship. The film provides perspectives from art, linguistics, society and comedy. Linguist Reinhold Albert Aman, journalism analyst David Shaw, language professor Geoffrey Nunberg and Oxford English Dictionary editor Jesse Sheidlower explain the term's history and evolution. The film features the last interview of author Hunter S. Thompson before his suicide. It was first shown at the AFI Film Festival at ArcLight Hollywood; it has subsequently been released on DVD in America and in the UK and used as a resource on several university courses. The New York Times critic A. O. Scott called the film a battle between advocates of morality and supporters of freedom of expression, while other reviews criticized its length and repetitiveness. Law professor Christopher M. Fairman commented on the film's importance in his 2009 book on the same subject. The American Film Institute said, "Ultimately, [it] is a movie about free speech ... Freedom of expression must extend to words that offend." (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Above was posted to my user talk page, posting here as well. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Fuck yes. Nice one. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

List of books about individual films

Started List of books on films. Any help adding books would be appreciated from guys like Erik, Lugnuts and anybody else!! Simply paste google book urls into here! or paste the urls into the talk page and I'll draw them up.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

A couple of worthwhile links from WP:FILMRES#Books: 1 and 2. Might need to figure out a different sorting system so we don't have a ton of section headings. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Replaced with ; .♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

If they are being arranged by country and film, it might be convenient to have links to the articles on the films. Michitaro (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason for a comprehensive list. Why not add those entries to Further reading sections in their appropriate articles? -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

List of film accents considered the worst

Anyone willing to take a look at this article: List of film accents considered the worst. My finger is hovering over the AFD button and I'm just about to pull the trigger, but I wanted to see if I could get some opinions from the community, especially opinions that disagree with mine. This article contains patent synthesis in that in many instances it takes cherrypicked reviews and draws a conclusion of "considered the worst". Many of the entries are unsourced, and many, like the Nicolas Cage entry, only have one source. In the case with Cage, Gene Siskel said "Nicolas Cage is not convincing, with his too-thick Southern accent". Does this translate to "worst"? What should an article like this look like? Here's another article: List of films considered the worst. That one's been up for 11 years. I understand that if something has historically been in multiple top 50 lists for "worst" this or that, that maybe it means something academically. But it feels that we are acting as critical response aggregators, which I know we try to avoid. (ex: "Critical response was generally mixed"). I don't mind being wrong, and I feel like I'm probably wrong here, so if I am, please give me a different perspective. My "interest" in this article is related to a discussion I've been having at Talk:Bollywood films of 2014 regarding a data table that summarizes cherrypicked opinions about the financial success of various movies. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I nominate it for deletion. Clearly its just WP:SYNTH. The writer just picked a bunch of film reviews that say "oh, heres an accent that wasnt great" and tries to string a list out of it. Beerest 2 talk 21:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not synthesis if there are existing lists by independent sources listing the worst accents. What would be synthesis is to include an individual review disparaging an accent. This list could work if it only referred to these existing lists. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Erik, as you know, the article does list accents that are only cited by a single reviewer. But I don't understand yet how an accent that makes a newspaper's "Worst Accent" list is any different. It's still only one review. And even if you have three or five reliable magazines that consider Cage's accent the worst, what is the encyclopedic merit? It seems that by compiling these lists we're effectively endorsing a conclusion that the accents are horrible. The article title isn't "List of accents that have made the 'worst' list of major media outlets", I'll respectfully point out. And I couldn't find articles on "List of men considered sexiest" or "List of women considered poor dressers" Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: I just noticed that my last sentence "I couldn't find articles on..." is an "other stuff exists/doesn't exist" argument and can be disregarded. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Alicia Silverstone in Batman & Robin anyone? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggest it be deleted. If it were a category, it would fail WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Not every article would have a category named after it, and vice-versa. The two lists List of films considered the best and List of films considered the worst are well referenced articles that have survived multiple AfD nominations in the past, due to the wide amount of coverage of the films on the list. This list is less than clear though. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I should clarify my comment was for the worst film accents which doesn't have an article, as opposed to the worst films article which could discuss all the different awards articles and publications like Golden Raspberry Awards. -AngusWOOF (talk)

Tarzan (2016 film) at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Film award categories

Having a look through Category:Film awards by year there seems to be some confusion on what year any given article should be placed. Even though the category text states "List of film awards to honor films released in xxxx", I think this could be clearer from the category title. How do people feel about them being renamed from say Category:2013 film awards to Category:2013 film award ceremonies, for example? Or should the category names be left as they are and the articles moved into the year the ceremony took place, eg, the 86th Academy Awards moved from the 2013 category to the 2014? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I suppose the ceremonies should technically be placed in the year they were held, but if the awards honor films from the previous year it would be more intuitive to place them in categories for the year the films were released in. If we had a two category structure (one for ceremonies and one for awards) we could structure them as [Category:2014 film award ceremonies] and [Category:Awards for 2013 films] for this year's oscars for example. This approach would be more flexible if you had awards that bridged years too. That would add the necessary clarity but would it make things too convoluted? Betty Logan (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I would strongly support categorizing them by year of the ceremony, and possibly renaming the Categories. Award ceremonies may not follow our standard for determining the year of a film, e.g. Crash (2004 film) winning at the 2005 Academy Awards. BOVINEBOY2008 13:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Film trailers

I'm pretty new to film stories, but I hope to do more film and theatrical articles, so I had a question that has come up. It's long been my understanding (even before I started editing here), that vintage film trailers are in the public domain because they invariably did not carry a copyright notice for the trailer. Yes, they might show the title of the film, with a copyright notice, but the trailer would still be in the public domain. For instance, in this video[1] the copyright notice for the film is at 0:21. I had thought this was in the public domain, but am I mistaken? Coretheapple (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It could be in the PD if the copyright wasn't renewed after the 28 year term, but it's best to play it safe and stick to trailers (prior to 1978) without a copyright notice. You can get a good overview at [2]. Betty Logan (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow! More complicated than I thought. Thanks. This is a well-known MGM movie so I'm quite certain the copyright was renewed. I might want to go with a "fair use" image instead, but that's an area I don't know much about. Coretheapple (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, for fair use images, we have guidelines at WP:FILMNFI (NFI meaning non-free images). There has to be a pretty compelling use of the screenshot, though. A couple of examples of good use are at American Beauty (film) and Changeling (film), both Featured Articles. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Well let me ask your opinion on something. Do you think something similar to this image[3] could be used as fair use to illustrate Joan McCracken? She is deceased, and I see that illustrating articles on deceased persons is supposed to be an acceptable fair use (if I understand it correctly). That particular image is under discussion in Commons, but a similar screenshot is obtainable. Coretheapple (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Visual identification of a subject is a legitimate application of fair use, but it mainly depends on two other criteria: i) no other image is being used for the same purpose (so you are limited to one fair use image per subject); and ii) a free image is not freely available. The full policy can be read at WP:NFCCP. In the case of Joan McCracken, there is currently a PD image of her posted on Commons (see File:Joan McCracken 1950.jpg) which can be used for visual identification of her, so I very much doubt fair use is applicable in this particular case. Betty Logan (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Great picture! Thanks. Too bad I didn't have it before it was on the main page as a DYK. Coretheapple (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Based on this and other discussions I regretfully tagged for deletion two photos taken from the movie trailer of The Band Wagon. See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 February 17. The two photos had a "non-renewed" notice, but I figured that the same argument applied. But notice the objection that another editor posted. Is this a valid point? Because if so, it would seem to be a safe harbor for trailers generally. Coretheapple (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change to film naming conventions

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Black Coal, Thin Ice

Any help on editing the article to bring it up to standards for an In the News mention would be grateful. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Comic-Con Panel ideas discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 45#Comic-Con Panel. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Unspecified roles in films still in development

Hi folks, there is an open Request for Comment at Talk:Ranveer Singh#RFC: Unspecified roles in films still in development. The discussion is about whether or not as-yet unspecified roles in films still in development should be added to an actor's Filmography table. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This was already covered by an RfC at WP:ACTOR, requested by the very same person (which he does not even mention in the new RfC). I guess he was not happy with the outcome. Nymf (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I didn't know it had been run through RfC before. I was the one who set up the most recent RfC, my primary objections being that Wikipedia is not IMDb and cameo roles and unspecified roles may not be notable. If the actor had a LEAD or a significant role in a film that was still in production, that would be notable. Anyhow, I should clarify my involvement over there. Thanks, Nymf Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Aha, my bad. I thought TheRedPenOfDoom was the one who requested the new RfC as well (in my opinion, he should just WP:DROPTHESTICK). I'll just stay out of it, though. Thanks for clarifying, too. Nymf (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Now I feel weird about the RfC. Each asks a different question. Is it worth keeping open? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)<

I've dropped the RfC. The main thing RedPen was arguing was not the same thing I was arguing. And I don't even think I was really in much of a debate with the other participants about whether or not a cameo role should be included that it warranted a RfC. For the record, I still think it's lame to include a cameo in a filmography. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Fantasic Four page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Stanley Kubrick bibliography

@Lugnuts: and @Erik:, thought this might interest you both. I was considering starting a series of bibliographies for each major director.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

This article can serve no purpose... ;-) Thanks Dr B! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm planning on getting a grant for books from WMUK so I was just opening up my options. I think I'll create lists for the other major film directors too gradually. It's good as a film scholar resource and aid for finding further material, perfectly encyclopedia. Somebody already created one for Welles.♦ Dr. Blofeld

Dr. Blofeld, do you know about this? It's pretty comprehensive. Looking at Kubrick, the bibliography page lists most of them, but an item like this could be added. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Audience ratings?

This seems like a no-brainer to me, but: How does the community feel about including audience ratings in articles? I reverted an edit at Clearnskin, (on the basis that any idiot can click a button) but it was reverted here. I assume that audience ratings are not relevant to our interest because they can be easily manipulated and inherently unreliable. Amirite? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

User ratings on Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB are user edited and are therefore prohibited. Some viewer ratings by professional pollsters such as Cinemascore are generally acceptable though. Relevant guideline at MOS:FILM#Audience response. Betty Logan (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, lovely! Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Accolades or Awards and nominations received by ???

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#Accolades_or_Awards_and_nominations_received_by_.3F.3F.3F. — Cirt (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

3D film titling

I've opened a discussion at this link in regards to the titling of 3D films. Please click the link and contribute your opinion. Thank you! Corvoe (speak to me) 15:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move at Silent Hill: Revelation 3D

I have requested to drop the "3D" from this article's title. See this discussion and share your opinion. Thank you! Corvoe (speak to me) 13:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

List of fictional films at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll watch the discussion and chime in if I feel I have anything to contribute. DonIago (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Shakespeare's "As You Like It" Rosalind/Ganymede/Orlando storyline

There have not been many notable adaptations of As You Like It. However, I think there are probably several notable rehashings of the Rosalind/Ganymede/Orlando storyline (Rosalind disguised as Ganymede convinces Orlando to marry Rosalind). However, the most notable one that I can find is so obscure it does not have a WP page. From what I can tell, A Perfect Man starring Liev Schreiber and Jeanne Tripplehorn, which came out on DVD 4 weeks ago seems close to this story line. I imagine that there are films about masquerades, costumes, disguises or other forms of anonymity that have been used to deliver this theme. Can anyone point me in the right direction to find examples?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The best printed source I know of regarding the more obscure Shakespearian adaptations is definitely Shakespeares After Shakespeare: An Encyclopedia of the Bard in Mass Media and Popular Culture. Unfortunately, it's a two-volume behemoth (each volume runs over 700 pages) which will set you back a good $200 if you're lucky (and it's not on Google books). I tried to get the library in my university to buy a copy a few years back and they, quite literally, laughed at me. Can't say I blame them. But if you're lucky enough to have access to a library that has a copy, that'd be where to go. The other drawback is that it was published in 2006, so it's getting a tad out of date now. As regards online sources, there's the British Universities Film & Video Council, which tend to have reasonably good lists of adaptations. Here's a search for As You Like It which includes 239 adaptations, although not A Perfect Man. One thing I would say about the BUFVC though, if you find something of interest, try to verify it somewhere else if you can. From experience, they make a lot of factual errors in their listings, especially regarding release dates and the like (they often use IMDb as a source). That's pretty much all I can think of off hand. Bertaut (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

If I understand the sources that you present those are sources that adapt the whole play. I am just talking about films that adapt one storyline of the play. Is it possible to get help with that?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Is the disguised-manipulation scene not older than As You Like It? It seems like we'd need to figure out what keywords we'd need to look for, and it may not necessarily be tied to Shakespeare. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

No, both the sources I mention above include adaptations which adapt minor aspects. For example, you'll find listings like Prince of Players in both sources in their Richard III sections. Prince of Players includes a brief excerpt from the play. Neither source confines itself to 'full' adaptations. And in any case, as far as I know, Erik is correct, the idea comes from an archetype older than Shakespeare, similarly to how The Taming of the Shrew is based on a kind of folkloric tradition of a shrewish wife. Bertaut (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity Tony, where or how did you find A Perfect Man? Bertaut (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I monitor this website every week to populate my Netflix queue. A Perfect Man was listed on January 27. It stood out because, coincidentally on the 27th, I opened a copyright application at Copyright.gov for a similarly themed screenplay.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The Ape

Are we happy that The Ape is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over The Ape (2009 film), or should both be disambiguated? --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd say neither is the primary topic, and both should be disambiguated, with The Ape then redirected to Ape (disambiguation). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That's about where I was with it. Thanks. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

DVD Covers in articles

Hello, I was editing the recent Good Article for Toy Story 3 where I removed the home video cover feeling that it didn't provide any critical commentary to justify it. The user who helped write most of the article has stated that the image was "inserted to illustrate a section in the article entirely dedicated to the DVD. The cover art is there to illustrate the DVD, as the topic of discussion in the section. It is used just as the movie poster or the cover of the soundtrack album for the film. They too do not help the audience understand more about there object, they are just to serve as a visual identification of the object discussed. The same is the case here. If you think the image here should be removed , then remove the other two too. But that will not be appropriate. You might say that the poster serves as visual identifier of the main article subject so it justifies. But what about the soundtrack album cover? The DVD is discussed on at least as much as that if not more. Still there is a place in the soundtrack album infobox used there for the pic. As such it is allowed. The same way this image is also allowed. Anyways it does not really matter to me whether the image is present in the article or not. It will just be better if it is there."

He brings up some good points but I'm not really sure if this violates wiki's copyright laws at all. I normally would leave this on the Toy Story 3 talk page, but I feel as if this relates more to the whole WP:FILM group instead. Any suggestions? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Any image must be the subject of sourced commentary and illustration isn't a sufficient reason. We are permitted one image to visually identify the topic covered by the article since a film will often be known by many different native language titles, but obviously a sub-section about the home video release isn't going to be about the home video release of another film so we don't need an image. Betty Logan (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The guidelines at MOS:FILM discourage both home media covers and soundtrack covers if they are used for just identification: MOS:FILM#Home media and MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

RFC: List of former child actors

Hi WikiProject, there is an open request for comment at Talk:List of former child actors from the United States. Short story: Article lists child actors, but examples of some actors' works may be getting a little bloated. The question asks if we should limit the list to a select few examples, somewhere between 3-5. Your thoughts are appreciated, and it'll only take a minute. :) Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

1st Grande Prêmio Cinema Brasil peer review

I've just created and put the 1st Grande Prêmio Cinema Brasil article up for Peer Review with the intention of nominating it as a Featured List Candidate. I'd appreciate any and all feedback. The review is at Wikipedia:Peer review/1st Grande Prêmio Cinema Brasil/archive1‎. Thanks, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Rotten tomato lists at AfD

Both List of films with a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes are currently at AfD. Zero here and 100 here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Four-paragraph leads -- a WP:RfC on the matter

Hello, everyone. There is a WP:RfC on whether or not the leads of articles should generally be no longer than four paragraphs (refer to WP:Manual of Style/Lead section for the current guideline). As this will affect Wikipedia on a wide scale, including WikiProjects that often deal with article formatting, if the proposed change is implemented, I invite you to the discussion; see here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RFC on four paragraph lead. Flyer22 (talk) 13:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Verification for genre categories

This is a neutral request for comments regarding suitable verification for genre categories at Talk:Ant-Man (film)#Genres. All are welcome to comment. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Table headings

This is a neutral request for comments regarding the naming of mid-table headings at Talk:List of films based on Marvel Comics#In table headings. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Naming of ID:A

Due to technical restrictions, how do you think we should name the film ID:A? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Simply IDA with the note on why we can't have the colon. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

We have a dab issue then, as IDA is a redirect to dab page Ida. IDA (film) may also cause dab issues with Ida (film). --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

How about ID A, with a space instead of a colon, and a note in the lede about it being "stylised as ID:A"? Fortdj33 (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

ID A seems more intuitive to me. If the colon is problematic and you want something visual, could it be substituted for a hyphen as in ID-A? How about this: IDA? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks - I've created a stub at ID A. Looks ugly, but what can you do? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Would you consider 'ID[colon]A' an improvement? --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

What if we simply put it in quotes i.e. "ID:A"? Betty Logan (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anything looks right really! Whatever happens we have to compromise the title. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Whispers of Dead Zone images

Hello all. Could someone look at Whispers of Dead Zone? I've never seen film articles contain a gallery of images like this and I'm not sure whether this complies with MOS. BOVINEBOY2008 18:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing WP:GALLERY, it seems like the gallery overwhelms the article body. I think it could be replaced by a link to Wikimedia Commons, and we could keep just a couple of images from the whole gallery to use in the article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

See also this part of the picture taker's userpage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

We might need to nominate the photos for deletion if they were irresponsibly obtained. Also, don't we also typically eschew galleries when there is no critical commentary to make the photos relevant? I've not seen many articles with galleries that have survived. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

My imagination, but do the photos look like they were taken with a camera off of someone's display? There's a weird distorted, gray look to them all. Example Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

How should we deal with the box office gross of re-released films?

An issue has come up at Talk:Gone with the Wind (film)#Recent infobox edits, but since this relates to pretty much any film that has been re-released I think we need to consider the issue in a general sense. At the moment, our infobox parameter for the box-office gross simply says "Box-office" and in accordance with the infobox guidelines we stick in the total worldwide figure, if known. However, an editor wants to add a note to the GWTW figure to explcitly state the gross comes from multiple releases. User:Erik supports this notion on the grounds that the "default assumption is not that a film has been released several times". I am against it on the grounds that I disagree with this assumption (think of pretty much any big film released prior to 1980 and its gross—and our infobox figure—comes from multiple releases), but mainly because I don't think it's a practical solution to go through a ton of articles adding notes to the infobox. These are the three basic options as I see them:

1. Leave it as it is. We don't add notes saying the figure is for worldwide takings, we basically leave it to box office sections to contextualise the figure.
2. Work through the pre-1980 film articles adding notes stating whether the figure comes from reissues or the original release.
3. Maybe change the infobox field name, to something like "Box-office total", "Total box-office", "Lifetime box-office" etc. You get the idea.

I'm interested in seeing which option editors prefer, and if anyone has any other ideas feel free to throw out. Betty Logan (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Erik about the assumption but I also agree with you Betty that we should not be adding notes to these infoboxes. I would support option 3, and leave the breakdown to monies earned after each rereleae to the section in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings on what to do here. I think that the full note in Gone with the Wind was a bit much, and what I was suggesting was one of these [nb] footnotes where a reader could jump to the "Notes" section to understand quickly that it was due to the re-releases. I don't work with older films that much, so I'm not familiar with the prevalence of re-releases among non-classic films. I was also fine with just a "(lifetime)" note since that does to me imply that it didn't just have one theatrical run. Open to others' comments, though. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I too agree with using [nb] notes to mention that the gross is the total of original releases and all re-releases. This will prevent any clutter and will improve the overall quality of the article. I really think adding notes to gross of films with re-releases is important that is if the gross. Those who will only take a short look or glance at an article will mistake the gross as original gross. If we used the [nb] system then they will notice that note icon [a] and we all know that if you keep your mouse pointer on that icon a pop-up box is displayed which provides the information given in the note. This will help them know that is the total gross of original release and re-releases and will thus help avoid any confusion regarding the gross. KahnJohn27 (talk) 09:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Page move fix

Today Sharklover5555 (talk · contribs) moved the article Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. They also created this for some reason. They didn't look at this previous discussion Talk:Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb#Requested move. I haven't worked with a page move in a long time and I am not sure how tricky this one will be so I am posting this here in hopes that one of you can fix things. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 23:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action @Darkwarriorblake: MarnetteD | Talk 23:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I concur with my two colleagues above per the consensus discussion MarnetteD noted. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we should blame the newbie for a single slip-up... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Managing awards lists in movie/actor/filmmaker articles

Due to lack of time to follow through and I think some exhaustion that necessitated a break, I'd like to continue a discussion [4] that was progressing toward what seemed like a solution to address WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:UNDUE concerns about awards lists in movie, actor and filmmaker articles (as opposed to standalone list articles). User:Erik, User:Lugnuts, User:Ring Cinema and myself were the most recent editors over the course of a couple of weeks in January.

Now, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists, a guideline that says to include every member of a group that has a Wikipedia article, only applies to standalone-list articles. Each movie / actor / filmmaker article is not required to include every minor award. And I would suggest that — and I get the impression most editors discussing this agree — that the North Texas Film Critics Awards do not carry the same weight as the Academy Awards, the BAFTAs, the SAG Awards, etc.

Erik had suggested having a "Regional awards" subsection. I agree with him, and I'm in favor of that for standalone film articles. Do we need to include every tiny regional award in movie / actor / filmmaker articles, though? And could we all agree that in movie / actor / filmmaker articles we at least not include the Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film, a Boston fan group anyone can join and whose award is named after the founder's two cats? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

What are the criteria? I'm sure you have nothing against cats, per se. --Ring Cinema (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

LOL! Naw, nothing against cats — just pointing out the silly nature of this "award." I can't believe some minor film club whose own official page seems to consider its awards something of a joke even has a Wikipedia page.

The all-inclusiveness of WP:CSC only applies to standalone-list articles. In terms of Chlotrudis, we only need Project consensus to exclude them from awards lists on movie / actor / filmmaker pages — exactly the same as WikiProject Film reached consensus on citing Box Office Mojo rather than By the Numbers for box office figures unless Box Office Mojo didn't have figures for a particular film. But speaking more generally, we could overall exclude "Local fan awards" or "Fan awards with no national telecast." We need to draw a line somewhere when the Chlotrudis Society and the Oscars have equal weight. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the Box Office Mojo vs. By the Numbers is a fair comparison of this situation. That was looking at which is the more reliable source, whereas this is looking at including all (notable) awards. Unless Chlotrudis, or any other award/festival, is not notable (IE not having its own Wiki article), then they should be included. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair point to bring up, and I see where you're coming from. Yet WP:CSC specifically is only about standalone-list articles, which means we aren't required to include every single award with a Wikipedia page in non-standalone-list articles. Given the triviality of the Chlotrudis Awards, I'm wondering what reason we might have to include them when we're not required to. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The Grand Budapest Hotel

We have an official statement of the Studio that did co-produce The Grand Budapest Hotel telling us that the film is a UK-German co-production - yet, some editor/s, although aware of that statement - continue their edit warring. Please see → Talk:The Grand Budapest Hotel/Archive 1#This is also an American movie.

• Studio Babelsberg press release: "The Grand Budapest Hotel (UK/Germany)" & "The Grand Budapest Hotel is a UK-German co-production, produced by Grand Budapest Limited (UK) and Studio Babelsberg (Germany)." [5]

Help is greatly appreciated. --IIIraute (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder

Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC).

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Highest grossing malayalam films by year

Hello film experts! Here's an old draft that will soon be deleted as stale. It was never submitted for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Is there any reason to keep it? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Jurassic World vs WP:NFF

There's an article at Jurassic World despite the film being in development hell for over a decade. Full of "confirmed" dates, directors, actors, etc. These change several times a year, but they're all "confirmed". The editors who control it insist that it's going to start filming "real soon". They just say WP:IAR to any attempt to raise WP:NFF. There's a section of Jurassic Park article that keeps track of the latest rumours, there is no justification to "ignore all rules" to have a whole article on these desperately important press releases and blog accounts until it actually does start filming. If it ever does. 202.81.243.53 (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

What happened to Development of Jurassic World? That was supposed to be a historical article that just collected all the information without trying to be a film article. Who made the change? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like they were two articles and one is now redirecting to the other. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Rusted AutoParts made a bold redirect.[6]. I think it can be reversed with no harm done. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Response: No matter the eventual article title, IMHO the sheer amount of reliable source coverage of the production plans make it pass the basic test of notability. Under the applicable policy, "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced".

So per policy, exceptions to guideline WP:NFF are allowed to be considered IF the coverage of the topic of a planned film is itself enduring and persistent in multiple reliable sources and over an extended period (thus dealing with violations of WP:NOTNEWS), and either there is too much verifiable information in an article (whose topic is "discussion about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur") to be reasonably placed anywhere else, or a suitable target for a shorter article does not yet exist.

If this were a short, stubby or unsourced article that did not offer our readers decent sourced information, we could merge. It remaining to enlighten our readers serves the project. Please see WP:FFCLARIFY.

Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what your stance is here. I think the consensus has been to have a historical article at Development of Jurassic World because of the level of detail. That article was not structured to look like a film article, which would mislead readers into thinking it was actually happening. However, seeing the recent headlines, the project's further along than it's ever been, it seems. Maybe at the first sign of production stumbling, we should undo any kind of film-article treatment. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• My "stance" is that topic is notable enough to write of and the solution of having it as Development of Jurassic World is sensible. Jurassic World should be merged into it. The film article can be spun back out created once filming is confirmed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. This was essentially a cut and paste move. I've reversed it. We can continue to develop article at Development of Jurassic World, or have a move/merge discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Ive removed all info not directly associated with this production. It's common to have development articles on their own, IE Production of Watchmen. Rusted AutoParts 15:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

We do not need two articles for a film that is not yet even in production. This causes a massive content fork. Leave at Development of... and try a requested move if you think it's time to upgrade it to a bona fide film article. --Rob Sinden (talk)

Yup. Agree. Merge the two. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree with the merge. It's common to have "development" articles, but it's not common to have two articles covering the same thing. Prime candidate for a merge. Betty Logan (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

As a suggestion, it makes sense to keep the development of the film at "Jurassic World", until such a time that actually starts filming and becomes a released movie. Once that happens, the development can then be split off to the separate article. But since all there is about the film is the development, it makes no sense to have separate articles. (And yes, the film has not starting filming, but there's more than enough sources to justify an article under normal notability guidelines). --MASEM (t) 19:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Which title would be the most searchable? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Leave the article at Development of Jurassic World for now and redirect Jurassic World to it. If Jurassic World does go into production then the redirect can be turned into a fresh article without any page moves or cut & paste jobs. Betty Logan (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright, so when filming commences, which I imagine is soon, I can undo the redirect back into the content that was there, while also maintaining a separate development page so we can detail the up and down production history. 16:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Rusted AutoParts

I'd prefer to see a single article on the film, with the earlier development section split between the franchise article and the film article. See Superman in film or Batman in film for similar situations. --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

"Jurrasic World" is clearly the more searchable and appropriate title. Having a "Development of Jurrasic World" implies we should have a "Jurrasic World" article too but that's not there yet. Once the movie is actually out and you can fill the article with reception and the like, then and only then does the separate "Development" article make sense. --MASEM (t) 17:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Masem and Rob Sinden, so the best solution would be to merge all of the information in both articles to "Development of Jurrasic World" for now, and then once the movie is actually being filmed, move everything in that article to "Jurrasic World". Fortdj33 (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I will say that if it is decided to have the development article at "Jurassic World", it would be better to simply delete the Jurassic World article and rename the "Development of Jurassic World" article to preserve the edit history. Cut & Paste jobs should be avoided if possible because you lose all the authorship attribution. Betty Logan (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I (or any other admin) would be glad to perform a history merge to preserve the existing "Jurrasic World" contributions, should this be needed. --MASEM (t) 21:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

also to note - copy and paste jobs can keep their history as long as the oldid of the page information is identified either via the edit summary or a template like {{copied}}, for purposes of GFDL attribution processes. I think we would rather keep both articles and do the copy-paste move such that if at the end of the day, the movie comes out and the development info better suited in the separate article, all the old attributions are already there without issue. Doing the admin-based delete/merge wouldn't lose the attribution completely but require the reader to look back for the oldid. --MASEM (t) 21:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Cinema Museum London October 2014

Hi, Wikimedia UK is running an editathon and photography day at the Cinema Museum in London on the 11th October 2014. Obviously people from this project would be very welcome. But it is also an opportunity to make requests for photographs of exhibits at that museum, and we would welcome suggestions of offline sources that need checking at the museum archive to reference content in specific articles. ϢereSpielChequers 12:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

12 Years a Slave page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Sátántangó move request

This discussion may be of interest. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

On a releated note, is it worth me spending 8hrs of my live to watch this? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I bought the DVD the other day (which is why I was looking at the article) - I'll let you know! (When I get around to it obviously....) --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox/website RFC

There's an RFC in regards to whether websites should be added to the infobox at Template talk:Infobox film#RfC:Should an "Official website" parameter be enabled in the Infobox film template?. Betty Logan (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Release year of films

I want to just say first of all that this is a thing that I've seen on many film articles, but I don't quite understand why. I will use Under the Skin (2013 film) as an example, as it was what sparked me posting this thread here.

Under the Skin, in the article (and on the title of the article), is considered to be a 2013 film. The film was screened at several film festivals in 2013, and is starting to be released to theatres as of last week (first theatrical release was in Germany on the 6th). My issue is how is it considered to be a 2013 film, and not a 2014 film? The film is being released in 2014, but was screened, or rather, previewed, at several festivals in the year previous.

And even so, I've read a few articles about that the film receiving additional editing after the screenings, so therefore the version being released to theatres isn't even exactly the same as the one that was previewed prior. For example, the main character of the film had a name, and in the final version of the film she does not. — Status (talk · contribs) 21:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The film was a complete product when it was presented at the festivals in 2013. There are full reviews like this by The Hollywood Reporter. If it was not ready in any form, it would not have been screened. I don't think that follow-up editing has any bearing on updating the release year. We can use the article body to explain that it was edited before its 2014 release. I believe the same thing happened with Nymphomaniac. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. Maybe I'm just not fully aware of how film festivals work, but I don't see how a film being screened for a one time only sort of thing (in this case, a couple of times) equals to its release year. To me, it seems more like a sneak peak kind of thing. — Status (talk · contribs) 21:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I would check Film screening, but if it's just a regular release to limited set of theaters but open to public, then it's released. -AngusWOOF (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

There are some films that have only appeared at film festivals and show up on home media later, with no theatrical distribution in between. Public Access is one such example. I think it is just a matter of going with the earliest verifiable "event" of premiering the film (as opposed to test screenings or sneak previews). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

As per WP:FILMLEAD we go with the year of first public release. That can be a limited release in just one theater, a premiere (if open to the public), a festival screening (if tickets are available to the general public) or a home video debut, as well as the general release of course. Basically any screening that counts as a "publication" for legal purposes. It excludes test screenings (where the audience is selected), closed premieres (where you basically have to be invited) and press screenings, since the distributor retains control over the distribution of the work i.e. who has access to it. We go with the first year where it is legally possibly for you or me to actually watch the film. That may be slightly counter-intuitive at times when the film goes on general release a year later, but it would just be plain silly for an article to discuss the reception of a "2015 film" at the 2014 Cannes Film Festival, for instance. Betty Logan (talk) 06:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

And also see the infobox guidance about this too. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the explanation everyone. @Betty Logan: I understand what you're saying, and I obviously agree with it being counter-intuitive in this particular case. I understood that this has been a set standard, but I just couldn't understand why that was, and now I do! — Status (talk · contribs) 11:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• I also have a another question regarding the same film. The lead calls it a "British-American film" (which is unsourced). The film was shot in the UK, and the studio that produced it is also from the UK. Wouldn't that just make it a British film? — Status (talk · contribs) 11:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

If it's unsourced it should probably come out. However, the BFI have classifed it as a US-UK production (see [7]) so it must meet the criteria in some way. It may be best to remove the nationality until more sources cover it. Betty Logan (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: Good find. I don't know if that's a reliable source or not (I don't know what that website is to be honest), but that seems good enough for me. I assume that it's considered also an American film because its distributor is American? — Status (talk · contribs) 22:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

There is a requested move currently open for Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist. Any and all input welcome here! Corvoe (speak to me) 17:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2012 Spotlight Awards

Hello again, film buffs. Are these notable awards? Should this old draft be kept and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Early "Reception" sections

At WT:MOSFILM, there is an ongoing discussion about how early one should have a "Reception" section. The discussion can be seen here. Editors are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox imagesize discussion

Please see this link for more. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Savolya and plots copied from other websites

Just a heads up that I've just spotted that Savolya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is copying plots wholesale from other websites (usually Allmovie) and reminded them that this is not allowed. I've checked some of this user's recent edits and removed the offending text as needed. Any help with older edits would be welcomed. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Missing characters in The Railway Man

Please see my question at Talk:The Railway Man (film)#Missing characters about why the characters of "Memsahib" (supposedly played by Marta Dusseldorp) and two others listed at IMdB did not appear in the film that I saw recently at the cinema. I also raised this at Talk:Marta Dusseldorp, but have received responses at neither place so far. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete Raza Mallal??

Hi, I had suggested deleting Raza Mallal's page, and was guided here. The first couple of pages of Google results for this film exec/director seem to only have online databases (e.g. IMDB, variety director listing, ect) and social media websites. It seems to me that this doesn't meet WP's standards for notability. Can someone more experienced with film opine? BernieGordon (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

Requested move proposed at Talk:Home (2014 film)#Requested move. BOVINEBOY2008 21:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Annie Hall

Input on the talk page would be warmly welcome. I was about to promote it to GA but an editor insists that the lead doesn't have to be a decent summary of the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, the classic editor who likes reverting, posting on policy talkpages, but doesn't actually contribute in a meaningful way. Meanwhile, in Crimea... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Talk:List of African-American Academy Award winners and nominees

There is an open RfC at Talk:List of African-American Academy Award winners and nominees. The question is whether List of African-American Academy Award winners and nominees should be moved to List of black Academy Award winners and nominees so that its scope would include black Oscar winners and nominees from countries other than the United States. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I have just added a new RfC in light of the discussion on that page. All comments on the new proposal are welcome. 99.192.66.175 (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Can some WikiProject Film people have a look at this? The result is likely to affect List of black Golden Globe Award winners and nominees as well, and possibly more such lists if there are any that I don't know of. Brief overview: It was List of black Academy Award winners and nominees until recently, when it was moved to the current name and all the non-Americans were deleted. I think "black" is the most appropriate but that's not important here, it could use a few more people contributing either way if the effect is going to spread beyond one list. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Harold Lloyd's World of Comedy

Dear film experts: I found this old Afc submission and added some references. Before moving it into the encyclopedia, I wanted to check to make sure that this topic wasn't already covered under another name or had some other problem that I have missed. Any opinions? —Anne Delong (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks OK to me and I can't seem to find it already on here. Should be good to move into the main article space. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for checking it our for me. It's in mainspace now. Harold Lloyd's World of Comedy. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Note this closed as delete. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Project request

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Film awards task force per editor suggestion that a more specific project page would be a more appropriate place for requests of this nature. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Content change and trivia addition over at Space Jam

May someone please take a look over at Space Jam? I am on the verge of voilating 3RR, but a user keeps making unexplained formatting and ordering changes to the cast and has added a very large "Trivia" section. I don't really know if the ordering change is for the better, but I know the formatting (bolding cast names) and the trivia sections have got to go. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the section since it violates a whole raft of policies and guidelines. Some of the stuff looks ok and may be eligible for inclusion in the article, but not as personal observations by editors. All analysis and observations should be referenced by a WP:Secondary source to not only comply with our policy on verifiability but also to establish the significance of the content. If editors are free to add their own observations the list would be endless. Betty Logan (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

...and they have reverted again. They are using the revert as the way to get their point across/ask their questions, without taking up a discussion either on the page or their talk (and now here). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

He has now been reverted (and warned on his talk page) by all three of us. His response was to post his entire revision of the article on the Space Jam talk page... [8] Fortdj33 (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I fixed that and replied to him there. But he also asked "What now?" on your talk Fortdj33, so I can just see how this is going to play out. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

He clearly doesn't understand Wikipedia etiquette and procedures. He reverted the article again, because no one answered his questions on the talk page. Has anyone reported him for edit warring yet? Fortdj33 (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I will report him, and add the post here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is the AN3 discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Nudity in music videos

There is a discussion on Talk:Nudity in music videos which has been tagged as a page monitored by this WikiProject. Members of this project are welcome to contribute, thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Categories: Films shot in...

I've noticed several categories describing how a film was shot, for instance Category:Films shot in Technicolor. WP:Categorization indicates that categories should be "defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having".

In many cases the articles classified under these categories do not have any discussion regarding how they were shot. While I don't necessarily doubt the claims, if there's no text discussing the shooting of the films, it seems reasonable to me to question whether the shooting technique is a "defining characteristic" at that point.

I already engaged in multiple reversions of category additions of this nature on the grounds that they were unsupported by the article text (it didn't help that in every case these were mass-additions by IP editors) before it occurred to me that theoretically the film credits at least might support the category. That said, if there's absolutely no discussion of the category within the article itself, I do believe it's appropriate to remove the category. But I'd like to know what other editors think about this before I proceed any further. DonIago (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I think there would be a fair reason to just delete these cats entirely. I don't even think we need lists; instead, in cases where the format a film was shot in was truly notable - e.g. this was one of the first films shot in technicolor - then it would be added to the article itself. I also think, for things like this, WP:DEFINING doesn't really work, as I don't think you'd want to have a list of 10 films shot in technicolor where there were actually many hundreds or thousands - such categories should be filled up fully, or deleted. I'm happy to nominate them for deletion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want to nominate them I'd be happy to support as necessary, though I can't see there being a lot of grounds for opposition. We'll see though. DonIago (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about categories generally, so removing or keeping the "filmed in" categories wouldn't ordinarily concern me. However, I think that in this case they might provide a useful list for a film researcher seeking to examine the impact of TV on films, as that and the other formats were used for competitive purposes as we know. In the case of It's Always Fair Weather, for instance, the use of the wide frame by Stanley Donen in the dance sequences is frequently mentioned in discussions of the film by critics, at the time of release and afterwards. That's not reflected in the film article and it should be. That may be so for a great many other films, especially musicals. I'm new to this area and I've noticed that film sourcing frequently isn't very good, relies too much on DVD liner notes, video supplement interviews and other marginal sources, and doesn't make full use of available sourcing. Thus I would hesitate to delete the "filmed in" category pending improving of sourcing. Coretheapple (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

This could perhaps be worked around by listing the films under the technique, with sources establishing that the films are considered significant examples of said technique. DonIago (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Spin detectors needed at David Bergstein

Advocates for David Bergstein are again attempting to turn his article into a promotional advertisement. People familiar with WP:BLP and recent Hollywood history are invited to help ensure that incidents are presented appropriately rather than not only being whitewashed but gilded. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Indian cinema by state at CfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Razzies in filmography and award sections

User:WikiFanCreator2010 recently made a round of edits on several articles where they removed the Golden Raspberry Award mentions in filmographies and award sections. They explained their edits by citing Wikipedia:ACTOR#Razzie Award templates. I reverted them because that discussion seemed to be related only to navboxes. User:Musdan77 reverted my revert, which lead to a discussion on their talk page in which they said that inclusion of the Razzies in these sections goes against consensus and that the Razzies are not real awards. I could find no such consensus in the talk archive here and I wondered if you folks could chime in on this situation.

Just for the record, I don't have much of an opinion on this issue, my reverts were done more as a procedural measure as I didn't think WikiFan's summary was adequate.LM2000 (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any consensus that Razzies shouldn't be included, assuming third-party reliable sources took note of them. DonIago (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the templates have been deleted, but there's no reason to remove the awards from articles. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I've never had a problem with including Razzies. However, It can sometimes be problematic to find reliable sources, especially for nominations. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't really think this is the right place for this discussion. The issue deals more with biographies, filmographies and lists of awards than film itself (and if you'd looked at my profile page you'd see that I'm not a "they"; I'm a "he"). Anyway, discussion is not the only way that consensus is made. There are some unspoken things that are generally considered site-wide consensus. I believe that omitting "the Razzie" from filmographies and awards lists (it's fine in the main body, if sourced) is one of them. My reason comes from the fact that no FAs or featured lists contained GRs when they became featured. And I think that the majority of the bios of actors who have "won" or nominated for a Razzie don't have it listed. I think that the reason is clear. It is not an actual award. An award is an honor; this was made up to be funny and to make fun of these actors. So, it shouldn't seriously be included with actual awards in an encyclopedia. --Musdan77 (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

And yet they have attracted notice from third-party sources, and the WP article on the Razzies does classify them as an "award ceremony". I'm inclined to say that unless there's a documented consensus against inclusion, there's nothing prohibiting mention of them in an awards section. If you feel this isn't the place for such a discussion and you feel that they shouldn't be included, I would recommend initiating a discussion at the forum you feel is most appropriate and linking to it here. Otherwise, my reading of this discussion is that there is consensus for inclusion. DonIago (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, I don't think there really is a good forum for this discussion. There isn't even an MOS for lists of awards. There's barely one for filmographies (what there is is a section at WT:ACTOR) -- and I personally don't think that awards should even be listed in a filmography. I see that there was some discussion made on the aforementioned WikiProject, but no actual conclusion was made. So, I guess just like anything else (other than policy), consensus is found on the individual article. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

"and I personally don't think that awards should even be listed in a filmography" Now that is something I really agree with. Look at the bloat in the more recent titles in Naomi Watts filmography. Pretty much all of it is unsourced too. This is typical of these tables. But as you say, there's no MOS on this. Yet. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, as often as I can, I make Awards and nominations tables so I can remove them from the filmography. That's about all we can do about it right now. ..but, I guess we're straying off topic. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hercules (2014 film)

The usage of Hercules (2014 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Hercules: The Thracian Wars -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Animated films task force

Hello all! Just wanted to let you know that the Animated films work group is now an official task force of {{WikiProject Film}}! You can add articles to the project, by simply adding the parameter |Animated=yes to the WikiProject Film banner. If you're interested in helping develop and classify animated films, please add your name to the project's participants as well. Hope to see you there! Fortdj33 (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Google custom search

Anyone interested in creating an official WP:FILM/R Google Custom Search modeled after the WP:VG/RS one? It would help locate sources for articles and research notability for deletion discussions. Even if we just included four sources – Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Film Journal International, and Screen International – it would be useful in finding coverage for mainstream American and European film topics. It would be easy to add another 20–25 completely uncontroversial sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Frozen (2013 film) -- gay themes topic

Opinions are needed from this project on this matter: Talk:Frozen (2013 film)#Appropriateness of a Lesbian cartoon for children?. There are a lot of reviewers (I'm speaking of the ones who pass as WP:Reliable sources) who have interpreted, or have reported people as having interpreted, the film as having one or more LGBT parallels, and the talk page discussion concerns whether or not we should include material about that in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Migrating cite AV media notes (aka cite album notes) to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox

Please comment regarding the migration of {{cite AV media notes}} from {{citation/core}} to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox. This is a discussion about the deprecation of certain parameters and how such deprecation will effect this project's articles. The discussion is not intended to address technical aspects of the conversion, though if you have questions or concerns about that, you are welcome to raise them. The discussion is here: Migrating cite AV media notes to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Because there are similarities, your thoughts regarding the migration of {{cite DVD-notes}} from {{citation/core}} to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox are also solicited. The discussion is here: Migrating cite DVD-notes to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

And now considering {{cite music release notes}}. The discussion is here: Migrating cite music release notes to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

Requested move proposed at Talk:Let It Be (film)#Requested move. Input is welcome. BOVINEBOY2008 20:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of moving this since it is basically a formality. Someone had moved it to Let It Be (film) as "uncontroversial", but probably just weren't aware of the guideline. Betty Logan (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I actually did the move and they requested to undue the move [9]. BOVINEBOY2008 21:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't realize that at first, I thought you had just initiated the move request. Explicit disambiguation is only a film project guideline though, so when you carry one out it's a good idea to link to WP:NCF and WP:PRECISE in the move summary so other editors can see which guideline the move complies with. Betty Logan (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Calm down, move-monkeys. You'll have someone going to WP:ANI next... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and nominated the 2004 film for deletion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Ignore that... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Götter der Pest

I noticed that the Swedish and Luxembourgish Wikipedias both have articles about Rainer Werner Fassbinder's 1970 film Götter der Pest yet the film's English entry does not link to them. Can someone please therefore add them to the foreign languages section at the left? I myself have no idea how to do so. Thanks! 89.139.186.69 (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Good spot. I tried to add them per the usual way (via the Edit Links at the foot of the interwikis), but had problems. Logged a call here to get it fixed. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it's now been done. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks! 89.139.186.69 (talk) 10:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Wings

I have also now noticed that the French Wikipedia has an article about Larisa Shepitko's 1966 film Wings yet the film's English entry does not link to it. Can someone please therefore once again add it to the foreign languages section at the left? Thanks! 89.139.186.69 (talk) 11:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed too! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again! 89.139.186.69 (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I've leant something new today. The power of merging interwiki links on another site. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Coal Miner's Daughter page move

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Saw page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Notable?

The film Kolachi (film) did not seem notable to me per our guidlelines, but perhaps I'm missing something. The same for the first-listed actor, Fawad Khan (actor), whom I thought worthy of a speedy (declined). Thoughts?--Epeefleche (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Banker Bilo

This movie article has been created shortly. It's plot section is very short. Can anyone expand the plot and add critical reviews.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your request. Unfortunately it is tough to expand a plot section unless an editor has seen the film. BTW the article is currently sourced solely to IMDb. Here WP:RS/IMDB is the relevant policy regarding that website so you will want to find other sources to support the article. MarnetteD | Talk 18:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Need help with AfC

Hi. I've been working on an article at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Electrick Children. The first time I submitted it, the only third party source was IMDB. I re-submitted it with fully referenced "Reception" and "Awards and nominations" sections, but it was rejected again with an edit summary of "subject appears to be a non-notable film". Could somebody take a look at it and tell me if it really is non-notable? If it is, why? And if it isn't, what more can I do to establish its notability? Thanks. 86.41.35.230 (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It's definitely notable. There is significant coverage from multiple reliable sources independent of the film, as evidenced by reviews from The New York Times, The Guardian, etc. It should be included. Ktr101, why did you reject this article? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I was just being cautious at the time, as I wasn't really sure if it was and didn't want to risk it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Moved now. Thanks, Erik and Kevin. 86.41.35.230 (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Nigerian films

I removed the Category:Nigerian films from the page Half of a Yellow Sun since it already exists in the sub category Category:Nigerian drama films but Lugnuts don't seem to agree with that. I really don't see why the Category should be left to get crowded when at the end of day it becomes too large to control and also makes it impossible for inexperienced users to find the kind of Nigerian film they are looking for. According to WP:FILMCAT in the "Most specific category" section, it clearly states that articles should be moved into their specific sub-categories and at the "Intersection Category" it points out the problems of multiple categorization stating that the system is unwieldy as category sizes increase; thus, common combinations of multiple categories can be made explicit by creating an "intersection" sub-category for them; in this case, Category:American documentary films." Stanleytux (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Under the heading General categorization all films should go under year, country and language categories. All country categories should be added, along with the relevant sub-categories. FILMCAT also states "Note that the simpler system can still be used in conjunction with intersection categories to avoid the proliferation of extremely small and narrow sub-categories. For example, it may be better to place an article in both Category:Armenian films and Category:Documentary films than to create an additional Category:Armenian documentary films." So replace Armenian with Nigerian in this case. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

If a category is a diffusing category you generally place it in the most specific category. For example, there is no reason to place the film in Category:2010s films because all films can be partitioned into one of the year sub-categories (in this case Category:2013 films). However, Category:Nigerian drama films is not a diffusing category of Category:Nigerian films, since it doesn't exist to solely partition the parent category; it is however a diffusing sub-category of Category:Nigerian films by genre which means we don't include the parent catgeory in that case. If a category is non-diffusing it is is generally left to the discretion of the project to determine its categorization structure and as a rule film articles all include the main four categories outlined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Categorization#General categorization. Betty Logan (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Question re: Beauty and the Beast (1946 film)‎

An IP is claiming that the UK title for this film is the same as the French one. I can't find a source to back this up. If anyone can please add it to the article in a way that doesn't remove the language template. Thanks ahead of time for any assistance that can be provided. MarnetteD | Talk 04:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Oops. I got my wires crossed on what was going on. The confusion is over the structure of the opening of the lede not what the title is in various countries. I have tries to explain my mistake here Talk:Beauty and the Beast (1946 film)#Disagreement about structure of first sentence but maybe one of you can straighten me or the IP or both of us out. MarnetteD | Talk 05:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this does need straightening out. Can I ask what difference it makes whether or not the language template is used? By the way, I have proven the UK title with simple links to BBFC, Amazon and The Guardian. 123.243.242.213 (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at MoS concerning peacock language

Hi there! This is a heads-up that I have opened up a discussion among the community about the use of language when summarising an entertainment product's critical reception. It's a discussion I feel we need to have and is relevant to multiple WikiProjects, including this one, so I am looking for input from other editors. Here is the discussion. CR4ZE (t • c) 13:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Noah page move

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

And see this related deletion discussion too. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Anatomie de l'enfer

Someone has been vandalizing the Anatomie de l'enfer article for some time now. I suggest semi-protecting it. 89.139.186.69 (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. You can log a report here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I have made the request. Let's see what happens now... 89.139.186.69 (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is now semi-protected for a few months. Let's hope the vandal won't return when the block's due. 89.139.186.69 (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

AfD for Noah (1998 film)

In light of a requested move for the 2014 film Noah, I looked over the 1998 film and found it not up to Wikipedia standards. I've nominated it for deletion, and all opinions are welcome on its AfD page. Thank you! Corvoe (speak to me) 13:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Films shot digitally at CfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Development of Jurassic World page move discussion

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

User-submitted reviews in e.g. MetaCritic

I searched the archives and I perused Wikipedia:Review aggregators but I didn't find an answer. What is the current wisdom on using audience reviews (as opposed to critic reviews) from MetaCritic and other sites? I thought we avoided them as more or less useless and irrelevant, but I've been reverted at Ender's Game (film) so if I'm wrong then I need to back off. Elizium23 (talk) 06:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You are correct, see MOS:FILM#Audience response. The IP's argument is flawed: we wouldn't use a reader's letter in The New York Times as a source even though the NYT is a reliable source. Aggregators are used specifically for quantifying the response of legitimate film critics and only for that purpose. Betty Logan (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Relevant RM

The current RM at Talk:John Gielgud, roles and awards#Requested move has some relevance to how we title filmographies and similar articles. Your input there would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Ugh! Commented. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Your ignorance on the use of the comma also made me think Ugh! - SchroCat (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Here we go again, personal attacks. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, your rather pointless "Ugh!" commenting on the work of others was your usual uncivil way to start bitching about the work of others. - SchroCat (talk) 10:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• The "ugh" was a comment on the ungainliness of the title. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Your opinion on the work of others is, by its nature, uncivil. Don't do it again please. Your opinion on the title is not based in policy. - SchroCat (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• WP:CRITERIA is policy. We shouldn't use poor English for article titles. Anyway - this discussion is best left at the RM. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• I see we're back to your ignorance on the basic English surrounding the use of the comma again: it isn't poor English at all. - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Variety archives

Does any editor have access to the online Variety achives? There are three articles I'd like to get hold of, and unfortunately they do not offer a single article purchase. Any help would be much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

SchroCat, I think I have access, but it depends on how old the articles are. Let me know the headlines and dates on my talk page, and I'll see if I can pull them. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Erik, These date back to 1942, if your access goes back that far!

• On 1 June 1942 there were two articles about the death of John Barrymore, one was on the front page, one on page 4, but I can't get the headlines form the archives;
• There is another article on page 4 of the 2 June edition too.

If you're able to get hold of these I'd be much obliged—if not, then thanks for the offer and for trying. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I just checked, and it does not go back that far, unfortunately. :( If anyone else here has access to a university library, they can search for Variety and see how far back that access goes. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Shame - but many thanks for the effort anyway. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I have access to a university library. Is there any more info you can provide, or where this might appear (ie a journal versus a database)? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Favre1fan93, thanks for the offer. I don't know is there is another data outlet for Variety, but the one I've used before is here, on the magazine's own site. From what Erik has said above, I suspect there may be a different outlet too (I can access very recent stuff through a Lexis postal, for example, but not far enough back, unfortunately)! Thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I found that I had access to Variety archives via ProQuest, but they unfortunately only have June 10, 17 and 24 1942 issues scanned in that database. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

lol - what bad luck! Thanks for your efforts Favre1fan93, much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course. Good luck! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Grand Budapest Hotel genre

Hello, there is discussion about the genre for Grand Budapest Hotel that could use a second look. If anyone has a minute, It'd be great! Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Release Date

Quick question. I'm going through all the RKO films, and I'm noticing that in some articles the "release date" is the date of the premiere, while in others, it is the general release date. AFI, differentiates between the two, with the release date being the date of wide release, rather than date of the premiere. In the RKO releases, I've been conforming it to the release date (trying to be WP:BOLD), but was wondering what other editors think. The premiere is technically not the release. Perhaps in those instances two dates are appropriate?Onel5969 (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Premiere dates are included per Template:Infobox film:

“ Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings. ”

Though not necessarily film festivals, premieres in specific cities are widely regarded as being the same, across numerous film articles. This is probably something that should be clarified in a separate discussion for the documentation page. As it stands, it's widely interpreted that premiere dates are included. Corvoe (speak to me) 01:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Corvoe, at least as far as common practice: premieres and general,releases (even in the same territory) are treated separately. A brief line in the documentation to clarify would be a good,idea. - SchroCat (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

These have been very helpful suggestions. As I go through the films by RKO (my current project), I will make sure to identify both the premiere and release dates. We might consider adding a note that this should be done on the guidelines.Onel5969 (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Naming of articles about an actor's roles and awards

Please see the RfC at Category talk:Filmographies#Naming of articles about an actor's roles and awards. Comments are welcome there. —sroc 💬 14:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Question on how to fix an error

how do I fix an error in an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie13b (talk • contribs) 02:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

First, make sure it's an error. Preferably, you'll have a citation for the change (or else it'll most likely be reverted). Second, at the top of each section, you'll see an "edit" button. Click on it, and you'll be brought to the edit screen (just like when you posted this question). Third, you'll make the changes. Fourth, at the bottom of the screen, you'll see a white field labeled "Edit summary", write a brief description there, and click "save". Onel5969 (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Development of (insert film here) pages

It seems as though I've seen a growing number of these articles popping up. I wanted to approach the project and see what other's opinions are on them. How eager should editors be to create this type of page for films (say as done with Star Wars Episode VII, or potential superhero films such as future Marvel Cinematic Universe films or the upcoming Batman/Superman film), instead of developing the info in a "Sequel" subsection or (incorrectly) on the actual page before it passes notability guidelines. If it is something the project thinks is feasible, should the MOS be updated to reflect this option, and when it would and would not apply? Thanks for the opinions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, only saw this thread just now! I hate to admit it but I probably started that micro-trend. There are going to be some yet-to-be-produced film adaptations with an extensive enough development history to warrant a separate article. The problem is that a separate article will gravitate toward looking like an actual film article, especially if development news is very recent. We tried to use the disambiguation term "film project" on a few occasions but I find it clumsy. I'm in favor of a "Development of" prefix if there is too much information to be had in a broader article's section. Looking at Batman vs. Superman, perhaps a separate article is warranted with such a prefix. I see the prefix as clearly establishing that we're following the development of something, not the thing itself, which is not guaranteed (especially when it comes to Batman and Superman film history). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for responding Erik. I'm not necessarily against the creation of these page; I think they could actually become quite useful. As such, is there somewhere in the MOS we can amend or add that the project could decide when it would be appropriate to make such a page? My thinking is if people have started seeing these pages, they may jump the gun to creating one, when it would be better suited as a subsection somewhere or even in the Draft space. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree and I would definitely support a possible update to reflect this trend in the MOS. Rilech (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jet Stream (film)

The article Jet Stream (film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

1. Just one sentence. 2. Not notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Debresser (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes pages for this film don't show any reliable sources, and I couldn't find anything reliable in Google using various keyword mashups. I'm okay with letting this expire. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Category: Films shot in... at CFD

Based on the prior discussion here I've nominated a number of "Films shot in..." categories for deletion (or perhaps listification). That discussion can be found here. DonIago (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

And please see this related discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Need help with resolving a dispute at Barbarella (film)

There is a dispute at Barbarella (film) over whether an unreferenced "in popular culture" section should be removed per WP:UNDUE and WP:BURDEN. To prevent further edit warring, I started a discussion at the talk page, but it has stalled. Input on this matter from uninvolved editors would be appreciated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Guidelines for upcoming films

At WT:MOSFILM, there is an ongoing discussion about MOS guidelines for articles about upcoming films. The discussion can be seen here, and editors are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Cannes

The full line-ups have been announced for the upcoming 2014 Cannes Film Festival. Any help with article creation/expansion for films will be welcomed. Ties in nicely with Erik's post, above. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Pather Panchali FAC

The article Pather Panchali is a featured article cadidate now. Please provide feedback in the FAC page. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Transcendence

At Transcendence (2014 film), there is an issue with reporting the overall critical reception, especially considering the disparity in Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic's reporting for this particular film. See discussion here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Stanley Kubrick GA

If anyone would like to help out, Stanley Kubrick is up for GA status, and suggestions for it to pass have been pointed out at the article's Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Rusted AutoParts 13:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Pompeii page move

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

There is an ongoing issue in the plot section regarding Gwen's death in the plot section. Please see the discussion at Talk:The Amazing Spider-Man 2#Plot section. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Any chance you can amend your comment to be less detailed story-wise? :-P Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Dead Man's Burden

Dear film experts: This old Afc submission was abandoned before acceptance, and another editor made an article about the same topic. (Dead Man's Burden) Is there any information in the submission which should be transferred to the new article, or should it just be deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems like there is some useful information in the AfC's "Production" section even though there are no references. Maybe we can request a histmerge here and make a note on the talk page of the earlier draft? It's not a cut-and-paste issue specifically, but I think this approach helps salvage potentially worthwhile content. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The mainspace article doesn't seem to have been derived from the Afc draft; they are two separate items, so a history merge may not be appropriate. However, there's a way of maintaining attribution by making the draft into a redirect and putting an "R from merge" template on it. I have done this many times, so I can do the technical stuff if any information is transferred; just let me know. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Trailer Park Boys

There is a request to move Trailer Park Boys 3: Don't Legalize It to Trailer Park Boys: Don't Legalize It that was recently re-listed. The discussion can be seen here. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The running length of Cinématon

See Talk:Cinématon: I've noticed that the stated length of this film has been gradually increasing over the years. In 2009, we said it was 150 hours long, it increased at various points up until today when it reached 188 hours. There never seems to have been a source, and at List of longest films, the runtime seems to have been going through a similar period of growth (also never a source). I suspect that the film is sort of an ongoing work (given one source that the film was being screened as early as 1985, yet Courant was still adding footage to the film no earlier than 2006), but I can't find a source in either direction. Most sources seem to indicate that the film is 150 or 156 hours long. I'm not sure where to go from here. Does anybody here have any thoughts? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Category for films by composer

Perhaps Category:Film scores by composer was intended for articles about film scores, but its subcats currently seem to be used mainly for films categorised by the composer who scored them. I recently created Category:Soundtracks by composer which is now used for film score (soundtrack) albums.

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 24#Category:Compositions by Rahul Dev Burman for a suggestion to rename the "Film scores by composer " categories to e.g. "Films scored by". – Fayenatic London 13:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Greed

Greed (film) is currently a FA candidate here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Greed (film)/archive3 is anyone is interested.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Shrek page move

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Godfather 2 box office figure

Please see this discussion (and ongoing edit war) about the dispute about the box office figure for The Godfather Part II. On a side note, did we ever get a consensus about which site is the prefered one when it comes to using figures for this field? I see some lengthy discussions in the archives about BOM and The Numbers, but can't see anything concrete. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It depends, they both are regarded as reliable sources. If there is a disparity try to corroborate the figure (like at Boxoffice.com). Betty Logan (talk) 11:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films at FLC

Hello. This is a neutral notice to inform the project that List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films is currently a Featured List candidate. All are welcome to review it, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Creating a MOS for Years in film articles

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Looking for further input to take this forward. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)