Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 57

Archive 50

←

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Rouvou

Site: rouvou.com

Anyone got an opinion about this site? Looks like an anonymous opinion tracker. It seems to be appearing mostly in film articles, generally added by new editors: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Per MOS:FILM#Audience response, I'm thinking that this fails the criteria for inclusion, as it's a user rating similar to that of the IMDb. Normally, I'd just go through the external links tracker and remove it from every article, but I figured maybe I'd engage in a bit of discussion first. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I would probably exclude it on general principle, specifically that they haven't established themselves in any way as reliable. Here's some information from the site about how they gauge opinion. Votes depreciate over time, and users can re-vote every 30 days. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I would not use it. It does not appear to have been recognized as authoritative by secondary sources, where something like CinemaScore has been (being reported in the trade papers and other periodicals very often). Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I just voted on a film and it changed the stats so I would say almost certainly this is not acceptable based on the methodology. I wouldn't be surprised if the links being added were by people who own the site to increase traffic. Betty Logan (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright, that's as much confirmation as I need. I went through and removed all the links. I figure it may take a few tries to make it stick. I didn't want to insinuate anything too strongly, but I agree with Betty that there's a chance this is a case of link spamming. For the sake of my sanity, I'm trying to cut back on the amount of drama I get involved in, but I'll keep an eye out for more links. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I know the feeling. :) You know how to look for links, right? Special:LinkSearch? Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I brought up a similar case here a while ago, and someone – probably you – pointed that out. I can try leaving a friendly message for one of the editors if they continue adding links. Maybe it's just enthusiastic users who are unaware of our guidelines. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Good application of assuming good faith. ;) Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Zeitgeist (film series)

Discussion of issues involving Zeitgeist (film series) is in progress at the dispute resolution noticeboard. The involvement of other editors is welcome. At this point, it appears that the issues are not likely to result in compromise, so that the most likely way forward will be a Request for Comments, which will, of course, be linked to this project. Any involvement now may help the RFC be formulated. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Two Requests for Comments are currently in progress at Talk:Zeitgeist (film series). The moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard is about to be closed. Please participate in the Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

AfD of Leatherface film

Leatherface (film) has been nominated for deletion on the grounds that it fails the notability criteria, contains unreliable sources, and it is not clear if the name of the article will actually be the name of the film. See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leatherface (film).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the film's name and the topic of the film being considered, crewed up, cast and filming has been confirmed and spoken in multiple reliable sources Sorry to feel the need to state this here, but as this notification contained some erroneous comments toward film name and reliability of accepted RS, inviting folks to go to the AFD with a set of mistaken preconceptions could possibly be construed as canvassing... so we send them with neutral facts, not opinions, in order to avoid that claim. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride!

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

• What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
• When? June 2015
• How can you help?

  1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here

  2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)

  3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

Persondata has been officially deprecated

Persondata has been deprecated and the template and input data are subject to removal from all bio articles in the near future. For those editors who entered accurate data into the persondata templates of film actors and other bio subjects, you are advised to manually transfer that data to Wikidata before the impending mass deletion occurs. Here are two examples of Wikidata for film actors: Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. If you have any more questions about the persondata removal, Wikidata, etc., please ping me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Work dates in Navboxes

Important conversation going on at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Templates#Consistent_formatting_of_template_titles_for_navboxes_of_literary_works: please join, 15:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Help with an article?

I was wondering if anyone familiar with list pages could help out an IP editor with the article Draft:Highest grossing animated opening. The editor is trying to make an article that shows the opening weekend figures for the top animated films, which I think would make a potentially very good WP article. I'm not all that familiar with notability for lists of this nature or really how to go about establishing notability and verifying that the list shows the highest grossing weekends worldwide, so I think that this really needs a lot of editors helping to source and maintain the article. The IP has already posted at the animation wikiproject, but I'm going to post at the list wikiproject as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

National Film Award winners at CfD

A whole bunch of categories from here down. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to point editors to this discussion which might have further impact on the way we use categorization. What the nominator is asking is to delete National Film Award and Filmfare Awards categories that are placed in winners' articles. The articles are in the style of Category:Best X National Film Award winners (example:Category:Best Director National Film Award winners). While you might debate if Filmfare Awards or National Film Awards (India) is important (one editor said the National Film Awards is the most important one in India), the result of this would cause one of two things - (A) some awards will be deemed "important" or "defining" and will be eligible to such categories (Category:Male film actors by award for more information), which would seem to be biased and not an objective selection (does this violate a policy or a guideline?) or (B) would require all such categories to be deleted for consistency. --Gonnym (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I love the smell of vandalism in the morning

Smosh: The Movie. Don't know where to begin, tbh! Version as of this post. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Film RFC

Input is invited at the RFC. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Simply Media DVD releases

An IP editor, 94.143.253.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), has been adding upcoming DVD release information from Simply Media to many articles. I left a message on the IP's talk page about COI and promotion. Some of the edits, such as this one, seem a bit crystal ball-ish, as it's a planned release in four months. I've noticed that people have reverted these edits in the past, so I figured I'd see what the wider consensus is. Normally, I'm all for including DVD release information, but this strikes me as a marketing campaign. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted the majority of them for being unsourced, particularly for the WP:CRYSTAL issue. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Participant?

I know that everyone is free to add him/herself here, and so am I. However, I doubt if I am doing it right as all I do is contribute to film-related (and also music-related) lists, only lists! What do I do? -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 00:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: If you wanted to, you could leave a note beside your name that says you prefer lists. That way, people will know to contact you for help if they have questions about film-related lists. But there are no rules or anything. Anyone can join, and when you add your name, you can say whatever you want, or say nothing at all. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion about the order of the cast listing at To Kill a Mockingbird

Hi. In case editors would like to join in there is a talk page discussion about the order of the names in the cast listing of To Kill a Mockingbird. Randy Kryn 16:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Notice of spam blacklist discussion

This is a notice that a frequently used source by this project, http://www.screenrant.com, has been requested (and added) to the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. The request can be found here, and the request for removal can be found here. Editors are invited to weigh in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion about moving/retitling the page for Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group...

Hi. In case editors would like to join in, there is a talk page discussion about moving/retitling the page for Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Dispute over critical response summary at Jupiter Ascending

Hi, comments requested at Talk:Jupiter Ascending#Critical response summary removed. One user is intent on changing "mixed to negative" critical response summary to "generally negative". My compromise is to remove the summary entirely, even if it is technically consistent with both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Plot summary notices as "official" warnings?

I (primarily) designed and have been using the Template:uw-plotsum1 and (rarely) Template:uw-plotsum2 user warning templates for quite some time in situations where editors added significant amounts of material to plot summaries, beyond that delineated at WP:FILMPLOT and the other relevant areas.

I've found myself wondering whether it might be worth making an effort to get these templates added to Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, and from there possibly added to Twinkle. I think the biggest pro and con of such an effort would be that the templates would likely receive a great deal more scrutiny than they have to this point. I don't think anyone's expressed any concern about the templates as they stand now, but it's possible that with more editors paying attention to them they might prove contentious in a manner they have not to this point.

For anyone wondering why there's no level 3 or 4 on these, the theory has been that anyone who needed that level of warning on this type of behavior was, at that point, either edit-warring or at least engaging in disruptive editing, for which there are already warning templates available.

I'd very much like to know what other editors think before I take any action. Thanks for your input! DonIago (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Plot bloat is probably the single biggest problem on film articles so I support having a template. That said you probably only need the one though, because if an editor chooses to restore the detail after receiving the first notice it is not because they aren't aware of the various guidelines governing synopses and you are going to have to have a proper conversation with them. Betty Logan (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with everything which Betty Logan said above. There is definitely a need for a template, and a single template should suffice. If the editor reverts after the template is affixed, a talk page discussion is warranted, else an edit war might ensue. Regarding adding the template on Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, if that makes it easier to keep plotbloat in check, than I'm all for it. I wouldn't worry about any subsequent scrutiny, in my eyes that's a good thing. Onel5969 (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I think this would be very handy. This popped up on my watchlist recently and I wasn't sure how to tackle it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all. The request to have them added can be found here. DonIago (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Inland Empire

Art film? Mystery film? Please see the discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Category for films set in "a single room"?

Had someone ask me about films set in a single location such as 12 Angry Men or My Dinner with Andre. I figured there might be an appropriate category but didn't see one (at least, not one listed under Category:Films by setting.

Any thoughts for a helpful category? If not, any thoughts as to whether it might be worth setting one up? DonIago (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there a category in Films by setting? Do the child categories of that suggest anything? Otherwise I'd suggest Films set in a single room. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I think this might head to WP:CFD, much like films set within one day did some time ago. Is it defining to all these films? And could a list do a better job? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It could be, if the articles for the films had sourced discussion of the setting. Or the category (or list, for that matter) could attract all kinds of inappropriate inclusions and get nuked. I wasn't really planning to build it myself, it just seemed like something potentially worth pursuing, for anyone so inclined. I can't say whether a list might be a better choice. DonIago (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it could be. If it is, it justifies the category (and for 24:The Movie too). A student production might be set in one room because it's cheaper – that's not defining. Yet if Harold Pinter does it, it's going to be for some dramatic and defining purpose. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd support a list, and would probably fit into this category with lists like this and this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Permit WP:Red links in WP:Navboxes?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Red link#Proposal regarding redlinks in navigation templates; subsection is at Wikipedia talk:Red link#Revision proposal. A WP:Permalink for the matter is here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Help with notability

I need some help determining notability for the article Adi Hasak. Long story short, it's an article created by a COI editor. There's an assertion of notability here but not the strongest one and there is some mention in the press, but not a whole lot. Do you guys think that he passes notability guidelines as a whole or should this go to AfD? I admit that there is some trouble at the article with the COI editor and JBH has tried working with them without a whole lot of success, so I do feel that I need to put that out there if anyone's interested in helping with the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I think being the creator of the TV show is enough for notability. I see you've given them clear information on their talkpage about COI, so if they chose to ignore that, they'll be blocked. In the event of them coming back as an IP/sock, the page can be protected. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I responded on the article's talk page, but I think he's probably notable. Besides what Lugnuts said, there's some discussion of his writing in a few of the reviews I posted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing films: Who's in third?

Hello all! I had a query involving how we decide where to put films that are considered the highest grossing, due to a discrepancy between websites on how much money Furious 7 and The Avengers have made. Please see this discussion to contribute to the conversation. Thank you! (Also I guess I'm editing articles again, yippee!) Sock (tock talk) 17:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Need help about two photos

I recently uploaded several photos from the latest Cannes festival and I need some help to identify two persons. The photo on the left shows the cast and crew of the film High strung. I identified the bearded gentleman on the left as Paul Freeman, who stars in the film, but I may be wrong. Could anyone confirm that it is indeed him or, if not, tell me who this is ?

So far, I could not identify the lady in the photo on the right. Does anyone have an idea about who she is ? Thanks a lot, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. You could also try posting here too, with a few more eyes looking at your query. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll copy the message there. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@User:Jean-Jacques Georges: The guy next to Jane Seymour is director/producer David Green. Not connected to the movie, but seems to be a friend of JS (another pic of him). --Paulae (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks a lot ! Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Cfd

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_22#Category:Documentary_films_about_the_film_industry. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Wanderer of the Wasteland (1945 film)

There is a Request for Comments at Talk:Wanderer of the Wasteland (1945 film) concerning how to characterize the process for an earlier version of the movie. You are encouraged to express your views in the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Just alerting the community again about this RfC. Not a whole lot of comments so far. Onel5969 (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Lilian Constantini

Can someone please transfer this picture to Wikimedia Commons? I am not sure if we are allowed to do so, and which license to use. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by your topic of interest, e.g., control-f "WikiProject Film."--Lucas559 (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

IP user and plot summaries

Late yesterday (UTC) I notified another editor of "Some troubles on your watchlist, maybe" [5]. In reply I was directed to your archive for March 30/31 this year, namely Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 56#IP user and plot summaries. At least User:Flyer22 had previously engaged this person (multiple "2600" IP addresses, one person evidently in the pattern of work including edit summaries).

Contributions by user 2600:1006:B107:50A:B54A:54DC:4A42:DE45 covers a single 200-minute session 2015-05-10 quite destructive in some cases. The big changes reported in red primarily concern plot summaries. Some of the articles have not been changed subsequently (labeled "current" in that report) and I suppose that some others of the massive deletions remain intact. The High King is a novel I know and I reverted its change 15 hours go. I don't know any of the others by title, nor anything of this WikiProject or any that concerns TV or video game "moving pictures".

--P64 (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it's this guy again: User:NinjaRobotPirate/Plot blanker. I'm trying to track his movements a bit. He usually geolocates to Orlando, Florida, US, on a Verizon Wireless IP address. The IP address is usually 2600:1006:B1xx, but there's a lot of variation – too much for a range block. I'm thinking that an edit filter might be the best solution, but I can't think of a good one offhand. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Update: I went through and reverted his edits. I also streamlined a few of the plots. I can't understand why he keeps removing random paragraphs like that. I wrote a user essay, User:NinjaRobotPirate/How to streamline a plot summary, partially in response to this. I dunno if anyone will ever read it, but it made me feel better to write it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I've been wiki light for so long I don't even know if you'll remember me but I've been watching this same person off and on for a while, as well. I hit a few reverts in the last few minutes (and now I have that annoying chore of going back to restore the good edits I had to revert past) and I've put your talk subpage about it on my watchlist. If it comes up again, it might be worth mentioning that the IP also removes maintenance tags rather willy nilly. I'm in and out due to stupid real life but if this guy hits again and you need some help, feel free to message me either on my talk page or via email. Happy to help. Plot summaries are my jam, as they say. :p Millahnna (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Rosy page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Max film, dog star

The star of movie MAX is not a German Shepard, he is a Belgian Malinois. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.228.28.107 (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

America: Imagine the World Without Her

There is an ongoing discussion about describing the premise of the documentary America: Imagine the World Without Her in the lead section. Editors are invited to comment here. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Greetings. I have been having some trouble locating reliable reviews for the 1999 film Zapatista. I don't frequently edit film articles, so I was wondering whether any regulars watching this page would be willing to help me. At this stage I'm not even certain that it meets GNG, but its political nature, and the fact that it features interviews from Noam Chomsky and is narrated by Edward James Olmos suggests to me that it should. Any assistance would be appreciated. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

American Sniper page move discussion

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Blazing Saddles RfC

Time to whip up a Number 6 at this RfC! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Commentary on sexist, misogynistic and/or anti-feminist feelings at Mad Max: Fury Road article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road#Should commentary on sexist, misogynistic and/or anti-feminist feelings be included? A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Film poster Italian vs. American

What film poster should be used for this article (Mill of the Stone Women)? There is a discussion on File talk:Mill of the Stone Women.jpg here after a few reverts. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The Dissolve

The Dissolve, which has been referenced in a few dozen film articles for its reviews, is shutting down. We should web-archive the relevant references. Does anyone know if there is a way to automate this? This shows where The Dissolve is referenced. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

List of James Bond films

List of James Bond films is marked as a FA, but from a visual perspective, it really does not look nearly as good as even most GA I've seen. The navigation is horribly not user-friendly. In addition, the latest edits to this article eliminated the distinction between EON and non-EON films. I'm not really involved with the editing of this article, but I did want to know if this is just my subjective opinion that this article is not FA quality at the moment. --Gonnym (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

It looked like this when it was first promoted on December 4, 2011. (You can see this information on the list article's talk page.) It's definitely different now. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the plots were separated from the table at my suggestion a couple of years ago IIRC because on smaller resolution displays they bloated the table too much. On an ipad for instance you'd get about three rows on the screen. It made sense to me to just have the statistical data in the table and make it more compact. I agree we need to have a greater distinction between the Eon series and the independents. By the way, it is a featured list, not a featured article and they tend to have very different aesthetics i.e. lists seem to be monopolised by tables and have less emphasis on prose. Betty Logan (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Need opinions at Talk:Pirates of the Caribbean (film series)

Hi there, I've seen a flare-up of activity in the Principal cast table at Pirates of the Caribbean (film series), with people adding supporting cast/characters like Scrum to the table. Since this seems like it could easily become cruft bait, I have opened a discussion at Talk:Pirates of the Caribbean (film series)#Principal cast revisited to try to get a clear consensus on the scope of this table. My thinking is that the same criteria for the |starring= parameter of the film infobox should be used here, i.e. the poster's billing block. Anyhow, comments welcome here. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Texas Chainsaw 3D requested move

The discussion is at Talk:Texas Chainsaw 3D#Requested move 08 July 2015. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Character links

An issue of where character links should pipe to has come up. The discussion is at Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 2)#Character links. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Struggling to integrate prequel comics into Mad Max: Fury Road

As it stands, myself and KahnJohn27 are at an impasse as to how we should include Fury Road's prequel comics. KahnJohn has added full plot summaries of each of the comics, which currently makes up nearly 20% of the page's length; an action I personally disagree with. Please see the discussion here for more context and to give your input. Sock (tock talk) 12:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Kansas City Film Critics Circle at AfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Are "mixed" reviews called "negative" reviews?

More input please, it just two editors disagreeing with each other here. Talk:Terminator_Genisys#Mixed_or_negative_reviews If Metacritic states a film got 5 positive, 24 mixed, and 12 negative reviews, is it original research to say the film got "mixed" reviews? Should you say "negative" instead, as it does now? Dream Focus 19:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Technically it's always original research to say anything other than what the sources explicitly say. In cases of disagreement about these sorts of things I find it's usually best to avoid making such a summarizing statement. DonIago (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I would say that you can say that the majority of critics gave the film mixed reviews. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Related question: Rotten Tomatoes uses a pass/fail Fresh/Rotten grading system. When would we ever refer to an RT score as "mixed"? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

We probably wouldn't, unfortunately. The closest we can get to "mixed" is to report the rating average for a given film. I find it better to use periodicals that can apply the appropriate language in reading the reviews and/or the related aggregate scores. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, you just posted the question at the article's talk page and didn't really give it enough time for other editors to weigh in. So to say this is only between two editors is a premature assessment. If there is no consensus to keeping "generally negative", however, then I propose we remove the statement altogether and let the sources speak for themselves in the following sentences. We have made similar compromises in other articles. In this particular article, I think it's clear that the weighted average falls in the realm of unfavorable per the sources, and to me, the terms "unfavorable" and "negative" are synonyms in the context of grading films. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:American films on all American films

The category American films appears to have a standing instruction that ALL American films should be listed IRRESPECTIVE of whether they are already included in sub-Categories. Is this right? This arose from Schindler's List which is listed in 'American biographical films', 'American epic films' and 'American war films', so there is no possibility of anyone not realising it is American. This film is also listed in about 20-30 other categories, which creates a bit of 'category overkill'.

Similar practices are not followed in biographical articles, where only the relevant sub, not the parent category are listed.

I've tried asking at the help desk (nobody knew, but some agreed it was a bit pointless), and tried asking on the category talk (no replies). Apart from anything else, what is the point of a parent category that already lists over 39,000 films (and growing).

Please ping if replying.Pincrete (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete per WP:FILMCAT, all films are put in the category for their countries. Category:American films is non-diffusing category. MarnetteD|Talk 19:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

And Category:American biographical films is NOT a sub-category of Category:American films. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected.Pincrete (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Production sections that read like news releases

This is starting to become a problem, I think. A lot of recent production section include things such as when the cast signed on and when a movie was announced. The problem is that going forward this info becomes less and less important and it discourages deeper content from appearing on such pages. Is there a way we can encourage people to put more thought into these sections? Can this project try to clean up some of these articles? --Deathawk (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you somewhat. I think it is reasonable to write when development started and when cast member started joining, but I think it is problematic to be very date-oriented. I have seen a few articles where almost every sentence states the date as part of covering the new detail, which is not good writing. I try to simplify the timeline by keeping it to the month and year and to transition more subtly, like saying that something happened the following month. Can you show an example of what you mean, Deathawk? I'm not sure if we can do much widespread clean-up, but maybe some discussion here about how to summarize coverage would be useful for some editors to reconsider their approach. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll volunteer a personal example. At About Last Night (2014 film), in the "Cast" section, I mention the first actor joining in a specific month and year, then I say "in the following July" that two others join. Then I mention a fourth person being "cast in August". After that, I don't date-stamp when the supporting actors joined on. In the "Production" section, I mention what month and year development started, and I do repeat the month-year approach again (due to the noticeable gap) for when a director joined, then I use "in the following August". Most of these details are surrounded by the appropriate context (I like to think), but I'm happy to hear critiques of that writing approach. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Most articles about recent films develop incrementally as a "current event" which is why there seems to be a tendency to timestamp every development. It's just the nature of the beast I think. Short of actually re-writing the articles affected I am not sure there is much we can do about it. Betty Logan (talk) 08:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:PROSELINE, though an essay, may be worth bringing up for such articles. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Frankly this is the reason I really don't spend much time improving articles until after a piece of media is released; the article is going to be gutted and rewritten anyhow. Not much you can do besides removing and deemphasizing the temporal trivia. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

A good example of what I'm Talking about would be Woman In Gold. Get Hard and Wedding Ringer are also good examples too. I would argue that once a cast is in place, there would be very few examples where the info someone signed on would be encyclopedic, certainly once it's mentioned that one cast member signs on we no longer need to detail when every other cast member signs on. --Deathawk (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

General time references can be useful to give readers some understanding of how the production unfolded, however the exact date isn't necessary nor is it necessary for every piece of information.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Jack and the Beanstalk (2010 film)

I wanted to look up the film on wikipedia, as normally most films have separate articles with review/critics, but I am not sure about the consensus of why it was redirected per it's AfD discussion back in March 2011. There seems to be enough on the web to constuct a decent article, but it seems that the AfD, the result is, no synopsis on the story, lack of cast list, and lacks any information to provide for this diabolical film which is currently being aired in the UK on C5. Maybe someone can reconstuct a decent article for this film? Govvy (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that there are very few sources. I found an announcement from Entertainment Weekly, which is apparently a rehash of this article from The Hollywood Reporter. A decent start, but it's not enough to satisfy WP:NFILM. As far as reviews, I found a review by Radio Times. This is what we need, but one isn't enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Disruption at Shane Hurlbut

Jesse96 (talk · contribs) has refused to engage in discussion on the talk page at Talk:Shane Hurlbut, choosing instead to revert, repeatedly -- with zero talk page discussion. Please see DIFF 1, DIFF 2, and DIFF 3. This disruption of a WP:GA quality article is inappropriate.

The account Jesse96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has previously been blocked for both (1) Socking and (2) Vandalism.

Could use some help here.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

X2 (film)

Could we get some experienced, non-comics-fans editors at Talk:X2 (film)? Some die-hard fans are proposing that we give the film a false title because they like the marketing title better. That would be exactly like renaming the Die Hard 2 article Die Hard 2: Die Harder when that's factually not the onscreen title of the film. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you re-word this notice to be neutral per WP:APPNOTE? Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Relations?

Are David Feige and Kevin Feige related?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Searching any combination of those two names turns up no results of the two together, so I think they just share a surname. Sock (tock talk) 15:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what you have attempted to do well enough to be confident in your response. I assume you are saying that you searched something like Kevin David Feige in a search engine yielding results for pages mentioning both first names and the last name. Did you do searches like Kevin David Feige brother?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

(ec) or Kevin David Feige cousin?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

If you are suggesting these search criteria why aren't you performing the search on your own? Sock was only trying to help and does not deserve this criticism. Also why are you asking this here rather than the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. MarnetteD|Talk 22:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I have tried to search for evidence of a relation but have gotten results with spurious results. I have asked at various locations, but was not aware of the one you are suggesting.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth: yes, I searched with various relative names (such as brother and cousin, as well as uncle and father) afterwards. Still nothing. Sock (tock talk) 14:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I also looked yesterday out of curiosity and did not find anything making the connection. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Knowledge requested

Hi friends, I'm looking at a dispute here and I wanted to see if I could get some of you crackerjacks to give some input at the talk page. Some folks seem to want to limit the infobox |language= to Telugu, ostensibly because the film was produced primarily in Tollywood (the Telugu-speaking center of the Indian film industry, which is based in Hyderabad). Other participants have argued that the film is being produced in a few languages simultaneously (Tamil, being one of them) so the parameter should include that dub. Template:Infobox film mentions the inclusion of multiple languages if it is clearly a multi-lingual film. I don't think that applies here because we're talking about dubs. Some comments like this raise my promo red flags: "Please change the First line in the main section as Indian Telugu Epic film . That would give due credit to the telugu people who worked for this film for almost 3 years." However, rather than dig my heels in, I figured I'd get some fresh eyes. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Dubs should not be added to the language parameter; just the language that is used in the film i.e. the language it is filmed in. Betty Logan (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Cool. Reasonable. Thanks for that. Here's a twist I just picked up on, though per this reference it sounds like the movie is being filmed simultaneously in at least two languages.

To make things tricky, the Baahubali team was simultaneously shooting the Telugu and Tamil versions. "I can speak Tamil, but this film required us to speak 'senthamizh', staying true to the period. Writer Madan Karky helped us. We went by Rajamouli’s guidance for the Telugu version,"

If Actor A films a line in Telugu, then films that same line in Tamil, and then two versions of the same film are produced in different languages, that's not a dub, that's a different beast, I think. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

If it is not a straightforward dub, but a multi-lingual version so that two negatives exist then I honestly do not know how we would handle that in the infobox. To add languages in the conventional way would be a potentially misleading use of the parameter. For now I would omit the parameter and wait and see how reliable sources document it. Betty Logan (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Production Designer Credit inclusion in info box

I would like to open this discussion again as the arguments I have read so far defending the omission of the credit have been anything but satisfying. As it stands this is a colossal blunder when measured by industry standards: The production designer is essential to the look of a production and thus is part of main billing. That should not even be a question at Wikipedia because it certainly isn't in the industry. I would like to correct a commenter in the archives who is opposing inclusion that a film production's three crucial stages are defined as preproduction, production and postproduction. Unlike some of the other key personnel (e.g. writer, composer, editor) production designers have historically been involved in the key visual role in TWO of these stages (preproduction and production). In modern days this role extends into post production as well with many sets now being created digitally and added after the fact. I would also like to strongly object to the aforementioned idea (see archives) that the amount of production designer-Wikipedia pages somehow reflects on the importance of the role. If anything this showcases a deficiency of Wikipedia where popular subjects tend to attract more contributions than less popular ones. Do a google search on "famous production designers" and see an extensive list of past and present professionals pop up in a strip slideshow. At least in this case google certainly one-upped Wikipedia as the more thorough informational resource. In movie production a huge deal of importance is placed on the order people are being credited and who receives top, equal, diagonal, etc. billing. Matter of fact in most cases the production designer tends to be credited BEFORE the director of photography. Clearly the Infobox should reflect this consequently: either all main billing in or all main billing out. If composer and director of photography are included then so should the production designer. If the sentiment is to arbitrarily exclude the production designer from the Infobox in order to keep it brief then it only makes sense to not include any main billing at all. Simply put: any billing that is included on a movie poster -and the production designer clearly is- should be included in the info box as well, or no billing at all. Here is the universally practiced order of credits in North American and European movie productions: http://newenglandfilm.com/magazine/2012/08/credits.

I was asked to include a link to the respective infobox discussion so here goes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_film

@DonFerrando: Make sure you sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) because I have no idea who you are or how to get you back to this conversation without checking the history. Also, a link to the actual discussions: initial discussion and edit request. Sock (tock talk) 20:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, I suggest we discuss it over there. I replied in the initial discussion, linked above by Sock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Ju-On: The Final Curse

Can someone fix the title for the new Ju-On movie. i edited wherever I could, but the main article title is still JU-ON: The Final. Everywhere else on the web (official movie site, IMDB, etc..) it is titled JU-ON: The Final Curse.

Well, the IMDb isn't a reliable source. But, yeah, I found support for what you said. For example, this article at Screen International. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Film trilogies at CfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe this CfD would benefit from additional opinions. Thanks all. DonIago (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Expanding WP:NOTPLOT

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Expanding NOTPLOT. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 08:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

"H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (film)"

The usage and primary topic of H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (film) is under discussion, see Talk:H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (2005 film) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 08:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:All film articles using the film date template

There is a discussion whether this category should be deleted. If you would like to weigh in on this debate, you can find it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 July 15#Category:All film articles using the film date template. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC on the classification of Indian films

There's an RFC about how to classify the film Baahubali (Tamil and/or Telugu) at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films#RfC:_How_should_we_classify_Baahubali. There's also a number of other discussions regarding how to classify various films (language/industry or separate grosses and other formatting issues) so I think the WikiProject Film people may have an opinion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Use of year categories in upcoming films

Please see Talk:Fantastic Four (2015 film)#2015 Category for a discussion on using year categories for upcoming films. BOVINEBOY2008 11:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks BB. On the back of this, I've done some cleanup at WP:FILMCAT. This includes removing redundant info and updating the text about categories for years. Hopefully this isn't contentious, but feel free to raise any issues here if needed. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, need more input now someone who should read WP:COMMONSENSE disagrees. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Nighthawks (film)

Hi all, anyone familiar with Nighthawks (film)? An editor recently expanded the plot section to 1000+ words. I reverted with an explanation on the editor's talk page. My revert was met with opposition, so I thought I'd see if anyone here might have a clean way through the plot. ? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I've run into this before and do not have the patience for it

Those of you who remember me may recall that I sometimes go on a plot tagging bender, which I then use as a bit of a to do list. When someone removes a tag on and 800ish word plot, I don't even notice. No big deal as that's only running a little long and we have many articles with a consensus in that direction for good reason. [| This sort of thing] kind of bugs though. I tagged a 1350 word plot and another editor removed it with "so fix it". Same editor did likewise at another related article but the 1070 word plot in that case is on a featured article and, again, I can't even. I know exactly what will happen if I get into the stupid over this. Still on my to do list. But if anyone likes to address maintenance tag removal related to our project, enjoy. Millahnna (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I invite you to read WP:BRD. You were bold, I reverted you. Now it's up to you to discuss it on the article's talkpage. How you can tag a Featured Article with this chocoloate fireguard of a tag is beyond me. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Please keep in mind that WP:BRD is an essay and not a policy. In its own words:

- BRD is not a policy, though it is an oft-cited essay. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.
- BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work...

It's perfectly fine to cite the essay as a good faith suggestion for other editors to follow, but we shouldn't be setting it as an expectation. In regards to the use of templates, editors should be encouraged to look for improvements that "could be made easily" per WP:TM. However, this is certainly not a requirement either, especially for plot summaries whose length has run over by several hundred words. I wouldn't generally consider those quick and easy improvements. An editor should be permitted to tag the section with a proper notice such as this one. If the notice bugs you, then fix it. That's one of the reasons why we have template messages to begin with. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging is lazy and I remove it. If the plot length bugs you, then fix it. How do you explain tagging a FA? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but perhaps you're not thinking about the overall picture. Tagging has several advantages; it notifies editors watching the page that a problem has been identified and gives them a heads up that it may be shortened in the near future. This actually encourages collaboration. So for example, I could go through and tag 20 articles that I know need work. But in addition to tagging, I would go back through the ones I've seen and make the improvements myself. There's the chance that another editor watching the page beats me to the punch, allowing me to move quickly onto the next article. As you can see, across a large number of articles, a lot more would likely get accomplished in a shorter period of time. Also for the films I'm not all familiar with, I've at least identified the issue to other editors in hopes that a future visitor will make the necessary adjustments. The tag itself should not be viewed negatively in this respect.

And just for clarification, my original comments were in reference to this edit posted by Millahnna. The article involved was not an FA, but even if it was, that doesn't really change things. FAs can lose their luster over time, as a result of vandalism, unsourced additions, etc. They should not be exempted just because they've achieved FA status. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The tagging is appropriate whether or not the tagging editor intends to fix the problem themselves; one of the primary purposes of tagging is to call out issues with articles so that there is an increased chance the issues will receive the proper attention. Perhaps the tagging editor should make an effort to improve the summary before tagging it, but they are under no obligation to do so, and in my estimation to refuse to allow an editor to tag an article on that basis is tendentious, not in the best interests of the project, and constitutes disruptive editing. If the summary is so easily fixed, I would invite the editor disputing the insertion of the tag to set a positive example by fixing the summary themselves or working with the other editor to do so. DonIago (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a general issue with editor-focused tags vs. reader-focused tags. A reader-focused tag highlights something that could be actively harmful to the average reader, like completely unsourced or POV-centric text. The plot tag is clearly editor-focused; a reader doesn't need to be warned that the section they are about to read violates a word count. A long plot section is not potentially harmful to a reader, like a completely unsourced or POV section might be. Do we really think that a random reader is going to be motivated by a tag to remove content just to meet a word count? I wish that there were an easy way to support what you want, like have another template that adds the page to a maintenance category (would this be acceptable? I'm guessing it is easy to do). That way editors who are interested in this can find the pages they want in a less disruptive manner. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

That's a fair point, however one might argue that any visitor on Wikipedia is a potential editor. The tag raises a necessary concern that the content in the corresponding section is not up to Wikipedia's standards. They can choose to assist or ignore it altogether. I don't see how that's any different from other notices such as {{refimprove}}. Besides, this really isn't the appropriate venue to decide when template notices should and shouldn't be used. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Amending my previous post...I just saw your point about unsourced and POV tags. I agree with that. This is much less harmful in that respect. I'm not quite convinced we should replace the template with a back-end solution, but let's see what others think. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

As is evident if you read the talk page for the article in question, the plot is nearly 300 words longer than it was when it achieved FA status. And the plot that was agreed upon at that time could easily have been made more concise by eliminating some awkward writing (passive voice, "film does this" language, and purple prose are all problems). And as is evident by actually scanning a few diffs in the article history, the bulk of the bloating that has been done since is either more of the same or just plain old detail creep. Once again, I use these tags for myself quite often. I don't necessarily have the time or the focus for a particular article I tag at the time. And as for the film I actually linked in my post, 1350 words is absurd. Millahnna (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Tagging splits editors I guess, but if the objection is primarily aimed at tagging a featured article then would it not be simpler to reinstall the plot that was present when it passed its review? The article obviously had an MOS-compliant plot summary at some stage so it may be simpler to just restore it. Betty Logan (talk) 23:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

That is my intention; I do it frequently. Just no time for the digging at the moment. Millahnna (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comments:

1. Inland Empire not a FA or even a GA
2. "So fix it" is not an appropriate response to a good-faith tagging of something that wildly veers from accepted best practices and guidelines. Editors who are familiar with the film and the article are the ones who should fix it. Calling one good-faith tag attempting to improve the encyclopedia "drive-by tagging" and "chocolate fireguard of a tag" is not helpful (quite the reverse). If the reverting editor has that much interest in and knowledge of the film, they should be well able to trim the plot to within normal WP:FILMPLOT parameters (between 400 and 700 words).

-- Softlavender (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hats off to you Softlavender. Maybe you could put the same effort into article editing as you do to talkpages. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

If people took time to look at Millahnna's edit history of drive-by tagging, this is the edit on the FA I'm referring to. Millahnna's own admission is "do not have the patience for it", yet goes on about it here. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I have to ask, what's the harm in "drive-by tagging" a plot summary for being overly-long if the plot summary is in fact overly-long? DonIago (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Well it's lazy for one. I ask if Millahnna has read WP:FILMPLOT AND seen the film in question? WP:FILMPLOT states "...The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional..." Which this is. If only the article had a talkpage to address these concerns. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Laziness doesn't equal harmful. If the article is tagged there is an increased possibility that the summary will be brought into compliance with the guideline, so I ask again, how is the tagging in and of itself harmful? And if you feel that this article merits an exception to the guidelines then I think it would be appropriate for you to inititate the discussion at the article's Talk page as you're the one who desires the exception, not castigate others for following the guidelines. It would also be a more civil approach than removing what is clearly a good-faith effort to notify others about what is perceived to be a problem with the article. Respectfully. DonIago (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The burden is with the tagger to say why they think it needs fixing. Again, I invite Millahnna to raise these. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Sorry, Lugnuts, but I don't buy it. If a plot summary is over the word limit, then it's self-evidently too long and worthy of tagging. It doesn't need further explanation from the editing tagger, and there's no obligation on the tagger's behalf to fix it. Moreover, if there's a problem with a FA, then it needs tagging just like any other article. Popcornduff (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't really care what you "buy" or not. The plots over some arbitrary limit that someone set (why 700?) once upon a time. So what? The only person making a valid point is Orange Suede Sofa, which virtually everyone conveniently chosing not to read. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. There's nothing ambiguous about the plot summary tag, and if an editor disagrees with it being applied to a plot summary that's in violation of the guidelines then I believe it's incumbent on that editor to initiate a discussion and obtain consensus for the tag's removal...provided they're not willing or not able to bring the summary into compliance. DonIago (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Popcornduff and Doniago's comments don't make any sense in a rational process. It's an FA - tags are inherently damaging to the reader because they are distracting. I've restored a much earlier version which is under 800 words and given the non-plot cast listings and required explanations, it is acceptable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the formal process of demoting or improving an FA would be the preferred route as opposed to inserting a tag. An article cannot be considered an FA if it has been tagged with improvement notices, which is why we should take extra care in FAs. A discussion on its talk page would be a better place to address the issue. As for Lugnuts' comment that the "burden is with the tagger", I strongly disagree. The tagger has the support of WP:FILMPLOT. No further explanation is necessary, UNLESS the longer length has been justified on the article's talk page. Making the case for an exception to this guideline is on the editor taking that position, and if no case has been made, then it's well within reasonable expectations that the plot summary section gets tagged. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I see both sides of the issue. I don't necessarily agree with the original poster's practice of simply stopping by articles to tag them (for any reason, not simply a too long plot). However, that said, I also disagree with Lugnuts removal of the tag, for two reasons, one general and one specific. First, in the general sense, the 700 word count exists for a reason. I don't add the too long tag very often (I think I've done it 2-3 times, but would have done it more except for the tag was already there), and the reason I tag it, rather than fixing it, is that I don't have the expertise to fix it and do justice to the film, so I tag it to alert other editors that there is a potential lengthy issue, and someone with more knowledge of that particular film can do a better job than I could by simply arbitrarily cutting the plot. Now in this specific instance, I understand Lugnuts opinion that we should take care of tagging an FA article. However, the fact that the plot was 300 words shorter when then article made FA status (if that's accurate, I didn't personally check) actually makes tagging the article make more sense. The plot summary was in a different state when the article made FA status, and its current state might even jeopardize that status. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, has anyone made any attempt to "fix" these plots? No. Didn't think so. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Terminator Genisys

We have a little dispute over at Terminator Genisys. To get this out of the way: None of us is claiming it would be an immortal cinematic masterpiece along the likes of Citizen Kane (1941) or Lawrence of Arabia (1962), and none of us want thre article to claim such. Our dispute has to do with the reviews and the box office figures. The reviews issue itself divides into several parts, which is the actual reviews, how aggregators are treating them, and how we feel the article distorts even what the aggregators are saying.

Okay, reviews first. As can be seen especially on Metascore, the great majority of professional reviews is mixed, and the clearly negative reviews make up less than a third of professional reviews. RT is not quite as transparent as MS by only counting positive reviews, which is definitely not the same as that all the rest would be clearly negative reviews, but I suppose you may come to the same conclusion when digging into the actual reviews linked there.

But what both aggregators are doing with that, I've never seen before: They're both taking the few clearly negative reviews and give them heavily undue weight in order to write their *VERY OWN* consensus (which, as you know, is sort of a mini-review) to say the film would be entirely rotten. That makes it look as if that would be the majority view among professional reviewers, which it clearly isn't. It *COULD BE* that those few clearly negative voices are particularly important ones in review world and I have no objection if our article would state such, but that's clearly not the same as a general consensus among most professional reviewers. So, what we're dealing with here is not the general consensus among most professional reviewers, but the *VERY OWN* consensus of RT and MS. That difference is fundamental.

Next, box office figures. We have two different sources linked from our article, Forbes and Hollywood Reporter (albeit the two links are only used to source the film's budget in the article), that were published before the film's release or during its very first weekend and gave prospective figures on what the film would need to take in its first one or two weeks in order to be considered successful. We're now a few weeks down the road, and the film has not only met those figures. In fact, it has already made *THREE TIMES AS MUCH* as the Forbes article (which was more optimistic than many, many other sources) hoped it would make during its entire lifetime, all while it's still in theaters in some markets.

Now, let's have a look at what our article makes of the above. In contrast to what every other user on the talkpage thinks right and proper, the user GoneIn60 keeps plastering the article with the statement (or defending it against everything we say) that the film would have exclusively clearly negative reviews (which is *NOT* what the aggregators are saying, see above), *AND* he keeps adding (or defending the use of) sources which pretty much claim the film would be a financial disaster (see section Sequels and spin-off, for example). The interesting thing with the latter is that none of the sources he uses for that say why they think it is a financial disaster or what they think it would have to make in order to be a success (other than arbitrarily comparing it to the (inflation-adjusted) billionaire's club of Gone with the wind, Avatar, or Jurassic World). All they do is use the figures required for a success that were projected weeks ago by Hollywood Reporter and Forbes, figures that were not only met but even exceeded threefold.

When we're telling him a.) that that's not what the majority of reviews are saying, b.) that that's not what the aggregators are saying, and c.) that all the sources he uses to call the film a "box office disaster" use entirely arbitrary standards and conflict with more level-headed sources from before the figures did come in and that are used as sources in the article (even if only to quote the film's budget), what does he do, calling himself "a fan of this film"? He accuses us of wanting the article to claim the film would only have glowing reviews, which nobody wants, that we don't know what WP:RS says, and that what we're saying (see above) would be "original research" simply because the *VERY OWN* consensus of aggregators clearly and openly conflict with their very own figures as to the number of positive, negative, and mixed reviews. All we want the article to reflect is the sourcable fact that the majority of professional reviews is mixed and that the film is anything but a "box office bomb".

I think we need a dispute resolution here. Plus, we need new rules for what to do when aggregators are behaving as wonky as this. --80.187.109.151 (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Metacritic, I am not sure if there is that wonky behavior. The threshold between mixed and negative is 38, 39, or 40. There are 9 mixed reviews with scores of 40, and 2 mixed reviews with scores of 42. The negative reviews cover a range of scores. The overall score was 38, and I assume the same threshold exists for between mixed and negative. The overall score was basically on the threshold. A few slightly different scores would make it just mixed. There is not a lot of granularity here, it's like a report card only being able to print "C" for two students even if one of them got 79.8% (C+) and the other got 70.2% (C-). All I am seeing at Terminator Genysis is the use of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. Are there not reliable sources that summarize the film's reception? On this encyclopedia, the goal is to capture the verifiable perspective, not necessarily the most empirical one. For example, if before aggregators existed, The New York Times says a film was poorly received, but our personal assessments called that into question, we wouldn't be able to overturn The New York Times on its conclusion based on our own findings. It takes another source to say, "Actually, a closer look at the reviews shows that it was not as panned as popularly thought..." So here, we need to stick to sources that establish in popular memory how the film was received. I personally support specifying aggregator details to give readers more information on top of that, such as breaking down the Metacritic reviews by category. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a very good high-level summary from a source independent of the aggregators, "Critics agree that while it’s fun to see Schwarzenegger reprise his iconic role in the franchise, 'Genisys' suffers from a convoluted time travel storyline and unremarkable performances from the rest of the cast. Descriptions of Clarke’s turn as Sarah Connor never get more enthusiastic than 'serviceable.'" Rotten Tomatoes also has a "Critics Consensus" column that can be referenced with additional summary-level detail here, "Critics say the latest entry in the Terminator franchise benefits from the Governator's return to his most iconic role, but the rest of the film is a mishmash of confusing plotting and wall-to-wall special effects, with little of the smarts and heart that made this universe so appealing in the first place... The pundits say Terminator Genisys references its predecessors but brings little new to the table beyond several plot twists that make little sense on reflection." Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, The Wrap and the professional column on RT are certainly good sources, but regarding the two quotes you're giving, they're so in depth and (given GoneIn60's stance) give hardly any hints on whether their overall definite opinion for the film is "negative" or "mixed". Saying that Ahnie did well and it was a good idea to bring him back but panning pretty much the rest, or call it "nothing new" or "serviceable" (there's more positive reviews on the points mentioned already linked in the article, BTW, both regarding plot and casting for the actors next to Ahnie), could be read either way if the source doesn't have a definitive statement on whether it grades the film or its overall reception as bad or mixed. Due to their in-depth nature, the two quotes are excellent material to be added as literal quotes in the critical reception section, but I'm afraid they're not much worth when it comes to our dispute on what they majority of reviews say.

Also, is it really our goal to pretty much lump in public conscious or public memory with what professional reviewers are or were actually saying? I agree both are relevant for articles, but they're not the same.

As for the scores of individual reviews, I suppose that's the weighting system used by aggregators? Then that's pretty much like I was saying: The aggregators generally gave more weight to clearly negative reviews for the film because they personally consider these voices more important in review world, which is all fine and dandy as long as it's a transparent issue what they're doing there. Hence, our old suggestion to say that "a few important voices clearly disliked the film, while the majority of professional reviews was mixed". Also, I'm a little afraid of the old paradox that Wikipedia cites a single press source, then the general press starts quoting Wikipedia, and then Wikipedia quotes this as a "consensus of the press". I'm afraid it could work pretty much like that with review aggregators for films like TG that are either on the edge or, in some influential but minority cases of reviews, intensely polarizing. I. e., some big names are gonna pan the film, the aggregators will use those big names to claim "everybody panned the film" when their own figures contradict them on it, and then everybody else will rely on the big names and the aggregators as to what the "general reception" was. Could be that what plays into this problem is the fact most people seem to ignore the "mixed" grades and just lump them in with their personal opinion as either "good" or "bad" and nothing but, or what they've heard some influential voices (reviewers or aggregators) have been saying. Hence, we need fair rules for cases where aggregator consensus is clearly in contradiction with their own figures. --80.187.109.151 (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I think in these kinds of disputes there is too much concern to lock onto the right brief label for how a film is received. There is not a universal truth to uncover and report. So we should be able to tolerate instances where we can report critics' general findings without having to declare that the collective reaction was most definitely "mixed" or "negative". We can't write these sections to tell readers whether or not to see the film; that should be purely incidental. We have to write these sections in a historical sense. If there is not a clear-cut conclusion from reliable sources about the reception, then Wikipedia cannot be clear-cut. We can cite the aforementioned references, which can implicitly indicate to readers that the film was most definitely not received positively, but whether or not it can be seen as lukewarm or negative can be left up to the readers.

In regard to reporting the general consensus, it is a matter of due weight, which is to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". Per WP:SOURCE, periodicals are especially appropriate for determining this. I would say these periodicals are more reliable than aggregators for this reason, especially when they write about a film with a disinterested perspective. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are at their core about telling its users what films are worth seeing and what are not. We're only leveraging useful detail from these websites. MOS:FILM#Critical response is in line with this, saying, "The overall critical response to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources... Detailed commentary from reliable sources of the critics' consensus (or lack thereof) for a film is encouraged." We only reference individual reviews as additional detail. If a reliable source summarized multiple reviews in sufficient detail, then theoretically one could have a section without including individual reviews. We just tend to use them because there are so many films and not consistently detailed summary coverage. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I recommend the article be deleted alongside every Terminator article outside those dedicated to the first two films and the central characters therein. For the betterment of humanity. While we're at it, delete the article for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and every Adam Sandler film. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Erik II, I've thought about your suggestion some. If I got you right, we should give room for broad discussion within the article by quoting reliable sources on what the general reception is, right? Problem is, most of the sources that deal with the general reception for this film suffer the very ailments you cite above: Relying too much on brief labels and relying too much on big names and aggregators (where the latter do essentially the same in turn). It's all to do with the problem I've mentioned above (but had to stitch in above after an edit conflict), so quoteth:

"Also, I'm a little afraid of the old paradox that Wikipedia cites a single press source, then the general press starts quoting Wikipedia, and then Wikipedia quotes this as a 'consensus of the press'. I'm afraid it could work pretty much like that with review aggregators for films like TG that are either on the edge or, in some influential but minority cases of reviews, intensely polarizing. I. e., some big names are gonna pan the film, the aggregators will use those big names to claim 'everybody panned the film' when their own figures contradict them on it, and then everybody else will rely on the big names and the aggregators as to what the 'general reception' was. Could be that what plays into this problem is the fact most people seem to ignore the 'mixed' grades and just lump them in with their personal opinion as either 'good' or 'bad' and nothing but, or what they've heard some influential voices (reviewers or aggregators) have been saying. Hence, we need fair rules for cases where aggregator consensus is clearly in contradiction with their own figures." --80.187.109.151 (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

We need to depend on sources' reliability, which means here that they have "a reliable publication process" and have "editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking". We can theorize all we want about circular sourcing, but barring clear evidence of that, we need to trust that process of how a source reports a significant viewpoint. Maybe they look at just aggregators, maybe they look at the aggregators and the individual reviews, and maybe they ignore the aggregators and draw a conclusion from individual reviews. Wikipedia merely summarizes what these reliable sources report. If there are conflicting conclusions, then in-text attribution can be used to juxtapose them. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, it's far from me to suggest we should openly speculate about circular sourcing within articles. What I'm saying is that we need a clear and fair rule for when an aggregator's consensus is in contradiction with their own break-down figures, as that makes such a circular sourcing scenario highly likely and the exact statement cited a dubious one. I think a simple rule such as "In such a case, cite both consensus *AND* break-down figures, and maybe mention that their weighted consensus favor some professional sources over others due to their larger influence or authority" could do the trick. I mean, it's not like the weighting process of MC and RT should trump our own rules at WP:RS and WP:UNDUE, right? It's fair and good to mention what the aggregators are saying as important sources, but I think we should advice some caution when *THEIR* rules or their way of implementing them could run counter to ours. --80.187.109.151 (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Why do you see it as a contradiction, though? Each review is scored prior to the weight. When all the reviews are scored, weights are then applied accordingly in the staff's averaging process. The grouping of individual reviews by score category is a distinct branch from taking the weighted average from the full group of reviews. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, we have two statements: a.) "Most/almost all reviews were clearly negative." b.) "Less than one third of reviews were clearly negative." I'd sure consider the two to be in conflict with each other, wouldn't you? So far, we have a.) in the article, because the "mini-review" at MC pretty much states that the film is crap and calls that a "consensus" because they call some negative voices more important than other professional voices, even though they also fairly report b.) at MC. I have no problem to admit that some important, influential, or authoritative voices hated the film, but still, a.) is just plain wrong, especially since b.) is easily sourcable via MC. --80.187.109.151 (talk) 02:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The Joker has been nominated for Featured Article

The above Featured Article discussion has begun and may be of interest to this project. It is focused primarily on the comic character but falls under the purview of film characters. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Stephen Simon

Hi, check this out, please. The article Indigo (film) links to mr. Simon because this is the name of the director. But mr. Stephen Anthony Simon is a composer. Guess a disambiguation page is needed. Thx. --Pequod76 (talk-ita.esp.eng) 12:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Stephen Simon is a pseudonym on that film. - Gothicfilm (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Simon is his birth name: [6]. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Journey to the West (2016 film) at AfD (again)

This has now been nominated for the third time (in quick succession). Any help to determine one way or the other would be great. Discussion is here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Bibliographies of works about filmmakers

Please see Talk:Woody Allen bibliography#Requested move 31 July 2015. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

American Sniper

There's a discussion going on at Talk:American Sniper#Historical accuracy which might be of interest to you. Comments are welcome. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The Contact page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Acolades

The page on Wikipedia List of accolades received by The Hobbit film series has an award program called Online Whale Awards, where The Battle of the Five Armies is nominated for 8, if that counts, there is a page on Instagram, and they have 9 categories people comment and vote on, The Hobbit is nominated for 6, here is the link https://instagram.com/awardnominations/. Editor49 (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed - I have removed this as non-notable. It was originally submitted by 32.218.16.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in this edit. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced awards lists? Best get Kww on the case, unless he's busy with admin duties. Oh, wait... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I got rid of some "Tumblr movie awards" thing which is obviously non-notable. A few of the others could probably be pruned, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind"

The usage and primary topic of Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind is under discussion, see talk:Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (manga) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Katy Perry videography

This is currently an FL candidate, see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Katy Perry videography/archive1. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see...

this discussion. BMK (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Billing in the infobox

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Template talk:Infobox film#Starring (revisited again). A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Films about friendship

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The Notebook page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs

FYI the article about this film has been nominated for deletion. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Details about other films in leads

Here's a style thing that bugs me and probably nobody else, so I'd like to get some opinions. In quite a few film articles I see details about other films in the lead. For example, from Stalker:

In September 2012, the British Film Institute's '50 Greatest Films of All Time' poll conducted for Sight & Sound listed Stalker at #29, tied with the 1985 documentary Shoah.

My instinct is to remove "tied with the 1985 documentary Shoah" from the lead, because the lead is about Stalker and not about Shoah. One detail is that this is a tie, so that's interesting, but does it matter which movie is the other half of the tie? (I would definitely remove the "1985 documentary" part in any case.)

A variant of this is "film X held record Z until film Y broke it." From Star Wars:

It surpassed Jaws (1975) to become the highest-grossing film of all time until E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial in 1983.

In this case, knowing exactly which film surpassed the record doesn't help me to understand Star Wars any better. (Or does it?)

Another common pattern is losing awards. From The Exorcist:

It is also the first horror film to be nominated for the Best Picture Oscar, ultimately losing to The Sting.

In this case, it doesn't matter which film ultimately won the award. (Or does it?)

By contrast, mentioning other films is useful when used as a direct comparison or association. Also from The Excorcist:

The Exorcist is notably one of a cycle of "demonic child" films produced from the late-1960s to the mid-1970s, including Rosemary's Baby and The Omen.

That's fine, because the relationship isn't trivial or coincidental. Thoughts? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The Star Wars example of "X bested Y until Z" is actually reasonable as long as dates are applied (and can be sourced, natch), as this gives an idea of chronological nature and importance of the film relative to others that are well known examples, prime information for the lede. The other two examples I'd agree for lede statements get in the way. --MASEM (t) 00:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Masem that the 'X held record Z until film Y broke it' is useful if given sourced dates, as it gives context for how long it held that record (Did it hold that record for months? For a year? For decades?) and how long standing that record was before it achieved it (Was this set months prior? Last year? Decades old?) I agree that the other two aren't really relevant enough to mention. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

One additional comment: on the example of film placement lists, something tying for 29th place is trivial. On the other hand, if two films tied for the first spot on a major list (if that could happen), that would be appropriate; or if we are talking the 2nd or 3rd place film (and no deeper into the list), mentioning the other films (1st and 2nd place here) would help to establish the context of the film to these others. But this has to be the very top of the list. --MASEM (t) 00:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Inception - alternate interpretation of totems

Additional opinions at Talk:Inception#Analysis of the ending might be beneficial. An editor is asserting that it was the presence rather than the behavior of the totems that was used to determine whether one was in another's dream. The plot was edited to eliminate any mention of the specific usage of the totems, but that apparently did not satisfy the editor, who has proceeded to make changes that I feel weaken the summary. Thanks. DonIago (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

False statements. I at first emphasized the presence, and then also the feeling, instead of the behaviour; only on the talk page without going into that in the article. Article edits always maintained the specific purpose of totems, but neither a personal interpretation of the way nor a too narrowly or erroneously interpreted purpose. In the linked Talk section, the relevant discussion is what started today. Thank you for some common sense. ​▲ SomeHuman 2015-08-12 20:57 (UTC)

Requested move for My Mother (film)

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

We need a task force just for Joe Swanberg films

Anyone interested in working on Joe Swanberg films? We're missing a lot of his filmography. Not really my favorite filmmakers, but I guess I'll get around to it if nobody else does. If I have to watch a dozen Joe Swanberg films just to get this done, I expect to receive a barnstar. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Ehh, maybe it's not so bad after all. I created a few articles, but they're barely above stubs. I don't have much excuse for 24 Exposures, as I've seen that one, but The Zone, Caitlin Plays Herself, Autoerotic, and Art History need better plots. I think there's still some more missing, but that's enough for now. Also, it's 5am and I'm tired, so I probably screwed something up. Maybe someone could load up the pages to make sure that I didn't forget an infobox or something obvious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I knew I'd seen this guy's name somewhere when I just created the stub for Lace Crater. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

link to IMDB Season X Ep List of a show

I've noticed that the Wikipedia page for a specific season of a TV show rarely ever links to the IMDB page for that specific season, but instead links to the general IMDB episode-list page for that show.

I've also noticed that there's a template for linking to the general IMDB episode lists, but I don't see a template for linking to season-specific IMDB episode lists.

I'd like to, as I see them, update the Wikipedia pages for specific seasons to link to the IMDB pages for specific seasons.

Should I interpret the lack of a template and the fact that it's rarely done as meaning that it shouldn't be done, or just that noone's gotten around to it yet?

You will want to move this question to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television since you are asking about television shows. MarnetteD|Talk 21:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Ugh... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:IMDb_episodes references "WikiProject Film", but not "WikiProject Television" Guess that should be updated? Can I do that? Bsammon (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I can see how that template caused confusion. Yes you could do it Bsammon but I went ahead and changed it for you. MarnetteD|Talk 00:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Japanese animated films and production company parameter in the infobox

There was a long discussion about the name of this parameter (studio or production company) back in 2014 that resulted in a name change. Now I have a related question: Which companies exactly are we going to mention in the infobox of film articles? Especially animated films?
My main concern here are Japanese animated films. In almost all cases there is a アニメーション制作 (animation production) or 制作 (production) in the credits of these films which lists the animation studio who made the film. In many cases there is also a 製作 (production [financing]) in the credits which mentions a production committee and also specifically lists all the companies who financed the film. The common practice in English Wikipedia until now was to only mention the animation studio in the infobox, like all Studio Ghibli films, Ghost in the Shell, Dragon Ball Z: Battle of Gods, or Steamboy. Now that the parameter name has changed from studio to production company, some users feel they should add all the companies that finance these animated films to the infobox, like here. The problem is that the list of companies that are credited under 製作 is generally long. A film like Steamboy has 9 companies listed under 製作, or a film like The Wind Rises has 8 different companies under this credit. This would make anime film infoboxes bloated and result in a long list of companies after the 'production company' parameter. The other problem is that if we decide to list all these companies, how do we differentiate them. A simple list in the infobox doesn't show the reader which company animated the film and which company financed it.
In Japanese Wikipedia they have two different parameters in their film infobox, a 制作会社 parameter for animation studios (or in live action cases companies that make the film) and a 製作会社 parameter for companies that finance the film. They also generally don't list the individual financing companies in the infobox, especially when their list is large. Instead they simply mention the name of the production committe that represents these companies. A production committee is a special entity created by a group of different companies partnering for a specific film project to finance and manage the copyrights of said film and is very common in Japanese film industry. I try to explain this further with The Eternal Zero: In Japanese Wikipedia you will see that in the infobox, the parameter 制作会社 lists 'ROBOT' as the single production company that made the film and the parameter 製作会社 lists '「永遠の0」製作委員会' as the single production entity that financed the film. 「永遠の0」製作委員会 (“The Eternal Zero” Production Committee in English) is the name of the production committee of this film, and it actually represents 19 different companies.
The vague definition of the 'studio' parameter here in English Wikipedia has resulted in a confusing situation. Should we mention financing companies of (Japanese) animated films? Should we ignore them in the infobox? Are they needed at all? If yes, how do we show the reader which company actually animated the film? Make it clear in parentheses? Is mentioning the production committee instead a list of financing companies (like in Japanese Wikipedia) sufficient? Is it needed at all? If there is no need to mention the financing companies, isn't it better to clarify it in the template's documentation? It would be very appreciated if we could come to some kind of consensus regarding this matter. --Raamin (talk) 05:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

What country is Brazil?

Could use some help with a soapbox editor. See also WP:ANEW and 50.152.50.83 (talk · contribs) for other films getting the same "'Merica, Dudes!!" treatment. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Their edit history covers them in glory. And surely it's a Brazilian film...? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editor returning to old ways after month-long block

User:Andrew.tisler (see edit-history here) returned from a month-long block on August 20 to make the same sorts of edits as before — reinstalling deprecated parameters, seeming to shill for Dune Entertainment and RatPac — and judging from the similarities in edits I suspect he's a sock of the editors blocked indefinitely at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GaGu13. It takes time to go through edit histories and create enough diffs, so in the meantime I'd like to suggest Film Project members address any possible issues or vios in his edits. --15:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Are personal pronouns (including "who") to be avoided for fictional characters?

Please take part in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Are personal pronouns (including "who") to be avoided for fictional characters? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The consensus here is coming out pretty overwhelmingly "No, in fact they're standard." The only issue is whether the MoS or MOS:FICTION should state this explicitly or whether it's so obvious and the problem so minor that it can be expected to go without saying. Contributions still welcome. If you know of any edit wars or other conflicts that have arisen because someone wanted to change "a character who" to "a character, which/that," then please contribute. If you know that this problem is rare, please come say so. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

A more neutral notice than the above: Just FYI, this non-neutrally set up reductio ad absurdum RfC has actually moved on to a more serious discussion about whether MoS should advise rewording to avoid particularly confusing uses of "who[m]" and "[s]he" when writing about fictional characters in an out-of-universe way (e.g. as intellectual property). Further input from projects that actually write encyclopedically about fictional characters a lot would be useful.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I've never read so much about something I care so little about. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC on unusual prepositions in titles

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proposal regarding unusual prepositions in titles (re: clarification request in RM closure).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Casting sections in already released movies

Lately I've been noticing these sections pop up more and more in movie production sections, that simply list when actors join the role. In my opinion, while these may occaisionly serve the article, they often are excessive and make the article look outdated as if someone was merely posting the news as it happens and nobody bothered to delete it once the movie came out. A great example would be the Spy (2015 film) casting section which simply lists when actors joined and nothing else. I feel that these really hold movie pages back from being as good as they could be. Thoughts? --Deathawk (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. There does not appear to be anything that would be valuable to keep in prose (such as other actors in contention, or filmmakers' reasoning for casting someone). Alternatively, the "Production" section could be rewritten to be without subsections, combining all the material into a paragraph or two. It could only mention that McCarthy was cast in the month after development was announced and that the rest of the main cast joined between then and the start of filming. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the two posts above. Frequently, interviews give out more and better information than routine reporting by trade magazines ("X joined the cast of film Y on date Z"). I guess if someone cared deeply, they could propose a line be added to MOS:FILM that discourages proseline in the production section. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

While I think there is some usefulness in knowing how the casting unfolded, there's no need for exact dates and no reason why the information cannot be merged into fewer more general statements.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not just "Casting" sections. I am seeing some terrible "Production" sections overall. I just tagged Star Trek Beyond for cleanup after tagging Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film) just yesterday. I'm agreeing with NinjaRobotPirate that we should say something in the guidelines about this. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I went through and streamlined out a bit of the proseline from Fantastic Beasts. I hope I didn't go too far. There's still a bit of "on this date, something happened", but I think it's a bit more readable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

That's definitely better than before! I think the other problem is the unnecessary use of in-text attribution, e.g., writing "Variety wrote" or "Variety reported". That use implies that the information might be in doubt, where we should just relegate the attribution to the inline citation. In-text attribution is appropriate for opining sources or conflicting sources. The "Pre-production" subsection is basically a "Casting" one, and most details are too disjointed for prose. Something like mentioning other actors in competition for a role could be part of the relevant bulleted item in "Cast". Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I think another issue here is the over reliance on dates for upcoming films, These often are never weeded out once a film is released which is problematic. I'm still trying to figure out how we can best combat this. I think the best way may be to have a task force that looks over and smooths out articles, but I'm at the moment a bit hesitant to suggest that. I feel like a lot of articles for upcoming films have a lot of good info but are rendered relatively unreadable by their current format. --Deathawk (talk) 10:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I try to clean up these articles as I find them, but it's a bit of tedious work, and I've been battling a significant amount of built-up frustration with Wikipedia. There are too many editors who think every conceivable fact should be included (frequently duplicated in the lead, too) and every plot should be bloated to 1000+ words. The only thing you can really do is make a habit of going through recent films and streamlining out all the bloat and obsolete details ("as of October 2014, it has no release date. In November 2014, it was released by Lionsgate."). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

German film categorization

Is it the case, as claimed by an IP editor, that "for convenience" all German films are listed in Category:German films, even if they're already listed in, say, Category:West German films? The IP has made the same claim here and here for American films, British films, French films, Italian films and Japanese films. Is this correct? BMK (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The inclusion of the AllIncluded parameter was added by Fortdj33 (talk · contribs) a year ago. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not an answer to my question, is it. Anyone can add the template, is it in accordance with current practice? BMK (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Temper, Ken. I was attempting to ping Fortdj33 to the discussion (which reminds me - @Fortdj33:) to ask why it was added. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It is generally the case the articles with child categories do not also carry parent categories. Where and when was it decided that film categories were an exception? Where is the community consensus discussion that determined this, so I can refer to it? BMK (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Articles as a rule only omit the parent category if the sub-category is a diffusing category. As such all British films go in the British film category because it has no direct diffusing child categories. However, in the case of German films there is a legitimate argument that the East and West Germany film categories are "soft" diffusing categories because they are complete subsets of the parent category and only the parent category. I wouldn't be opposed to lifting this restriction in regards to the German films category if the films are in the East Germany and West Germany categories. Betty Logan (talk) 09:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I also used to think that it was redundant, but it has been the standard for years, that all the parent categories for films by country contain non-diffusing categories. I'm not sure when this consensus was made, but to be consistent it should apply to ALL countries, so I disagree that an exception should be made for German films. Fortdj33 (talk) 11:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Like what other countries? I can't think of any other countries analogous to the West Germany/East Germany precedent, so how is this a consistency issue? Betty Logan (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The non-diffusing issue has come up several times, and simply put Category:American drama films is not a sub-cat of Category:American films, it's a sub-cat of American films by genre. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Is that a reply to me or Fortdj33? Obviously we wouldn't remove films from "American films" simply because they are in "American drama films", because as you say it is not a diffusing category. It describes a relationship between the nationality and the genre of the film. That is not analogous to the case with West/East German films i.e. they diffuse the parent category into a more specific localisation. Betty Logan (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: When you say that East/West German films are "complete subsets" of the German film cat, do you mean that together they make up the entire parent cat? Clearly that can't be the case, since films were made in Germany prior to its division, and have been made since reunification. So what did you mean, exactly? BMK (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I have knocked up a few images to convey the different types of sub-categories:

Non-diffusing: http://s13.postimg.org/q81r0460n/Non_diffusing.jpg

Soft-diffusing: http://s13.postimg.org/bnko5ab1z/Soft_diffusion.jpg

Hard-diffusing: (known as "container categories" on Wikipedia): http://s13.postimg.org/7h4f3p0tz/Hard_diffusion.jpg (*this is just a hypothetical example I cooked up, so let's avoid the debate about whether there should be a category for Welsh films)

As a rule we don't remove the parent category for non-diffusing categories, whereas we do for diffusing categories. The only difference between "soft" and "hard" diffusion, is that in the case of the former articles are present in the parent category if they not in any of the diffused child categories. In the case of hard diffusion there should be no articles present in the parent category and these are known as "container" categories on Wikipedia. Categorization is not really an area I'm very active in but the above diagrams represent categorization as I understand it. Betty Logan (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the Venn diagrams, they are very helpful. So, is Category:German films soft diffusing, as you've portrayed it, so that the IP was correct in adding Category:German films to articles which are already categorized as "West German"? BMK (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I think it is unnecessary to add Cat:Germans_films to articles which are categorized as Cat:West_German_films because it diffuses German films into a more specific localisation. That said it's an isolated case so you can probably make an argument either way. I don't dabble too much in categorization though so I'm happy to leave the final decision to those who do. Betty Logan (talk) 09:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

So now 50% of the German films in the Wikipedia (A-N) are with Category:German films and 50% (O-Z) are without Category:German films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.127.69 (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

"Drama (genre)"

The usage and purpose of Drama (genre) is under discussion, see talk:Drama -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Is SSNInsider a reliable source?

I've seen SSNinsider.com around on WikiProject:Film pages, and used it as a cite twice today. But a fellow editor asked me about it when I looked more closely it appeared to be an anonymous news-aggregator. But then I looked even more closely and I see it was bylined original reporting and interviews. I can't find anything about its owner, TSS News, LLC., offhand, however, so I'd like to get input from WikiProject:Film editors about this site, which is cited frequently on Wikipedia. (See list here.) --Tenebrae (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Obviously having a byline doesn't necessarily mean it is a reliable source either, unless we know if there is some level of professional oversight and fact-checking. If the bylined authors are employees of SSN and not "hobby writers" with a "real" job down at Walmart then we can probably assume they meet the criteria. If you take this guy for example, his Linkedin profile indicates he is an employee of SSN so that's a good sign IMO. Another good sign would be if known reputable sources ever quoted from them; that would establish them as a reputable news provider, at least within the media industry. Betty Logan (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The Finest Hours (2016 film)

Is there something wrong with my browser or is the page The Finest Hours (2016 film) covered in script errors? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I saw this happen with The Martian (film). I just clicked "Edit" and did a null edit (saved without actually editing). It looks fine now for me. You? Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This happened yesterday at another article: [7]. Betty Logan (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The first article I saw with this glitch had a warning for a duplicate parameter in its infobox. The script errors went away when I fixed the infobox, so I assumed it had something to do with infobox errors, but I guess not. Definitely very weird. I'll try the null edit thing next time I see this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I've left a couple of messages at Template talk:Infobox film and Template talk:Infobox. For everyone's reference, null edit steps are found at WP:NULLEDIT. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is the error? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

On the article I linked to the infobox was not rendering and I was getting all the wikicode instead. When I looked through the edit history the infobox rendered fine, so it was only the very last edit that was causing the problem even though the editor had not edited the infobox. I reverted his edit and that fixed the problem; however, when I went back to the "problem" edit in the edit history the infobox rendered fine, so I reverted my edit and the problem did not re-occur. Betty Logan (talk) 05:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The infobox is replaced by an red error message that says Script error: The module returned a value. It is supposed to return an export table. Various other templates, including the reflist, also return the same error message. It took a lot of searching, but I finally found an article that has the error visible: Tooth and Nail (film). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I see. I saw the error on Tooth and Nail. That is strange, given no one has edited this template since April. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The main thread seems to be at WP:VPT#Script error. Looks like it was a MediaWiki bug that got fixed. Purging articles will fix them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Cast list presentation

Here I am really liking the way the cast list is presented. Does anyone know of a template that is like this or similar enough to it that could be modified for use? Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Not that I know of but its based on the these two templates([8], [9]), which should be pretty easy to copy over.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I personally think it looks terrible. Why the dots between the names too? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it lines up the roles for better readability. Are there other dividers that can be used? Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that the added complexity could scare off newer editors. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Good point, which is why I've supported basic cast lists in the past. I do prefer cleaner presentations in articles that are fully developed and stable, though. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It is fairly straightforward technically, although I share Lugnuts' reservations about the dots. Betty Logan (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Matt Damon	...	Astronautti Mark Watney
Jessica Chastain	...	Melissa Lewis
Kristen Wiig	...	Annie Montrose
Jeff Daniels	...	Teddy Sanders
Michael Peña	...	Rick Martinez
Sean Bean	...	Mitch Henderson
Kate Mara	...	Beth Johanssen
Sebastian Stan	...	Chris Beck
Aksel Hennie	...	Alex Vogel
Chiwetel Ejiofor	...	Vincent Kapoor
Mackenzie Davis	...	Mindy Park
Donald Glover	...	Rich Purnell

As far as the dots go, and them helping to line up cast member and role, are they necessary if the background alternates colors from line to line? Granted, I'm mobile so I can't see how the dots look exactly. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind the dots, but we could use some kind of dash instead, or some other divider. I was only reflecting on possible presentations here and liked that one in particular. Betty, thanks for putting that together! Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I support finding an alternative to the "X as Y" format we use now. I'm opposed to the alternating colors, though. In cast lists, which are virtually always only two columns wide and thus rarely have the readability issues associated with long rows of data, the alternating row colors feel like a distraction and end up being chartjunk. It's also notably out of line with how we present lists in general elsewhere on the English Wikipedia. That template on the Finnish WP is also rather fiddly to edit for VE users; for example, it seems impossible to insert an item in the middle without manually moving everything else down a row. I realize that's a fault of VE rather than the template yet it should be taken into account as VE usage grows here. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Does this version discourage the inclusion of character descriptions? And does it encourage tables over prose? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Erik is implying that all cast sections use this format but as an alternative format for articles with basic cast sections.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

You're right, I am not. I've only played around with cast lists for certain articles, taking different approaches based on the details available. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Links to genres

There is nothing at WP:OVERLINK that says genres should not be linked in the lead of film articles. This has been long standing practice on nearly every film article. Is there suddenly a movement against this, and why have I only seen it enforced at The Martian (film)? - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Gothicfilm is referring to my de-linking of "science fiction film" at The Martian (film). WP:OVERLINK says, "An overlinked article contains an excessive number of links, making it difficult to identify links likely to aid the reader's understanding significantly." High-level genres (science fiction films, comedy films, drama films, etc.) do not need to be linked because they are understood by their very definition. Links to the film genre articles are not going to aid readers' understanding significantly. If it is science fiction and it is a film, then it is basically defined for the reader; same for the other genres. Sub-genres that readers are much less likely to be familiar with, e.g., screwball comedy, would warrant linking. WP:OVERLINK says in essence, "The function of links is to clarify, not emphasize: Do not create links in order to draw attention to certain words or ideas." We do not need to emphasize the basic genres. We need to clarify genres that may not make sense to every reader. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

No answer to why you're only delinking it at this one article, quoting a bit of WP:OVERLINK that has not been used in this manner before as far as I have seen. You should have proposed this as a new policy for the film lead. Not suddenly reverted another editor at one article and making statements in your edit summary as if this is common practice when it is nothing of the sort. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I dunno. I used to link all genres, but then someone – probably Erik – called it overlinking. I agreed and have stopped doing it. I may have delinked a few genres, but it's not something that I go out of my way to do. The last 120 articles that I've created (going back a year) have not had the genre linked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Which are those? Nearly every article I look at has the genre(s) linked. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

xtools. I don't think any of the articles I've created are mainstream in the sense that you'd have heard of them unless you're a fan of low-budget, independent horror films. Anyway, I guess I could list a few that I haven't created: Dead Birds (2004 film), A Horrible Way to Die, Contracted (film), Still Crazy, Before I Disappear, Safety Not Guaranteed, Buried (film). But, yes, it's kind of rare to find an film article that doesn't link the genre. Erik and I don't link common genres, but I think most other people do. Honestly, I'm more concerned with streamlining down "science fiction comedy-drama thriller film" than I am whether the words are linked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

We're here to help the average reader. The person who checks WP and clicks from link to link. I think there's no harm in linking to the genre, esp. when the article in question is in quite decent shape, which the average reader would probably find interesting to read. It's not a case of tons of words linked in the opening line (probably genre, director and lead actor). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

(checks article in question) - Yes, genre, director and lead actor. Bazinga. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Poking through the guidelines, it looks like WP:CONTEXTLINK (under MOS:LEAD) could be applied here. It starts with, "The opening sentence should provide links to the broader or more elementary topics that define the article's topic or place it into the context where it is notable." With this, it does sound like linking to film genres is appropriate. NinjaRobotPirate, you can dismiss my initial feedback. :) If others still find it overlinking, feel free to say so. (Pinging Sock as well.) Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Gotta say, I find such linking to be unnecessary in general. "Hi, welcome to Earth, let me introduce you to something called 'animated comedy film '. You can read more about it here." There's no need for it, and I think editors add the links out of obligation/tradition rather than out of any utility. "Have you heard about this new thing called drama? Click here for that." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

That was my line of thinking, but WP:CONTEXTLINK seems to be in favor of linking. Links to the film genres seem to fall under "the broader and more elementary topics that define the article's topic". Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Readers should be encouraged to take a look at a genre article not because they have little or no idea of what it is, but because they may be interested in learning more about its history, etc. They come searching for a certain film, but they likely don't know the genre article even exists without the link. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Infobox "starring" guideline"

There is a discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_film#Voting_time trying to formulate an effective guideline for adding stars to the infobox. It should offer practical guidance for when disputes arise, and it should also be generalized to older films and non-Hollywood films. Betty Logan (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

WikiConference USA 2015

Some of you may have seen the announcement about WikiConference USA 2015. The conference invites people to submit a session, and existing submissions can be seen here. This is one related to film, and I am wondering if others here think another kind of film-related session would be worth submitting. There are three presentation types, and a 15-30 min. presentation seems the best fit here. What would be good topics under film to present about? I am thinking that film articles on Wikipedia are some of the most popular articles, and a presentation could talk about challenges and opportunities related to that. Challenges could be about reporting nationality and critical reception or writing in a better style than proseline. Opportunities could be involving new editors or getting more free images (like those taken of cast members at Comic Con). Thoughts on this kind of thing? Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the "Fuzzy Genre" submitter may have run into me – or maybe TheOldJacobite, who was active in those topics. Anyway, I'm sure more film-related presentations would go over well. The biggest opportunity right now, I think, is to rewrite the core filmmaking articles, such as guerrilla filmmaking, film studio, movie star, cinematographer, etc. Most of the articles are already created, but they've languished for years. If we grabbed the attention of experts, that would be even better yet. For some reason, we don't seem to have as many "subject matter expert" contributors, such as professors or professionals, as wikiprojects like Medicine. Maybe this is a topic for discussion? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Razzies in award lists

I couldn't find clear guidance one way or the other, so I thought I'd ask: is there a clear consensus on including Razzie nominations/wins in an award list? Full disclosure: I'm asking because of this nascent minor content dispute at Filmography and awards of Stanley Kubrick: [10][11] (subsequent discussion on my talk page: [12][13]). Thoughts? --Fru1tbat (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Based on this discussion I'd tend to think the feeling is that if there's secondarily-sourced discussion of the award then it may be appropriate for inclusion, but otherwise probably best to omit it as not being significant. DonIago (talk) 02:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Request an article Charles Macaulay

Seems like he's notable. [14] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

High frame rate films category at CfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Editor vastly expanding Plot section

Additional editorial input may be needed at Talk:The Rage: Carrie 2. An editor has been vastly expanding the plot, though they have now initiated a conversation at the Talk page to get input from others and stated their rationale for the expansion. Thanks for your help! DonIago (talk) 01:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The Contact

There is a request to move The Contact (1997 South Korean film) to The Contact. The discussion can be seen here. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The Martian

At The Martian (film), there is a content dispute about whether or not to include Donald Glover in the film infobox with other actors. Please see the discussion here. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

There is also a content dispute about covering certain details in the article's lead section. The discussion can be seen here with the comments starting in September. Editors are invited to comment. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Akira plot summary

There's a discussion going on at Talk:Akira_(film)#Plot_summary_discussion regarding the length of the plot. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion criteria for films

There's an RFC here for whether Speedy Deletion criterion A7 should apply to film-related articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Fantastic Four

At Fantastic Four (2015 film), there is a content dispute about covering discussion about the film's sequel and its current status and how WP:SPECULATION should be applied. The discussion can be seen here. Editors are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 10:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Citing an author's opinion of a sequel's chances of being made "interesting" is not encyclopedic content. Also you accused WP:Crystal false for this statement: Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. --SuperHotWiki (talk) 11:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Lady Gaga videography

This is currently an FL candidate, see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Lady Gaga videography/archive1 20:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Daily Mail as a reliable source

Daily Mail claims that Emily Ratajkowski has worked on Knights of the Roundtable: King Arthur in this article. I see no other sources mentioning this role. Is this reliable?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

There are long-running concerns over the Daily Mail (check out this story). Technically it is a "reliable source", but in the past we have caught it publishing fake stories, most notably its coverage of the Amanda Knox trial (mysteriously pulled from its website) and the George Clooney incident. I would be very cautious about using it and would be concerned if I could find nothing to corroborate its claims. Generally I personally avoid it although I use it occasionally if sources die and the Daily Mail is the best of what is left. Betty Logan (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Betty Logan, what do you think about including this specific content?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

In that article they are specifically quoting an article in British InStyle, so it is unlikely the Mail would be factually inaccurate when something can be so easily checked. Ideally the original article should be quoted, but the Mail is probably ok to use in this instance. Betty Logan (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Since it's an un-released, upcoming film, it's a WP:CRYSTAL issue anyway, and she could be left on the cutting-room floor, so no, this should not be in Wikipedia. And on the matter of the DM, in my opinion it is fine for stuff like premieres and red-carpet events that actually happened and that they post photos of, but for other kinds of stuff, it isn't usually a great reference unless there is some hint of a back-up found in some more reliable publication. Softlavender (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Softlavender, It is not Crystal to say she worked on the film. It would be Crystal to say her role in the film.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It says in the film not on the film, so it's a film-role question, and again, WP:CRYSTAL, especially since there are no other confirming sources. Softlavender (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Summer Box Office: How Movie Tracking Went Off the Rails

I wanted to share this The Hollywood Reporter article: Summer Box Office: How Movie Tracking Went Off the Rails. It is an interesting read, and this stood out for me: "Universal and Paramount promoted Rotten Tomatoes scores rather than individual critics in ads for Trainwreck and Rogue, respectively, a Hollywood first." We would be wise to make sure that films' articles report these scores neutrally and consistently provide a good explanation of how these scores are derived. The articles (of "tentpole" films, anyway) are frequently among the most highly-trafficked on Wikipedia, and we have to remember that readers wanting to know if a film is worth seeing or not is only incidental to our editing goals here. A website like Rotten Tomatoes is commercial by design, and we editors are only leveraging the relevant detail from them to be used in the encyclopedic sense. Feel free to share any thoughts! Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Another interesting article on the big summer flops: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/summer-box-office-flops-tomorrowland-820498. I always prefer it when articles quantify the loss rather than "flop" this and "bomb" that. Betty Logan (talk) 08:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Betty Logan Well join me and some of my fellow occidentals in the action-packed world of Indian cinema articles, where phrases like "The film achieved all-time blockbuster status" tickle the heart and warm the soul... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Contact page move

Not to be confused with The Contact page move (above). Discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Feedly

I use Feedly to follow RSS feeds for film news (as well as other news), and I wanted to share that feature here. You can add RSS feeds for Box Office Mojo, ComingSoon.net, Empire, FirstShowing.net, Google News's "Movies" section, indieWire's Movies, Rotten Tomatoes, The A.V. Club, The Guardian, The Hollywood Reporter, and The New York Times. I've also set up Google News RSS feeds for myself to look for certain film titles or keywords. Pasting in the URL https://news.google.com/news/section?q=, you can enter keywords after (e.g., the martian film), you can go to the page then scroll to the bottom and click "RSS" to get an RSS feed URL that you can put in Feedly (or some other feed reader). I wanted to share in case some of you wanted a good way to following film news. (I also posted about this in July of last year, as seen here.) Thanks, Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing But the Truth (and others) page moves

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Updated production section brainstorm

Please see this discussion--Deathawk (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Steve Jobs films

We have two 2015 films about Steve Jobs with the same main title: Steve Jobs (film) and Steve Jobs: The Man in the Machine. The latter is a documentary film. Do we want to dismabiguate the former any further? Or rename all of them differently? Worth noting that there's also Jobs (film). Not sure if readers down the road will remember the difference between Jobs and Steve Jobs. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that Jobs is fine, because that's easy to distinguish with simple hatnotes on each page. As for the two 2015 films, I'm not really sure on that. The only problem with disambiguating further would be that they would get some pretty long dabs (such as "Steve Jobs (2015 documentary)" and "Steve Jobs (2015 fictional film)" or something). I'm not sure, I'm honestly only sure about thinking Jobs is fine. Sock (tock talk) 19:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

They all seem to be in the correct namespaces the documentary being similar to Star Wars: The Force Awakens, not Star Wars (2015 film). A hatnote can be added for emphasis.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

For the 2015 films, a hatnote pointing one to the other should be fine. Otherwise, it's a big job for someone. Chuckle. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It might be worth looking at this dab page:

• Steve Jobs (disambiguation)

Not certain if it is the best solution, but I did want to alert you all to the fact that it is there.-Classicfilms (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I've created a set index article at Steve Jobs (film) listing all Steve Jobs-titled films per what the guidelines entail. If editors want to comment, I've opened a discussion thread here. Thanks, Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Brazilian film task force

I would like to propose that {{WikiProject Film}} add a new task force for Brazilian film. {{WikiProject Brazil}} has recently added seven new task forces and successfully eliminated a backlog of more than 10,000 unassessed articles. The new Arts in Brazil task force would be a natural partner for any new Brazilian Film task force that WikiProject Film undertakes. I am personally willing to help with the set-up, if this idea is approved. giso6150 (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Always welcome new taskforces. Sounds a good idea. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

British English

Why are the Three Colours and associated articles titled Colors rather than Colours? All I can find is a move here, which merely asserts it is the case but without any discussion or policy citation. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

It does not appear that the film is a UK production, so without strong national ties, MOS:RETAIN would apply. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

'the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default'- It was with a 'u' for 2.5 years before the move. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} —Preceding undated comment added 13:56, September 16, 2015‎

Judging from the page history, it was marked as a stub before the editor who moved it also expanded it to be more than a stub, so under these guidelines, "Colors" takes precedent. The article has been at the current title since December 2009, and the goal of MOS:RETAIN is to have editors accept the status quo of a reasonably developed article in light of no national ties-based arguments. It is likely stemmed in past conflicts between editors about what variety of English a given article title should be. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Vital Signs (film)

All members are welcome to contribute to the article about the 1990 film, Vital Signs. So far, the plot summary and the talk page of that article are yet to be made.Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 01:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Starlog on Archive.org

I noticed recently that Starlog has most of its print backissues on Archive.org, found under a creator search for "The Starlog Group". I'm not sure if this is already known information, but I thought perhaps it'd be useful to those editing science fiction related articles and perhaps had difficulty securing a copy of an issue for an article. Anyway, just noting. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Neutral notice

An RfC about citing, which involves a standard cite in WikiProject:Film, has begun at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 9#Request for Comments: Italics or Non-Italics in "website" field. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Any WP:FILM editors who have not yet commented may want to go to the RfC above, which has become contentious and may result in our being forced to italicize website names like Rotten Tomatoes and CBS that are not normally italicized anywhere else. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of accolades received by No Country for Old Men/archive1

I have nominated List of accolades received by No Country for Old Men for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cowlibob (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:Interquel films

There's also this CfD, which may be of interest to viewers like you. DonIago (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization in the title of the film

There's a discussion at Talk:Naughty but Nice (1939 film)#Ping BMK which folks at this project might be interested in participating in. Sure would be nice to get some opinions there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Mr Turner page move

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

List of women in film

Please see this AfD. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Joy (film)

[15][16] I don't ever recall a film being required to have "Scheduled for [date]" in the infobox. I find it unnecessary as it is sourced. Many other upcoming movies I have on my watchlist do not state any of this. I am asking for the community's opinion. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I've never seen that, either. I also think it's unnecessary, but it's a minor issue that I'd probably just let it go. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems to have been fixed. It goes without saying that a date in the future is a scheduled date. That's why nobody says it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 12:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

R U Professional - featured article candidate

I've nominated the article about the song "R U Professional" for Featured Article consideration.

It's a satirical song and a form of parody music using sampling.

Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/R U Professional/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Cirt (talk) 08:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Gold Diggers of Broadway

Talk:Gold Diggers of Broadway#Technicolor, redux: Would Technicolor be considered a "studio" or "production company" for the purposes of the "studio" parameter on this article? BMK (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

"Black" and "Black American" vs. "African American" at the Viola Davis article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Viola Davis#WP:Citation overkill in the lead; also see the section started immediately below that. Flyer22 (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The Assassin

There is an ongoing discussion about what poster image to use for the film infobox at The Assassin (2015 film). The discussion can be seen here. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

2K resolution and 1080p

Hi, can someone weigh in at Talk:2K resolution#1080p? Thanks! Lonaowna (talk) 06:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Lists of films and sorting them

I am wondering other editors' opinions about how to approach listing films in stand-alone lists. I've created a number of list of films, and I've listed them alphabetically with the film title in the first column, followed by the release year in the second column. I am wondering if editors are okay with this or prefer a chronological order. If it is the latter, should the columns stay the same (first film title, then release year) or be switched around? My impression is that it is ideal for the first column to be the same one that is sorted. What do others think, as readers? To offer an example for review: List of films set on Mars. (Edit: Another possibility is listing films from newest to oldest. Not sure if that would appeal better.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I am not sure to see where is the problem to solve. The list given in example is sortable. So it remains only to discuss what is the better initial disposition. Newest on top is perhaps 5% better. Not sufficient to rewrite everything. Pldx1 (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Pldx1, you're right that it is sortable. I mean as a default view. (Not sure if sortability works in mobile view?) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I would favour the default listing being chronological, oldest first, but keep them sortable by title as well, along with any other relevant field (director, perhaps). GRAPPLE ^X 17:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be sorted on what the average reader would expect to find, and I think that so-called person would want to see a simple A-Z list for most of these type of articles. The only exception I can think of is something like the Golden Lion article (or any awards list, come to think of it), when the film is awarded from year to year. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Lugnuts. If you take the sorting out of the equation then finding a specific entry would be easier in an alphabetically ordered list, since a reader is more likely able to recall a title than the year the film was made in. Obviously there may be good reasons for indexing a list in another way, but if there isn't one then an alphabetized approach is generally good enough. Betty Logan (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The Martian

At The Martian (film), there is a discussion about covering the accuracy of the film's approach to science and technology in the lead section. The discussion can be seen here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting us to this disruption. Left a comment there. — Cirt (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It's like banging your head against a brick wall. Betty Logan (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Or herding cats... — Cirt (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Splitting Alien from Predator

At the moment, we have a template that covers the Alien franchise, the Predator franchise & Alien vs. Predator franchise. These are in the same template for the sake of there being an AvP franchise. But, for the sake of individual franchises and continuity, I believe this template should be split, with a new one called Template:Predator. Both these templates would include the AvP content, but would not include the continuity from the individual Alien and Predator franchises.

So far as continuity is concerned, the canon of Alien and Predator are separate and will continue to be separated, as the Alien franchise is expanding with the prequel series that negates the crossover AvP (non)-canon. I would also look to split any pages that attempt to count all the characters or other elements beyond the AvP franchise, as well.

The reason I am bringing this up here is that the talk pages for the individual franchises are rather inactive and as this is a major proposal. There have been recent restructuring efforts on the Alien franchise page with the announcement of the prequel series connecting directly with the main series. I'm honestly prepared to apply these proposed splits, should I feel there is consensus with this WikiProject. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds most sensible to me. Unless there's a new movie planned where Alien marries Predator and the Blues Brothers, per this. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've split the content into three streamlined templates: Template:Alien, Template:Predator and Template:AVP. All corresponding pages have been assigned their respective templates. There's still more work to be done, such as the page that describes the accolades of the three franchises, but it's a start. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 07:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

As an experiment I've mocked up the start of a version of the template which uses a variable switch to call up some of its content; User talk:Grapple X/Lenny shows three states that are called from the same template by using a variable field, such as {{User:Grapple X/Lenny|A}} or {{User:Grapple X/Lenny|AVP}}. I think a fourth parameter allowing the display of everything might be worth looking at two, maybe just for use on the main AVP franchise article, but useful nonetheless. I can finish this if people think it's worthwhile. GRAPPLE ^X 08:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@DarthBotto: @Cirt: Any opinion either way on this? GRAPPLE ^X 08:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks fantastic. Ripley would approve. — Cirt (talk) 08:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's give it a try. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 18:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Three out of five stars

Hi friends! I (very, very, very reluctantly) do a lot of editing in Indian cinema articles (did I mention very reluctantly?) and I'm seeing a trend of adding raw critic ratings to articles without any context, for instance in this version of the article a well-meaning editor just listed the "2 stars out of 5" summary. I'd like to hang my hat on a solid guideline about this, but I don't see one. Naturally my instinct is to avoid these arbitrary numbers and go with prose content that describes the critic's likes/dislikes with plot, acting, etc. Anyone got anything? A community discussion perhaps? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I would say that it is insufficient to only state a critic's rating, but I would prefer the options of either expanding that passage with prose content or replacing it with prose content, not just the latter. I would say the basis for not just writing critics' ratings is that it is a kind of proseline version of critic rating table templates that we've determined consensus to delete when such a template comes up every so often. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

10th TCA Awards - Nominations

I'm looking for references to cite for the Nominations at the 10th TCA Awards.

I can already find plenty of sources that only just cite the Winners, but I want a cite for the Nominees.

Specifically because I'm drafting up a Featured List drive for Bill Nye the Science Guy, and I want to find a WP:RS source that indeed confirms the television show was nominated for the 10th TCA Awards.

Please ping or message me on my user talk page if you find anything.

Any help would be appreciated,

— Cirt (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)