Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 61

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55←Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62Archive 63→Archive 65

Film in Kansas City

If anyone has a spare moment, please take a look at Film in Kansas City and the current AfD. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Burt Kwouk

Burt Kwouk has been nominated to appear in the Recent Deaths section of the Main Page. Input from members of this WP is requested at WP:ITNC. Mjroots (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY

Hey all, I just wanted to double-check something and see how you'd all approach this: At 24 (2016 film) the film's budget of ₹65 crore (650 million) is supported by an explanatory note and three references [1][2][3]. The first, firstpost.com, appears to be an interview with the film's producer, and it looks to me like the other two are parroting this data. So my questions are: 1) can we use a primary source, i.e. an interview, as a source for financial data, and 2) are any of the other two references sufficient? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Primary would be if the producer tweeted out the budget. In this case, it's a secondary source, because it was an interview with someone else. Either way, being the producer I think that's fine. The other two are probably unnecessary. Now, whether or not FirstPost is reliable and actually spoke to him I cannot say. Also, it looks like it says 65 to 70 crores.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi B, I'm pretty sure that I've seen editors flag content like this as "primary by proxy" and I don't see how it's any different from regurgitating a press release. From what I understand, the whole point of using a secondary source is that they are presumably checking data through their own channels, instead of just swallowing what the producer says or parroting other articles. Indian sources tend to be really lazy about this. And to give you an example of why this is problematic, I'll use MSG-2 The Messenger as an example. Reliable sources at the time were saying that the film did very poorly, placing gross at around ₹4 crore, noting also that there were some venues that were completely empty. In contrast, the production company made claims of 500 crore, which would put them in about the #5 spot across all Indian films. Now if that's not questionable enough, check out the film's trailer, which is "based on true events" and includes things like the real-life godman surviving a boulder smash to his head, flipping an elephant mid-air, and single-handedly kicking the asses of a massive indigenous population and a military battalion. Just sayin'. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the interview, it is a primary source. In order for it to be considered secondary, the source would need to provide an "author's own thinking" or analysis, interpretation, etc., which isn't the case here. The information is simply being gathered and distributed. It makes no difference if that distribution comes directly from the primary source or through a third-party. Your analogy of it being similar to a press release is spot on. As for the second part of your question, I would say that when the data isn't available from secondary sources or when secondary sources do not disagree with the primary source, then the primary source can be referenced. This isn't a concept that is controlled by a WikiProject; this is how it is site-wide. Hope that helps. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
GoneIn60, I just want to clarify, because I will be referencing this discussion down the road: you are saying that it would be unsuitable to reference a primary source for controversial data like film financials unless secondary sources are in agreement on the value? (That makes sense to me, but here's my prediction: crappy reporters will at some point fail to mention that the source of their data is the primary source, and we will wind up regurgitating those numbers as indisputable facts.) Regards and thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
To clarify, I believe there are two conditions in which a primary source is acceptable in support of a controversial element (whether that be financial data, descriptions, specifications, etc.):
  1. When the information is not currently available from a secondary source.
  2. When the information is available from a secondary source, and both the primary and secondary are in agreement. In these situations, primary sources work well as complementary citations.
These aren't hard and fast "rules", per se, but in discussions I've been involved in, this is generally the consensual approach to citing primary sources in support of controversial information. We want to be careful when we use them, but they are certainly acceptable in many situations just as long as we recognize that secondary sources are almost always preferred over primary sources when both are available. Also, the way they're published can be a factor. Showing up on some website may be less reliable than showing up in a book, for example, with the factor there being editorial oversight. Hope that helps. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

"Original theatrical release"

Hey, guys, there is a disagreement between me and Film Fan over the usage of a poster in the article Boy & the World (see the article talkpage). WP:FilmPoster says "Ideally, an image of the film's original theatrical release poster should be uploaded and added to the infobox to serve as an identifying image for the article." I always thought the "original" mentioned here to be the original release i.e. in the country that produced the film. However, Film Fan points it is somewhat ambiguous and thus the original theatrical release in the English-speaking world is enough. I don't disagree that his interpretation is right and I maybe wrong. But I would like to have someone third-party to clarify. Or, if there is disagreement I think it would be good for us to get a consensus and clarify it. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Since this is English Wikipedia, I think it would be good to clarify the guideline. I don't see the benefits of using posters from non-English-speaking countries when there are usually English-language alternatives. Both the image and foreign language are unlikely to provide visual identification for the majority of visitors, which is the whole point of the infobox image. — Film Fan 11:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I would express a preference for the actual original release, not something later just because it happens to be in English. You're identifying the work as created, not as some later re-distributor felt was best locally. This is especially the case if the film's article uses its original title, as any other title in the poster would be jarring. GRAPPLE X 11:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

"Cult!"

Hey all, this is a two-parter: 1) What's the community's stance on describing films as being a "cult hit" or "cult favorite" or having a "cult following" or anything related to "cult"? 2) Is anyone willing to consider adding something to MOS:FILM to address "cult" labels? This comes up often, particularly for bad films, and it would be nice to have a guideline on it. From my perspective, if all that's required to label something as having a "cult following" is a source that indicates a small loyal fanbase exists for it, wouldn't that describe just about every film, mainstream or obscure? Lipstick was being described as a cult film. Donnie Darko is described as a cult hit, Premam was described as a cult hit. Grandma's Boy attracted a cult following. Dhool is a cult masala entertainer... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

If you read cult film, you'll see that the questions you raise are heavily debated topics in academia. I think I might have gone a bit overboard in writing that article, but it's a fascinating topic. Anyway, to answer the questions: 1) unless a reliable source explicitly uses the word "cult", we shouldn't describe anything as cult or having a cult following; and 2) I wouldn't be opposed to clarifying the MOS, but I don't think it's necessary. We've already got several guidelines and policies in place, such as WP:V and WP:PEACOCK. If your eyes start to glaze over at my dense, jargon-filled writing (I've been strongly tempted to write a companion article on the Simple English Wikipedia), "cult film" has, over time, come to mean different things to different groups, none of whom can agree on a definition or inclusion criteria. This is why I think we need solid sourcing when labeling something as "cult": it's an inherently contentious designation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Content dispute on Thora Birch

There is a content dispute on Thora Birch about whether a film that began filming a few days ago should be given an entire paragraph of description in the article. If anyone wants to read more or comment, go to Talk:Thora Birch#Above Suspicion. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

I made an edit on the article for Amber Heard where two pre-production films were listed. I was reverted due to the fact she was confirmed to star in the projects listed. Aren't projects suppose to be filming before they are included in the infobox? I'm just double checking for future editing. Vmars22 (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Productions are supposed to be filming before they get their own article, but beyond that it's a bit of a grey area. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a collection of announcements either, but it's probably encyclopedic and factual to say that somebody has signed on for something if an official announcement has been made. Whether a film in pre-production should be added to a filmography is debatable if the film has not actually started filming. Personally I wouldn't add films until they start shooting but as far as I am aware there is no universal guideline that prohibits it. If somebody cares enough to revert you they probably care enough to keep the filmography up to date anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Genre being added to the infobox

Hi. A new user, Captnmorgz, has being adding the field "genre" to the infobox on film articles, despite it not being supported. I've dropped a note on their talkpage asking them not to do this. However, there's about 100 articles that they have edited with this (example). If there's a quick way to undo this, it would be appreciated. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks like Fortdj33 has done the hard slog. You'd think somebody would check the first article before doing it to a hundred, wouldn't you? Have you ever used Twinkle? It is under "Gadgets" in your user preferences. I have a feeling you would really enjoy that tool. Betty Logan (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

When should edition names be italicized?

I’ve just opened an RFC at WT:MOS#Are editions of major works also major works? to ask how Wikipedia should present the names of special releases or re-releases of creative works, such as collector’s editions, director’s cuts, or extended versions. The way I asked it focuses on video games, but it applies to all creative works that are commonly released in multiple “editions.” Please join in the discussion there. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Universal Monsters in need of TLC?

With the upcoming modern franchise in the pipeline, there is some activity at this article, and at Universal Monsters Cinematic Universe (2014–present) and Universal Monsters Cinematic Universe (1931–1948) (!?!) which may not be the best way to present the information. I think it starts going wrong after this version. See also Talk:Universal Monsters Cinematic Universe (2014–present)#Requested move 25 May 2016. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I brought this up earlier at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 60#"Cinematic universes". I also suggest renaming Godzilla-Kong cinematic universe.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
They're sneaking in everywhere... --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to let you, I requested a move here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

In a Wiki, far, far away...

That's no moon. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Best films ever

Please see this move discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Production editors wanted

Hey y'all I've been noticing a lack of really good production sections for a while, and part of it, I've come to realize is that there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of people working on them.

I've been working on, I guess you could say, the "beat" for a couple years now and I find it to be super rewarding. You basically go in and find out info about what makes a movie tick. Generally what I do is I try to find interviews with actors, directors etc. and then put the relevant info into the article. If that seems like too much work, we could always use more people to convert Proseline into Prose, a lot of the info for upcoming films and recently films are already there, just not in a form which, I'd call "digestible". If you're good with words, it might be up your alley. I just generally wanted to invite more people to do this, because I can see the number somewhat dwindling. --Deathawk (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

It's true that there aren't that many active editors in this area, but there aren't all that many active editors to begin with. There are only around 3000 logged-in editors who make 100+ edits per month. Anyway, I try to work on production sections as I can, but it's soul-crushing tedium to rewrite entire paragraphs of proseline. I've seen a few people simply remove it. That's tempting. Anyway, User:NinjaRobotPirate/sandbox has a few sources for use with classic horror films of the 1970s and 1980s. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Silent Era website no more

Just found out that the Silent Era website is no longer live. The homepage has this message: "Silent Era has discontinued publication. We thank you for your readership and support." All the links are dead, but can be found via the web archive. Rats. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

At least, we'll always have the Wayback Machine. Here's looking at you, kid. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm starting to think we need to archive the archive the way these sites keep folding. We have lost two important resources within weeks of each other. Betty Logan (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Update on this. There's this BFRA currently open that is planning to fix links that are dead, without them needing to be tagged first. Currently there's a bot that adds the web archive links to dead links that are flagged as such, but this should look at all links and do the necessary. Hopefully this fixes the problem for this and the NY Times sources that are now dead. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
It's back! I think the site owner has seen sense. Phew. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Cannes standing ovation

So I've been noticing that a lot of our articles for films that screened at Cannes mention that the film received a standing ovation. Two examples: 1, 2, and a Google search with tons of hits. Is this really something worth mentioning? The fact that there are so many incidences of these makes me think that it is just done as a matter of course rather than to distinguish a single film. Some of the mentions try to distinguish it by noting the length of the clapping, like "seven minutes long" or "fifteen minutes long" but we have to remember that it's just clapping which everyone follows along with. Lastly, in many of these cases it isn't actually the film itself receiving the clapping, but the appearance of the director or the cast. Opencooper (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

In fact searching for the phrase itself, it seems Cannes has a reputation for these ovations. Vox says they don't mean anything either. Opencooper (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Film infobox and Wikidata

Please see this. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

A discussion...

...which may be of interest to the members of this group can be found at Talk:Stark Mad#Unsourced material. BMK (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Jim Michael

This editor is going about changing a lot of categories, removing the general year ones in favour of by genre and year. Annie Hall the recent change, removing Category:1977 films. I think he needs to be stopped, can you look into it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I've not removed any cats from Annie Hall. Look at the bottom of the page - Category:1977 films is still there. I've improved the cats by adding more specific ones - why do you think that's not an improvement? Jim Michael (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I raised this on his talk page, too. I don't think we need this hyper-exact categorization. We already have too many of these genre-by-individual-year categories. Bad idea to make even more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
The primary categories such as "1977 films" should be retained on all articles per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Categorization#Practical_instructions. If we are going to do change that the decision needs to be taken at project level not editorial level. Betty Logan (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Look again - the 1977 films cat is already there automatically, without it being added. All you did is remove the valid cats I added. Jim Michael (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
The infobox automatically adds the cat, but that is a catch-all for articles where the category isn't manually added, it is not a substitute. If the infobox code is altered at some point in the future to remove this feature then we will lose the main categories if they solely depend on the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
That's still no reason to remove the valid cats I added. Jim Michael (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Here are the holder categories: Category:Crime films by year, Category:Drama films by year, Category:Horror films by year, Category:Comedy films by year, Category:Romance films by year, Category:Science fiction films by year, Category:Thriller films by year. Is it possible to just nominate the "holder" categories and get the subcats deleted automatically? Betty Logan (talk) 03:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure that deleting the container category will not affect the subcategories. I think we have to nominate each individual category for deletion – but, on the positive side, they can be bundled. The way I'd do it is to bundle each of the subcategories together in Category:Thriller films by year into one nomination, each of the subcategories in Category:Comedy films by year into another nomination, and so on. Or, I guess you could do everything all at once, but that would get a few procedural keep votes from malcontents who hate large bundled nominations. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd support upmerging these cats of year by genre as overkill. I guess if a few others voiced their support here, then we can link back to this discussion at the CfD as a local consensus has been reached. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

People on wikipedia have the tendency to overcategorize which at times is irritating when browsing. I want to see an A-Z of every film from 1977, not have to sift through 10 categories to find a few entries! If people want a list of thriller films from 1975 or whatever then we have lists of films by genre for that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Horror films by year should never have been allowed to develop like that, that should be deleted too I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

In addition to horror films being categorised by year, there had already been a few years of drama films by year, so I'm merely extending that in other genres. Why would it be useful for one or two genres, but not for others? Jim Michael (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps those were created without the knowledge of other editors at the project, who knows, but now that this practice has been extended into other genres, it is certainly gaining the attention it deserves now. I concur with others that we should be careful not to over-categorize, as that defeats the purpose of categorization in the first place. It should be helpful not exhausting. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I think it helpful and not overcategorisation. Many of the cats I've created are eligible to have many articles in them. If it's overcategorisation for one film genre then it's overcategorisation for all of them. Jim Michael (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
JM WP:OTHERSTUFF is relevant here. Also Wikipedia operates by WP:CONSENSUS. Please read what others have written here and try to understand what these editors are saying. There is agreement that these new categories are not helpful. It would be best to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on to other kinds of editing. MarnetteD|Talk 14:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
There's consensus against me in this discussion now, but there wasn't prior to it. Jim Michael (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • How do we go about this? Do we manually add the films back to the "1960s horror films" and delete them from the individual catgeories such as "1961 horror films", or can a bot replace "1961 horror films" with "1960s horror films"? Betty Logan (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
They can be group bundled at CfD and upmerged there. I could help with that. Note that while this discussion is ongoing, and there's a clear consensus not to have these categories, Jim continues to create them. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
It looks like Jim stopped on 31 May after I asked him to discuss it here and get consensus. It not that big of a deal; we just need to delete some categories. I don't think Jim has done anything disruptive. Also, there are a lot of animated film categories that go by year. Don't know if people want to clean them up, too. For example, Category:2015 animated films and its subcats. But there might be consensus for that at Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I will try and make a list this weekend of all the spurious categories and then Lugnuts can guide us through the process next week. We may as well do it all in one job lot rather than drip feeding categories to CfD. Betty Logan (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this is relevant to this discussion. J 1982 has just expanded a lot of the [Decade] science fiction films cats to yearly ones. See their contributions, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Favre1fan93. I think it's only fair to let this run until Tuesday (IE seven days since the thread was started) to get any further input, and then I'll help out with the CfD work. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
List of categories
Thanks Betty. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
You mistyped some of the sci-fi films, Betty. Probably just from missing during copy/paste. I've corrected them above. Thanks for compiling though. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting it. Betty Logan (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

CfD

All categories are now listed at CfD here. Please can people comment there? I'll notify people who've been involved in this discussion too, so they don't miss it. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

CfD outcome

Since this CfD outcome is relevant to the project, please see my close here. ~ RobTalk 22:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Fritz the Cat (film) at WP:FAR

I have nominated Fritz the Cat (film) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Laser brain (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Berlin Film Festival award categories at CfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge

Two pages exist for the same film. Both of them need to be merged into one.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Babji2000 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Babji2000: I have merged the latter into the former. Thanks for bringing it up and in the future don't hesitate to be bold and take a crack at it yourself. Opencooper (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Manmarziyan (2016 film)

Hi all, what would you do in this situation? Manmarziyan (2016 film) is an Indian film that began principal photography, but (according to content found at Vicky Kaushal) there was a creative shakeup and the director was replaced. Principal photography is now allegedly slated for August 2016 (according to the unsourced sentence in the Vicky Kaushal article). Do we keep the article up, or redirect it? We've satisfied WP:NFF's requirement that principal photography must have begun, but now we're in limbo. Thoughts? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

This is just a notice that members of the Television project are considering overhauling and rewriting our MOS, headed up by myself. As the film project and their MOS is closely related to the TV counterpart, I wanted to leave this here in case anyone is interested in participating. Nothing is happening until August 2016, but there is a discussion regarding interest in the endeavor which you can find here, and add your signature if you would like to be a part of the effort. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

We've got a bit of a situation here...

An IP who appears to be from Alberta, Canada has been causing disruption by repeatedly adding POVish material to the critical reception sections of Gravity and the Star Wars prequel trilogies. This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV and WP:SYN. I removed them, but was repeatedly reverted and I want to bring this up here in order to avoid a potential violation of WP:3RR and blocking. What should be done in this case? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes it's easier to locate a citation than to remove the unsourced editorializing. That way, the article gets improved, and you hopefully avoid the edit warring. If the disruption gets bad enough, you can try your luck at WP:AN3, WP:AIV, or WP:RFPP. Another thing you can do is, every few days (or once a week), remove all the minor POV/OR that accumulates in the articles. It's not a huge deal if "the film received positive reviews" sits in the article for a few days. It's not always easy to be this patient, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

MOS:FILM - WP:FILMLEAD tweak

Hey guys, a couple of weeks ago I opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film to propose a minor tweak to the film lead guidance, specifically to address how languages might be treated in the lead. This may not be a daily issue for those of us who speak English and work in English-language film articles, but it has relevance internationally and for coverage of non-English films. Please take a look at the discussion if you can spare a few minutes. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Language of silent films

In the article La Dame aux Camélias, there's a list of movie adaptations based on the novel and a bunch of these were silent films described as "an English language silent film" or "French language silent film", etc., but if they were silent, was it really in a language? Wouldn't the words have been in the language of whatever country was showing it? Or does that wording sound right? I've been overthinking it, so now I'm suffering from semantic satiation and need someone else to snap me out of it. :) Also the article needs a lot of copyediting that doesn't require being familiar with the story, and I could use some help if anyone has time. Thanks! —PermStrump(talk) 21:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The thing that I have seen that seems to make sense is "English intertitles" or "French intertitles" - you are right that using the term "language" is misleading since they are silent film. Other editors will have different suggestions. MarnetteD|Talk 21:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Maybe move towards something like this: "Camille (1917), an American silent film starring Theda Bara", instead of stating the language, for example. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Question

The following wiki page combines two different movies.

  1. London in the Raw (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  2. Primitive London (this is currently a redirect to the above film)

The page contains 2 infoboxes and is very confusing. Can they be separated out? Babji2000 (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Dutchy85 created the article in September of 2013 and then added the second infobox with this edit in November of 2014. I've pinged that editor in hope that they can explain what is going on. MarnetteD|Talk 02:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
One film seems to be a sequel of the other. Either way, that article(s) looks highly deletable. In fact, most of the 3739 articles this user has created are non-notable stubs: [4]. Here's a prime example: Prison Ship. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
This user has a long history of making incredibly short, unreferenced articles that have little or no content and/or context (including not adding any categories). Take a look at their talkpage before most of it was archived off. They have been told time and time again not to continue creating rubbish. I think the time for action has come. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Possibly needs some kind of wake-up call, as his behavior doesn't seemed to have changed one iota. It's not OK for a highly experienced user to create unreferenced articles, much less unreferenced stubs of a few sentences that establish no notability. And fail to leave edit summaries -- and every other critique on his talk page. An admin recently gave an indef block to someone who had failed to respond to a single issue on their talk page (which was full of notices, requests, and warnings) -- until such time as the user responds to the issues. I think that is a brilliant move. Should be used (after a very direct final warning) for all kinds of editors who fail to respond to tangible major issues that they have been repeatedly notified of on their talk page. Softlavender (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Film infobox - addition of website field

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Vital Article

Currently there is a pole to add Ben-Hur and Titanic to the list of 10,000 vital articles on Wikipedia. The poll is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded#Modern_visual_arts The list already includes 30+ films. Arman (Talk) 01:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Polish film festival at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Should film accolades table entries where the film itself is the nominee have blank entries or repeat the film's title?

Hi all. I've opened a discussion on the above at the following talkpage. Talk:List of accolades received by Mad Max: Fury Road. I welcome any comments on it. Cowlibob (talk) 10:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Dallas–Fort Worth Film Critics Association at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

White savior narrative in film‎

Regarding White savior narrative in film‎, there has been a discussion this past week about including The Matrix on it and cross-linking both articles. The discussion can be found here. Editors are welcome to review the discussion and endorse what should be included or excluded in the article. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Genre-warring at Jaws (film)

This issue has been the subject of a slow-burn edit war for years. I think it would benefit from a discussion and a decisive consensus so I have started a survey at Talk:Jaws_(film)#What_genre_should_go_in_the_lead.3F. I haven't formalized it as an RFC because I don't want to waste the formal RFC procedure on a genre war, but if enough film editors add their preference then hopefully we can get a decisive outcome. Betty Logan (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I recently created an article for CHIEF ZABU https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Zabu. Shortly thereafter it was reviewed and I received this notice: "(This article or section may have been copied and pasted from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094859/ (DupDet · CopyVios), possibly in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Please remedy this by editing this article to remove any non-free copyrighted content and attributing free content correctly, or flagging the content for deletion. Please be sure that the supposed source of the copyright violation is not itself a Wikipedia mirror. (June 2016)" However, I myself wrote both the IMDb blurb as well as the Wikipedia article, so there is therefore no copyright infringement, as I am the owner of both. How can I get the notice taken off the Chief Zabu article page? Thank you! Matzohboy (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC) Matzohboy (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Matzohboy, for legal purposes we cannot accept claims written on Wikipedia. You must submit proof that you own the right to this content by submitting evidence to WP:OTRS or the content can be deleted as a copyright violation. The reason for this is that we have no way of verifying your identity and ownership of the content on Wikipedia, whereas you would be more able to prove this via OTRS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Tokyogirl79 Thanks for your response! I have now replaced the article in question with a completely new entry; would it now be possible to please remove the potential copyright violation notice? Thanks so much, Matzohboy (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It looks like all you did was closely paraphrase the source material. This is still considered to be a copyright violation and the article needs to be re-written again. I'll try to go in and clean it up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The whole thing needs to be nuked IMO. It reads like a press-release. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I ended up fixing it - it looks like it might be notable, but we really need to have more to make it a bit more firm. I've asked Matzohboy for help on the article's talk page and I'll also ping MichaelQSchmidt to see if he can find anything else. I'm a bit loathe to outright delete this given that there is some evidence to suggest that there is more coverage out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Nice rescue job! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Tokyogirl79 Hi! I really appreciate all your help and the reworking/rewording of the Chief Zabu article to make it more acceptable/appropriate for Wikipedia. I would like to replace a couple of the citations you used, as they refer to articles with misleading information. Also, I'd like to add additional cast members and their credits, providing citations for each. Hope this is okay! Matzohboy (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @Matzohboy: I'm going to post this on both the article and on the WP:FILM page, but I did want to warn you - please do not re-add any content about the actors' other work. Not only is this seen as irrelevant to the article for Chief Zabu, but it can also be seen as promotional in tone since this is a common tactic with film advertising. (IE, mentioning their other work will make people more likely to watch the movie and by extension, make it seem more legitimate since it has notable actors in it.) It doesn't make the film more notable and on Wikipedia, since it can be seen as inherently promotional, it tends to backfire more often than not. The only time an actor's prior film career should be covered in an article is when it's directly pertinent to the film, meaning that the actor's prior film role has to be mentioned extensively and in depth in relation to Chief Zabu. Offhand mentions in news articles about prior work doesn't count since those happen quite frequently - it has to be in-depth. In other words, it has to be something like an actor discussing how a prior film role helped prepare them for their role in this film and/or an interview or article about a key person in the film (director, producer) who said that they chose a particular actor because of a specific film. Even then an actor's other work should be mentioned sparingly since the article is about the film, not the actor. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Films shot at Pinewood Atlanta Studios

Category:Films shot at Pinewood Atlanta Studios has been created, and I am not sure if this will be seen as a reasonable new sub-branch of films by shooting location, or possibly overcategorization. Please comment at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_July_5#Category:Films_shot_at_Pinewood_Atlanta_Studios if you like. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is the original cat discussion for Category:Pinewood Studios films, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_28#Category:Pinewood_Studios_films, where this new discussion is stemming from. It provides additional context to the new discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I had meant to add that here. Thanks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

MOS:FILM tweak - film's language in lead

Hey all, a couple of weeks ago I opened a discussion at MOS:FILM to propose a change to WP:FILMLEAD. The guideline doesn't presently offer any advice on how to deliver info about a film's language in the lead, so I wrote something up and Betty and NinjaRobotPirate refined it. If any of you have any thoughts, your comments would be appreciated, otherwise, I'll just boldly make the change in about a week. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Genre-warring at Rocky

An editor is repeatedly changing the genre to "romantic sports drama film". I have started a discussion at Talk:Rocky#Genre. Betty Logan (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Very odd, but this exact issue has come up at Sultan (2016 film), where a user has changed a film's genre to "romantic sports-drama" because the lead actor describes it as a love story. Though I understand why he'd use a primary source, that seems odd to me because the lead actor is obviously trying to sell tickets by making the film as appealing to the widest audience as possible. Not sure if that justifies the change of genre. And there's also the issue of genre-chaining. Titanic (1997 film) is an "epic romance disaster film". Barfi! was a "period romantic comedy drama". Ick. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion concerning English-language titles for Italian films

A discussion concerning the proposed renaming of Il coltello di ghiaccio → Knife of Ice is taking place at Talk:Il coltello di ghiaccio#Requested move 8 July 2016 —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 16:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Marianne (1929 film)

This article was recently split into Marianne (1929 silent film) and Marianne (1929 musical film), though the two are clearly related and neither has any substantial content. Is it wise to have two separate articles, or would they be better re-merged? PC78 (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

If they are physically different films that both satisfy the notability criteria they probably should be left as separate articles, otherwise you are going to end up with two cast lists and two infoboxes in the same article i.e. two articles scrunched together. It is cleaner to keep them separate even if they are stubs. Betty Logan (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Indo-Bangladesh joint film production article

Please see: Talk:Indo-Bangladesh joint production#The state of this article in July 2016

Thank you, all.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Films set in the future and past at AfD

Please see this and this. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Who you're gonna call?

Requested move busters. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Film scores by composer

I would expect to find articles about the score of the film in the sub-categories under Category:Film scores by composer, not the articles about the films themselves (for example, the article for the film Chariots of Fire contains the category Category:Film scores by Vangelis). Wouldn't a better naming convention be "Category:Films scored by Foo"? If there's some agreement here, I'd be happy to lead the renaming process through WP:CFD. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I think so too. It seems to be following Category:Screenplays by... instead of Category:Films directed/produced by..., as it should. The screenplay one is less problematic because it's merely the script of a film, with little or no independent life, whereas a score is a bona musical work that is at times has been the subject of a separate article. So the category name is misleading, and as Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars points out. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

"Overwhelmingly positive" is making a comeback

I have some concerns about the coverage of the reception at The Dark Knight Rises. Discussion at Talk:The_Dark_Knight_Rises#Reception_needs_to_be_changed._Source_not_good_enough. Bottom line I think we need to add more neutral commentary to the reception section (i.e. sources that do not describe the reception as "overwhelmingly positive") to balance it out a bit or the non-neutral stuff needs to come out. I don't mind either solution, but it would be great if we could get some comments/suggestions about how to resolve the issue. Betty Logan (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hyperbolic fluff. Who's getting overwhelmed? Are critics fainting? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Imho that's reading more fluff into it then there might be in the way it is commonly used. I read "overwhelmingly positive" simply as the overwhelming majority of the reviews (as in "almost all"/ a very high percentage) are positive.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Move request from High-dynamic-range imaging to High dynamic range

For anyone interested comments would be appreciated for this move request from High-dynamic-range imaging to High dynamic range. --GrandDrake (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

White savior narrative in film and The Matrix

There is a request for comment underway regarding whether or not to include The Matrix in the list of films at white savior narrative in film. The RfC can be seen here: Talk:White savior narrative in film#Inclusion of The Matrix. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Deciding inclusion criteria for "List of giant-monster films"

There is an ongoing discussion over on the talk page for the article List of giant-monster films. We are debating the criteria that should be enforced when including films on the list, and we need more opinions. A major topic involved is whether a monster's size, in relation to humans and/or natural animals, would dictate its inclusion. Please join in if you can! -- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 21:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Using Metacritic to authoritatively state a film's reception

Lately, I've noticed an increasing trend to use Metacritic to state authoritatively – without in-text attribution – what a film's reception was, especially in the lead (example). Given that Metacritic only requires four reviews for a consensus, I'm not sure I like this. The other problem, when Metacritic indexes many reviews, is that it doesn't index all reviews. It collects many of the mainstream sites that we use – Variety, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Entertainment Weekly, Total Film, The Guardian – but it's quite limited in some respects. It doesn't index any horror websites, such as Fangoria, Bloody Disgusting, Dread Central, and Shock Till You Drop; prominent British genre magazines, such as Starburst and SFX; non-English-language newspapers; or some smaller websites that we (or, at least, I) often source, such as Ain't It Cool News, Twitch Film, and CraveOnline. If you want to know what Manohla Dargis, Kim Newman, or Richard Roeper thought about a film, Metacritic is great. But what about the other critics? What about the French-language newspapers in Montreal, such as La Presse, whose voice is not heard on Canadian films? Note that their roundup for Shaun of the Dead features only US reviews. Though the roundup for Mad Max: Fury Road does include several non-US reviews, there isn't a single one from Australia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

You may find the discussion at Talk:The_Dark_Knight_Rises#Description_of_the_reception of interest where I point out that Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are too "English-centric" and are not statistically representative of the global reception. In short they have their place, but if the reception is summarised differently in other parts of the world then we should at least try to include that. I do believe this is a flaw we definitely need a broad discussion about. Betty Logan (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • You both raise a very good point. I don't know what to do except to start to better describe the geographical scope of these review aggregator links in the article. I think the really frustrating situation that Betty links to can be chalked up to one POV-pushing inexperienced editor. I read Metacritic regularly it's mostly US critics, with a smattering of Canadian and British stuff. I'm not as big a fan of giving much weight to, say, the horror film review sites. Perhaps that's my snobbery. But that's a different issue... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
To the first part of your question, the litmus test for me is when there are several sources in agreement with each other – RT, MC, and at least one other reliable source that has attempted to summarize the film's overall reception. When they disagree, or the results aren't as clear cut, then it's best to avoid a summarizing statement and just let the numbers speak for themselves. In past discussions, some editors have stated they don't like "in-text attribution", because it makes it sound like you're giving undue weight to a certain sample of reviews or sources. However, the problem raised above surrounding "English-centric" perspective in our sources shows that there may be situations in which in-text attribution is required or would alleviate confusion. When we know a different perspective exists in another part of the world, properly attributing the film's reception would help us adhere to a WP:WORLDVIEW. I don't believe this needs to be done in every article moving forward; it should only be done when necessary. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I think Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are often a useful informationen, that we should provide to readers, but not necessarily as "the" authoritative summary for the English speaking world, but just as the best known accumulators. While they are somewhat useful for stating whether overall reception is English speaking world was positive, mixed or negative, I found its critics' consensus (if it exists) sometimes between weird to unusable and certainly not authoritative.
As far as the intext attribution goes I don't see any reason for not using an intext attribution when using Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. I'm not really sure supposed WP:UNDUE issue here. Are we talking about appearances only? I.e. being undue but appearing so on first glance with being undue and easily recognozable as such? If that is case the latter version is imho the more honest one.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I think there are proper ways to do "in-text attribution", but concerns raised in discussions like Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road/Archive 3 caution that it shouldn't attempt to limit the perspective to just a few sources, when in fact it may be supported by a majority. Flyer22 was one of the most outspoken editors on this concern. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Kmhkmh, GoneIn60 is correct that there are right and wrong ways to use in-text attribution. WP:INTEXT makes this very clear. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
NinjaRobotPirate, Betty Logan, Shawn in Montreal, GoneIn60 and Kmhkmh, given the above in this section, you might be interested in weighing in at Template talk:According to whom#In-text attribution for cited material. As noted, I responded in the section below that one since I wanted my reply to clearly address what is stated in both sections. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The Wachowskis/Wachowski Brothers

In view of the inconsistency in regards to how the transgender Wachowskis are credited in film articles I have started a discussion at Talk:The Matrix Reloaded#The Wachowski credit in the lead in attempt to address the problem. Your project has a stated interest in at least one of the articles so please feel free to join the discussion if you would like to have your say or if you can offer a constructive solution to the issue. Betty Logan (talk) 02:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Films up for AFD

Three Leslie Nielsen films A Choice of Two, Foxfire Light and Murder Among Friends.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey, buddy!

Please see this CfD. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move of Money Talks

A requested move discussion at Talk:Money Talks (disambiguation) involving several film pages is underway. Discussion and opinions are invited. —  AjaxSmack  01:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

What's the common name for this film genre?

After a bit of move warring at Comedy horror, there were several CfDs for horror comedy/comedy horror film categories. The most recent two closed with no consensus and a suggestion that an RM be held at the main article's talk page. The RM did not officially happen, but there's a discussion at Talk:Comedy horror#"Comedy horror" or "horror comedy"?!. The result of this discussion will probably decide whether the categories under Category:Horror comedy films should be renamed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Often-used sound effect

I was reading the article about the Wilhelm scream and reminded me of a question that is keeping me busy for some years. There is a sound wich I first heard in the final level of the video game DooM. In this level you're in a large (square) room and from the opposite wall rockets shoot towards you accompanied by some kind of schwoop sound. Later this sound returned in many, MANY movies. Every time something explodes and something comes flying across the screen, or when (for example) an RPG is fired this sound can be heard. My question is; did the creators of DooM make this sound especially for the game and did the film industry "borrow" it, or did the game makers take it from some library themselves? OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 13:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

See this in the "Trivia" section where it starts with, "The launch sound of the spawn cube..." Is that the sound effect you mean? While that Wikia is not a reliable source, it can be used as a jumping-off point to find better sources. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Erik: I'm restricted by a whitelist so I'm unable to click on the link offered, but from the provided information I can make up that this is the one. Still the question remains... Did they create this sound themselves? OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 14:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, here is the full passage that shows that it was from a preexisting sound library: "The launch sound of the spawn cube (DSBOSPIT) comes from Sound Ideas' General series sound library: Disc 6015, track 28-1: 'Fire,Ball - Impact and large fire burst, rumble.'[1] It is a very widely used sound effect that has also been used in several movies (such as Dragonheart) television series (for example, ReBoot and Xena: Warrior Princess) and documentaries (like The Hawking Paradox from BBC Horizon)." Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Erik: Thanks a lot! I really appreciate the fact that you were willing to do what you did. I mean, it's not your problem that I'm restricted so once again, thanks! Finally after so many years (20 at least...) I know now that this sound already excisted. In the Dutch Wilhelm scream article you can read that after you've noticed this effect, it stands out like a sore thumb in every movie who has included it. That's the "problem" I've got with this sound. Problem solved. OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 15:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Glad to help! You may want to check out Wikipedia:Reference desk in the future. WikiProject talk pages are not for such questions, but this page is not really plagued with that issue, so I did not mind answering. Cheers! Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing films in Malaysia

Hi, I've opened a discussion at Talk:List of highest-grossing films in Malaysia. The article could use some community guidance for scope. Currently it appears to be a giant list of American, Indian, Chinese and other nation's films, rather than on Malaysia's films. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Genre Warrior SPA

It appears there is a newly registered genre warrior (Hotndead (talk · contribs)) in our midst. I see Lugnuts has already had the pleasure of making his acquaintance. Anyway, I don't think Hotndead is in any danger of becoming an asset to the Film project so I would appreciate it if other editors periodically check his contributions over the next few days. If the activity is ongoing we may have to get him canned. Betty Logan (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Remove this. I find it insulting and innapropriate. hotndead (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

If you don't engage in edits that validate the concerns expressed above then the way I see it you shouldn't have anything to worry about. If you are worried about editors paying attention to edits you make...why is that? DonIago (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
You are a single purpose account engaging in genre-warring. SPAs are a problem for this project. Genre warring is a problem for this project. I appreciate that good editors sometimes can get caught up in genre-warring but it is problematic when a new account is singularly dedicated to that purpose. I suggest you make edits unrelated to genres for a few weeks to put your account in good standing. Betty Logan (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Their very first edit was to "source" the genre to Jaws, which I know is in the middle of a discussion about this very issue. So a brand-new user goes straight in, first edit, and "sources" this. Certainly one to keep an eye on, before an SPI report is logged. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Mini-major film studio

Dear film experts: This article: The Weinstein Company describes the company as "one of the largest mini-major film studios in North America". Is "mini-major" some kind of specialized studio-related jargon? If so, what does it mean, exactly? I'm tempted to change it to "mid-sized" or just leave out the descriptor altogether, but since I am not knowledgeable about the film industry I thought I'd ask first.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I did a quick check, and it was changed in October 2013 by an IP editor (surprise, surprise) to say "mini-major". I'd support it being changed back to omit the word "mini". Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
It is not one of the major studios, so that would be less accurate. I would support losing "studio" (and thus also "mini-major"), and instead saying it is a major independent film production and distribution company. - Gothicfilm (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
"Mini-major" does indeed seem to be "specialized studio-related jargon". The article Major film studio has a section on mini-major studios, and it lists The Weinstein Company there as a mini-major studio. It seems to have sources both for the term in general and for each of the studios that is listed as a mini-major, so I think it is fine to call the Weinstein Company a mini-major. However, it might be good to wikilink mini-major to Major film studio#Mini-majors the first time it is used in the Weinstein Company article so it is more clear what is meant by the term. Calathan (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
It's film jargon that Variety likes to use. For example, this article. I guess it depends on how much jargon you want to include. I'd just leave it alone, but linking it sounds good. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Pepe the Bull

Is this film notable? My google search didn't turn up much in reliable sources or show that the film won any major awards. Many of the hits were about an animated version or the previous films in the sequence.Mdtemp (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I think Google Books is showing sufficient results to indicate notability. (I used the Spanish title and added the director's name and the release year.) See results here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Short answer is yes. The film was nominated for three Ariel Awards (the Mexican Oscars). I've updated the article with this and several other sources. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

186.85.89.130

186.85.89.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making a lot of questionable edits to various film related pages. Could someone from this project please review them for accuracy? Feinoha Talk 01:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to look at them more in-depth but at first glance, it looks like another genre warrior who especially disagrees with where these genres exactly link to. It looks to be generally in good faith, though. Mostly changing links, with occasional removals of genres (in some cases, there are too many) and sometimes changing them. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
186.28.77.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have made similar edits. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with many of the films, so I can't do much. But I AGF reverted some of the changes from romantic comedy to comedy on films I was familiar with, or could ascertain based on plot summary, because I do think romantic comedy is one of those "necessary" subgenres to note, and typically unlinking from the romantic comedy article, which I don't see why it should link to "romantic film" and "comedy film" over the subgenre article. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

"Featuring"?

I'm not really looking to stir up a hornet's nest here, but I'm a little concerned that with several film-related list articles, the word "featuring" is being used in an ambiguous manner. For instance, List of films featuring dinosaurs. It appears to me that "featuring" may be being used as a synonym for "including".

The best analog I have, off the top of my head, is that I imagine that if we were to say that a film "features" certain actors, we would be talking about the actors who were top-billed, or close to it, not merely every actor who appears in the film. King Kong features a giant ape, but does it "feature" the various other creatures that appear in the film?

Any thoughts folks might have would be appreciated. I freely admit I may be being overly-pedantic on this. DonIago (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

No, you're right. This is a diffusion problem that can occur with categorization by themes for fictional works. If one says "featuring dinosaurs", it should be that you cannot describe the film without mentioning dinosaurs (as a rough test), such as Jurassic Park, Land before Time, The Good Dinosaur, or the Flintstones movie. A work like Toy Story, where one secondary character is a dino toy but not as essential to the plot, should not be included to avoid diffusion. So on that light, for example, the three Night at the Museum entries seem to be pushing it, because while there's a dino skeleton used as a character, it is not a plot-essential element as dinos are in Jurassic Park. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I guess the question then becomes whether these lists should really be "featured" lists and inappropriate entries should be removed, or whether the lists should be renamed to make it more clear that they cover any film in which the subject of the list appears. DonIago (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I would remove the offending entries (but making sure to engage in discussion to narrow that down). I'd also consider that the list might want to adopt the format like List of films featuring time loops (ignoring issues with what "is" a time loop on its talk page), where a brief reasoning why the film is on the list, relavent to the plot, is given, so that the reader understand how (in this case) dinosaurs are "featured". Otherwise, there is almost no reason for the list where a category could serve that purpose. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

FilmAffinity

Greetings, all. I was just wondering whether there is a pre-existing consensus with respect to whether http://www.filmaffinity.com/ is considered a reliable source or not. As I understand it it has both self-generated and user generated content, so it is a bit of a grey area. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Jamar Malachi Neighbors

Very funny actor, last seen in "Keanu". Could somebody please create an article Jamar Malachi Neighbors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810D:9CC0:25AC:601C:DFDF:F0DB:E25 (talk) 10:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:2115 films at CfD

Resolved

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The lead -- attractiveness as part of notability

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Angelina Jolie#The lead -- attractiveness as part of notability. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Collaborations

There's a collaborations section on James Gunn that has become unwieldly and is stretching the page considerably. Should it be removed or is there some other protocol to deal with this? Nohomersryan (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what the value of the table itself is, especially if many of these are only cameo roles, and I would say remove it, or trim it down to be notable collabs, i.e. co-whatevering or lead roles. Otherwise, it comes across as trivia. Perhaps, in the mean time, you could switch the x and y axes, so that actor goes along the top and the films go down the side. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Phrasing used for RT and MC summaries

Please see the discussion at WT:Review aggregators#Phrasing in examples regarding the standardization of film aggregator summary statements. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

AfD:List of maritime science fiction media

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of maritime science fiction media. This also involves the newly created Category:Maritime science fiction films, which was used to justify changing the genre in the lead of at least three articles. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

CfD:Maritime science fiction

We now have Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 1#Category:Maritime_science_fiction. Note that this category was used to justify repeated edit warring in the lead of several articles. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

And there is a third one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maritime science fiction. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Input requested on use of cast/crew names in navboxes for TV/film

I've started a discussion on the inclusion of cast/crew names on TV/film navboxes here at WT:Navigation Templates. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Some further voices would really be appreciated here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Merge discussions of interest

Hi all, should it be of interest, there are two discussions about whether or not to merge Tollywood Highest grossing movies and List of highest-grossing Tamil movies into List of highest-grossing Indian films.

The discussions can be found at:

Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Lights Out (2013 film)

Can anyone tell if this 3 minute short has any notability independent of the recent feature film, or can it be merged to Lights Out (2016 film)?

I've already redirected Lights Out 2 per WP:NFF. PC78 (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Auteur theory

Could somebody clean up and expand Auteur theory so that it's a little more comprehensive? I'd do it myself but my knowledge of cinema is lacking. I've tried my best to address issues relating to POV and RS. This is how the article looked before I had to remove every unsourced statement. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Billing block/starring

On the article for Sasuage Party, I've changed the starring listing on the infobox based upon the bottom poster billing block, but I keep getting reverted, with the top poster block being used instead. Which one is used for feature reference?

The billing block would be the small text in a terrible font on the bottom of the poster. See this guide from The New York Times. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

What's the actual budget of this film?

If you do a Google search of "Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse budget" every link that shows up says the budget was $15 million. Talking about dozens of links including Forbes, IMDB and Box Office Mojo. None say $24 million except this document an editor found - https://indd.adobe.com/view/87976431-f650-4be0-a9c3-392d676b5514 Which is correct? 2.102.187.157 (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

IMDB is not RS. Per the infobox rules, BOM is not generally RS since it does not give a source. The Forbes article you mentioned is part of their contributor blog section, and not the official edited version. The annual FilmLA report is not "some document", it is an authoritative report prepared by industry sources and it is covered by the top trades and international news outlets. The final budget on the film was subject to an audit, as it was part of the CA tax credit program. The CFC, which helps prepare the FilmLA report CONFIRMED the actual budget. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of confirmed fact. Depauldem (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
People on your talk page keep asking you to stop using filmla and local boards and instead use secondary sources. 2.102.187.157 (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
You mean the one person who asked that and was actually wrong on that issue? The Feature Film Study is WIDELY reported on, including in your beloved Forbes and countless news outlets. Again, the article in Variety (supreme RS on these issues) confirmed the amount. Depauldem (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Him, as well as others on your talk page, sockpuppet page and many article discussion pages who keep asking you to stop replacing budgets reported by secondary sources with primary sources. But maybe you're right this time, let's see what others say. Also Variety quoted the amount, didn't confirm it. 2.102.187.157 (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Again, it was one person. You can keep borderline slandering me, or you can argue using facts. Both the report and Variety are current reliable sources...unlike IMDB and a google search. BTW, IMDB appears to be the source of the older (incorrect) budget amount and the plainly claim it is an ESTIMATE. Depauldem (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Depauldem, "Per the infobox rules, BOM is not generally RS since it does not give a source." I don't know this to be true. Might I please trouble you to clarify that with the infobox instructions you mean? I see "Budget figures can be found at Box Office Mojo and The Numbers, with the latter usually listing a mainstream website as the main source of the budget, such as the Los Angeles Times, Variety, etc." but I don't interpret that to mean that BOM is not RS unless it provides a source. If that's the intention of that phrasing, it's not clear and should be changed. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The Numbers is given preference over BOM, because they generally list a source. For this film, neither site lists a source because the amount they list is just a budget estimate that originated at IMDB (which is the non-RS source, not the other two--my mistake). But in this case, we have two secondary reliable sources listing the actual budget, which again, was confirmed by the CA Film Commission. Since we have the actual, final confirmed budget amount reported by two very recent secondary sources of extremely high authority on this subject, I am baffled 2.102 wants to disregard reality for a budget estimate that originated from IMDB. If he wants to edit the body of the article to say the original budget was estimated to be $15 million, but was later confirmed to be $24 million after the final spend was audited by the California Film Commission, that's fine with me.Depauldem (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The Numbers is not given preference over Box Office Mojo since that is not how verifiability works on Wikipedia i.e. there isn't a source "hierarchy" except in the case of scholarly sources. The Infobox guidelines are just giving advice on where the information can be found, and a reliable source doesn't have to give a source because it is a source! By no means should the guidance be taken as a revision of policy. If a source complies with WP:RS (as Box Office Mojo does) then it is reliable source (while IMDB does not). Obviously, being a reliable source doesn't always mean the source is correct, and if different sites give different figures then we need to review them. It's true that Box Office Mojo tends to add budgets before the film is released and does not revise them at a later point meaning the figures can be out of date but this can be true of any source, including The Numbers. If a source gives a little bit more information on where the information came from (i.e. the publication talked to a producer on record or obtained the film's accounts from HMRC) that can help us ascertain which figure is correct. If it is not possible to draw to a conclusion about which source is correct then we don't cherry-pick, we just go with a range i.e. $15-24 million. Betty Logan (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Just to note that The Numbers also say the budget was 15 mil. 2.102.187.157 (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Film countries

This started as a discussion on Talk:Selma_(film). The film is described as 'British-American', evidently because one of the many production companies is based in the UK. That seems to me to be an extremely weak standard for calling a film from another country. When I look movies up on Wikipedia and see 'British-American film' I presume it's set in Britain, has British actors etc. This movie made me do a hard double take as it's so clearly American.

If there is agreement, I would propose setting some standard for what constitutes an American film (or a film from any country) and what it takes to add additional countries to that description, particularly in the lede. Perhaps a reliable source has already laid out criteria we could use. Then I would propose articles be updated to reflect this standard. 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:6DB5:E9A2:B4E8:F1D0 (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Slumdog Millionaire is a contradiction with Selma. It has American production companies but it listed as just a British film, due to the British director. 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:6DB5:E9A2:B4E8:F1D0 (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I found this: "The country of origin is defined as that of the principal offices of the production company by whom the work was made." It's cited in Wikipedia here: Country_of_origin#Film_and_television_production. Source. That seems reasonable but it does not specify how to handle multiple production companies. It implies there is only one. I would suggest that Wikipedia go by the main production company, and not any production company attached to the film in some way. The result for Selma and Slumdog Millionaire would appear to be that both would be classified as American films. 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:6DB5:E9A2:B4E8:F1D0 (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Editors forming their own judgments on the nationalities of films would be WP:Original research. As the European Audiovisual Observatory states "...defining the nationality of a film is a complex task. There are no widely accepted international or even European definitions of the criteria to be used to determine the country of origin of a film." They address this in the following way: "...This is both a legal and a statistical problem. It is enlightening to compare the lists provided by the different national sources that we use: countries involved in a joint production are not always indicated (even when the main coproducer is from another country). Different national records - and the statistics on which they are based - can show the same film as having a whole range of nationalities. In a general pan-European database such as LUMIERE, we have had to adopt a pragmatic approach. We try to list all coproducing countries in the database in a standard way, and we attempt to classify them in order of importance (whether known or assumed), with the country having provided the majority financial investment in the production in first place." In short it is not a simple problem to solve if different sources say different things. WP:FILMLEAD states "If the film's nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), it should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section." {{Infobox film}} states "If there is a conflict of information in various reliable sources, then list only the common published nations. Alternatively in the case of conflict, consider leaving this field blank and discussing the issue in the article." Betty Logan (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Another genre dispute

A genre warrior has been repeatedly changing the lead at Lost in Space for the last month. More comments would be useful at Talk:Lost in Space#Space Western/Science Fiction. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Once again, I say we take all our genres, roll them up in a carpet and throw them off a bridge. GRAPPLE X 15:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Tell me about it. While we are on the subject the genre of American Psycho is still under dispute at Talk:American_Psycho_(film)#Genre. Betty Logan (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Subgenre problem

Genres properly belong in an encyclopedia. It is subgenres that are causing the problem. I would support making it clear at WP:FILMLEAD that the primary genre should be the default. Allow a second genre or subgenre only when needed. Most of the problems come from genre warriors trying to put in their preferred subgenres, and it gets down into ridiculous dividing games. When disputes arise, we should be able to point out that the primary genre is favored. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Something needs to be done. All I've done this past week is argue about genres. We can't have editors going from article to article altering genres willy nilly. We need to stress WP:WEIGHT in the WP:FILMLEAD guideline; part of the porblem is that editors are digging up sources that are unrepresentive of the general view i.e. you can probably find a source somewhere that describes Schindler's List as a comedy but that isn't a free pass to add the genre to the lead. We have a policy that already tackles this problem but our guidelines don't use it effectively. Betty Logan (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Is there any authoritative source that classifies film by genre? Not IMDB, but something like the UK film registry? Even if this ends up highlighting a genre that is not popularly associated with the film, this is a better solution than constant infighting that I can see easily going on. (At the VG project, we've made sure to eliminate the thematic genre as a lede statement for this very reason, since we have no authority to help decide on disputes like this. However, thematic genre is almost necessary for films). --MASEM (t) 17:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
There is the AFI Catalog which is a well-respected database, although they do have some counter-intuitive terminology i.e. they use "suspense" in place of "thriller". Betty Logan (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
That's still a good point to start. I would agree that "thriller" is generally the more common term to describe suspenseful films than "suspense", and any issues like that, as long there's consensus that you just map the AFI term to the more common genre term here, you should be good. --MASEM (t) 19:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Betty - We need to stress WP:WEIGHT in WP:FILMLEAD. We should put together a proposal and get this implemented. If this had been done five years ago it would have saved me untold hours dealing with genre warriors. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I think authoritative sources such as the AFI should always be consulted first, but we have to ensure the MOS doesn't paint itself into a corner whereby something like the AFI gives an aberrant genre and other sources are unified against it. I will give it some thought over the weekend. The wording needs to be straightforward and not open to misinterpretation. The genre warring has escalated in recent months so we definitely need to get on top of it because it is eating up too much time. Betty Logan (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
@Gothicfilm: The MOS could be tweaked along the following lines: At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified. Genre classifications need to comply with WP:DUE and therefore should be representative of the majority of the sources that are regularly used to source film articles. Obviously it doesn't need to be that exact wording, but something along those lines to get the point across that we want general classifications, not cherry-picked ones. Basically we need to make genre classification a mechanical task: there are a bunch of sources (AFI, Allmovie, TCM etc) that are used in articles, and we should just go with the most commonly cited genre. I am not sure we can completely eliminate sub-genres because the primary gernes for a romantic comedy would be Romance and Comedy, but I still think it would be better to call such a film a "romantic comedy". Provided it it is backe dup by the WP:WEIGHT of the sources I think that would eliminate the cherry-picked sub-genres. Betty Logan (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good. (I wonder if using WP:WEIGHT might be better than WP:DUE as the point we want to emphasize is the weight of all the relevant sources.) We cannot prevent all future conflicts, but we can cut them down. I believe romantic comedy is a legitimate genre that should be used when the majority of sources agree on it, but occasionally it's used for works where it doesn't apply in its original definition. Those disputes can be worked out case-by-case. The main point here is we should be able to immediately close down a genre warrior who wants to use one or two sources to label a work some subgenre when the majority of sources classify that work as a primary genre, like science fiction. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I have filed the proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film#Clarify_genre_guidance. I have made the alteration you suggested. Betty Logan (talk) 09:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
No progress for five days, but everyone supported the proposal in some form. We should finalize the wording. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Return of the genre warrior

Despite being repeatedly warned Taeyebar used the newly created Category:Maritime science fiction films to return and change the lead again at Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea and The Abyss. He ignores WP:BRD and even reported me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Gothicfilm reported by User:Taeyebar. Others may want to comment there. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I noticed the discussion there before you posted this. I've left my thoughts on the matter. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Evita (1996 film)/archive1

The Evita award list is newly created and nominated for Featured list status. Please feel free to comment. —IB [ Poke ] 12:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

CopyPatrol

Hey All We have a new bot that detects potential copyright concerns. You can sort them by WikiProject. Here is the link to the list for WP Film. Of course follow up requires some common sense as it could be the source copying from us. Ping me if you are interested in more details. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Request for input

Members of this Wikiproject may wish to post their input here Talk:Dr. Strangelove#Misc improvements. MarnetteD|Talk 22:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Finding Dory

Do any of you think Finding Dory is a spin-off? I really think so on account that the film centers on Dory who was originally a supporting character in Finding Nemo. 173.55.97.103 (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources around that describe it as both. In reality though a spin-off is still a sequel, just an indirect one. Betty Logan (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
A sequel take place after the events of a story whereas a prequel take place prior. A spin-off does not necessarily take place before or after the events of a story, it has more to do with the characters. 173.55.97.103 (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
A sequel is just the next installment in a series. A prequel is a still a sequel, as is a spin-off. Betty Logan (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Please see the discussion that I have started at Talk:Finding Dory#Not a spin-off. Plenty of sources call it a sequel. Ellen Degeneres herself said it was a sequel. The film follows the events of the original film. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
According to the article for spin-off which I wikilinked above, "The new protagonist generally appears first as a minor or supporting character in the main story line within a given milieu, and it is very common for the previous protagonist to have a supporting or cameo role, at the least as a historical mention, in the new sub-series." I don't mean to sound like a know-it-all but I'm starting to suspect those who authored those "reliable sources" you listed at Finding Dory's talk page are probably not familiar with the term spin-off. Come to think of it, the term spin-off does seem to fit the case of Finding Dory. 173.55.97.103 (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
It can be both. The terms aren't mutually exclusive. However, it's primarily described as a sequel. I suggest you drop the stick, or, at least take up the discussion at the section about this at the Finding Dory talk page. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd suggest that you find a reliable source to state that the movie is a spin-off, otherwise it is not. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 15:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

A Golden Hollywood Contest

I've set up a page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Golden Hollywood Contest. The idea would be quality improvement on our core articles for this period, improving actors, directors, films and related content and expansion work on stubs/undeveloped content which should be much better by now. The system would be partly based on the successful Awaken the Dragon and current West Country Challenge contests, with points and prizes allocated to certain tasks. If you think you might be interested in participating in the contest or editathon, or at least support the idea add your name to the Interested section at the bottom and we'll see how it progresses. I think it's time an annual contest was held for WP:Film. Potentially the film project could be running a few each year targetting different areas, one could be on French/Italian neo-Realist cinema etc. I wouldn't have the time to run them all but potentially I could help set things up and attract people to help run them. The Wales and West Country contests so far have seen 1400 article improvements, I think the same mechanism could be applied to film and potentially we see more participants and contests improved. The thinking would be a daily prize for most work, like a DVD, or book, something related to film.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

A lot of people must be on holiday. I had thought a lot of people would jump at the chance to run this sort of thing for WP:Film! Does nobody here support running a drive to improve the core articles at least, even if you might not edit?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Performance navboxes (aka cast and crew in navboxes)

This topic again! An attempt to codify the consensus of not including cast and crew in navboxes, and not having filmographies in navboxes is at WT:CLT#Proposal for WP:PERFNAV (or similar). --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Abhishek Pictures

Hi all, can anyone please take a look at Abhishek Pictures and see whether it might meet general standards for a film distribution company? I know that WP:NCORP would be the right notability criteria, I guess I'm more interested in whether or not the film community would expect the list of distributed films to be appropriate for inclusion. It looks like fluff to me (and unsourced fluff at that). For some background, there is a person/people involved at this article who may only be here for promotional purposes. ClayFace32 was indeffed as a sock of Barney83Stinson. KittenLynch popped up 2 days after I blocked Barney. Even if I were to indef KittenLynch on duck behavior, that would still leave an article behind, either to develop if you guys thought it worthwhile, or to redirect or AfD if either of those were warranted. Thoughts appreciated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Permalink to the version of the article with the distribution list. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Notability for film distributors can be tricky. They usually get mentioned in articles about the films they've distributed, but significant coverage can be difficult to find. This article calls the company a "big money player", and this article, though gushy enough to be a press release, calls it "popular". So maybe there's enough coverage out there to warrant an article. As far as lists of distributed films go, I guess I'm ambivalent. We seem to catalog that stuff, given articles like List of Paramount Pictures films and List of theatrically released Lionsgate films, but I've seen people remove embedded lists as promotional fluff. When I start a new article, I might include a list of films if I can easily source it, such as XYZ Films. Otherwise, I just skip it, as in XLrator Media. I don't think it's a big deal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply on this, NRP. I appreciate your input. I've indeffed most of the people involved in that article (for sock/meat) but I suppose I'll leave it for someone else to decide whether it's cool or not. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Steve Jobs source archive assistance

I am looking for someone who can archive the sources for the Steve Jobs article in order to comply with the GA recommendation. Rusted AutoParts 20:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The quickest method is to use the Webcite comb. It will bring up a checklist and you need to select all the non-Wikipedia links. Betty Logan (talk) 03:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The website won't load up for me for whatever reason. Rusted AutoParts 15:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:War thriller films

Above category is up for discussion here. Additional opinions are welcome. DonIago (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

CfD: Category:War action films

Similarly, another new category created by the same user can be discussed here. Input welcome. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I restored the nomination after it was blanked. Better get your votes in now before it disappears again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Talk:Gladiator (2000 film)

Gladiator (2000 film), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. Needs lots of work. I did some basic copy edits and cleaned up a few simple issues, but I don't know if I want to dedicate the time to push a C-class article to GA status. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Listing voice actor credits

I was just reading the April and the Extraordinary World article and see that only the French voice actors are listed. I was going to add the voice actors' names for the English version, but I am not sure whether that is standard and if so how to list them. The French language is clearly the original language, but the release in English is probably more significant for readers of the English Wikipedia, since they will likely only ever hear the English voiced version. 99.192.90.233 (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that since this is the English-language Wikipedia, it is probably appropriate to list the non-English voice actors and the English voice actors. My Neighbor Totoro's "Cast" section has a table that lists both that you could copy. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I just added the table. Thanks for the help. 99.192.83.80 (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC) (=99.192.90.233)
You're welcome! Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

100 Greatest Films of the 21st Century

On this article the full list of 100 (well, 102) films is reproduced. Does this fail WP:TOP100? And come to think of it, does the article meet any notabilty levels? It's been mentioned in various news sources, but as far as I can tell, they all just repeat the fact that the BBC created this list, rather than showing any long-lasting notability. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I am veering to the view it is notable (multiple references in other reputable sources and also the fact that it's a legitimate poll of international film critics, undertaken in a similar fashion to the Sight & Sound poll, rather than a bunch of BBC hacks coming up with filler as Empire Magazine is prone to doing). It is certainly no less notable than something like the Time Out 100 best British films at any rate. Reproducing the list in its entirety may constitute a copyright violation. The Guardian reproduces the list up to the top 25, so it's probably safe for Wikipedia to go up to that number too. Betty Logan (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:TOP100 says, " Lists that have acceptable free licensing (as with AFI 100 Years... series) may be reproduced in their entirety as long as proper citations and sourcing are included." Looking at AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies, there was an OTRS ticket submitted, and AFI responded saying their list was in the public domain (response was shared on the talk page). Maybe an OTRS ticket submission could be done here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
My interpretation of this about fair use is that we can reproduce a single article or a single chart so I think it's ok. Betty Logan (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks both. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

American Film Institute recognition

Hi. I am here mainly because of large absences AFI's recognitions in film sites though it is missing in neglecting or in famous films. Because it is just good for my opinion and film fans will welcome it. I know you tried to educate me about my edits and I somehow did not listen because I am new here. But I am starting to handle this huge system and I need your advise in my next editing. In the Manual of Style for film articles in Accolades section states that you can mix prose and bullets. I am trying to do it in this way and I hope you will welcome it as my first steps. Yesterday, it has taken me about four hours to remake. I have three reasons why. First, it is more comfortable for me because they are so many backlogs for doing it in prose. Second, it is more panoramic because you can find every AFI recognition already in "Contents" and click straight in this section. And third, almost every AFI recognition which was already done (not by me) was in the points way and it seems you do not worry because it is still there (I can show you hundreds of examples). Plus, I have already recieved a few thankful notices for my editing and I have also added three articles about films which they were not here before because of it. Please, I have spend lots of hours to prepare this system for my editing. Allow me to do it in this way and I promise I don't disappoint you.Dr.saze (talk) 10:23, 07 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but it looks like you're arguing that AFI recognition should be added to film articles, and this should be in list/table format instead of prose. For the first part, sure, go ahead. I doubt many people will complain if you add properly sourced content form AFI. For the second, it's complicated. Creating tables and lists for a single entry can make an article look ugly, and MOS:FILM#Accolades encourages prose format for a small number of accolades. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I think this is a little less straightforward than that. For some of the AFI lists, we're talking nominations only (a few hundred films considered per list) to boil down to the final 100. The nominations on these lists seem trivial to me, and not worthy of mention. I'm unconvinced that the nominations of something as lightweight as the lists should be included in articles. – SchroCat (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the nominations are too trivial to add, and since there are 350 nominations for each of the 13 AFI lists, we are talking thousands of trivial additions to Wikipedia articles. Moreover, it confuses the reader because nominations for these lists, no matter how one words it or formats it, are too easily confused with the items that made the final lists. I vote not to add them to articles. If in a pinch we need a compromise, I would say add a nomination only to an article that had no other notability (or an item that had no other AFI result) -- that is, if the article needs some sort of notability and doesn't yet have much notability, an AFI nom could conceiveably push it over the edge. But even in that case we really must make it clear that the item did not at all make the list. Softlavender (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
As opposed to the various awards - which limit the nominations to five (or so) - the AFI nominations butt up against WP:INDISCRIMINATE. IMO only those films that made the final list should be noted in the articles. MarnetteD|Talk 22:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Agree. The AFI nominations are of virtually no significance, given the sheer number of nominations for each list, as above. Inclusion in an actual list could be significant - but even here, these are lists generally of a top 100, which again mitigates the notability of the inclusion, to a degree at least. For that reason, I would suggest that mere nominations never be included in an article, as of themselves they have no genuine notability. While I appreciate Softlavendar's willingness to compromise above, I would say that a) only one editor seems to be pushing inclusion of nominations, despite a substantial number of other editors rejecting the importance of these as "accolades," and b) if a mere nomination to an AFI list is a film's only claim to an accolade or notability, then it does not indeed have any actual notability beyond what is included in its article.Sensei48 (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Before my coming, there had been already many mentioned AFI nominations in each article by many many other editors. I do not want to make problems with implementing new orders. My intention is only to add missing AFI accolades (and -not to say- nominations) because I just simply think it is a great harm that this work is done only in half. So do not be angry, please. I promise I will make in the future another notable revisions (I have already made three articles about missing films and I want to continue) and then we can still have discussions about this problem and I promise I will help you as the most as possible.... And I must mention that I am helping to another articles because I am adding missing or "dead" links by their recognition and I also repair some problems this articles have and no one has cared about them before. Dr.saze (talk) 7:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Dr.saze, the consensus is not to have the AFI nominations in articles. If you continue to add them, you will be reported again to ANI and either blocked from editing or topic-banned. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh no, do not be so cruel, please. We can make a settlement in some way, cannot we? If you want to delete some AFI nominations by some films I swear I can do it. Also I can EVERY AFI nominations ever mentioned rewrite in prose form (even the most of them which have been written before my coming). You can use my skills and film knowledges for another projects so I can be more useful for you. I am here to help Wikipedia, not to destroy her. But I am begging you for the only thing... Do not ruin my work. I am here for you and I coul do anything. - Dr.saze (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
That's not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia operates by consensus and policy, and it is the consensus of at least seven very experienced editors (both here and on your talk page) citing Wikipedia policy that the AFI nominations do not belong. You've been told from the beginning to stop until a consensus is reached. Softlavender (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Softlavender, but it has taken so many preparations. I had lots of big plans. I thought you will welcome my huge work. And now it seems to be restless and lost. - Dr.saze (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
No fault but your own, and your own refusal to listen. Softlavender (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I do not understand to all of you (I mean blocking for adding nominations of well-known list) but I can listen. Even when you threaten me I will listen you. I will from now only edit AFI winning films and repair damages. I hope you are content... (Redacted) - Dr.saze (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Drsaze if I see you make any more personal attacks on other editors (contrary to WP:NPA) or threats (as you did on my talk page), I will file yet another report on your behaviour at ANI. – SchroCat (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

  • But he insulted me, too (for example something about my English skills). And I do not attack him. I wrote I would listen him. I have lost. It is optimal reaction. - Dr.saze (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No, they did not attack you. You are not a native speaker of English, and it shows in what you write. As this is a text-based medium, to point out that your English is not strong is not an insult. Either way, you should still not insult other editors. Your time on Wikipedia will be short and uncomfortable if you continue to 1. insult others; 2. edit war continually or 3. threaten others. – SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay. I am sorry. - Dr.saze (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I have some good idea for all of you. will not add nor AFI nominations neither wins further here and I will also delete every single edit concerning AFI information. Instead, I will make a huge list of films prized by the American Film Institute on PDF format and offer you to include it on main AFI's lists articles as a reference to all the AFI accolades but ranked according to the films. It will be more comfortable and compliant for all of us. I think it is a good splution when I am not allow to edit AFI nominations. And I want to supply that offer of my favours is still valid. - Dr.saze (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

We already have links to the PDFs from the AFI itself. Please do not make one and do not link to your version of it anywhere. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 13:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
We already have links to the PDFs from the AFI itself. Please do not make one and do not link to your version of it anywhere. Softlavender (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I think this is a real good idea, Dr.saze. We (from AFI) want to do some scheme already plenty of years. But please, you have to share the link to that PDF file on this talk page at first. We will then advise you if there are some mistakes. And we are also glad to see you have alread charge yourself and you will delete all your AFI edits because me, Davemck and other editors do not have so much time to do this kind of work. Regarding to the offer of your we are sure you will be useful for many our projects. After your huge work on AFI scheme, write a message to us (ww.afi.com) or here, on this talk page. - TobRob (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I am sure you will appreciate it. And I know I have to send the link here at first, so be sure that I will do so. Dr.saze (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I've been working on removing the AFI nominations. I've noticed that other editors (besides Dr.saze) have added nominations; below is a list of those I've noticed. (I'm currently working through Cryptozoologist3's additions.)

Special:Contributions/Cryptozoologist3
Special:Contributions/Drunkenpeter99 — from about January 21, 2011 to August 20, 2011
Special:Contributions/Skywalker80100 — from about September 12, 2011 to June 30, 2012
Special:Contributions/StewieBaby05 — from about October 20, 2012 to June 6, 2015

(According to User:StewieBaby05, the last 3 are the same person.) Davemck (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Something wrong with Category:English-language films?

I've noticed something strange with Category:English-language films: When I use the category page to try to find films that begin with a letter, it directs me to a list of films that begin with a different letter entirely. Just recently, for example, I clicked on "P" in the "Contents" banner at the top of the page, only to be directed to a list of films starting with "E". Do project members have any idea what is causing this? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it is connected to this Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Sorting in categories unreliable for a few days FreeKnowledgeCreator. I am not very conversant with this techno stuff so my apologies if I have steered you wrong. Hopefully it will clear up soon. MarnetteD|Talk 23:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Surviving cast members

I can't remember if there has ever been a discussion about items like this before. As I stated in my edit summary these "As of DATE actors x, y and z are the only surviving cast members" mentions are WP:INDISCRIMINATE info and they require WP:OR to keep up to date. It is just a random fact that has nothing to do with the making of the film nor does it have anything to do with the film itself. Now this is just one editors opinion and if there is a WP:CONSENSUS to include them then so be it. I did think it was time to make a decision one way or the other. Thanks ahead of time for any and all input. MarnetteD|Talk 21:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. What exactly does this add to the understanding of the film? Unless there was some exceptional reason to mention this--to make up examples that might not even be good rationales, only one member of cast survived to see it released, two members of cast survived to see 50th anniversary and this was a fact that was extensively covered by third-party sources and informed the way such anniversary was celebrated, or something--I don't see any particular reason to include it. There's no context for the information, there's no significance or weight attributed to it, and it just feels like trivia. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I would add that if the decision is to keep them then I suggest that they do not belong in the lede. Again they have nothing to do with the film itself and they are part of any summary about the film. MarnetteD|Talk 22:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
There are numerous problems with how the information is incorporated (it certainly doesn't belong in the lead) but as for whether it should be in the article at all depends on how significant the information is. For example, there is extensive reliable source coverage of the surviving cast members of Gone with the Wind (film) which makes the information WP:DUE in that particular case. In that article it is discretely tucked away in the cast section. In the case of It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World does the media cover the "surviving" cast at all? If not then it simply is not significant for that particular film. It's really an issue of sourcing: if multiple sources cover it then it is presumably significant enough to cover and meets our criteria for inclusion; if it is not sourced then at best it is unsourced (and potentially fails WP:DUE) and at worst original research. Betty Logan (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • These type of lists should be burned with fire. There's no useful information for readers except at all, purely trivial and inconsequential. If readers are interested in the status of actors, they can read articles about actors. --Jayron32 00:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Pakistani cinema task force

A number of users have set up a task force for Pakistani cinema and have requested that it be added to the project banner. I know the creation of a new task force should probably have been discussed here first, but what's done is done and they already have five interested users (that's more than some of the existing task forces), so personally I think we should accept this request and let them get on with things. Just wanted to post here and give others an opportunity to comment before taking this any further. PC78 (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this here PC78, pursuant to the advice at Template talk:WikiProject Film. I am one of the members of this project. As the name suggests, this task force aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistani cinema whose history stretches back to 1947. That includes improving existing articles on Pakistani films and television serials, and creating articles on missing ones. A brief context as far as the film industry is concerned: Pakistani cinema enjoyed its golden period during the 1950s and 1960s, but witnessed a decline in standards between the 1970s and 1990s (a lot of it due to political factors). However, post-2007, it has been undergoing a 'revival' phase [5] [6] [7] [8], and 2014 was recognised as a 'good year' for the industry [9]. Several films have been commercially successful during this period and released overseas [10], which is a very new trend. In addition, some Pakistani actors have entered the Bollywood industry of neighbouring India [11] [12]. Hope I didn't bore this section, just laying a little background as far as this task force's scope is concerned :) Mar4d (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @PC78: Would appreciate any follow-up and input/suggestions from the project members. Unfortunately I'm not very familiar with the participants here, so feel free to invite any active members you are aware of to give their two cents. It'd help for my pending request re. parameters on Template:WikiProject Film. Cheers! Mar4d (talk) 13:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
No-one has raised any objections so I don't see any harm in proceeding. I can take care of the banner but it will have to wait until tomorrow. PC78 (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I did a double take seeing your handle and wondered if I was back in 2009-2010. Good to see you again, PC78. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
@PC78: No worries, thanks! Mar4d (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
All sorted chaps, the task force is up and running in the project banner. PC78 (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
@Erik: Hey Eric, nice to see you're still around. I keep trying to leave but I always seem to get sucked back in! PC78 (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Planned film projects in List of films articles

Hey there, I don't see anything at WP:FILMYEAR that addresses inclusion criteria. An issue came up at Talk:List of Malayalam films of 2016. If a film has been announced and can be sourced as being planned, should it be added to the various list articles, or does it need to have started principal photography to be included? Seems like on the one hand you run the risk of adding a lot of soon-to-go-nowhere films to the list, on the other hand, 2020 in film wouldn't exist without planned-but-maybe-not-yet-in-principal-photography films. Thaaaaaaanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

If it was up to me, only films that have actually been released would be added to such articles. That said, we could use the same principles applied to filmographies, and include anything that's a least in production or farther along in the process. DonIago (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

"Oldest actor" record succession boxes

I notice that Fep1970 is going around adding these to articles. See Honor Blackman and Roger Moore. I regard them as completely arbitrary, WP:SYNTHESIS and non-defining. Who really cares who the oldest actress is to play a Bond girl? James Bond is hardly in the "grab a gran" business is he? The record is confusing too: while Honor Blackman may well be the oldest living Bond girl Monica Bellucci was the oldest at the time she played a Bond girl. IMO these boxes are on a par with template spam and I'm all for purging them. How do other editors feel about them? Betty Logan (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. The so-called "theme" of these succession boxes is arbitrary; anything related to the age of a Bond girl appears to have to do with Bellucci. To paraphase Goldfinger, I expect this to be deleted. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I concur with Betty and Erik's comments above and you can add the "Acting role" succession boxes that they are creating to this as well. Along with the OR, SYNTH and confusion problems they are WP:INDISCRIMINATE info. In the case of the "Ar" boxes lets look at Roger Moore, Bond can be considered a defining role (and there is already a nav box covering that) but Ivanhoe and Clouseau are not. I know that these can be fun for an editor to create but they should be removed. MarnetteD|Talk 21:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Films "set in XXXX"

Two questions:

  1. I noticed Luaza1313 adding "set in" dates for contemporary films. For example, Batman Begins set in 2005 and The Dark Knight set in 2008. I have never seen this done for "contemporary" films. It might makes sense for time travel films, or films where the date is an integral part of the plot but it seems purely incidental in cases like this. Apart from the fact that the editor may be simply assuming these dates (could Batman Begins not be set in 2004 for example?) what exactly is the procedure for applying these categories to contemporary films? Does the date have to be defining, or do we just add them if the date is revealed at all in the film?
  2. In the case of The Dark Knight Rises the same editor replaced the "Films set in the future" category with "Films set in 2016" category. I don't have a problem with the 2016 category if it is explicitly set in 2016 (and not just the editor's assumption), but am I correct in assuming that we retain the "set in the future" category if the film is not contemporary? I checked the Blade Runner and that has both the "set in 2019" and "set in the future" catgeories, which makes sense to me, because if readers are searching for films that are set in the future then we will lose this nuance once we hit 2020 without the explicit "set in the future" category.

Answers on a postcard! Betty Logan (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  1. Personally I think we should avoid the categories unless they're relevant (films set in the future being such a case, perhaps).
  2. I would assume "set in the future" means relative to when the film was released, not relative to the current year; the latter makes no sense to me. That said, I'm not sure how it's relevant that TDKR was set in the future; have any sources referred to it as a futuristic film? DonIago (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
WP:CATDEF is the default. There needs to be sourced info in the article to support the cat. If there isn't then they don't belong there. Arbitrarily choosing a year is WP:OR. It can also (as unlikely as it seems) lead to edit wars - i.e. why is the year matching the year it was released rather than the year(s) it was filmed. Again, unless a specific year is mentioned in the film cats with a specific year should not be used for the article. Well I have used up the room on my postcard so I will just add four tildes as my stamp :-) MarnetteD|Talk 21:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The Interview page move

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Ghostbusters page move

This involves using the original Ghostbusters (2016 film) or Ghostbusters: Answer the Call, a DVD title. Please see the discussion here. Thanks. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

A Clockwork Orange

Although this page move is about the novel, it may interest some people here. If you've not got a pain in your Gulliver, you might want to contribute. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Golden Hollywood Contest

Bit disappointed that some of the WP:film veterans like Erik, Lugnuts, Shawn in Montreal, Bede, Andrez and some of the others haven't supported the idea of this at least. We could really bring about some major improvements, and then you could run one targetting different areas of film. I've postponed it until there is more support.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Art Direction oscar

An IP editor keeps splitting the 1966 Art Direction oscar (which also covered set decoration) into two separate categories and stating the film won six oscars rather than five. This clearly contradicts the Academy's own site as I point out at the talk page. Can I get a couple of third party comments at Talk:Doctor_Zhivago_(film)#Art_Direction.2FSet_Decoration plz as I am going to apply for page protection if the IP attempts to change the information again. Betty Logan (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Toni Erdmann and production countries

There are currently at least three reliable sources that say the film Toni Erdmann is German-Austrain:

  1. A Variety article
  2. Official press kit of the film at Cannes Film Festival (PDF)
  3. Cineuropa database

Vmars22 insists that the film is also coproduced by Switzerland and Romania and these countries should be mentioned in the infobox and categories, but has failed to provide any reliable source that backs such a claim. The user thinks that a Hollywood Reporter article supports this claim, but it clearly isn't the case. I don't want this to escalate into an edit war. Can anyone here help to solve this case? Raamin (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Per Template:Infobox_film#Country it is WP:Original research to match up countries to production companies because as editors we do not know the extent or nature of the involvement of the company and their involvement may be marginal. The same goes for shooting locations and crew nationalities. Claims about nationality should be backed up explicitly by the sources i.e. to call the film a Romanian production a source is required to actually state the fact. Betty Logan (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
i saw the talk page of the article empty. it's better that you first try discussing the issue with him and if you can't reach a consensus, you bring it places like here. if the user doesn't have reliable sources for his claim, then he can't add the info. --HamedH94 (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
H, there are fewer than 30 editors (which can mean zero) with that article on their watchlist. So there is nothing wrong with coming to the film project to get wider input. One of the main WikiP policies is that info in an article must have reliable sources. Guesswork (WP:OR and WP:SYNTH) is to be avoided. MarnetteD|Talk 03:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I think you both have a point. Generally it's best if a dispute stays at the article talk page otherwise interested parties may not realize it is going on, but this is the correct place to inquire how things are determined on film articles, especially if you are being dragged into an edit war and are unsure of your own position. Betty Logan (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Historical romance

I was wondering if the term meant a love story with a period setting. Does it mean that, or something else? The category Category:Historical romance films may also be reworked based on useful comments. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to add some context it appears that "historical romance" has an antiquated definition (along the lines of "scientific romance"). Kailash and I briefly discuss it at User_talk:Betty_Logan#Historical_romance. I guess the question is should we stick with the modern understanding of the term for the category or should we try to avoid the ambiguity and rename it? We could just avoid the problem altogether and bin the category and upmerge the films to "historical films" and "romance films". Betty Logan (talk) 05:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
This revision of the article reads, "It is also a genre of mass-market fiction, which is related to the broader romantic love genre" and I thought this sentence means my original interpretation of the genre may be right in some way. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Betty Logan: Sorry for not telling you earlier, but I do not want this discussion to be archived without a consensus. But is your suggestion about deleting the category final? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

List of films based on Marvel Comics

Two issues have come up at Talk:List of films based on Marvel Comics that need discussion.

  1. Talk:List of films based on Marvel Comics#Frost Fight - does a non-notable film need to be limited to less than basic information based on table headers.
  2. Talk:List of films based on Marvel Comics#Reception info - Should database sourced information be updated for insignificant changes in amounts. Spshu (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Epic films based on actual events

An editor has added Category:Epic films based on actual events to both Gone with the Wind (film) and Doctor Zhivago (film). They apply to some extent because the films are set during significant historical periods (i.e. the American Civil War and the Russian revolution) but the characters in both are fictional. They are not like Titanic when some of the key supporting cast have real-life counterparts. Using this rationale you could claim that every WW2 film is "based on real-life events" even if it has fictional characters undertaking a fictional mission/battle. So how should this category be interpreted? Do the "actual events" relate just to a setting, or should we interpret the events as being central to the plot with real-life character counterparts? Betty Logan (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

even if the actors portray real characters, they're still considered fictional characters in the fictional work. so this isn't about being fictional. if the film refers to a real event in history, it should be mentioned as "based on" that event. i support the categorization. --HamedH94 (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
If actors portray real people then they are based on real people, even if they are fictionalised representations. With Lawrence of Arabia for example, you are fictionally depicting a real person's participation in a real event and are able to judge the accuracy of the depiction from a historical perspective, but that's not true of Scarlett O'Hara and Gone with the Wind. What you basically have is a completely fictional story that is just "set" during a well known historical war. It's no more based on a real event than say Apocalypse Now or The Dear Hunter, so it seems to me if we add Gone with the Wind to the category then why not Apocalypse Now since the same logic applies? If we add every war film then it seems to me the category would lose its intended purpose, because I don't think it was established to categorize articles with just a historical setting. Betty Logan (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure where exactly to draw the line, but the film should probably have real-life characters who experienced something akin to the events in the film. For example, Ordinary Decent Criminal is a mostly-fictionalized account of Martin Cahill, but it's recognizable as such. That was based on actual events, even if it takes creative liberties. I don't see how you could really justify it for a film full of fictional characters. The category would become enormous. Another thing to consider is WP:CATDEF. Articles should not have categories that are only marginally applicable to them. If you have to strain to come up with a justification, it's not defining. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Agree with the arguments made by Betty and NRP. Such categorization could very quickly become unwieldy. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Fifty Shades Darker (film)

I invite all active members on the WikiProject Film to participate on the discussion at Talk:Fifty Shades Darker (film)#Focus Features. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 10:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The Departed: Trying to add filming location and budget spend info in production section

Trying to keep a couple of facts, supported by reliable sources in the production section. For some reason, another editor is saying they violate NPOV. The facts are these: 1. 90% of the film shot in New York; 2. Only $6 million of the film's budget was spent in Massachusetts. That's it. And these facts keep getting removed in borderline edit war. Any input would be appreciated. Depauldem (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

All, there has already been discussion on the talk page: Talk:The Departed/Archive 3#Filming location and budget. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

It's ongoing with few participants. Depauldem (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

List of Star Wars fan films

I see 37 articles in the Category:Fan films based on Star Wars, but there are many more. Not all of them are notable enough to have their own article, perhaps even most of them. I would even say that of the 37 existing articles, probably half of them don't pass our notability criteria. However that may be, perhaps it is a good idea to make a List of Star Wars fan films? Debresser (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't. I think Wikipedia has too many list articles. But if you can find sources that discuss the topic as a whole, it would pass WP:LISTN. Simply listing a group of articles, however, would probably cause it to end up at articles for deletion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
On the other hand, I'd support the list. It would go hand-in-hand with the category, and every entry can be sourced. Maybe worth pruning the category first, to weed out the non-notable articles. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd support a list with an inclusion criteria of, like, non-trivial mention in an RS (maybe even require at least two). Even if it's not notable enough to support its own article, that could establish enough importance to warrant an entry? I don't think every entry needs to be article notable, just notable enough to not be too indiscriminate or too directory-like. I do think that it's probable there are sources talking about the article as a whole. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I think that if it exists, it can be in the list. Why should there be additional inclusion criteria? Please note that such a list is per definition not indiscriminate. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Indiscriminate wasn't the right word. I'm just a little worried about, like, attempts to add every single extremely minor Star Wars home movie made by a fan to the list, while still not restricting the list to "no article, no mention" type thing. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Makes sense. Debresser (talk) 07:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I'll just say that this sounds like the kind of list that's going to need regular oversight to ensure that entries actually meet the inclusion criteria. I share TTP's concern that non-notable entries will be added by editors who either aren't aware of or don't care about the criteria for inclusion. DonIago (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
That's why we have watchlists. Debresser (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

White savior narrative in film

At white savior narrative in film, there is an ongoing issue about where to locate detailed trope-related coverage about individual films: in their respective entries, in more general sections, or both.. Additional input is welcome. See the discussion here: Talk:White savior narrative in film#Merging "Classifications". Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate categories and incredibly specific subcategories

I was about to tag Category:Films set in New York (state) for speedy deletion, but I guess this seems like a good time to discuss the matter of what to do with the New York categories instead. In short, we've got too many of them. If you look at Category:Films set in New York (note the lack of disambiguation), there are subcategories for about a dozen small NY counties. Each of those subcategories ultimately has between one and five films in it. I say "ultimately" because they're often subdivided into incredibly specific sub-sub-categories, such as Category:Films set in Hyde Park Town, Dutchess County, New York. I noticed this a while ago, but I didn't want to deal with it. Maybe we should bring all these tiny, ultra-specific categories to CfD. Any other ideas? Also, which should we use: NY or NY (state)? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

There is WP:SMALLCAT for the example you use NRP and CFDs would be a good way to go for those of its ilk. As to your other question I can see a reason for "state" and "city" for the New York cats. Whether parentheses should be used or not I will be happy to go with whatever consensus is reached by others. MarnetteD|Talk 20:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, all the small categories have been nominated for merging. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 23#Category:Films set in Albany County, New York. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Skeleton films at CfD

Feel free to pick the bones out of this one, here. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Films considered the best

Please see this page move discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for comments at Indian cinema task force

Hi all, your comments are requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Need thoughts about how to communicate Kabali gross. Familiarity with Indian films is not a prerequisite. (I don't watch Indian films, I just help maintain the articles.)

The issue in a nutshell: The gross estimates for a Tamil-language film, Kabali, seem to be all over the map. Some estimates would make the movie the #2 highest-grossing Indian film (no small achievement considering Tamil is spoken by 60 million people, whereas Hindi is spoken by 422 million) whereas other estimates would put it around the #12 spot. There is also a strange lack of attention to this film by the various respected Indian newspapers. Anyhow, the issue is how to communicate the information effectively across the project, like at List of highest-grossing Indian films, which presents such data in tabular format.

If you are so inclined, please contribute your thoughts at at the Indian cinema task force. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Row-spanning on the "List of XXXX box office number-one films in the United States" class of articles

Mariacer Cervantes has added row-spanning to this family of articles. If you compare the top table at List of 1993 box office number-one films in the United States for example, this is how it did look and this is how it looks now. I know some editors are fond of row-spanning, but in this case I consider it detrimental to to the article because it makes it more difficult to see which box office gross relates to which week. I propose reverting them back to the original format but I would like to know what the general sentiment is first. Betty Logan (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Rowspans create complex tables. Sometimes, this is okay. Sometimes it is not. In this usage, it is not. If you want, you can cite WP:Accessibility, but I don't know if similar intent actually appears there or simply in the WCAG guidelines linked therein. --Izno (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
The rowspans in conjunction with the box office figures just looks weird. The formatting of the article is already a bit wonky with the "4-day weekend" notes wrapping to the second line (on my monitor). I don't see what we gain from the rowspans and aesthetically my brain prefers the absence of rowspans. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Table changes for content ratings

Over the last day an anonymous editor has been initiating changes to the color scheme at articles such as Motion picture rating system, Video game rating system and Television content rating systems. They all deploy a long-standing consistent color scheme and IMO the changes are not an improvment and have some WP:ACCESSIBILITY implications. I have highlighted my concerns at Talk:Motion_picture_rating_system#Table_changes. I am not particularly precious about the color scheme, but it should be intuitive and contrasting. The biggest problem for me is the lack of contrast between red and brown, but if there are an editors who are color blind or have eyesight problems their input would be much appreciated. Betty Logan (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

CfD

The category Fantasy horror films is up for deletion. You can voice your opinion on this at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 28. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

WP about production companies.

Hi there! Does anyone know the WP where it states (or if it states) that only the distributors, release dates of that country are included in the infobox? Vmars22 (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Vmars22: WP:FILMDIST and WP:FILMRELEASE, which are part of {{infobox film}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Youtube trailers

Is there a policy on this? Should film articles have a link to a Youtube trailer in the ex. links? I know this topic has come up in the past on here, but the discussions are years old and didn't really go anywhere! Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

If it was up to me YouTube links would generally be prohibited. Possibly for the best that it's not up to me. :p But film trailers are so readily available online that I don't see any reason why we should make a point of linking to them in film articles, unless it's demonstrably hard to find the trailer online. DonIago (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you 100%! I don't see the point of them, myself. Hoping others will input and we can update the film MOS accordingly. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I also agree that links to trailers aren't necessary and I would discourage links to individual trailers. I'm not sure what value they add to the article. Like, what about those films that have, like, three North American trailers, and six versions of international trailers, and etc. etc. I think as far as YouTube links, if the film has its own dedicated and well-populated YouTube channel, I would think that might be an allowable external links, but individual links to trailers seems unwise. (Would it encourage people linking to random YouTube channels for trailers that aren't officially released to YouTube by the production company, distributor, etc.?) ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 13:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Good point on the multiple trailers issue. I'm now even more opposed to trailer links than I was before.:) DonIago (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I've just looked at a few Featured Articles, and none of them need to include a trailer. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
There are huge copyright implications to consider too. If they are still under copyright (basically anything since 1989 but possibly going as far back as 1978) and have been posted on Youtube without the permission of the copyright owner then it is actually a copyvio to link to them. If they are out of copyright then it is probably permissable to do so, but whether we should really depends on the context. Is the trailer itself the subject of sourced commentary in the article? If so then it may be justified. I have linked to a few trailers on the "Trailers from hell" site which are accompanied by commentary by a notable filmmaker which I think offer some insight to the reader, but in those cases I am really linking to the commentary rather than the trailer. So I think if there is an encyclopedic reason for the link to be there then fair enough, but if the link is just there for the sake of having a trailer link in the section then I agree with the general sentiment of removing them. Betty Logan (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Also in light of Betty Logan's comment, even if a film company legally posted the trailer to YT (no copyright issues), 99% of the time that film company also made a website for the film, which will be an EL in the first place, and will likely contain links to trailers too. The only time I can see legitimately linking to a trailer is if it is a longer-form trailer that is done in a documentary style that there's actually production information to be gleended from it, at which point the trailer should be used as a citation (keeping in mind that if it is not through official channels, one can't link to it, but can ascribed the verified information about it in a cite video template). --MASEM (t) 14:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree and support what everyone else has said. Piggybacking off of WP:FILMMARKETING, which doesn't allow the simple mention of a trailer's release, or using it to cite said statement, without commentary, I don't see the need to be linking to these trailers in the EL section. As Masem smartly pointed out, 99% of the time that film company also made a website for the film, which will be an EL in the first place, and will likely contain links to trailers too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. I agree with the "99%..." line. See if anyone else wants to add to this (esp. if someone has a reason to include them), and I'll put some words together to update the MOS. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

AFI again

Hi. I do not expect lots of support here but I would be very pleased if anyone will appreciate my AFI's lists... scheme and help me to publish it wherever (not specificially on Wikipedia). So if somebody really would do not be shy to write on my talk page or here and I will send you that documentary by mail. Thanks. - Dr.saze (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia keeps track of these lists at various articles listed at AFI 100 Years... series. However, I don't think we track the nominations, which I think is something you wanted to do. You could propose we track the nominations in the same way we do the Academy Awards, like 88th Academy Awards. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
A proposal to turn the AFI nominations into the way articles for the Academy Awards are handled will not be well-received. There's is a consensus that AFI nominations in general do not warrant mentions. Additionally, I will repeat what I stated in the first discussion about the AFI nominations: "We already have links to the PDFs [of the AFI nominations] from the AFI itself." So, with that, any sort of materials you create are, probably, redundant. If you are going to organize off-Wikipedia and non-Wikipedia related activities regarding these, this is not really the forum for that. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
NinjaRobotPirate, is there any way how I could send you that document? I only want somebody to have a look at it. Thanks. - Dr.saze (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm too much of a hipster to care much about mainstream films and their awards. I also don't know much about internet publishing. Category:Film websites and Category:Blog hosting services may give you an idea of where you can publish your work if you can't find a place for it at Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay. Even then thanks a lot :-). - Dr.saze (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Protecting request for article?

Hi! I was curious to know, where would I go to file for protection on the Annapurna Pictures article? It keeps getting vandalized. Vmars22 (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:RFPP. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Roadshow theatrical release could use review

Could people please take a look at the article Roadshow theatrical release ?

It gives the impression of being the personal thoughts of one or more editors ( WP:NOTESSAY );

it doesn't have cites for many of the claims made. ( WP:WHYCITE )

Thanks.

-- 179.210.192.170 (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Films about hebephilia

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 30#Category:Films about hebephilia. This is the second time this is being discussed. Please weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

You would probably be better off removing the articles where the category is not substantiated via a verifiable source per WP:CATDEF and then seeing what that leaves in it. If the cat is left virtually empty then it should be deleted per WP:SMALLCAT, but if it is still substantially populated it probably justifies its existence. The problem with the CfD at the moment is that it is not necessarily clear which films should be in there. Lolita probably should be because it's about how a man's sexual interests become "frozen" at a particular point in his life, but The War Zone (which I watched just last week incidentally) probably shouldn't because the girl is applying to colleges so (must be at least 16) and it is also implied the abuse been ongoing all through her life. Betty Logan (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion, Betty Logan. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

List of films featuring romances of significant age disparity

Is at AfD. Please see the discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 06:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

How the hell is The Graduate not on that list?? Betty Logan (talk) 07:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a heads up that an IP editor has been removing notes from cast/personnel lists that the person was uncredited, as well as overlinking names in articles on Alfred Hitchcock films. They were at 107.77.209.33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) yesterday and I left them a message, but they're at it again today at 107.77.206.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Opencooper (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice Opencooper. These are two more in a long list of IPs who make just the unhelpful (disrutive) edits you describe. I know that more than one of us have tried to explain the problems with their editing. the outcome is that we are always ignored. A few block have been handed our over the years but I don't know whether anyone has ever taken the time to start an LTA or not. Reverting is the best we can do at the moment. MarnetteD|Talk 23:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Here is today's version 107.77.210.49 (talk · contribs). Feel free to help with reverting with thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 17:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Gangs of New York

Before things get out of hand, I want to solicit some opinions here about Gangs of New York. Earlier today, I removed the word "fictional" from the lede, with the edit summary "Removed "fictionalized" from lede; of course it's a work of fiction." Rms125a@hotmail.com restored the word, saying "o some people think it's a full color documentary -- important to point out complete lack of historical verisimilitude," which, to me, is not an encyclopedic argument, as I said when I reverted him. It is not standard practice, in my experience, to point out in a lede that a film is "fiction," as this is assumed. So, before this turns into an edit war, I would like some other editors to weigh in. Thanks. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 20:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it is a bit much to say "fictionalized" in the opening sentence, but it could be worth explaining later in that paragraph (like by the sentence mentioning the nonfiction book) stating based on reliable sources how the film differed from the book itself. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
That would make sense. It might also be necessary to point out there that the book itself is regarded as inaccurate, so that the changes from the book to the film took the story even further from the historical reality. Such details, though, are not appropriate for the lede, but can be covered later in the article. The word "fictionalized," though, especially in the opening sentence, is not NPOV. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 20:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
The main point is that there are too many people fooled by critics and reviewers who [have] carelessly assign[ed] the film too much credibility, and linked the film with the Draft Riots. Martin Scorcese did not go out of his way to point out that the film is complete fiction conveniently tossed into the same year as the riots. Critics, most of whom swooned over the sets and period pieces, didn't place much emphasis on that either. As far as "It is not standard practice, in my experience, to point out in a lede that a film is "fiction," as this is assumed", this is neither here nor there, just a common-sense rule of thumb, but, as we all know, common sense does not always prevail, and it is the responsibility of an encyclopaedia to ensure the reader is aware. Quis separabit? 20:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

For instance, from the page's "Historical accuracy" section:
"Scorsese has received both praise and criticism for historical depictions in the film. In a PBS interview for the History News Network, George Washington University professor Tyler Anbinder discussed the historical aspects of the film.[10] See also Vincent DiGirolamo's "Such, Such Were the B'hoys," Radical History Review Vol. 90 (Fall 2004), pp. 123–41.
Asbury's book described the Bowery Boys, Plug Uglies, True Blue Americans, Shirt Tails, and Dead Rabbits, who were named after their battle standard, a dead rabbit on a pike.[2] The book also described William Poole, the inspiration for William "Bill the Butcher" Cutting, a member of the Bowery Boys, a bare-knuckle boxer, and a leader of the Know Nothing political movement. Poole did not come from the Five Points and was assassinated nearly a decade before the Draft Riots. Both the fictional Bill and the real one had butcher shops, but Poole is not known to have killed anyone.
Anbinder said that Scorsese's recreation of the visual environment of mid-19th century New York City and the Five Points "couldn't have been much better".[1] All sets were built completely on the exterior stages of Cinecittà Studios in Rome.[2] By 1860, New York City had 200,000 Irish,[3] in a population of 800,000.[4] The riot which opens the film, though fictional, was "reasonably true to history" for fights of this type, except for the amount of carnage depicted in the gang fights and city riots.[1]
According to Paul S. Boyer, "The period from the 1830s to the 1850s was a time of almost continuous disorder and turbulence among the urban poor. The decade from 1834–1844 saw more than 200 major gang wars in New York City alone, and in other cities the pattern was similar."[5] ... The large gang fight depicted in the film as occurring in 1846 is fictional, though there was one between the Bowery Boys and Dead Rabbits in the Five Points on July 4, 1857, which is not mentioned in the film.[6] DiGirolamo concludes that "'Gangs of New York' becomes a historical epic with no change over time. The effect is to freeze ethno-cultural rivalries over the course of three decades and portray them as irrational ancestral hatreds unaltered by demographic shifts, economic cycles and political realignments."[citation needed]
In the film, the Draft Riots are depicted mostly as acts of destruction but there was a lot of violence that took place during that week of July 1863. The violence resulted in more than one hundred deaths, most of which were African Americans. They were especially targeted by the Irish gangs, in part because they were afraid of the job competition that more freed slaves would cause in the city.[7] The film references the infamous Tweed Courthouse, as "Boss" Tweed refers to plans for the structure as being "modest" and "economical".[citation needed]

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference hhn was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Mixing Art and a Brutal History
  3. ^ The New York Irish, Ronald H. Bayor and Timothy Meagher, eds. (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996)
  4. ^ "19th century AD." Adolescence, Summer, 1995 by Ruskin Teeter.
  5. ^ Paul S. Boyer (1992). "Urban Masses and Moral Order in America, 1820-1920". Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674931106
  6. ^ Riots, virtualny.cuny.edu; accessed October 5, 2016.
  7. ^ Johnson, Michael."The New York Draft Riots". Reading the American Past, 2009 p. 295.

Scum (film)

I just looked up Scum on my mobile and you don't see the categories after Cast on the mobile version of the article, I had a look to fix it but couldn't see where the problem is or why. Maybe someone else can have a look cheers. Govvy (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think categories are normally seen in mobile view. Someone can correct me on this if I'm wrong. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
As someone who is often mobile, I can confirm. Categories are not viewable on the mobile site. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Bull charmer

I do not understand the phrase "Parker is a no-bull charmer" in this review by Peter Travers.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

"No-bull" is short for "no bullshit". Opencooper (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I misread this as "Parker is no bull charmer".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

To match-cut, or not match-cut, that is the question

A discussion about whether the famous match-cut in 2001: A Space Odyssey should be specifically mentioned in the plot summary: Talk:2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film)#Mentioning_Match_Cut_in_Plot_Section. It's essentially two against two at the moment so I think outside opinion is needed to resolve it since arguments are starting to go in circles. Betty Logan (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Please see: Proposal for introducing match cut --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 07:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_61&oldid=1139197875"