Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 68

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65Archive 66Archive 67Archive 68Archive 69Archive 70→Archive 75

Synthesis in film leads

I'm having some real trouble keeping original research out of film articles; one example is linked above. The latest example is from Dpm12, who wants to say that Antz was "a financial success". I dislike this because it strikes me as both original research and puffery. I don't see why we can't just report the gross without labeling it a success. Although the film has a very high rating on Rotten Tomatoes, I would also prefer to avoid the synthy "it received positive reviews" (see this discussion on my talk page). Can we have a consensus here that "it was a financial success", at the least, is original research and should not be added to film leads? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Original research implies not using sources. The sources for everything I said are in the article. I like how you're at least honest that YOU'RE the one who has a problem with it.
Dpm12 (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
If anything, the problem I have with the article is the sentence that Antz was the second feature-length CGI film after Toy Story. Not only did A Bug's Life begin production like a full year earlier, but Brazil had a feature-length CGI film in 1996 called Cassiopeia, two years before Antz
Dpm12 (talk) 10:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
There does need to be a source to declare the film "a financial success" since that has a specific meaning beyond the gross being greater than the budget. There are other costs involved. If we can't determine that, we can just drop that label. If anything, the budget should be put in the second paragraph as a production detail, with the gross as it is. Even being next to each other seems to be a wink and a nudge as to what conclusion a reader should draw. Regarding the positive reviews, though, NinjaRobotPirate, why is Rotten Tomatoes and/or Metacritic not usable to summarize here? They are aggregate scores, so it's not at all a reach. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
When does it cross over from "mixed" to "mixed to positive" to "positive"? Is 59% "mixed" or "negative"? 59% is a "rotten" score, after all. OK, so what about using Metacritic? Well, Metacritic doesn't index any non-English reviews, and it frequently doesn't index any non-US reviews. For a French-language film produced in Quebec (not exactly a huge stretch for English Wikipedia), this means we'd be rating it based almost exclusively on English-language reviews from the US. I know what people will say: this isn't a French language film, and it doesn't have a very debatable rating at Rotten Tomatoes. So, does that mean that we can just throw out Wikipedia policy once something reaches a magical "looks obvious enough to me" point? No, I don't think so. I realize that makes me a hardliner, but I really don't see what the problem is with saying "the film grossed $100 million and has a 90% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes". It's factual, avoids all original research, and will make NinjaRobotPirate happy. The alternative, "the film was a financial success and received positive reviews" is not substantially better, and it will make my life that much harder once I try to convince the next person that their less obvious situation shouldn't follow the lead of this article. There's absolutely nothing wrong with reporting the facts without interpretation, and it's policy to do so. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Metacritic, unlike Rotten Tomatoes, has a "mixed" label that can be used. I believe the community consensus has been against "mixed to positive" and similar mash-ups. If RT and MC differ, then that should be articulated. If we're concerned about how the film was received in each and every country, then I'm not sure we could ever summarize critical reception. We work with what we can get. We can characterize the aggregators better as needed, like saying "US-based". I would argue against saying "has a 90% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes" because that's specialist language. It has to be unpacked a bit more, e.g., "Rotten Tomatoes assessed 89 reviews and identified 85 as positive." A similar approach can be done with Metacritic, saying that it identified 20 reviews as positive and 6 as mixed. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
We do seem to circle back around to these summary statements quite often. In past discussions, it has been determined that dealing with it on a case-by-case basis was the best way forward; sometimes it's blatantly obvious and can be optionally included, other times when the consensus is less clear, avoid it altogether. Generally, it's best if both RT and MC agree, and you have at least one reliable, mainstream source that has attempted to summarize it as well. When all three pieces are in alignment, it's hard to deny its inclusion based on policy. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Rotten Tomatoes will sometimes post an editorial that analyzes a film's reception, where they flatly state, "The film received mixed reviews because of the poor direction but good acting." That's fine, as is similar statements from trade magazines. But interpreting the review aggregators yourself and coming to a decision about them is original research – even when they seem obvious enough. Just report the numbers without analysis, like policy says to do. The aggregators are useful, but they have their weaknesses. I dislike using them to authoritatively state a consensus that may or may not exist beyond their own cataloged reviews – as I've said before. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think you can generalize a film's reception using just aggregators alone. They speak specifically for the reviews they have surveyed and there is no attempt to make them statistically representative, and RT and Metacritic will often arrive at different conclusions anyway. If you are going to add a summary statement to the lead there really needs to be a summary statement in the critical reception section cited to a secondary source. Betty Logan (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Offering a disclaimer here... My previous comments focus on summary statements in general. We should definitely be more cautious and restrictive against adding summary statements to the lead. Sometimes they're warranted, but more often than not they aren't. A prerequisite for it appearing there would certainly require an adequately cited appearance in the critical reception section (cited to a source other than RT or MC). With that said, I still think there are situations when RT and MC both show overwhelming positive reception, that we can allow for a brief summary statement in the opening line of the critical response section without letting it carry over to the lead. It's not original research to state that a film "received generally positive reception from critics" when the only aggregate information we have available supports that claim.
As a raw example, if MC has a metascore of 81 or higher and RT has applied a certified fresh rating, then these aggregators that we consider to be reliable, secondary sources are already categorizing the film's reception as positive (in fact, MC will attach a "Universal Acclaim" label on their site). A summary statement that simply says the same thing could not be classified as original research, though editors like NinjaRobotPirate would still have a valid claim that it might be redundant and unnecessary. That part of the argument I can understand, but the WP:OR goes out the window in my mind. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

...and in this diff we have an explicit example of Bice24 (talk · contribs) adding "it received mixed-to-positive reviews" to the lead of The Maze Runner (film). This is exactly what I said would happen. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Like I said before, every time this weird variation comes up, the community is against it. We do need to eradicate all instances of these variations, but that's not really related to the problem here of having a summary of each aggregator. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Not adding anything to the discussion, but since my edit was brought up here, I just wanted to clarify that I was merely trying to follow what I believed to be usual practice, since I see this everywhere, and I thought changing the summary back to what it had been like for years would be the best option in this instance. I wasn't aware this had been part of any ongoing debate. Duly noted if that's not how it should be done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk · contribs) Bice24 (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

So, do we have consensus to remove the "financial success" line from Antz? Also, I'm having a bit of trouble with Caitlin Plays Herself, where an IP editor is insisting on adding that the film received "mostly negative reviews". The IP editor has added a citation to Rotten Tomatoes, which has more negative reviews than positive – but there's no critical consensus. I really don't think we should be interpreting our own consensus based on the Rotten Tomatoes database entry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

In the Heat of the Night

Roman Spinner has been making some edits in In the Heat of the Night on the cast section that's probably in the Wikipedia guidelines. He's adding the list of opening and closing cast sections on that movie, which doesn't sound necessary. I reverted them in the past because it was too bulky on smaller computers with those tables he put on them, as you can on the diff here. After I told Roman about that, he did so again on the cast section with the opening and closing credit lists without the tables as you can see it on the diff here. I think there's something that needs to be solved because I don't think opening and closing credits isn't necessary in the cast section in film articles. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

On December 6, BattleshipMan posted on my talk page regarding this matter. This was my reply. Since BattleshipMan's sole complaint was that the cast list posted by me was too bulky, here is a comparison between the earlier cast list that BattleshipMan repeatedly reinserted (1,817 bytes) and the current cast list which I revised from the earlier one (1,839 bytes), a difference of only 22 bytes. As for the presence of the cast list as seen in the opening credits (and differs slightly from the cast list in the closing credits), if project members decide that the opening credits list should be deleted --- out it goes. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
The problem is it's redundant to have opening and closing credits in the cast sections. You got the same names in those sub-sections in the cast section and you are repeatedly adding opening credits and closing credits after they have been reverted. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
And not just In the Heat of the Night, he's also doing it in The Great Escape, as seen in this diff here. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Your current posting on this page is the first inkling I've had that you objected to the existence of the opening credits. All your edit summaries as well as your December 6 posting on my talk page only mentioned the "bulk" of the cast list, which I assumed meant that you objected to the 191 extra bytes attributable to the existence of the Wikitable as seen here.
I therefore deliberately removed the Wikitable lines to satisfy your objections and reinserted the cast list, still laboring under the assumption that such a change would be sufficient. If the deletion of the cast list as it presently appears in the film's opening credits is all that remains to satisfy your objections, then the opening credits cast list can certainly be discarded.
As for The Great Escape, you are again returning to unspecified objections, since that cast list does not include opening credits. Are we back to Wikitable objections? —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think I like your attitude with me, Roman. You are adding opening credits and closing credits sub-sections in cast section in In the Heat of the Night, which is redundant and unnecessary at best, and your edit The Great Escape doesn't help out with the dividers you added with your "sub-sections" co-starring and with, which is also redundant at best. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
The name is Roman and I regret that you found my reply to be dislikable. I had earlier supported your complaints regarding the exclusion of Larry Hankin's name from the Home Alone cast list and reinserted his name into that film's cast list. Furthermore, I removed the Wikitable lines from In the Heat of the Night when your objections appeared to center on the contention that "smaller computers, including one of my friend's" cannot handle such bulk. Just a few minutes ago, I offered to delete the opening credits from Heat's cast list, since you seem to feel that those credits are redundant.
As for your objections to "dividers" in The Great Escape, I will reiterate from my reply to you on December 6, that "Wikitables containing names, dates, facts and figures appear in multi-thousands of Wikipedia articles which can be viewed on any variety of devices and have not, for a few years now, faced criticism of causing "bulk". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Cast lists should be easy to read and concise – as in an overview. WP:FILMCAST has some guidance on this issue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate: Yes and Roman Spinner is making the cast list in pages In the Heat of the Night and The Great Escape very hard to read. He added the opening credits and closing credits in In the Heat of the Night, which is considered redundant, as you can see the diffs here and here. BattleshipMan (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
BattlshipMan and I have already been through all those discussions above. Wikitables appear in countless articles and have not brought forth any other complaints regarding "bulk" or difficulty in their use. As for the Heat of the Night opening credits, I already indicated that those credits are available for deletion if their presence brings cast list conciseness into question.
The newly-raised complaint regarding The Great Escape remains unspecified since I actually reduced that film's cast list from 1,786 bytes to 1,744 bytes (-42 bytes)‎ by eliminating excessive detail. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 09:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree that redundant names should be avoided. Secondly, MOS:TABLE#Size says, "Splitting lists and tables per summary style is advised against. Among other problems, arbitrarily splitting a wikitable effectively disables the powerful and useful sorting feature from working across the entire table." The section after that, WP:WHENTABLE, may be of use to read. So for The Great Escape, the broken-up nature may be problematic; even though we don't use sorting, I'm not sure what "among other problems" means here. Also, if a list approach is going to be taken over a table approach, I believe that using {{Div col}} at the beginning and {{Div col end}} at the end will be more straightforward to use. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Erik: Roman has reduced nothing at The Great Escape, he kept the names of every actor listed. He just added a table, which doesn't remove anything, even if it lowered the bytes. In fact, it helps nothing. Roman only added tables on that cast section and divided the tables with sortings co-starring and with on it. That sounds to me he's listing by opening credits order, which seems to me is considered redundant and makes that section hard to read. Roman is causing problems In the Heat of the Night and The Great Escape with experimenting on the cast sections, he's making those sections hard to read, he's making redundant edits on them. That's why I'm objecting to those edits. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, my first quote was directed at The Great Escape where it seems inappropriate to have four tables where one would suffice (especially when the latter three are missing headers). Also, like WP:FILMCAST says, "Use tables with care due to their complexity; they are most appropriate for developed, stable articles." If another editor wants to work on The Great Escape at some point, the four-table approach would be challenging compared to one table or one list. As for ordering the names, opening credits order is one so-called "rule of thumb" to follow per WP:FILMCAST. We use billing blocks in a similar manner. I do think that breaking up the list with "co-starring" and "with" as dividers is unnecessary. It seems to me that most cast lists in print would dispense with such distinctions. You could check to see how reliable sources (especially film databases) have approached listing that film's cast. As for In the Heat of the Night, I'm looking at the current version that has four columns for the list, and I was suggesting the bookend template approach as more straightforward and leaving it up to the reader's browser view. No idea if the four-column approach is okay in every view, but why assume that? Let the code ensure presentation based on the compatibility of the reader's browser. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
It needs to be noted that BattleshipMan is incorrect in stating, "Roman has reduced nothing at The Great Escape, he kept the names of every actor listed". A simple glance at my edit summary would reveal the words, "deleting Michael Paryla [de] as SS Officer on train (uncredited)". The last name in the previous cast list, the above-indicated uncredited redlinked bit player, was not kept.
In addition, I indicated the name of each character as it appears in the on-screen cast list --- these are fictional names of fictional characters based on real-life composites. There is no need to specify a character's name as "Gp. Capt. Ramsey, the Senior British Officer ("SBO")" when the on-screen cast list indicates "Ramsey "The SBO"". That is where the byte savings originated, not from the addition of the wikitable.
Also, BattleshipMan has used the word "redundant" twice within his most recent posting, above, in relation to my edits of The Great Escape cast list. Since I did not include opening credits / closing credits duplication of names, I assume his entire "redundant" complaint centers upon the two words, "co-starring" and "with", which appear in on-screen credits and consume a total of 15 bytes. Is the presence of those 15 bytes worth the effort of calling this meeting and complaining, "Roman is causing problems" and "he's making those sections hard to read, he's making redundant edits on them"? —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I find byte reduction to be irrelevant here, which is why I have not commented on that. It's not an argument to be made here. The arguments to make are in regard to lists vs. tables, table complexity, and proper rule of thumbs to follow in listing the cast. Regarding "SBO", I would support writing it out somewhere because that is not something most readers would know. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I attended to two of the points raised above: 1) regarding "(especially when the latter three are missing headers)" --- the "Actor | Role" missing headers have been added to the three columns which did not have them and 2) SBO has been linked and the piped redirect SBO (Senior British Officer, The Great Escape) flows to the entry for Herbert Massey, upon whom the character of Ramsey "The SBO" is based. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
You are experimenting on cast sections with ideas that are not working and are redundant. You're not making a different on those pages, Roman. If you think creating opening credits and closing sections on In the Heat of the Night and setting up dividing tables with co-starring & with sections in The Great Escape will make things better, you are sorely mistaken. Those ideas are not helpful by any standards and they are making cast sections on those articles hard to read. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm bringing in @AussieLegend:, @Deathawk:, @Betty Logan:, @Darkwarriorblake:, @Doniago: and @Masem: for discussion on this matter. BattleshipMan (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Agree that splitting cast by opening v closing credits is absolutely unnecessary. Unless there's something unique about a credits sequence that has been noted in sources (ie Deadpool), we don't care where an actor's credited, front or back, just that they are.
Second, don't use tables for this. I appreciate saving whitespace, though keep in mind that mobile devices don't have the same screenspace for tables like desktops. If this is desired, use {{Col-float}} or the other CSS column templates that we have that play nice with mobile devices. --Masem (t) 14:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Masem: Roman Spinner has did the same thing to the film The Shrike as you can see it on this diff here. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that's just not appropriate. It may look clearer or save wikicode bytes but it's not consistent with the usual approach. If editors want to go that way, they need to seek consensus from the project. --Masem (t) 17:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @BattleshipMan: It's ridiculous that you're even having to argue this at all. These edits are the definition of overinforming, and the fact that Roman Spinner hasn't ceased these edits even though there is an active discussion (in which nearly everyone strongly disagrees with them) is against the entire purpose of discussion and collaboration. These edits are excessive, and I strongly oppose them. Sock (tock talk) 17:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I've reverted the table approach used at The Shrike here. This approach is not working for other editors. There is no consensus to support proliferating this particular approach. The time could be better spent adding content. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the tables as presented here are wholly unsuitable. First of all there is the redundancy (the cast only needs to be listed once), while the table format makes the section more difficult to edit and it also locks readers into a screen "resolution". Keeping it simple here is the best approach! We can be our own worst enemies in our drive to improve articles. Betty Logan (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's completely unnecessary and is really just filmcruft. The opening credits are not inherently notable, so where the cast were listed in them is equally non notable. --Deathawk (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

This is cruft. It only matters in a case of credit above the titles, IMO, & that only matters when (if) a minor star, or newcomer, gets higher billing (like "The Defiant Ones", IIRC)--& why that happens belongs in the body of the article anyhow, not in a cast list. The only other issue of credit worth mention, IMO, is an uncredited appearance ("Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" with Connery, IIRC). Otherwise... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree that this is cruft and overkill. There is no need to list the names more than once in a cast section. MarnetteD|Talk 02:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Cast and Crew

What about adding a crew section to the cast section so that it would become "Cast and Crew" and list at minimum the producers and directors. A similar thing was attempted back in 2015, mostly By I believe by @Erik: (Example article:Edge of Tomorrow) however the format was never widely adopted, in part because the listing of the crew was listed under production section which looked ugly on mobile browsers (taking up about a screen before you got to the prose). and also because it, I don't believe, was ever properly discussed outside of a few select articles.

In the last few days this topic came to a head over in this discussion which involved if, during the announcement of the new Spiderman film. we should mention a group of attached producers in the prose. I thought no as it was too awkward but there was an argument that thought the info about the producers should appear somewhere in the article body. However I wouldn't mind it, and think it might be a great addition to film articles if this info, was included along with other such info under the cast listings, at which point we could change the heading to read instead "Cast and Crew" Thoughts? --Deathawk (talk) 07:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I've similarly been trying to do the same thing. I applied this same idea to the FA The FP and the GA Her, and I've tried to add it to more articles but frequently receive pushback. I think, since the infobox is definitely going to get crowded if we add in some of the less-frequently mentioned positions on a film crew, this should be a nice counterbalance to those who don't want production designers or art directors in the infobox. I know you're not really taking a vote, but I firmly support this. Sock (tock talk) 14:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I would prefer having separate sections for each group. I'm also okay with crew lists embedded in production sections. I have not really pushed for crew lists since it's such a tall order to implement. It just strikes me as a reasonable way to list additional credits without worrying about adding an infobox parameter (which would mean in the long run that such a parameter gets filled out everywhere). It seems to me that crew lists can be more tailored for each film, like to mention visual effects supervisors or dance choreographers where their roles have been emphasized in reliable sources. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I do not like the idea of combining it with the production section, chiefly being if you go to a page on Mobile with this setup and open the production section it makes it look like the production section is just a name of the crew members. As someone who works primarily in writing prose for production section, I do not like this because it creates the unfair assumption first time readers that the section is just a listing of crew members. --Deathawk (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Deathawk, I think that's a great point. I would be fine with a "Crew" list-type section. I started doing this at The Parts You Lose. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
If we do add crew sections, I would recommend list anyone essential to the production only, such as directors, writers, producers, editors, music composers, cinematographers, editors and production designers, maybe casting directors. That's what we should do if we have a crew section in film articles. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
People will have different opinions on who is essential to the production and who isn't. You would need an objective way to determine who should be listed, one that avoids the old 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information' issue. Perhaps base it on the billing block, as we often do when determining important cast members to list? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
We can start by looking at the film infobox template, since this whole thing seems to of started out of a disagreement over whether or not included material in the infobox should appear in the article proper. That would be: Director, Producer, Writer, editor, Cinematograher, and Music. That's six fields and I do not feel that we need much more than that. I think that's probably the easiest way to break it down. --Deathawk (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
That's a good possibility. That might work out. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97:': Do you feel that this would solve our dispute regarding Spiderman? I mean I did agree to leave that alone, but I think it might be worth revising now that they'res a solution on the table? If not I'm not attempting to push it, but now that we have a view of how we could include the info proper without interrupting the article's prose, I'm wondering if that changes anything? --Deathawk (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know how I feel about this idea. I was just commenting regarding some of the logistics for if this does ever become a thing. This would be a pretty major change for film articles if it were to happen, so I think trying to get as many people to an RfC on it as we can would be the best path to take this. If we do start using crew lists, I think I would still rather that the listed crew members be mentioned in context in the prose production section as well, just as the cast is generally in both places. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not inherently against including names of certain producers in the prose, however I do believe some actual legwork should be done. For instance "X produced the film" Ok but what did "X" actually do, did they find the story? Did they take it from another studio? That kind of thing I don't mind. However just putting a producers name down without context does not work for me. ---Deathawk (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I think we'll just have to disagree on that point, because I think "X produced the film" is context enough. And in general, at least for the articles I tend to work on, further details will come soon enough. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

A production credits section, such as the above-mentioned one at Edge of Tomorrow would be a welcome aspect of film articles. In July 2017, we had an inconclusive discussion regarding addition to film infoboxes of a major excluded Academy-Award-eligible job category — art director / production designer (the sole infobox-excluded job category which has existed since the 1st Academy Awards). Well-considered arguments may be also submitted in favor of another Oscar category — costume designer and one or more others. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

If we attempt to do this for every film this is going to take a lot of time and energy, thus maybe the solution is to migrate all the production sections that currently have a crew list at the top of the production section to below the casting section and then see what happens. One of my chief concerns is that the current way this is done on some articles seriously messes with the formatting on movie. --Deathawk (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Earlier today, an anonymous IP comprehensively added the {{Films by country}} navbox template to every individual Canadian-films-by-year subpage in Category:Lists of Canadian films by year. I see that in many (but not necessarily all) of the other cases where national film lists have been spun off by year that navbox is also present on the sublists, but I question whether it needs to be — I see it as unnecessary creeping templatitis, because individual country and individual year navboxes already exist to crosslink them on the country-by-year and year-by-country criteria. Rather, in the case of those countries which have spinoff sublists, the general {{Films by country}} navbox is really only necessary on the sublists' general parent article rather than on every individual sublist.

But since this IP wasn't unilaterally doing something unique to the Canadian lists but instead was simply replicating something already done on other comparable lists in other countries, I wanted to raise it for discussion rather than reverting them arbitrarily. Do other people see it as more valuable and useful than I do to add {{Films by country}} to every individual divvied-by-year sublist in addition to e.g. List of Canadian films, or is there a general agreement that I'm right in perceiving this as unnecessary TCREEP? Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This can be reverted per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, as none of the links in question are on the template. --Izno (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that the Films by country template in individual divvied-by-year sublists is unnecessary and should be removed. Hoverfish Talk 17:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Films with 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes at AfD (again)

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The AfD closed with no consensus. There is continuing discussion on the article's talk page here: Talk:List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes#After third AfD. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

List of Vietnamese films

As far as I understanf there existed two different cultures - the Communist North Vietnamese and "capitalistic" South Vietnamese. To put them into one list misinforms, rewrites history.Xx236 (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Is this reflected in reliable sources? If so, where should the delineations happen? This somewhat reminds me of German films and how some distinct sub-categories have been done for them. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Interstellar (film)/archive1

If you peer review this article, I'll review one of yours. Cognissonance (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Which Audience response version to go with at Star Wars: The Last Jedi article?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi#RfC: Which version of the Audience response section should we go with?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Films that break the fourth wall category at CfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Bot to place "Long plot" templates automatically?

When I find overlong plot summaries (which happens a lot), if I'm more or less familiar with the film's plot, I jump in and trim it myself. Otherwise I tag it with the long plot template and move on.

Could we create a bot that finds every plot summary over the 700-word limit specified by WP:PLOT and adds the template automatically? Is this a bad idea? Has it been discussed before? I don't know much about bots. Popcornduff (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I would oppose a bot, if only because bots by their inherent nature lack the nuance to properly apply the tag. A 702-word summary would trigger the bit, but no one would think that is a proper application of the tag. The guideline is just that, guidance, not a rigid rule. Even the guideline acknowledges that some films require a longer plot summary. A bot isn't going to know that. So, no, I don't think a bot should be used. oknazevad (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 800. Seems like a reasonable threshold to avoid any possible miscounting, and I'd certainly try to trim a summary that hit that level. That said, we'll need a way to disable the bot on articles where it's been agreed that exceeding that count is acceptable. I'm also not entirely sure how we could get the bot to specifically target film articles (keying off categories?). DonIago (talk) 10:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • We'd have to resolve whether actor names and alternate endings count toward the word limit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I think including actor names absolutely should be included in the wordcount. If you're adding words, you're adding words, no way round that. This is one of the reasons I oppose including actor names in summaries, because it lengthens them unnecessarily, but that's a different discussion. Popcornduff (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Agree that both should be included in the word-count. DonIago (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 800 the bot should scan for "YYYY films" categories. Just make sure to include any possible variants of "Plot" headings. Hoverfish Talk 11:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I completely get why you'd want to do this in good faith, and I myself have tagged plot sections plenty of times, I have to oppose mass-tagging. Cleanup tags are meant as a curation tool, placed by individual editors after they have assessed an article and made any attempts to mend issues. They must also be placed with discretion: addressing the most important issues first such as a lack of references or failure to prove notability, and then more minor issues. Far too often though, what happens is that tags languish for years (this isn't a figure of speech, they literally stay on articles for years) and no one ever touches the article again after the drive-by tagging. This would affect quite a lot of articles. Instead of a human using their judgement and knowledge, a bot would just mass-tag a bunch of articles based on a numerical criteria rather than the content of the film in question. What ends up happening is just the addition of visual clutter, and the tag distracting from other more pressing issues such as citations or reception. While it's certainly technically feasible, we should not just be throwing bots at every problem without considering the implications. Article issues are a human issue that require a human touch, and we also must consider the need and priority for such a tag. At the end of the day, a bloated plot is far from the worst thing that could happen to a film article. Opencooper (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm not buying the downsides you're arguing here.
      • Yes, tags are ugly. But if we worried about that, it would mean we should never use them anywhere.
      • Is there a reason why the long-plot template would prevent other things about it being improved? Is that just something that "stands to reason" or is there data for it?
      • Is the implication, therefore, that if someone tagged an article that had lots of more serious problems, it should be reverted until they're resolved? If the answer to that is "no", why would it be OK for 1 article but not 5000? Popcornduff (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with some of the points raised by Opencooper, esp. around tags that remain on articles for years. I've recently begun removing tags that ask for article expansion from another language WP that have been there for 5 years or more, for example. While I'm not opposed to doing this, is there anyway to get a rough number of many articles would/could be tagged with this? If it's a "manageable" number, then fine, but I don't see much enthusiasm for editors to work through, say 20,000 articles, for example. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
What is the purpose of removing tags when there are still problems? All that does is make them less likely to be fixed. I don't see what the difference should be between a day and 10 years. (I also don't think the only purpose of the tags is to invite people to fix problems: they also show readers that we know there's a problem and demonstrate what Wikipedia shouldn't look like, which I think is valuable in itself.) Popcornduff (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
It shows you how useless the tags are - if someone wants to "fix" an article, they'll do it off their own back, regardless if it's tagged or not. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Sounds like you just don't like the tags. Popcornduff (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
No, it shows you how useless the tags are. You obviously have difficulty reading. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Why the casual insult? What I meant was that it sounds like your objection is with the tags themselves, not the bot idea. Popcornduff (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
    • If we opt for no tags, then we should place a hidden/maintenance category or some other way that would permit one to check through some type of list the articles with oversize plots. In this way one can pick film articles one might want to "fix". Hoverfish Talk 21:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
      This is a good compromise. Part of the problem here is that we don't truly know the scale of the problem. However, from my own personal experience plot bloat and genre warring seem to be the two problems that blight the film articles more than any other, even if they aren't the most serious problems. A tracking category would allow us to know where the problems are. It would help editors focused on fixing these problems if they knew where the problems were. That way they can appraise the situation, and then either fix it, tag it or leave it. For me, having a list of these articles is the main benefit of this approach rather than an automated tag. Betty Logan (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose or at least when it is over 1000 words where it is clearly past the line, and where there is a way for the bot not to retag a page if it has been removed. 700 words is the recommended limit but it is neither a hard limit, and doesn't account for special cases. I would say 1000 words is probably too high save for a few exceptional cases, but anything lower has a good chance of hitting legit cases where it is higher on purpose. --Masem (t) 23:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps, similar to when one addresses edit requests, there could be an optional parameter that would allow an editor to indicate that the count had been reviewed and was okay, which would then omit any display of the tag. DonIago (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: A bot for long plot summaries might cause issues with the plot written on those articles. They can delete important plot points and won't help with the 700 word limit of the plot summaries. Creating a bot for long plot summaries isn't the answer. We may have to at least change the word limit on the plot summaries in order to mandate the issue. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
    The bot would not delete anything. They would simply count the words in a plot summary and add a tag if the summary is too long. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with this in general, but could we work backwards on this? We could start with 1,000 words (or even higher) and see how many articles have that. I feel like doing 800 would give us an unnecessarily big list. If we identify a small set of very big summaries, we may be more motivated to tackle them. Then we could lower the criteria another 100 words and run the bot again (if that is how it works). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
    If that approves, maybe we should change the word limit to 400 to 800 because they are so many plot summaries that are around there and it will take forever to have any editor willing to shorten the length of the plot summary to those word limits. I think 800 words would be reasonable enough to max out the word limit on the plot sections. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
    I'm not sure if I follow. My suggestion is to essentially recognize the "biggest offenders" of the 700-word limit first. That way we don't get a preliminary list that feels like it takes forever to tackle. Plot summaries around 800 words should not be treated as much of a priority. I think the guideline's current range is fine as it is. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
    I am fine with 1,000 words. The bot doesn't even need to tag, it just needs to add a tracking category. It would just be useful to have a list of articles where the plot summaries are excessively long. It would be a shame if this proposal doesn't get off the ground simply because everyone is pulling in different directions. Betty Logan (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
    I think your proposal is different from mine: you want some way to index every overlong plot summary, whereas I want to put tags wherever they're valid. Those are different goals. Though they're not mutually exclusive, of course - your proposal makes sense to me. Popcornduff (talk) 08:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
    I don't have a problem with the tagging, but as you can see from the discussion several people do. I still think the underlying idea of using a bot to track/highlight the problem has merit though, so it would be great if we could reconcile everybody's concerns into a workable solution. Betty Logan (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
    • If the bot could actually maintain an automated log of articles with plot sections over 700 words, including the word lengths of the plot section, it would be most helpful to start by catching the very obvious unacceptable cases, tag them manually and work one's way to the less obvious ones. Hoverfish Talk 10:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I've been noticing a lot that there have a been a weird trend of putting an excessive number of External Links. Examples can be found at Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, The Boss Baby, and Star Wars: The Last Jedi, but this is far from a complete list. usually these are to sites such as Box Office Mojo and Rotten Tomatoes which already appear in the article and in my opinion are unneeded. --Deathawk (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Deathawk, Box Office Mojo and Rotten Tomatoes are appropriate external links because each of them provides access to a resource that is more than the ideal Wikipedia article can offer -- in this case, extensive box office data and many more reviews than an article can reasonably sample. Readers should not have to look through the "References" section (especially when there are dozens or even hundreds of references) for these additional resources. In other words, it is happenstance that the links used for referencing high-level data and the links for providing access to more granular data are the same. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, it's not actually difficult to find the Rotten Tomatoes link, as it usually is proceeded by a sentence along the line of "at Rotten tomatoes the film has a ___ percentage" So I really doubt there's much reason for inclusion in the external links. Similarly it's pretty simple to find the link to Box office Mojo. The scenario you put forth where a reader would have to sift hundreds of links is not, in my opinion, likely to happen. Other mediums have found that this style works for them, for instance for the latest Katy Perry album, Metacritic is not listed in the External Links section and neither is Billboard (which provides chart information) because readers are able to find the links in the articles fairly easily. --Deathawk (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
MOS:FILM#External links says, "Some external links may benefit readers in a way that the Wikipedia article cannot accommodate. For example, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic can provide listings of more reviews than sampled in the article body. They can be included as external links instead of links to individual reviews. Other useful external links include the Internet Movie Database, which provides community interaction, and Box Office Mojo, which provides box office statistics that may be too indiscriminate for the article. Templates for these useful external links are listed below, but judge each external link on its own merits. For example, a film may not be well-known enough to have multiple reviews listed at Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, or it may be too old to have in-depth box office statistics at Box Office Mojo." WP:ELYES says the following can normally be linked: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to... amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks)." In that same vein, WP:ELNO says we do not include links that do "not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." You're welcome to make a case to exclude AllMovie, though. I've never found it to be a unique resource. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I am aware that it says those things, however from a practical standpoint I'm not sure those things make sense, especially in the way to how other mediums are handled on Wikipedia. The wording in the manual of style is almost a decade old and about five years ago a discussion was had which failed to reach consensus but had other editors expressing concerns with the wording. We may want to revisit the issue again. --Deathawk (talk) 07:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome to start a new discussion. I recommend starting a thread at WT:MOSFILM and adding a notification here at WT:FILM and perhaps WT:EL. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Feature films by country

Thoughts on this and the sub-cats? CfD time? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

This seems unnecessary since when we state "film", we imply "feature film". If it is a short film, then we would say so. (Unless we want to change that, but I don't really see the need.) I'd support CfD. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I also support CfD as completely useless. Hoverfish Talk 16:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks both. I've listed all the categories here at CfD. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Odd article Fajr International Film Festival

Virtually unsourced, it mentions the Crystal Simorgh award (without linking it} multiple times, other awards, juries and competitions, and an unsourced record. Looks like it needs tidying and sources. I came across it because Jafar Dehghan, deleted at AfD last October, has been recreated with the unsourced claim that they received a best actor award. Is that enough for notability? If not I'll just delete it as a G4. Thanks.Doug Weller talk 09:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

In Bruges infobox border

Can anyone figure out what is going on in this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:In_Bruges#Poster_border I removed the "border no" parameter in the infobox as being unnecessary, and this has started an argument which I find baffling. I cannot think of a single film article infobox that has this parameter. Am I missing something? If so, please correct me. Thanks. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 18:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the "border" parameter exists more generally in template code for image use, so it would rarely apply to film posters, which are frequently rectangular. I don't mind the border's removal here, though, since this is a rare and unique case. Any reason not to just let it be? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Transparent images should not have borders, as they are not rectangular. Now, please tell me why you have ignored four different messages from me (your talk page and the article talk page) and only responded to me via your edit summaries? That's a sure way to a hasty block. In future, kindly use talk pages before a second revert. And you've still not said what your objection is - only that you object. — Film Fan 20:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@TheOldJacobite: Film Fan is under a 1RR restriction for edit warring. Please report him to ANEW if he makes more than one revert per 24 hours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Hahaha. Have you followed this thread at all?! — Film Fan 10:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I honestly feel that I asked a simple question here, that I don't think has yet been answered. Why is this no border parameter necessary for this image, when I have never seen such a parameter in any other film infobox? Once again, am I missing something? When FilmFan first posted on my talk page, I felt that Gareth answered the question sufficiently, so I ignored the follow up questions. It could be that this is all a misunderstanding, but the responses I've received from Film Fan have been more abusive than helpful. Threatening me with a block, for example, is over the line. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Tell me when you've seen an article with a transparent image and a border round a rectangle that doesn't exist? But, more to the point, WHY would you want to put a rectangular border around an image that is not rectangular? That is the only question that needs answering. Also, I gave you an example of another one in one of the several conversations I tried to have with you about this, and no, it is not over the line to remind someone they will be blocked if they only respond via edit summaries. Cheers. — Film Fan 14:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@TheOldJacobite: - Please note that Film Fan was placed under a 1RR which still applies. I count two recent reverts by FF already. Kinda ironic he's threatening you with a block. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Aaand another person who hasn't followed the thread at all. — Film Fan 14:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. More than ironic, I'd say. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

So, to clarify, there's two users for removing the border, and one user (without a reason) for keep the border. — Film Fan 11:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

IMDb citations

Please refer to discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lugnuts#Crush_(1992_film). The editor has stated that IMDb is never used under any circumstances on Wikpedia, however the articles he cites state that it may be cited as a tertiary source, provided that a verifiable secondary source is also adduced, a condition that was satisfied by subsequent edits, as can be observed in the Edit History. Please comment on the use of IMDb in general, and in this specific case, and whether there is a comparable database that can be cited as a secondary source. Chrisdevelop (talk)

I don't think that WP:CITEIMDB's nutshell captures what the essay actually says, and it does not say anything about referencing it as a tertiary source. WP:RS/IMDB is more straightforward on the matter. The point is that IMDb's content is largely user-submitted. It does not mean that it is all garbage, but it is more likely to be garbage than databases curated by the staff. The data is most likely correct for the biggest and most popular films since they receive the most scrutiny, but beyond that set, there's not much confidence in the data provided. Not to mention that IMDb does not really indicate importance. We rarely list unnamed roles in Wikipedia articles. For example, IMDb's Crush page does not make a distinction between unnamed roles and named roles. NZ On Screen shows six names, where IMDb has one of them, Harata Solomon, below unnamed roles. So it's not reliable for prioritizing actors, either. Other sources are much more likely to do that as a more professional approach. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
@Erik: Thanks Erik. Wikipedia:Citing IMDb was where I found the reference to citation of IMDb as a tertiary source, specifically, "The IMDb should be used only as a tertiary source for hard data on released films." While the article doesn't claim to be an official policy, nor do any of the other links so far adduced. Types of citation of IMDb content where there is dispute about whether it is appropriate to reference on Wikipedia: "Released films only: Sections such as the cast list, character names, the crew lists, release dates, company credits, awards, soundtrack listing, filming locations, technical specs, alternate titles, running times, and rating certifications." Since according to this article, there is dispute, banning the use of IMDb under all circumstances doesn't appear to be official Wikipedia policy. Awards such as Oscars appear to be curated by IMDb staff or a bot, since they take some time to appear after upload. I have been unable to find any other resource of comparable magnitude to IMDb as a movie database, hence my raising this. Chrisdevelop (talk)
Yes, I am saying that the "tertiary" mention is in the so-called "nutshell" template at that page but is not in the essay itself. That means the nutshell does not accurately represent the contents. There is no Wikipedia policy for banning a specific website since policy is too high-level for that. Some websites get blocked, but IMDb is acceptable enough as an external link (which do not have to meet the same RS criteria). IMDb being the greatest resource in terms of quantity does not mean it is quality. It is only of significant magnitude because of user-submitted content, and the community is not confident that the staff processes that content professionally. It's just too much, and it also lacks discriminate grouping. It's not useless outright, as keywords from a film's web page can be used to research matters further. But if it can't be verified anywhere that would be accessible to readers, then it can't be used. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
As WP:CITEIMDB states, it is acceptable to use IMDB in its capacity as a tertiary source i.e. when the data has been demonstrably provided to IMDb by a reliable secondary source. One example where we accept IMDB as a source is when the writer credits are clearly identified as being provided by the WGA (Writers Guild of America); another is the MPAA ratings. Basically we can use it as a tertiary source where IMDB issues data provided by the outlets listed here. Beyond that narrow spectrum of information IMDB should under no circumstances be used a source. Betty Logan (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I see Sock has already covered this territory at User_talk:Lugnuts#Crush_(1992_film)! The bottom line is that IMDB is a valid source in some very specific contexts, but it is de facto unreliable. Betty Logan (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Betty Logan, are you saying that in these contexts, it is acceptable to have an inline citation referencing IMDb? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
That's how I've always interpreted the guideline and essay. IMDB is not reliable for the data it collates from its userbase but it is reliable for data that is demonstrably provided by reliable sources, such as WGA credits and MPAA ratings. With tertiary sources you are essentially looking at the reliablility of the underlying provider. For example, IMDB own Box Office Mojo but nobody has an issue with that because it is not user-edited. Betty Logan (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I guess these contexts seem so narrow as to make referencing IMDb irrelevant. Writing credits are generally so widely available that they're unlikely to be challenged. (If they are, then I think it's very likely that the WGA is not connected with such films.) Same with MPAA ratings; we don't report them by themselves anyway, and we can reference the MPAA rating website directly (e.g., in case we want to write out the full rating explanation that a secondary source may not state). In short, I see no reason to bother with citing IMDb directly at all. Why not just state that irrevocably? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't ever recall citing IMDB in my entire time on Wikipedia so I don't have a problem with avoiding the source in practice. In truth, I think allowing it for some things and not for others creates a grey area and causes situations like this, but at the same time we can't just rewrite policy. Betty Logan (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
IMDb provides a lot of information in a single gateway, that is frequently missing from other sites, including credited roles (i.e. roles that actually appear in the closing footage), such as Orchestrator, Conductor and Composer (additional music). I am currently writing an article about a subject who has 27 IMDb credits, for all of which he is named in the closing titles, but this credit doesn't always appear on other websites when the information has been supplied by the producer or by the site itself. This could be carelessness or laziness or even malice on the part of either, but it undermines claims to notability of my subject. Short of forcing readers of my article to watch the movie for proof my subject actually had the claimed role, it seems these roles will have to be excluded from the article if the only place I can find them is on IMDb and the movie itself. While the question about IMDb reliability is acknowledged, its user input also means that missing information is more likely to be added, much in the way Wikipedia amasses information that is moderated and improved by other users. Taking the movie Crush (1992 film) which initiated this discussion as an example, there were two credited composers, Antony Partos and JPS Experience, both of whom won awards for the film score. Yet neither Partos nor JPS are anywhere to be found in the official NZ On Screen article. You have to watch the movie to find them (and they're mentioned in the IMDb article). Repeating my earlier question, is there an equivalent database to IMDb that has the same information in it, that can be cited? Chrisdevelop (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Partos is actually mentioned on the NZ on Screen website, very clearly there. Generally speaking, if you need to rely on IMDb to establish notability of a person, you have another problem entire: the person possibly isn't notable to begin with; true notability of an entertainer or music person can't be undermined by not being listed on official websites—and if they're not listed on official websites, it suggests that their contribution isn't significant. Significant contribution is key to notability. Often, it's taken on good faith that persons are listed in the credits as they are stated to be. I'm not understanding the problem with Crush, though. If they won a major and notable award for their work on the film, just use the reference for the award to prove they worked on it? (Though, skimming through the article, I don't see any award listed for JPS Experience, and the music by credit on IMDb looks like their music was used in the film, rather than them working on the film. There's a distinction there.) And as for equivalent databases, in a NZ film, NZ on Screen is basically it, off the top of my head. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
On a re-read I see Partos actually is there, just as you said. Going to notability, there is a 'weight of evidence' aspect to notability. If someone is the orchestrator of a notable movie (with its own Wikipedia article), that won notable awards (with their own Wikipedia article), and the composer (with his own Wikipedia article) whose music he orchestrated is notable, there is implicit weighting to the subject's own notability. For example, the orchestrator of music for the Olympic Games is implicitly more notable than the orchestrator for the Commonwealth Games, because the Olympic Games are themselves more notable. Such an individual may already have other notable credits that survive in their own right, but additional credits add to the weight of evidence, without any one in its own right necesesarily being sufficient. Being less notable than someone else, doesn't mean being in no way notable. In regards to my own subject, it isn't that the only citations I can find for him are on IMDb, but removing all 27 of them from my article involves digging around for 27 more sources that can be cited, and that's where there is a problem as we've already agreed exists with Crush as to how sloppy the site curation is, or the producers who fax over their credit sheets without due diligence, because they're in the middle of working on their next production. Whether or not I manage to find 27 independent citations to replace all those on my subject's IMDb entry, the additional evidence from IMDb has to be ommitted entirely and cannot even be cited as tertiary corroboration. It's surely highly unlikely that an article for a subject credited on IDMb in 27 productions would be entirely fake. If such deception is considered possible, then we might start to question the moon landing, as many do, 9/11 WTC as many do, and the Holocaust, as many do. There is only one New Zealand movie in his catalogue (and he is credited in the NZ On Screen trailer), while the others are Australian and British.Chrisdevelop (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
My first port-of-call for film credits is the British Film Institite database. It reproduces the credits verbatim. You can find the entry for Crush here. Betty Logan (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
@Betty Logan: Thank you for the BFI link, which as you say, does include enough detail for the film Crush. I have searched through the BFI database for a few other items however, and find they don't always include the credits verbatim. For example Ring of Scorpio as shown on BFI, whose music score was composed by Martin Armiger (orchestrated and conducted by my subject who also composed additional music), doesn't include his name, nor any other music credits, nor Cast and Crew, yet on IMDb, you can see them all here. The IMDb Cast and Crew list looks correct to me, as it does match up with the credit list in the closing titles on my copy of the film on DVD. No other website I have been able to locate so far has anything like this quality of information, so, since this IMDb page is not allowed to be cited, I need a database that does have the correct up to date credits listed in an equally comprehensive format, that is permissible to cite. In another example, Frauds (film) is listed on BFI and includes my subject Derek Williams as Orchestrator/Conductor, yet at http://www.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2bd80cbf70 only one other movie (Crush) credits him. At IMDb on the other hand, there are 27 films, tv series and documentaries on which he is credited. I have checked all 27 of these by watching the footage, and his name is on them, exactly in the capacities as stated in his article on IMDb. Chrisdevelop (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Transposing my comment from Lugnuts' talk page:

"@Chrisdevelop: Here from the film project, and wow, this is a really pointless argument. Even if you weren't misreading the pages on IMDb sourcing, which you are, there is already a reliable source to back up the award nomination. Multiple sources are not needed to corroborate the same information. Furthermore, WP:CITEIMDB clearly says that the things acceptable to be sourced by IMDb are:

  1. The writing credits marked with "WGA" that are supplied directly by the Writers Guild of America (where applicable).
  2. The MPAA ratings reasons, where they appear, that are supplied directly by the Motion Picture Association of America.

Furthermore, WP:RS/IMDB says that IMDb can be used as a great gateway into finding reliable sources. Frankly, we can use IMDb how other resources would use Wikipedia. You would never cite Wikipedia in a college paper, but you may use Wikipedia to lead you to a source that you could cite. We use IMDb in the same way, as, almost exactly like Wikipedia, it is almost entirely user-created and edited. Lugnuts explained everything perfectly, I'm basically just doing a long-winded reiteration to clarify that he's telling you the truth. Sock (tock talk) 19:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)"

– Sock (tock talk) 22:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Should United States be abbreviated in infobxes?

Question regarding this edit.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Good question... we have MOS:US available, and it says that US "is a commonly used abbreviation for United States". (It should be noted that it should be US and not U.S.) If "Release date" came after "Country" in this example, then an abbreviation would make sense. Since it is the opposite order, not so much. I'm not sure if there is really a right or wrong answer. Curious to see others' thoughts. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
If I was being pedantic, then the country is not needed at all (in this example), as it's an American film with its first release being in America. However, if it say, was screened first at Cannes, for example, then the I'd put the domestic release date as "US". Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
US - everyone knows what it means and it's nice and easy to read. Popcornduff (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I usually abbreviate as much as possible in tables and infoboxes. It can be explained in the article body. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I am good with "US"... I think abbreviations make sense given the limited space of infoboxes. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
The question should in any case be "should countries be abbreviated...", since the point is one with wider application. Like others I suggest the answer is yes. MapReader (talk) 07:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for automatic archival of sources?

Is there a way for someone to use a script or bot to automatically archive the rest of the sources of Interstellar (film)? I've seen that happen before, with the edit summary calling it "rescuing sources" and marking a certain amount as dead. Cognissonance (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

There ia a meta automated tool called IABot [1], but you need to get OAuth application approval to use it. Hoverfish Talk 10:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
@Hoverfish: Do you know of anyone who already has that approval? Cognissonance (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I run the bot on the page, it rescued 4 links, can you please check if they work? Cheers. Hoverfish Talk 15:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
@Hoverfish: They work, but I don't understand, why archive sources that were already archived? Cognissonance (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean "already archived". Before the bot looked them up in Inernet Archive, 3 of them were just obsolete links, though one of them does still lead to the intended source.I see what you mean now. I don't know how the bot works, it false negatives and all. I only used it once last year. Hope this helps. Hoverfish Talk 20:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Opening in production sections

Regarding "Production" sections and how to open them, there is a discussion between two editors that could use more input. The discussion can be seen here: Talk:Edge of Tomorrow#Production section. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

List of Star Wars characters splits

There is currently a discussion about a challenged split of List of Star Wars characters into multiple smaller articles based on individual Star Wars films and works, which involved the creation of eleven new articles. Currently, it is felt that the list is too long, especially after many past discussions to address this have gone unimplemented, and does not meet guidelines. However, it is also felt that the split structure is not effective and fails to improve. There is also a discussion about notability as it applies to character lists, whether all characters listed must meet a full threshold of notability expected for standalone articles or if there is a lesser threshold for inclusion on lists. Please see the discussion at Talk:List of Star Wars characters#This list doesn't meet the list selection criteria ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Reliable source?

There have been a couple articles relevant to the page Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse in the last week coming from this site, FandomWire. Does anyone know how reliable this site is / whether we should be using it. There is always the potential for other, better sources to emerge for the same info, but for now this site is running these as exclusive reveals. The specific articles are here and here. All thoughts are welcome! - adamstom97 (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The bottom says it is "FandomWire, LLC, A wholly-owned subsidiary of Johnson Concepts". Does not really help but does not seem like it would have "editorial control". WP:USEBYOTHERS is one way to determine a source's reliability. From what I can tell with a search engine test, I'm not seeing any good sources reference that website. It looks like ScreenGeek (blog), Jovem Nerd News, Showbiz Liputan6.com, and similar sites reference it, and they don't seem too reputable either. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Poster image requirements

I've started a discussion about poster image requirements here: Template talk:Infobox film#Poster image requirements. Editors are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Say Anything...

There's something wrong with the Say Anything... page. I opened the article history and instantly noticed that the history is very short, with only 13 edits going back to October 2007. Following the redirects (of which there are too many), I found this edit history, which is clearly the history from before one of the redirects. This needs to be sorted out, and I am certainly not the one to do it. Why are there so many redirects? Is the ellipsis really that confusing? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hah, that's crazy. See WP:HISTMERGE to request an admin to fix this. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Sheila1988 did the cut-and-paste; cut then paste. Sheila, please don't do this. For a given page, we need to make sure that the page history is centralized. This can be done with proper moves. Cutting and pasting will inappropriately split the page history. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)
Thanks, Erik. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 17:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
An eerie coincidence that I heard the news of John Mahoney's passing a few moments after reading this thread. RIP JM. MarnetteD|Talk 18:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Do you think we should move it back to Say Anything... (i.e. with three periods)? If you look at the link counts, the page with three periods has twice as many incoming links as the page with the ellipsis. Editors are more likely to link through something they can type. Betty Logan (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Looking at it there haven't been many edits since the cut and paste job: [2]. I honestly think it would be easier to just restore the article at its old page and restore the redirect on the ellipsis page. Betty Logan (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
MOS:ELLIPSIS recommends "a set of three unspaced dots" over the pre-composed ellipsis character. A history merge is going to resolve the problem at the wrong page name so I am going ahead with the revert. If anybody feels that the article should use the pre-composed ellipsis character then it would be easier to just carry out a rename after the revert in the standard fashion. Betty Logan (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
That's fine with me. I'll withdraw the history merge request. There's not much to merge, anyway. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 18:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Your fix has now been reverted. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Honestly I would just go ahead with the histmerge request. I know it's "only" 13 edits, but still, it's a matter of correct procedure. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Erm... should the ellipsis be included in the article title in the first place? Looks like a non-standard stylisation to me, ala "ALIEN³". See Nights into Dreams, stylised as NiGHTS into Dreams..., for an example. Popcornduff (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Good point... can you go ahead and cut-and-paste the page contents to Say Anything (film)? No, let's get the histmerge done and then perhaps put in a request to move. I could see precedent -- About Last Night... is at About Last Night (1986 film). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
There is also With a Friend Like Harry... and if... (yes, lowercase) and Waiting... (film) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
There's also When Harry Met Sally.... Seems we're inconsistent about it. Quelle surprise. Popcornduff (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
There seems to be two different debates going on here. The first is whether the title should include the ellipsis or not, and if so how the ellipsis should be written i.e. Say Anything (film) (without the ellipsis), as Say Anything… (with the special ellipsis character) and Say Anything... (where the ellipsis is simply written as three dots). They look identical put if you try highlighting them with your mouse you will see that you can highlight each dot individually in the three dot version. The article originally existed at Say Anything... (three dots) but was cut and pasted to Say Anything… (ellipsis character). MOS:ELLIPSIS favors three dots over the special character so I though a revert would be the better solution because a history merge would have left the article at the wrong page. However, there is nothing to prevent a history merge at the proper page; I don't think it is necessary because there wasn't any substantial development at the cut and paste version, but if the Film project wants to cover its back then there is no harm in carrying it out. As for whether the article should be moved to Say Anything (film) I am not sure if this would count as a stylisation or a WP:COMMONNAME issue; personally it looks like a can of worms to me so I think we should settle the ellipsis issue first. Betty Logan (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Good Article reassessment for Dirty Dancing

I have nominated Dirty Dancing for a good article reassessment here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the good article criteria. Thank you. Slightlymad 10:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Alternative endings?

Hello. On the Men in Black II page, a disruptive IP hopper from Houston inserted an alternative ending, which I think is not necessary, so I had to remove it. The IP has also been causing issues on the Spider-Man film articles for a long time ([3], [4]). For the alternative endings, is it relevant to list those if they have sources or should they be removed? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it is fine to discuss deleted scenes and alternate cuts in the production section, with relevant sources, particularly if we know why they were not chosen / deleted, etc. Always focus on the real world aspect. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Adam that it depends on the sources writing about them. Alternate endings probably get the most focus of deleted scenes since they can change the meaning of the film. I think most instances, though, can be relegated to the production section. (Or even a home media section if applicable.) The more prominent instances, especially theatrical releases (and perhaps Director's Cuts), may warrant subsections under the plot summary. Not seeing any real discussion among sources about Men in Black III, though. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
The alternate ending in I Am Legend is also unsourced. That IP hopper has just re-added the alternate ending to Cooties (film), which is still unsourced, so I had to revert it and gave the IP a final warning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

IMDB

There is a discussion about its status as a reliable source at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Allowing_iMDB_as_a_reliable_source_for_filmographies. Betty Logan (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Allocine name

Moin Moin together, I would like to change the Template:Allocine name into a template using Wikidata as well. Speak from your side anything against it? Ragards --Crazy1880 (talk) 10:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Release and marketing structuring

There is a discussion to amend WP:FILMMARKETING regarding how to have a "Marketing" sub-section under a "Release" section. Please see the discussion here: WT:MOSFILM#Marketing. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Variety Insight

This database is currently being widely used to source information in articles such as the production companies in infoboxes. It is being claimed as reliable due to being the database of Variety (magazine), which is definitely a reliable source. However, the information that it is being used to source is often information that we do not already have from other reliable sources. My issue with this is that I feel that any reliable information that Variety has on a film should realistically appear in one of their articles, rather than just be added to their database. My question is, can we use the database as a reliable source for all the content it holds, or should another source such as an actual article be required to confirm that the information is accurate? - adamstom97 (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I've never heard of Variety Insight, but it does seem reputable. And unless I'm missing something, the content can only be access behind a pay wall. While this is allowed, it does make it more difficult to check its accuracy in sourcing. I do agree with your assessment that if Variety has this in their database (especially for future films), it at one point or another should appear in one of their articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
It's a professionally-maintained, fact-checked database. See Variety Insight. So, yes, it's obviously a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
That's not the question I asked. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand the question. If you require another source to substantiate the authenticity of the information then you are de facto declaring it not a reliable source. That would basically put it into the same bracket as IMDB. If there are reasons why it should not be considered a reliable source then let's discuss them and make a decision. If you have another source that contradicts Variety Insight then that is a content dispute and needs to be resolved through discussion on the basis of the evidence available. But ultimately, we don't require an extra source to corroborate information from something like the AFI Catalog, so why would we do that in this case if we regard it as reliable? Betty Logan (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
The question is, do we trust that this database is accurate simply because it comes from Variety, or do we use it as a guide to look for articles, such as those published by Variety, with the information it contains. If we are willing to accept that the database has accurate information in it that Variety has not released elsewhere then that is fine and we can carry on how users have been using it. But if we think it odd that there is information in the database that is not stated elsewhere, then I don't think we should be using this as a reliable source. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
No, we don't trust that it's accurate "simply because it comes from Variety". We trust that it's accurate because it's a fact-checked, professionally maintained database. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think I could agree with NinjaRobotPirate more. adamstom.97, I'm a little lost on your point here. Variety gets exclusives and consistently reports information we have all long-considered to be reliable. It's not like they're some random local newspaper, studios and producers regularly tell things to Variety that maybe aren't expressed elsewhere because they know the clout Variety carries, much like Hollywood Reporter and, lately, Deadline. If you're accepting Variety as a fact-checked and reliable source, I don't understand how a sub-site of theirs maintained by the same people with their own fact-checked information, exempt from user-submitted information, and coming from the same sources as the exclusives we regularly reiterate here, could not be considered reliable without saying the same of Variety. Sock (tock talk) 21:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I just found it suspect that they would quietly add information to a database but not publish an article about it, is all. I'm not questioning Variety or the general quality of their information, I just wondered if it bothered anyone else that they may deal with their database separately from their articles and therefore not necessarily have the same quality controls. I can see that I am alone with that concern. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Starring section revisited

User Beyond My Ken has re-opened the discussion on starring credits in infoboxes here. Please add your opinions so we can hopefully reach a solid resolution and avoid letting this conversation fizzle out as it has the last few times it was attempted. Sock (tock talk) 22:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Hellraiser and Children of the Corn

Because the edit wars have already started, I'm bringing this here. There needs to be some opinions over at Talk:Hellraiser: Judgment regarding the inclusion of Children of the Corn information in the article. It appears that there is an insinuation from the editors that there is some link between the films beyond who owns them and that they were both delayed releases. Please see the talk page for details on it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Please direct all your responses to that Talk Page, as to not split the discussion. DarkKnight2149 18:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Couple of relisted film AfDs

For info, these articles have now been relisted a few times. If anyone has any comments for keep or delete, please feel free to make them as needed:

Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Massive production section cleanup needed.

Over the last few years we've had a few editors who created production sections which consisting almost entirely based on when certain things were announced to the public, these read terribly and do not give readers really any sort of insight into the production of a film and often consist of sentences such as "On X date Y was announced". These dates generally range from 2014 to now.

Back in December we decided to update the Film's MOS to discourage this usage, you can view the discussion here. Now we have the MOS updated but we have a massive amount of articles to clean up, and I'm not quite sure how to go about it. Advice? --Deathawk (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Narrator in infobox

See the RfC close below.

Cunard (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recently, JDDJS added Richard Dreyfus as the narrator in the infobox for Stand by Me. I reverted him, saying this is an in-character voice-over, hence a violation of infobox film. He made a similar edit to The Sandlot, adding the film's writer-director as the narrator. He has argued that A Christmas Story is an example of a film article with a narrator in the infobox, and this justifies his edits. I would argue that all three are violations. Richard Dreyfus in Stand by Me is more obvious because he is in the film, and he is clearly speaking as his character. But, in the other two cases, the narration comes from people we don't see in the film. I would still argue that these are in-character voice-overs, spoken in the first person singular, and thus not a true narration. I'd like some opinions on this. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Narrator to me should be reversed for documentary films, where the person narrating is not a "character" but the actor themselves (ala Morgan Freeman in March of the Penguins). --Masem (t) 14:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that parameter is simply for documentaries. We could improve the documentation at Template:Infobox film. Not sure why we haven't already. Maybe because it's rarely come up? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, before posting here, I checked the talk archive, and the subject of narrator has been discussed very little. I suppose there are some examples of non-documentary films that have narration (Robert Mitchum's narration at the beginning of Tombstone could be one instance), but it is rarely an issue. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Oof this makes me feel old. I remember when this field was added. Then even a hint of narration was listed in the infobox. Years later things were changed and removing the "first person" items became the standard but that still left room for some listings. I don't remember seeing a discussion limiting it to documentaries but that doesn't mean that one hasn't happen. TheOldJacobite did you check the archives at Template talk:Infobox film? I'm pretty sure that is where most or all of the discussions about the field took place. Let me add that I am in favor of limiting use of the field to documentaries. One question is (if a previous thread has not happened) should we have a discussion at the template talk page to formalize this or is this thread enough to move forward? Whatever everyone decides about this the documentation definitely needs to be updated. I have lost count of the times members of the project come to a consensus about something and then the proper spot of WP:MOSFILM does not get updated. Please note I am not complaining since I am part of this problem. I just want us to make sure we cover all of the bases in this situation. Masem I think you mean reserved rather than reversed. That is exactly the kind of booboo that I make. Regards to all who have, and those who will, post here. MarnetteD|Talk 16:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I checked the talk archive first, before posting here, and found very little discussion of the subject. And, yes, I think this needs to be formalized so that we can avoid the kind of arguments JDDJS are having. Thanks. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 18:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Did you check Template talk:Infobox film, though? I found this discussion from 2013 echoing the documentary-focused sentiment: Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 26#Narrated by. (Ignore the last two-thirds of the thread as irrelevant; the first third has a few editors including myself agreeing that the parameter is for documentaries.) I agree with MarnetteD that this is an example of needing to go ahead and update the MOS (and the infobox guideline) to reflect this. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the miscommunication. No, I did not check the template talk archive, only the talk archive here at the FilmProject. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 18:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I feel that when you have an actor who never physically appears in the film, explaining things, that is narration. Since as you both say, the MOS is currently not clear on this, we should have a RFC to get a wide consensus on what the community believes the MOS should be before we change it. JDDJS (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

That's too loose, the narrator should be someone that is 100% disconnected from any events of the film, which is nearly impossible for anything other than documentaries. Alternatively, if you take the case that a narrator is there narrating thngs, then we should list Matthew Broderick as narrator for "Ferris Bueller's Day Off", which makes no sense. Keep it to documentaries, and that eliminates most problematic uses. --Masem (t) 19:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I specifically said actors who don't physically appear, which would rule out Ferris Bueller. This is a common type of story telling and is significant to the films that use it. I don't see why we wouldn't use it in these cases. I'm going to start a RFC so we can get a wide consensus on the matter. JDDJS (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I fully disagree that it is "significant". It is important enough to describe in the plot (and casting if necessary). Let me give another example, that being Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. It's narrated by "an" Oompa-Loompa (voiced by one person, but played by another) the specific one which only appears at the end of the film, so that's effectively not in the story at all. But the movie otherwise treats the Oompa-Loompa equivalently, so the character appears. The fiction is narrated, but the movie does not have a narrator proper, so it should not be used here. --Masem (t) 01:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

RFC

The consensus is to the narrator section in the infobox for films should be limited to documentaries.

Cunard (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the narrator section in the infobox for films be reserved solely for documentaries or should it also be used for films like A Christmas Story in which an actor who doesn't physically appear in the film narrates sections of the film? The MOS currently does not address this issue, so whatever the consensus is here, MOS should be changed to reflect that. JDDJS (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Comment I am in favor of omitting "in character" voiceovers, but just so we are all clear about this, how would someone such as John Hurt be handled at the Dogville article? Hurt narrates the story but isn't a character in the film; the poster includes his name with all the others in the billing block so would we follow suit? Betty Logan (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • If he's included in the billing block, just put him in the billing block and describe him as the narrator in the cast section. If they chose to credit him as a cast member, then that's that in my mind. Think Bob Balaban in the Moonrise Kingdom article; while he physically appears in the film, he is not a "character" and only serves as narrator. Sock (tock talk) 18:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
    I am inclined to agree with you, but if our intention is to list the narrator along with the other stars then let's have the MOS be explicit about this. Betty Logan (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of films in country X

I am looking for some kind of guideline regarding the use of both English title and native title for lists of films of a country where English isn't the first language. I noticed at List of Argentine films of 2006 that the films are listed with their Spanish title although some of them link to pages where the name is titled in English. Another example, List of Portuguese films of 2006, lists with their Portuguese title if there is no article, but in English where a title exists. A third, List of Israeli films of 2006, includes original titles, but not in a separate column, so they cannot be sorted.

Wouldn't it be better to have the native title and the English-language title listed in separate columns in such a list, to aid navigation? Or am I missing something here? Thanks, C679 08:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding presentation and sortability, I wouldn't try to apply one rule for all country cinemas. The Israeli lists for example are presented chronologically by premiere date, with vertical month names. Sorting such lists by title would have a terrible result. Hoverfish Talk 10:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't follow how it would be terrible to allow sorting by title. Vertical month names do not add extra information to such a table. Just a personal preference? Anyway my concern isn't the Israeli list; if we are looking for an Argentinian film on the list searching by the Argentinian name, it cannot be found there. Would it not be preferable to have the native title in the table? Anybody? C679 11:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
The Portuguese list has the best layout of those three, purely for sortability. The other two are terribly done. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Cloudz679, no personal preference. I just tested placing class="wikitable sortable", and in the preview all the vertically written months repeated in each row and then I tried sorting by title and it didn't work well at all. This is the "terrible result" I mentioned. Now if there is a concensus here to apply a uniform presentation across all country film lists (per Portuguese list, as mentioned above), I have no problem with it. I do think we should ping some key contibutors to these lists before a final go-ahead though. Hoverfish Talk 14:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Lugnuts. Keep it simple, keep it sortable. Also, while I don't mind including the native title, the English WP:COMMONNAME title should be definitely present as the one used on the English Wikipedia. If an article exists on the native Wikipedia but not on the English Wikipedia then {{Interlanguage link}} can be used. On another note, the admissions in the Portuguese table look like they violate MOS:DECIMAL to me (I presume Bad Blood had 29,239 admissions rather than 29 and a bit). Betty Logan (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • For the record, what I do on the Canadian film lists is English Title (French Title) whenever possible. There may still be some instances where somebody else has done French Title (English Title) instead, but I try to correct those when I see them, and there are certainly also some French-language films that are at just French Title because we haven't yet found or sourced any English-language title at all. I don't consider separate columns for the English and French titles to be a useful strategy in the Canadian lists, however, because Canada also makes English-language films, and so a French-title column would be 50 to 75 per cent blank in most cases — but obviously films from Argentina would virtually all have Spanish-language native titles, so it may be a better idea there. I agree that there can't really be a "one size fits all" solution that applies the same way to all lists of films — every country is going to have different needs that might require different handling. If you want to try adding separate English and Spanish title columns to the Argentine lists, then by all means give it a shot — just don't make me do that to the Canadian lists too, because the differing circumstances would make it less useful here. (Another thing we don't include in the Canadian lists, even though some other countries do, is a "release date" column — in many (though not all) cases, an exact release date is much harder for us to properly source than it is elsewhere, and it would lead to constant editwarring over whether we should list a film at its film festival premiere or its commercial release date, which the way Canadian film works have been known to be as much as three full years apart sometimes.) Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • How about this then: List of Slovak films of the 2010s? Not yet complete, but a reasonably useful layout? C679 09:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
    That looks fine to me, although I would recommend using {{flagcountry}} instead of {{flagicon}} in the country column per MOS:FLAG#Accompany flags with country names. Betty Logan (talk) 10:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
    Done. I only used inherited values before! Sort key by director's surname, perhaps? C679 12:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
    You can do but I don't think it is essential. For me personally the real benefit from sorting on the director's name is being able to group together all the films by a single director. Betty Logan (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

"I am looking for some kind of guideline regarding the use of both English title and native title for lists of films of a country where English isn't the first language."

In some cases there is no native title, and a loan word or phrase has been used for the title. Safe Sex (1999) is a Greek film, but was released with an English title because "safe sex" was a loan word familiar to much of the Greek public. (English is the most common second language in Greece, and something of a requirement if you want a job). Similarly an anthology television television series based on the film had the English title, instead of a Greek one. Dimadick (talk) 11:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Historical Saturn Awards - Specifically 1982 or the 10th Saturn Awards

Does anyone know where I can find sources for these? I need a reference for Saturn award nominations for The Thing (1982 film) and the main site doesn't cover nominations and sources elsewhere seem to be non-existent.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Is this any use to you? Not a full list but it mentions the two nominations The Thing received. Betty Logan (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
That's perfect, thanks Betty, I spent ages searching and got nowhere. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Isle of Dogs cast

Over at the Isle of Dogs article, another dispute over the cast section has begun. Another editor claims that a film poster seen in a theatre (though not the one being used in the article) can be used as a source for additions to the cast. I said that it cannot be used as a source – if for no other reason than that other editors can't refer to it. Am I mistaken about this? How can a film poster we are not able to refer to be considered a reliable source? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to point out first of all that you linked to the wrong article, you wanted to link to Isle of Dogs (film). Second of all, it seems weird that the only source for the cast info would be a poster that's only available on the web. Surely if it was notable enough to include in the poster there'd be some kind of article about it somewhere. It's also not enough to say that someone saw a poster that said something, it has to be verifiable to be included. --Deathawk (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I fixed it. And, yes, it's a little strange that someone saw information on a film poster in a theatre that is not available elsewhere. Where is this poster? How can this information be verified? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 01:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:SOURCEACCESS if the only place this poster can be viewed is in a single theater in North Korea then Wikipedia considers that verifiable! Personally I don't think this is a good policy because it is easily gamed but it is a policy. That said, if the poster isn't present in the article then it needs to be fully cited like any other source to be considered verifiable i.e. publisher, date, where it is located etc. Betty Logan (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, that's troubling. Anyway, it's a moot point. The Berlinalle program is now being used as the source. Thanks. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 23:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I would say the poster could not have counted anyway if there was no clear indication that it could be discovered and validated by anyone else. WP:SOURCEACCESS to me means that a source is still usable even if it is behind a paywall or requires paying for the article to see (thinking of academic ones here) or being limited to very few locations (e.g., Library of Congress). Marketing materials are trickier because there can be so much, and materials other than the key items (primary-language poster, production notes) may not be kept and recorded for historical purposes. However, the aforementioned posters and notes are generally replicated online and thus readily found by us for verification. While these materials don't necessarily have a central "home", we don't worry too much about that since we don't expect the images and image search tools to go away anytime soon. Kind of similar logic to not needing citations for the cast and crew of some blockbuster movie. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
In this case, the cast kept being changed by various editors who claimed to see promotional materials or announcements that (at least seemingly) could not be checked for verification. We have a poster in the article, and my position was that this is the only verifiable source we have for the cast. That poster has no character names, and the idea that someone saw a poster somewhere that identified all of the characters was dubious to me. Now that we have the program from the Berlinalle, this is a moot point, really. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I actually disagree that just because we can identify a poster in a specific theater that that meets WP:V. It would be different if we were talking a book with a single copy cataloged in a specific library in NK; that's a source that has permanence that even though the access is not easy, a research armed with name, title, etc. will be able to locate it without any issues. A film poster or stand is temporary. It may not exist there next week. WP:V looks at the idea of permanance of access, this is not it. --Masem (t) 15:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Again the issue of splitting film award articles by decade

User:Michael 182 / User:181.170.26.9 is back as User:190.19.10.99 and is discussing in Talk:Golden Lion about splitting the article in decades, ignoring sortability. If anyone cares to comment, please do so. Hoverfish Talk 10:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Previous dicussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_67#User_splitting_award_lists_by_decades_&_disabling_sortability Hoverfish Talk 10:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I copy here the comment the said editor left in the archived discussion : Hoverfish Talk 02:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The fact is that multiple articles from important award categories, for example the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Drama Series and the Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture - Drama have a division by decades within the article. This means that the table is in fact broken because of it. I thinl that these help people read through the article in a better way, as the information is presented in a more dinamic format. If this format is alreday being used in these articles, why can't they be used in the Golden Lion or the Golden Bear. 190.19.10.99 (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
The first list has only film title and network, so not worth talking about sortability. In my opinion, the second list should be merged in one sortable table. Hoverfish Talk 03:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I looked at the talk page from Golden Lion and I just have one question. Why isn't it possible to have a sortable table that is also divided by decades, like Academy Award for Best Director?. I don't know, but it sounds like a good idea to me. 190.19.7.207 (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
In the past, I have attempted in various ways to trick the limitations of sortable tables and place headers that define separate sections in a sortable table. It simply doesn't work. Hoverfish Talk 13:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
How exactly do you know that what you've tried to do doesn't work?190.19.7.207 (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Your question is in bad faith, it taxes my time and borders on disruptive behaviour. Here is what you need to know about sortable tables: Help:Table#Sortable tables & WP:WHENTABLE. I suggest you start by learning yourself how things work. Hoverfish Talk 22:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
This is just a suggestion but why don't eliminate the sortability from the table altogether?. I've seen this in the Academy Award for Best Picture and no one seems to have any problem with that. 190.192.75.96 (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The list you mention does not state director, so there is nothing very useful to sort by except from the film title itself. Hoverfish Talk 17:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Then take for example the Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy. It has a director's column and also has a table without sortability. And there hasn`t been any complaints with this article as well. 190.192.75.96 (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The list you link includes the winner film (both highlighted and in bold so it can be distinguished from other entries) as well as nominatied ones for each year. I don't see how such a list would be sorted in any useful way. In the main award lists there are only the winner film, one or at times two or three in tie. We want these lists sortable because sortability makes sense there. Do you wish to find the directors that won this award? Sort by director and you have it, plus you can see what films by them won, even though one may have been in the 1980s and another in the 1990s. In any case, the main award lists are presented in one sortable table and trying to split them by decades will cause you another block. Hoverfish Talk 01:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Based on what I see from this conversation as well as the Talk:Golden Lion page, I have to agree with what User:190.19.10.99 has suggested, that is splitting the table into decades, but I have to suggest maintaining the sortability of the table as well. I say this because, while it is clear why it is necessary to have sortability, there doesn't seem to be a clear argument against the idea of separating by decades and, as User:190.19.7.207 has pointed out, these changes have already been applied in other articles without any problems or complaints from other users. 190.19.18.73 (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
There is only one user and this is you. Abusing multiple accounts to create a false sense of consensus, as you already know, doesn't work. Hoverfish Talk 22:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
You can't make those kind of accusations about the users without providing proper evidence. Just because the ip adresses above are similar to each other or belong to the same ip range is not enough to say that they're indeed the same user. It is possible that these users just happen to have similar ideas about this subject. Michael 182 (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
When IPs all geolocate to the same city from the same ISP and have the same editing agenda the law of probabilities dictates it is the same editor, unless there is a geographic element to the topic, which isn't the case here. The link doesn't have to be forensically proven, it just has to pass WP:DUCK. Betty Logan (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Despite the fact that the user above has been accused of sock puppetry, there is still a valid suggestion that should be taken into consideration, the division by decades with sortable table, which is already being used in the Academy Award for Best Director. Although Hoverfish has pointed out that these particular article is presented with both the winner in bold letters and the nominees, it still doesn't make a compelling argument against separating by decades, as it is commented above. Michael 182 (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
As I've stated before, there hasn't been a clear reason why there shouldn't be a division by decades along with a sortable table. If someone does have a clear reason, please comment below. If not, I will proceed with the changes. Michael 182 (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I remind you that there is consensus for keeping the main film award articles in one sortable table. Also, "a division by decades along with a sortable table" or "the table should be divided by decades while also maintaining its sortability", as you wrote in the edit summary of Golden Lion, is NOT what you did on 22 February. If you cannot keep it all in ONE sortable table, you will be violating consensus. Hoverfish Talk 18:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
It is true that the changes that I made didn't include a division by decades with a sortable table. Also, according to what was discussed in the [5], there isn't a consensus about what should and shouldn't be done with the page or, as I've said earlier, a reason why these changes shouldn't be applied. So, if anyone has one, comment below. Otherwise, I'll apply the sortable table to the text. Michael 182 (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I have started a formal RfC on this issue further down on this page. Hoverfish Talk 14:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Thomas Mulligan has made a couple dozen edits for this change in the Oscar's name and even moved a few categories around. I see two problems with this, one, it's incorrect. The Academy Award is for "Best Directing", regardless of whether it's colloquially called "Best Director"; and two, it looks like it'd be a project needing thousands of edits and all to achieve a superficial and minor difference. Seems like WP:If it ain't broke, don't fix it should govern here. I wanted to get Project's input before undoing all the edits unilaterally. I also started a convo on TM's talk page, but decided pinging him here and having just the one dialogue to make for the best outcome. Thanks! JesseRafe (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Per the Awards Database, the category does seem to be consistently referred to as as the "Directing" category, so I agree that the catgeory should be put back to its original name and the page edits reverted. Betty Logan (talk) 05:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Can you convince him? I got a snarky response. However, confoundingly, the article for the award is at "Director" despite the opening sentence saying it's officialling called "Directing" and there was thus a mismatch between the article and the category, I think this fix just went in the wrong direction. JesseRafe (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
The article is possibly at its WP:COMMONNAME. The reason articles reside at their "common" name as opposed to their "official" name is because readers are more likely to search on the common term when looking for an article (this is why we have the William Clinton article at the Bill Clinton page). The lead at Academy Award for Best Director notes that the award is "officially known as the Academy Award for Best Directing". I am not really sure how to approach this problem. Do we apply the common name to the categories too and ensure the categories and article match up or should we use the official name for the categories and have the mismatch? Are there any other project members with a view on this? Betty Logan (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I have left a another note trying to explain things and inviting TM to comment here. A WP:RM might be in order for the article but I agree the category and the edits to the articles should be reverted. MarnetteD|Talk 17:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Oops I forgot to mention that I have been told (more than once) that "commonname" only applies to article naming not to cats or items in an article. That might have changed but I can't tell one way or the other. MarnetteD|Talk 17:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I think relying too heavily on COMMONNAME for the director/directing distinction is a slippery slope, otherwise you'd argue yourself into moving the award to "Best Director Oscar" rather than "Academy Award for Best Directing". As this is a non-sentient proper noun without a burdensomely overlong title, I think using its official name could be a good exception to its common name. JesseRafe (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Jesse's rationale here to use the official name. WP:COMMONNAME does state that ambiguous or inaccurate names can be avoided even if other sources use them. Per WP:CRITERIA, we can pursue consistency with the awards' official names, and the official name is still as recognizable and as concise as the looser variation that we may see out there. Readers won't be confused. And redirects are cheap, so we can ensure that variations redirect accordingly. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I also agree with Jesse's logic here. More than anything, this just seems like a perfect example of WP:IFITAINTBROKE, as I believe Jesse told the other editor, to little avail. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
We can probably just move the category back because it was moved unilaterally to begin with, but I suspect we will have to go through a formal rename for the article. Are we all in agreement with this? If we are, then we need to i) move the category back; ii) revert the page changes by Thomas Mulligan; and iii) get the rename discussion at the article started. Looking at the scale of the changes the second step is going to require a bit of manpower. Betty Logan (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for summing things up BL. I agree with all of your suggestions. MarnetteD|Talk 04:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the above suggestions. Hoverfish Talk 10:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with these suggestions, as well. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 19:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
What about "Category:Films whose director won Academy Award for Best Directing"? We don't need "the", and we can keep going with the official-name consistency. Maybe a similar change with the winners category? Leading with the general award name seems better in terms of default sorting too. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
There is certainly a strong argument for doing that—and personally I support it—but we would lose the consistency with analogous categories i.e. Category:Films whose editor won the Best Film Editing Academy Award and Category:Films whose art director won the Best Art Direction Academy Award. Since it would be a new name rather than a move back we would probabaly need a rename discussion too. I think we should get the category back to how it was, get the article renamed, and then if we want to change the format of the category names we should undertake that as a separate issue and do it for all of them. Betty Logan (talk) 06:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Makes sense to get back to the way it was, and approach the official-name consistency separately. I'm fine with your proposed actions being carried out. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
This is not an area where I've been active, so I might be misunderstanding this. However, it looks like there's a whole bureaucratic process for this at WP:CFDS, wherein someone tags the category for speedy rename and then there's a mandatory 48 hour wait to see if anyone objects. I dunno, man, it might cause drama if I unilaterally move it. Might be better to suffer through the 48 hour wait if it saves a week of arguing at WP:ANI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

"Screen story and screenplay by" the same writer(s)

Ran into this credit for both This Is the End and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and was wondering how you all thought it should be resolved. Both of these fields are credited to the same writer(s) (Rogen and Goldberg for End, Shane Black for Kiss Kiss), and they are both based on previous media (Jay and Seth vs. the Apocalypse and Bodies Are Where You Find Them). I think the clarification that the screen story is different shows that the writers were more involved with crafting where the plot actually goes and not directly adapted their source material, so they should be listed under both "screenplay" and "story" parameters in the infobox. However, others believe that simply "written by" covers these two credits, although I was under the impression we avoid using "Written by" when an adapted work is involved unless that is the specific credit given. Thoughts? Sock (tock talk) 18:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I could see it going either way. On one hand, it makes sense to exercise fidelity to the credits by using both "Screenplay" and "Story" parameters, but on the other hand, that does mean somewhat unnecessary redundancy in repeating the names. It looks like for the billing block in the This Is the End poster, "Screen story and screenplay by" are squished into the same amount of space as a single crew credit and avoids repeating the names. An argument in favor of both parameters is that Wikipedia is not lacking in space, but at the same time, "Written by" is more succinct. We don't have to follow the credits super-precisely (e.g., we would name someone rather than hiding it in a pseudonym). Perhaps a compromise would be if "Written by" is used, then to mention the screen story and screenplay credits in the lead section? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I remember a debate about this from a few years ago. I said we should use "written by", but consensus went against me in favor of using the verbatim formatting from the end credits. That's how I've been doing it ever since. I've come to think this is perhaps the better way of doing things, anyway, since random editors are going to change the infobox to replicate the end credits. You'll end up edit warring against dozens of good-faith editors who think the infobox is wrong. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Happy Death Day cast list.

Someone on the Happy Death Day cast list is claiming that the villians name Tombs first name was John instead of Joesph. I believe his fist name was Joesph and they just mistakingly called him John in the film and in the cast credits. The user is also saying that Joseph was said as a goof. Was his first name Joseph or was it actually John. Cause i believe that he was mistakely called John in the film.--73.115.124.233 (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

You can't really edit based on instinct, it must be verifiable somewhere. If the credits say his name is one thing and that's the only source than that should be what's written. --Deathawk (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

90th Academy Awards

There is currently a discussion at Talk:90th Academy Awards regarding a specific section on the 90th Academy Awards page. This page is very likely to make it to the main page early next week (in my opinion). Specifically the discussion regards whether a section of "Historical Precedents" should be kept or deleted. Previously such lists of "fun facts" have been deleted on past Academy Award pages.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:FILMPOSTER and foreign film posters?

Is there a consensus for posters on non-American films? Would we use the British or American poster for a film made in South Korea, for example, or would we use the Korean poster? Just checking as WP:FILMPOSTER says to use the "original theatrical" poster.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I've always assumed that it would be the poster from the film's country. (If there is more than one country, then perhaps from the film's main language?) It seems to simplify choice where there would be additional options among the English-language territories with no good way to decide which to use. Of course, one could make the argument that if we are writing the English-language title for a foreign-language film, the poster should be in the English language too. Assuming the image is non-free, we use such "cover art" for "visual identification". I don't think the image's text matters that much because we already convey it very well in the actual text itself. So for the sake of simplicity as well as direct representation, the poster from the film's country (or main language) seems appropriate to use. I'm open to others' perspectives, though. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
We don't have a poster in the infobox just for the sake of showing the poster, it is in there as the primary means of visual identification, and in the case of non-free posters the fair use rationale is built around that concept. On the basis of that I would be inclined to use the poster that is most prevalent in the English-speaking world. It seems a bit counter-intuitive to me to use artwork that does not the bear the same title that we have the article under and imagery that is unfamiliar in the English-speaking world. That said, the prevailing view from what I can gather is to use the "native" poster, so I think that is the de facto consensus as things currently stand. Betty Logan (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Can "unfamiliar" really be an argument, though? We stick with film posters even though DVD and Blu-ray covers and streaming-media images are more familiar with more readers, especially in the long run. I guess it depends on what we want "visual identification" to mean in the context of films, and I think we need to pursue as simple of a solution as possible. Otherwise, one could argue to use a DVD cover over the poster if the film did better in disc sales at the box office, one could argue to use a US film poster for a UK film because it made more money (meaning more people saw it), or one could argue to use more conventional "imagery" than the original poster (if for whatever reason it was especially "weird"). I'm not sure if it is more important to show the English-language poster than the film-country/language poster when posters in the long run may not be the same as how a reader may have seen the film represented in other media. To use an example, I don't see a problem with Seven Samurai using the original poster. We insert posters as a product of their time (especially since we as a community do not endorse constantly updating poster images to have a newer look). So why not insert them as a product of their location as well as their time? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I would have absolutely no problem with using the iconic 1967 poster at Gone with the Wind (film) over the one that is used. In the last couple of weeks there have been two recent poster changes at The Birth of a Nation (from this to this) and at 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) (from this to this). I don't have a clue which is the original or why they were altered but all four posters seem serviceable to me. The point I was making though is that our use of non-free posters is qualified under very specific criteria i.e. we use the image in the infobox to identify the subject of the article, so it just seems logical to me to use cover art—whether that is a poster or DVD cover—that best fulfils that purpose. Betty Logan (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
100% agree with Betty. The infobox image is for visual identification, so why not use a poster from the English-speaking world? — Film Fan 11:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I outlined quite a bit above and suggest reading it. Posters are not even the most popular means of visual identification in the long run. You may as well argue why not use a DVD cover? There are many possible cover art images with many possible valid reasons for using them. Seven Samurai itself has so many English-language possibilities; what is the appropriate criteria to choose beyond our own aesthetic opinions? We use the "original theatrical release poster" for English-language films because it helps simplify choosing among many options. The same logic should extend to foreign-language films. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I did read it. "original theatrical release poster (from the English-speaking world, where possible)" would be a very clear and simple update. Use the poster from whatever country (US, UK, Oz, Canada) releases the film first. — Film Fan 13:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Film ratings

Since when did we start reporting about these in articles? In the Red Sparrow article, I was reverted for ditching the film ratings report because not only do I find it indiscriminate, but also not terribly important to include. I believe IMDb should be the proper venue for these, not WP. Slightlymad 03:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

We don't, typically. THe only time we would discuss ratings would be when secondary sources are discussing the impact of the rating, not simply listing the rating itself. See WP:FILMRATINGS.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Well that's not really the case with Red Sparrow. Will someone convince Callmemirela in the Talk:Red Sparrow#Film Ratings... not to add these anymore. She thinks their inclusion is the status quo. Slightlymad 04:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Time Bandits infobox cast list

I've started a discussion here on a recent disagreement about which cast members should be listed in the Time Bandits infobox. The longstanding de facto consensus was to list only those actors whose pictures appear on the poster, which an anonymous editor objects to. At any rate, I'd like other editors to weigh in, please. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

How to format "Deadline Hollywood" in articles

Hi all. This is somewhat relevant to our project since many of our articles cite Deadline Hollywood. There is currently a discussion regarding how the website should be formatted in articles, as well as in citation templates, namely if it should be italicized or not. If you would like to join in, the discussion can be found at Talk:Deadline Hollywood#Title style. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Websites that take on the form of an online magazine should be italicised, as we do with hardcopy magazines per MOS:ITALICTITLE which states "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (Salon or HuffPost)." Betty Logan (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:How Do You Live?

The film is currently in production. Is this notable enough for publication? Artix Kreiger (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. — Film Fan 20:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC: References for key or complex plot points in plot sections

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#RfC: Is it encouraged to have references for key or complex plot points in plot sections?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

User talk namespace template message for updating accessdate

It's a common thing, I've noticed, for an editor to update the statistics for websites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, especially for films and television series, and not update the access-date parameter when they do so. For editors that do not do this, a user talk namespace template message would be handy, so I've made {{uw-accessdate1}} and {{uw-accessdate2}} for this sort of situation. Enjoy. -- AlexTW 00:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: This could be quite handy... thanks! Also, thanks for using the actual parameter name, |access-date=, and not the |accessdate= alias. (one of my pet peeves 😃) —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
@Joeyconnick: No problems! I personally use |accessdate=, but I'm aware of the larger number of people that use the actual parameter over its alias. (And yeah, I'm not following this page, so cheers for the ping!) -- AlexTW 09:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

RT score in older films

I know this has been discussed before – a search of the archives didn't turn up the old discussion – but I am bringing it up again. I feel that Rotten Tomatoes should not be used in the critical reception section of articles about films that pre-date the site. RT gives a good snapshot of the critical consensus of current films, but the score for, say, Gone with the Wind is going to be skewed. For older films, a cross-section of critical views, in prose, is much more illuminating. What percentage of the RT score for an older film is based on reviews from critics who post-date the film by decades? And, given the fact that RT includes reviews from critics of lesser notability makes their reviews all the more suspect. Plenty of older films have been critically reappraised in the decades that followed their original release, but even that reappraisal is best handled in prose, not in an RT score whose value is questionable, to say the least. I think we lose nothing of value by leaving it out. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Here is a link to one of the discussions Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 15#RT for older films. There might have been others but this is the one I remember. MarnetteD|Talk 00:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, MarnetteD. I'm sorry I missed that previous discussion. My opinion, though, on this subject has only developed recently as I've seen the RT score added or expanded in the articles for older films. It's an eyesore. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
If it's done right, it doesn't bother me. Rotten Tomatoes has been around for so long now that its oldest reviews are almost 20 years old, anyway. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
The essay Wikipedia:Review aggregators explains this in detail. Slightlymad 10:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
NinjaRobotPirate, in my experience, it's rarely done right. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I think that essay is wrong about several issues. Aggregator scores are always accurate for the data they sampled. We can't control what data Rotten Tomatoes samples, and it's not our job to second-guess whether they came to the "correct" conclusion. If Rotten Tomatoes says that Blade Runner has a 90% approval rating (or whatever, I have no clue), so be it – I think we should report that. Rotten Tomatoes does not measure a film's reception on release, and this is irrelevant to the Tomatometer score. The Tomatometer score is a snapshot of what the sampled critics thought at the moment the sample was analyzed – and nothing else. Rotten Tomatoes has nothing to say about a film's reception on release, regardless of release date. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
We don't include Rotten Tomatoes scores for the sake of including Rotten Tomatoes scores though; we mostly use it as a barometer for the reception. A film's reputation can change over time to the extent that the Tomateter score is no longer indicative of the reception, so to present it as such in those cases would be misusing the data. For example, Vertigo currently holds a 95% score but yet it had its fair share of naysayers upon release. Vertigo (film)#Reception does a really good job of explaining the film's critical trajectory and I honestly don't see how the Tomatometer score would be helpful in furthering our understanding. The tomatometer score is listed at Citizen Kane#Re-evaluation where at least it isn't misrepresented, but it does seem a tad superfluous compared to the in-depth commentary preceding it. Betty Logan (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Vertigo's 95% Tomatometer score insinuates nothing about what the initial reception was. If people say stuff like, "It received critical acclaim on release", and they cite Rotten Tomatoes, I revert them regardless of the film's release date. Rotten Tomatoes doesn't measure this. Anyway, if the Tomatometer doesn't add anything useful, we can omit it. Hitchcock films would be an example of that. But what about old exploitation films like Basket Case and Maniac Cop? Or obscure Troma stuff, like Combat Shock? It's not like we're drowning in high quality sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

DC Extended Universe split discussion

I just wanted to notify the project of a discussion about a potential split of the DC Extended Universe page. JOEBRO64 17:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Neutral notice

A move request regarding Deadline.com / Deadline Hollywood, a website often cited by this Project, is taking place at Talk:Deadline Hollywood#Requested move 11 March 2018. It is scheduled to end in seven days.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Mentioning post-credits scenes in plot summaries

This isn't the first time I've brought this up. But I still think we're doing this wrong - and I feel better at least, if I can get it off my chest, even if I convince no one....

It seems to be standard in plot summaries for superhero films to mention when scenes are "post-credits scenes" or "mid-credits scenes". I don't think we should do this.

  • This describes editing, not plot. Whether a scene takes place before, during, or after the credits is irrelevant to the plot.
  • There's nothing obviously notable, from an encyclopaedic perspective, about whether a particular scene in a particular movie takes place during or after the credits. Yes, the post-credits scene is a genre staple at this point, but plot summaries aren't the place to describe genre conventions. Instead they should be covered in the article about the superhero film genre, or the Marvel Cinematic Universe, etc.
  • Some people are interested in knowing what the post-credits scene is in the latest superhero movie. But people - particularly fans of entertainment franchises - are interested in all kinds of things we have guidelines against including, such as easter eggs, trivia, memorable quotes, and other fancruft. Just because there's demand there doesn't mean it's a good thing to include.

Those are my two cents. Happy for consensus to flatten me. Just wouldn't want to let a dogma go unchallenged. Popcornduff (talk) 07:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

If the scene is not relevant to the overall story arc—which it usually isn't in Marvel films—then it should be omitted IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 07:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Popcornduff (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
same. If you can understand the plot without a scene (and these marvel endings. Do not usually make any sense to me!) then they are not needed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree that if it isn't relevant than it should go. The perfect example of this is Justice League right now. There are two scenes. If you haven't seen the movie, I apologize, but the mid-credit scene is a race between Superman and the Flash, and the end credit scene is Luthor propositioning Deathstroke to start their own league. The race is by far not relevant in the scheme of the film. There are a couple of quick jokes about their speeds, but that's it and it doesn't enhance or answer some question directly related to the rest of the film. The end credit, although not directly important, at least has enhancement value for identifying that they are planting the seeds for the expansion of their universe (whether it happens or not is irrelevant). Yet, people constantly want to add the race into the summary because it's important in the COMICS. I feel like our guide on plot summaries probably needs to be talk about after film scenes to some aspect.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the general sentiment that most post-credits scenes are not relevant to the plot summary, but such scenes are rather well-covered by secondary sources. I'm not sure where else would be a good place to put them. Maybe have a note at the end of a plot summary that links to a "Notes" section that summarizes the post-credits scene and provides any real-world context? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Similar example with Spider-Man: Homecoming. The first, mid-credits scene is relevant to the plot, furthering the story of Adrian Toomes. The very last post-credit scene is a joke scene with Captain America talking about the virtues of patience (ie why you as an audience stayed for this scenes). Users have consistently tried to add it, but like with Bignole's example, it has no bearing on the overall plot. It is, however, covered in the production part of the article, so it isn't like we are completely ignoring it. It just isn't put in the plot section. As to the point of not stating "mid-credits" or "post-credits", I think there is merit to having those labels, especially when the scene featured isn't a direct relation to the proceeding plot (ie the second Justice League tease). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with using these labels where applicable. For some films, it's not possible to convey "just" the story. Sometimes some wording needs to be spent on defining the structure. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
If the end-credits scene is discussed by secondary sources and we use that sourced commentary elsewhere in the article then I think it is reasonable to summarise the scene in the plot summary (after all, the main purpose of the synopsis is to support the rest of the article). However, lots of trivia is covered by secondary sources and we leave it out if it is not directly relevant to discussing the film's production and reception. If we are just mentioning the scene for the sake of mentioning it then ideally it is better to drop it from the summary. Betty Logan (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
As I mentioned in that discussion, anything that happens during and after credits counts towards the actual film as it is counted towards the film's runtime. If it can be integrated into the plot without having to say "mid-credits" or "post-credits" then do so, as with Scrooged and The Babysitter (2017 film). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@Betty Logan, I think if reliable sources are covering the non-relevant scene enough that we discuss the real world context of it elsewhere, then I don't see why the summary of said scene wouldn't just happen in that section. We have plot related details in other sections, especially when they are specific points that are too detailed to be relayed in the actual plot summary section. Since most of these scenes take up about a sentence, I can't see why, if say you're discussing in the production section the filming of a certain scene, that explaining the scene wouldn't hold more value there than in the plot section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • General comment: just because something is covered in secondary sources does not mean it must be included in a Wikipedia article on the topic. I think that applies doubly to something like this, where the secondary sources are often written for a fan audience while Wikipedia is not (or at least should not be). —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
    While true in general, I would argue that Wikipedia articles for films that have fan bases (namely comic book films) get more coverage from secondary sources than most other kinds of films. We would not necessarily hold back coverage as a result. It may be better to compare post-credits scenes with roughly similar kinds of "standout" elements, like celebrity cameos. Actually, I just had an outside-the-box idea. Why not a List of Marvel Cinematic Universe post-credits scenes that could be linked to, especially the more banal scenes like the one with Howard the Duck? And for the relevant ones, greater context could be provided in a way that does not stick out like a sore thumb in the film's own article. There could be some high-level commentary about Marvel's influence on this trend. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I brought up this issue a few years ago in relation to the Guardians of the Galaxy post-credits scene here. I absolutely think some of them are relevant to the plot, but the scene for the first Guardians film just shows that Tivan didn't die (which is never said to have happened) and that he remained in his collection for awhile after it exploded. Cosmo and Howard's inclusions do absolutely nothing for the plot, and it's trivia at best. I think it needs to be on a case-by-case basis, but while they are part of the film, they need to be treated like any other scene in a film would be treated, and excluded if they aren't notable to the plot (like the Captain America one in Spider-Man). TL;DR: I agree with Betty. Sock (tock talk) 16:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • To clarify, I think it goes without saying that if a scene isn't relevant to the plot it shouldn't be mentioned at all. But when it is relevant, I don't think we need to also say if it comes before, during, or after the credits - that's irrelevant to a plot summary. Popcornduff (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree that post-credits that are not extending the current movie's plot should be omitted, unless for some reason they are the subject of intense discussion in sources. At least for the MCU films, many of the post-credits scenes involve characters that can be described as cameo roles in a cast list (eg "Chris Hemsworth has a cameo as Thor in a post-credits scene." for Doctor Strange). --Masem (t) 17:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

A lot of this discussion appears to have gone off-topic. There isn't really a need to discuss the general merit of post-credit scenes being mentioned in plot summaries, as they are not actually special. As for as we should be concerned when writing a plot summary, they are just other scenes and should be included or not based on the usual criteria. But then, going back to what this discussion is supposed to be about, there is a common practice to label the post-credit scenes that have been included as such. I go either way on these. Sometimes, I don't think it is necessary because, as I have already said, they are just other scenes. But I do think there are instances where it makes sense to label the post-credit scenes in the plot, such as when it has nothing to do with the rest of the plot and wouldn't make sense being lumped in with the rest. To pick a recent example, I think you could easily write the plot summary for Black Panther (film) to not point out the mid-credits scene since it is just a natural continuation of the movie and can be mentioned like any other scene, but the post-credits scene doesn't relate to the rest of the plot and wouldn't make sense if it was in the middle of the movie, so explaining that it came after the credits (which people know means it was likely connected to a different film) makes sense there. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

How scared of snakes is Indiana Jones

Dispute at Talk:Ophidiophobia#Indiana_Jones_BRRD,_if_anyone_is_interested if the sources used are reliable in context. More views welcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb needs refresher: Summary of criticism/praise toward an actor

Hi all, there's a discussion brewing at Talk:Bajirao Mastani that's centered on whether or not an actress received general praise or general criticism over her role. One participant has tried to find as many positive reviews as he can, and the other participant has tried to find all the negative reviews he can, and it's become an interesting experiment in cherrypicking, as well as Wikipedia acting as a critical response aggregator. When we're talking about a film's critical response, it's usually easy--we just quote the aggregator, but what is the community's general practice for summarizing critical response aimed at an individual? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why would we need to aggregate a particular actor's critiquing on a film's page. Would it not be simpler to just, when using a reviewer's comments on the film just indicate their particular assessment of an actor there? If a reader wants to know if more people like or hated the actor, they can go read ALL the reviews at Rotten Tomatoes. We don't need to take a stance, and if it was particularly contentious (split down the middle and worth noting) then likely some third party is going to comment on how split people were over that actor's performance.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
My strong preference is to NOT generalize from specific reviews, but only generalize if there are good solid sources that specifically state a view. So not a tabloid, puff piece or clickbait source, but a well-known prefessional film critic that does a retrospective on a particular film. Trying to generalize from specific reviews really touches into WP:SYNTH territory. Ravensfire (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
THat's what I'm saying. If you don't have another source identifying the overall opinion of an actor in the film, then really just identify the facts. Critic X thought this about the film, and this about a performance, while Critic Y thought this. Remember, reviews are not supposed to be quotes but paraphrases of their overall assessment of the film. So, you may find someone slightly mentions an actor's performance but it isn't really a focal point. As such, you likely wouldn't cover it in your summary of the review for that section. Not every actor needs to be commented on, nor does every review need to comment on every aspect of a film. Unless there is an agenda for this specific actor (which is a different problem for editors), then you may only have a couple of opinions in the article itself about said performance.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Bignole and Ravensfire. I would love some input from others, if possible. The world of Indian film article editing is very insular and sometimes these discussions lack perspective that a wider forum like this can provide. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with just explaining specific sources (Critic X, Critic Y) instead of more sweeping generalities of actor's performances. If there's a particular aspect of the performance that should be of interest, like Emma Watson's singing in Beauty and the Beast (2017 film), then that can be highlighted. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Are films that fail to even breakeven at the box office considered notable enough to let the director pass WP:DIRECTOR?

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fu'ad Aït Aattou some are arguing the director is notable because of his films, but none of those films even broke even at the box office. Dream Focus 15:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Also WP:NACTOR number 1 says Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Are the films notable just because they have a Wikipedia page, even if they failed miserable at the box office? Dream Focus 15:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Box office aren't the be-all, end-all of not ability for films. Ishtar (film) is the most infamous example if this. Did not get even close to breaking even, but is notable despite (actually, because of) that. Films can be notable outside of breaking even, and if a director manages to make enough notable box office failures, then they're notable. Notability is not a measure of success, nor is it contingent on success. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Ding! You are correct sir! oknazevad (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Who wants to send Orson Welles to AfD? Betty Logan (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Format of the cast section at Avengers: Infinity War

There is a discussion regarding the format and content of the cast section at Avengers: Infinity War. All opinions are welcome.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

We lack an article for Nigeria's first film: Palaver (1926 film)

I was reading up on Nigerian film history, and apparently 1926's Palaver is recognized as the first film made in Nigeria, and we have no article for this seminal work.

While I'm aware that Palaver is problematic on a number of levels, being steeped in colonial racism, etc. it is still quite significant as the first Nigerian film. Would someone here enjoy creating an article for this topic? MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@MatthewVanitas: Count me in. Sock (tock talk) 18:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
@Sock:, excellent, looking forward to seeing it! Do you think it's out of copyright by Nigerian law, maybe we can get one of the tech-savvy folks here to get a short video-clip to add to the article? Does the director count as the "author" of the work and we have to wait for 70 years after his death (Nigeria and UK both have that rule, not sure which one has precedence for Colonial Nigeria)? Or is a film a "corporate copyright" held by the film studio, and ends at a different time?
Dang, talking about this film has made me hungry for palaver sauce...
MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Definite oversight. Couple of potentially useful links: BFI and Colonial Film. yorkshiresky (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Answered my own question: UK film copyright ends 70 years after the death of the last director or writer, and Palaver's director Geoffrey Barkas died in 1979, so no dice. I'm not finding a poster online to use as Fair Use, but we can still use one single screenshot under Fair Use, right? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, a screenshot would be fair use and I suspect a short extract from the film, but unsure of guidelines regarding length. Audio is less than 30 seconds. yorkshiresky (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
For Fair Use, don't we have to be either/or on a screenshot and a video clip? It has to serve as the "primary means" of identification, so my understanding is it has to be one or the other.
Also, inspired by this issue I went to a West African restaurant in a nearby big city, got some palava sauce for lunch, and it was delicious and I'd recommend it to others. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Just to get the ball rolling, I started a short article and welcome others to help expand it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Dispute about production companies on The Belko Experiment

Please see Talk:The Belko Experiment#Production companies. Please comment to help find consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Creed II

Creed II has apparently started filming, would it be ok to make an article by now?★Trekker (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it qualifies per WP:NFF. Betty Logan (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Remake

I moved this content from the lead, where an IP placed it, to See also, because I don't know into what sort of section one puts a remake on a film article. Could someone here move it into content if See also is not the right place for it? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes if there is a "sequels" section you'd add it to that, but the "see also" section is the best place in this case. Betty Logan (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Sound film Featured Article Review

FAR coordinator User:Casliber has nominated Sound film for a featured article review here. This is a procedural review of its FA status due to the discovery of socking at its original FAC. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. The instructions for the review process are here.

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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Featured article Review Film Noir

is undergoing a review of its featured status at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Film noir/archive1. Please have a look and see whether it fulfils FA criteria or has issues that need fixing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

FAR coordinator User:Casliber has nominated Film noir for a featured article review here. This is a procedural review of its FA status due to the discovery of socking at its original FAC. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. The instructions for the review process are here.

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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_68&oldid=1073230274"