Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 72

Archive 65

←

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Help on Wedding Crashers article

Discussion can continue on the talk page: Talk:Wedding Crashers#"Rape contoversy". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hey guys, can anyone weigh in on whether this revision from the Wedding Crashers article should be restored? It's regarding a "controversy" achieved by the movie for portraying a male protagonist's rape in a humourous light. I removed it because it's premature by the fact that it doesn't report on the producers' side of the issue, ergo lending undue weight on the controversy. Per WP:CRIT, we should include both positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources, without giving undue weight to particular viewpoints, either negative or positive. Thanks, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it is a matter of undue weight just because filmmakers have not said anything. There are some films out there that are critiqued in retrospect, but the details vary, so the presentation will vary too. A preliminary search engine test does not really indicate to me at this point that it warrants its own section or subsection, but we can collectively attempt to cast a wider net about coverage about this sub-topic. A discussion should be started on the talk page. My initial feeling is that Wedding Crashers probably has retrospective coverage to warrant a kind of "Legacy" section, with this detail being among others. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 05:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't delete it, I'd try to rewrite it, or improve the article in some other way. I guess I'm reluctantly agreeing that the delete was justifiable.

The emphasis is a little weird, undue as Erik suggested, and Legacy seems like it would be a better way to go. Controversy seems too strong for what the sources actually present, which is several sources using the film as an example or comparison, not an specific controversy about the film itself. (I wouldn't think "premature" has anything to do with it though) The GQ article has some comments from the director about the marketing department knowing at the time the characters were unsympathetic, so that could be presented as marketing, or related to the film development. Even so the GQ article is barely criticizing the film.

The article isn't overburdened with contemporary reviews:Ebert could be quoted to give a completely different emphasis "they need to lose 15 minutes and shoot a new ending"; Manohla Dargis was critical of the "tasteless premise" before praising the film for other reasons; simply by expanding what the critics said about the film you could write a very different article while still ultimately being fair. -- 109.76.143.176 (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• Note: for anyone commenting here, it might be wiser to leave your comments at Talk:Wedding Crashers#"Rape contoversy" so there is a more localized record of your thoughts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

  Good idea. I've started a discussion there and am closing this one. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:32, 1 January 2019 (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.

Are sources required in an infobox?

I invite discussion at Talk:Homecoming (TV series)#RfC: Are sources required in this article? regarding whether sources are required for infobox material that is not sourced elsewhere in the article. Thanks. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Plot summaries including details that wouldn't make sense if one just watched the one film

Spoilers for Avengers: Infinity War. The post-credits scene shows Maria Hill and Nick Fury being killed, but neither character is introduced in the film proper and it wouldn't make sense to someone who came into the one film blind. I don't think either character even had their (full) name given in the film itself, meaning the only way someone could just watch the movie and learn their names would be to know the actors' faces and look very closely at the end credits. The plot summary therefore appears to be based on not only the film itself but the 20 previous films in the films (and one TV series) in the same franchise. The discussion on the talk page appears to have come to a standstill. Ditto a similar discussion on the Spider-Man: Homecoming talk page, except that there the two characters are nameless henchmen whose names would only be known to people intimately familiar with the source material or the actors' filmographies, rather than previous films in the franchise. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Another new film question - Animated films different template?

I started The Metamorphosis of Mr. Samsa with the assumption that film articles have similar templates but wonder if I may have gone wrong. I am uncomfortable with the uses of 'music' for what is more like sound design and 'cinematography' for what is actually animation, neither of which terms seems to fit within the film template... perhaps there's an 'animated' template I should be using instead? ZarhanFastfire (talk) 07:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

{{Infobox film}} has |animator=. --Gonnym (talk) 09:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Genre heads-up

The IP editor 77.207.75.83‎ (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was making bizarre genre-related edits, like adding "horror" to Bumblebee (film) and calling Star Wars (film) "sci-fi horror". The IP is now blocked. Going forward, if you see a similar IP or a registered editor making similar such edits, it may be a sock. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Marketing at Aquaman (film) and Shazam! (film)

I tried to remove some of the customary marketing methods listed in the marketing sections of both of these articles that did not provide any useful commentary per WP:FILMMARKETING but was reverted in both instances by OhsalveelCesar (talk · contribs) because it was “useful to the reader”. Thoughts?—TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I endorse your removals per WP:FILMMARKETING, which to me is in the spirit of WP:PROMO (avoiding coverage of advertising content as-is, which leans toward puffery). To only say that trailers and posters were used for a film's marketing is like saying a camera was used for filming. There needs to be more substance to such details. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that that type of coverage of marketing is a bit too much. It is fair to note the first teaser or trailer and poster release (were they marketing this film 6 months in advance or 2 weeks? ), but every single marketing hit subsequent to that should not be covered unless that itself gained additional coverage (for example, Toy Story 4 teaser came out, the next day a second teaser came out which got more recognizition due to it being a parody of a Key and Peele routine in RSes, so that's notable). Otherwise, these sections become PROSELINE and hard to summarize. --Masem (t) 19:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm rarely for the inclusion of "the first trailer", unless there was something special. Just releasing a trailer, whether the first or the last, is status quo. It's not special. Now, say providing the first look (pseudo trailer) at say ComicCon I do think is noteworthy to include, usually because it's also followed with commentary on its reception. I think that following it up with, the trailer was then attached to this list of films is irrelevant historically. No one cares what films showed it before they aired in theaters and that can sometimes change. I've sat in theaters and watched the same films as my friends in other states and they didn't get all the same trailers. Trailers, posters, and the standard marketing system is just that, standard. When it's discussed, or something special (ala the original viral marketing campaign for "Cloverfield" or "The Dark Knight") then it should be in an article. The rest is inconsequential and as Eric pointed out, akin to saying a film was shot with a camera. I'm sort of the same way about magazine stuff. Saying Entertainment Weekly showed images of Ocean Master...well that's their job. Did they comment on those images, because that's relevant...but probably not relevant in Marketing. Probably relevant in production because it's most likely commentary on the designs.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the specifics of the marketing are important (as you say, every film is marketed), but when the distributors start pushing the film is roughly as important a date as when (if we know) production starts or ends. But wholly agree that the specific marketing stunts that otherwise aren't heavily commented on by RSes shouldn't be included just because we can. --Masem (t) 20:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Sleepy Hollow (film) - GA reassessment

Sleepy Hollow (film), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Oscars FLs: "Best films of [year]"?

The lists of Oscars awarded each year, many of which are FLs, all seem to contain the phrase "honored the best films of [year]". I don't know where consensus was reached on this, but the phrase is clearly problematic, as most non-English films are ineligible for most awards. We need to fix this problem, but a specific talk page is clearly problematic for such a discussion, and so I am starting a thread here. Vanamonde (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Is "FL" short for film list? I'm not entirely sure what you are asking. Also it might be helpful if you could point to a specific example of what you mean in the context of an existing article. -- 109.79.172.66 (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, "FL" stands for "featured list" (see WP:FL). Examples may be found here. In an individual article that had not gone through peer review, I would simply change this sort of text. When each list that I have checked has the same problem, and each of those has also been through exhaustive peer review, it suggests the need for a wider discussion. Vanamonde (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I think I get what you mean. I'd say that phrasing was used by the Academy themselves (or others, for example Time magazine used that phrase "honored the best films") and then simply repeated, I'd be surprised if there was any discussion about that specific wording. There's a certain arrogant presumption to the phrase and it does come from a certain point of view of American and English language films, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it was obviously problematic, but I'm not sure how else you might phrase it. They are in their opinion and from their perspective honoring the best, much as any other award ceremony would. How do you propose to improve it, do you have an alternative wording in mind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.172.66 (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it, the criterion which excludes most films would be that the film must have been commercially screened in Los Angeles in the given calendar year. Los Angeles is large and has a culturally mixed population, but even so, that's fairly limiting. Furthermore, there's a bit of a gap between winning an Oscar and being the best film in a certain category (and, of course, some of those honored are not films). I think there's several alternatives possible: the list for the 83rd awards uses "honored the best films of 2010 in the United States", which of course isn't quite correct, as non-US productions are eligible. Another alternative would be to be specific, and say something along the lines of "the best among the films eligible for Academy Awards in 2018" or, or equivalent. My personal preference would be to formulate a different first line altogether, based on the intro to the page Academy Awards, which really is quite well written, and then following it up with "The [number] academy awards recognized Oscar winners from [year]." I'm going to ping Birdienest81, who brought many of these to FL status. Birdienest81, your input would be greatly appreciated; please note that none of this is personal, and I'm not accusing you of being biased. I would just like to phrase this better. Vanamonde (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Birds of Prey move discussion

This discussion, over the name of Draft:Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of one Harley Quinn), might interest members of this project. Discussion is here. JOEBRO64 19:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The Woman in Red (1984 film) problem

On the mobile app version of this page, there's a subtitle that says "1980 film by Gene Wilder", but it should be a 1984 film. This subtitle doesn't show up on the regular web version at all so I can't figure out how to edit it. On the left sidebar there's a link to "Page Information" which has the subtitle (it's called "Central Description" for some reason) but I can't figure out how to edit it. There's a link at the top to a help page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Page_information) but it doesn't mention "Central Description" or how to edit it.

So it anyone knows how to fix this, please change 1980 to 1984. Tocharianne (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

If something only shows up in mobile view, and you can't figure out why, it's usually because of Wikidata. If there's an offensive image and you can't figure out where it's coming from, someone usually vandalized a transcluded template. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

James Bond

Hi, apologies if I'm posting this in the wrong place, but I'd just like to draw people's attention to the James Bond film franchise. There's currently three different pages about the Bond films: James Bond in film, James Bond filmography, List of James Bond films. For many months, I've been attempting to change the pages because they look incredibly outdated (and the box office table in particular is...interesting). However, there's 3(ish) resident users who monitor the pages (basically self-described "admins") who seem completely intolerant to any change whatsoever. Literally anything I do gets reverted, and I don't appear to be respected enough to be listened to since I'm not an experienced Wikipedia user. I was hoping that any users here, who are much more experienced than I am, could take a look at this three pages and see what you think of them.

I made (what I thought were) constructive edits to the James Bond in film page (which you'll see in the edit history), however they were all reverted. Some edits I did regarding the box office table on List of James Bond films were also reverted, however that's been taken to the all page. There's very much a gatekeeping vibe over there, and I just want the pages to look good and be at Wikipedia's standard for other franchises. The pages all need a revamp (in my opinion - nobody else there seems to agree), so I'm looking for people to head over there, have I look through, and come up with a solution if that's alright. 3 separate pages seems excessive anyway, but I alone cannot do much. Thanks in advance, and apologies again if I have posted this in the wrong place. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

There have been more than three people saying your changes were not improvements, and none of us have ever claimed to be admins (please provide a diff if you think that is the case). - SchroCat (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I'd quite like someone other than you to respond thanks. I'd just prefer it if there was significantly more people to review the page, so as to rival the existing biases. Also there's been no more than three (one of them is you who I knew wouldn't accept the changes anyway, so I'm not counting you). The other two were at least slightly more diplomatic and willing to accept certain changes. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not up to you to decide who responds, I'm afraid. There have been more than three in almost all instances, aside from the most recent one (and, again, it's not for you to decide whether to 'count' me or not). I'm sorry you don't like the fact I don't agree with you, but that's life. It would be very boring if everyone agreed all the time - that's a recipe for mediocrity and not advancing anything. - SchroCat (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Is there a reason for having three articles about the films overall? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Size issues mainly. The James Bond in film article and List of James Bond films basically cover the same topic and could be bundled together, but you'd have a 240kb article. The filmography has a slightly different focus so probably benefits from a natural division. Betty Logan (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd say there're are enough differences between the Bond in film and List of films (the former is the production history, the latter is more about the synopses and statistics), considering the subject, there is surprisingly little overlap. - SchroCat (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

For me, I have a few issues with these articles. The scope is unclear from the article titles. The fact that the articles need hatnotes to tell the reader what the article is about, is evidence that it's not only unclear for me. I also don't think the production should be split from the other aspects of the film. Why make a reader jump between two pages just to get the summarize version of one film? List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films is an example of an article that has both. I'm in favor of a merge of James Bond in film and List of James Bond films. If you still want something to split, then the award section would be the most logical section, as that is usually what is split out of film and actor articles, into a List of awards and nominations received by the James Bond film series or something similar. This would also allow the award section to be expended, as currently it is very biased to what awards are there, as the film series has achieved much more notable awards and nominations and a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS should not be able to limit that (also, side note, that current table does not completely follow WP:ACCESSABILITY). Lastly, I'd also support a name change of James Bond filmography to James Bond (film character) as to be be more WP:CONSISTENT with James Bond (literary character) and because the current title could very much replace either James Bond in film and List of James Bond films and the scope would be the same. --Gonnym (talk) 10:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

If you merge them together you would end up with an unholy rambling incoherent mess of an article. Balls to the Marvel 'template' idea: less films over a much shorter timeframe with significantly less characters (and no switching of actors between the same character). The production history of Marvel is simple and straightforward compared with the three production companies who have gone over 50 years producing films. Despite your claim, readers don't have to "jump between two pages just to get the summarize version of one film": we have a film's article for that. When you want to consider the changing backdrop of the production of the series as a whole, we have this article. The "film character" idea was considered and dismissed several years ago, as the article isn't about the character, more about the history of the actors and their take on the role - it's more a sister to the 'Bond in film' article than the "literary character" one. - SchroCat (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

List of James Bond films does not mention the actors except for the lead and in the Box office and budget and award tables. That does not change at all the length of that article. MCU article has 20 completed films with 3 more in the upcoming section vs 26 Bond films (so 3 difference). It also has different actors for different roles not one main Bond role. So altogether not that different. And while like you said, its OK to disagree, do not say my claim is false, as again, if I'm reading a list of films articles, I want all the information about those films in one section, as is common in list of film articles, not spread out over 2 different articles (which is only done here). If I want a deep-dive, I'll go into a specific article. --Gonnym (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

And there was me thinking Iron Man was only played by one person, ditto Capt Am, ditto the others. How many Bonds, Leiters, Ms, Qs, etc have their been? Again, if you want the plot and production of one film, go to that article. Comparing Marvel and Bond is along the lines of comparing apples and motorways. - SchroCat (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

You need to remember that loads of people look at these pages. That's what Wikipedia is for. It's not for us - it's for the general public to take in information. If Wikipedia users find it difficult navigating through everything, then casual readers (i.e. 90% of the page's viewers) definitely will. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 12:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Which is why we have hatnotes and redirects... There is no obvious but concise titles for these, which is why we have a number of formats such as “Foo in film”, etc. - SchroCat (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I have not read this discussion yet but find that it is getting a bit long for a WikiProject talk-page thread about a specific matter. I suggest moving the discussion to Talk:James Bond and ensuring notifications on all the involved articles? And perhaps consider WP:RFC (maybe when the discussion can narrow down to a handful of potential solutions). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Considering it's about how to organize the articles on one of the longest-running and most well-know film franchises in all of cinema history, there's definitely a project- wide aspect tonit. Loren importantly, the existing articles are extremely poorly organized and confusingly titled but there's been resistance to changing anything (even updating the inflation adjustments). Plus the suggested talk page is part of the issue, and some stepping outside that bubble is what's needed. oknazevad (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Really, the discussion should be at WikiProject James Bond, but it is inactive. Furthermore, franchises vary, so like SchroCat mentioned, what works for Marvel may not work for Bond. I'm suggesting a move since I sense that there will be many more comments made, and the thread will eventually overwhelm this talk page. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x 2 Erik: As it covers three film articles, I think this is a better venue than James Bond, where the films are only one aspect alongside books, TV, merchandise, etc. If you want it shifted off this page for some reason, then one of the three articles in question would be better.

Oknazevad, No, they are clearly laid out and coherent, even if you think otherwise. There isn't resistance to changing the inflated amount: the drawbacks have been explained to you more than once, and in the current thread, I've invited you to make the change as long as you can link the changes to specific sources that deal with it. - SchroCat (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

"No, they are clearly laid out and coherent, even if you think otherwise.". No. This is the problem. What you're saying is not an objective fact. That's why I brought the discussion here, to get more viewpoints that aren't your biased and stagnant "I think this is right therefore it is right" outlook on things. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

This may come as a surprise to you, but your claim that they are not laid out well is also not an objective fact. These things are opinions, and you'd best start getting the basics straight if your going to get very far. Can I also suggest that rather then try and dismiss my opinions with little more that 'you are biased and stagnant', it would be better if you focussed on your own 'thoughts'. - SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I never said it was, actually. And you are literally doing the exact thing by telling people they're wrong. Also it'd be nice if you didn't speak in constant sarcasm. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

You have said it on the talk page (if you haven't, then this whole thread is even more of a waste of time than it already appears to be)! I understand the difference between opinion and fact, and I know that most discussions are around opinion; you are the one who is trying to dismiss something because it is not an "objective fact". There is no sarcasm in what I am saying and, yet again, could you please discuss the content (i.e. Focus on your own arguments), and not other editors. - SchroCat (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I looked at all three and think there are enough differences that warrant the three articles; one is on production, one is on the character and and actors, and last more on the list of films. A situation comparable to, say, Doctor Who. The only suggestion to fix would be to make the first on the production history to remove some of the details of each films production and restructure it by production era, making it far less film specific and mirroring the character centric approach. Make it flow narrative from how the Bond films shifted over time, less about any specific film.--Masem (t) 14:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree also that these are fairly well distinguished in topic. If I were to have an improvement suggestion, it would be to make it obvious in the article titles. That James Bond in film leads to an article on the production of James Bond films... is not what I would expect as a reader. Why isn't that titled Production of the James Bond films or similar? James Bond filmography is clearly not the only way we can use the word "filmography" (and it's not the typical way; when I see the word "filmography" in most articles I expect it to be one actor's films, not many, and this expectation is matched in at least one dictionary), so why isn't that located at something like List of James Bond actors or similar? The only article title that makes it obvious what the topic of the article is List of James Bond films. --Izno (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I like the Production of the James Bond films idea, and would support a page move. The “filmography” title was (from the best of recollection) the best idea at the time. It’s not a List, so “List” is not a term we should use in the title (although I’m open to alternative suggestions) - SchroCat (talk),

We're still listing the actors, but that's not a big deal to me. I think that one could also be called portrayal of James Bond in film or in fact the title that the production article currently enjoys, which is James Bond in film. --Izno (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

That's a better title for it. Calling a "filmography" is misleading, since James Bond is not a real person. (And I do understand the need to keep the Bond as written disparate from the Bond as in film, otherwsie "James Bond (character)" would be a good title) --Masem (t) 19:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The titles aren't the best, granted. The James Bond in film title is a historic title, but since then the statistical data (mostly the tables and plot summaries) has been split out and the James Bond in film article became more focused on the production of the films, and that is not reflected in the title. I am still of the opinion that James Bond in film and the List of James Bond films work better as separate articles and agree with SchroCat that merging them would result in a very sprawling, unwieldy and unfocused article, but I am receptive to more descriptive titles. As for the James Bond filmography I am 99% sure this was my suggestion. I recall the title being problematic at the time; Schro had the article at James Bond (film character) and I had a problem with this because the article was more about the actors and the portrayals, rather than the actual character per se, so I came up with the idea of calling it a "filmography". Probably not the best idea I ever had. I would be ok with changing it to Portrayal of James Bond in film. Betty Logan (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

So is anything going to be changed as a result of this discussion? Titles? TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The project can't change the article titles. New titles need to be proposed at the article talk pages themselves and go through the WP:RM#CM process. Betty Logan (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Undent: I have submitted move requests for both articles on their talk pages. Please feel free to contribute. --Izno (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

List of American films of 2018 at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Silver & Black

Regarding Silver & Black (film), it was a cancelled film. Due to the level of detail regarding its development, it apparently warrants a stand-alone article. I removed the infobox and the film categories because no actual film exists that warrants using an infobox to claim that Gina Prince-Bythewood directed this cancelled film and that Matt Tolmach and Amy Pascal produced this cancelled film, that Sony Pictures Releasing distributed this cancelled film. However, Adamstom.97 thinks that this false impression is acceptable and says other stuff exists. What should be done with cancelled films? If they never started filming, we should not presume with finality that certain names would have made it if production took place, per WP:CRYSTAL. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that an infobox is inappropriate in this context. If the film never started principal photography then Wikipedia shouldn't be attributing work to people that they never undertook. Betty Logan (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree as well. I think people (myself included) often look at an infobox for quick reference without reading any of the actual article, and an article about a cancelled film should have a distinct layout from a film that was finished to prevent readers from getting the wrong impression. Also, the philosophy behind film infoboxes as I understand it is that the info (usually) doesn't need to be cited because it's implied that the film itself is the primary source. There is no primary source in this case. Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

This is still a film article though, even if it is about a film that was not ultimately made. And as Secundus says, the infobox is generally a quick reference point for readers which still applies here where we want to give an overview of what the film was going to be to support the infobox. Regardless, I'm not going to fight this issue strongly, though I do want to point out that I never said we should do this per WP:OTHERSTUFF I simply said that there appears to be precedent for this which should be considered per WP:OTHER. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't know examples but if we use film infoboxes with data which never happened because the film was cancelled then the infobox itself should indicate very clearly that this was only planned. It's not enough to write it in the lead and elsewhere in the article. Many readers only see the infobox. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

How are these related to each other

New template made but I'm not sure how they're related why are these two film franchises combined? Am I missing something perhaps the articles should mention this relationship.--Moxy (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC) {{Anaconda & Lake Placid}}

It lists Lake Placid vs. Anaconda but that is the only crossover. I think we should continue to only have separate {{Anaconda}} and {{Lake Placid}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with PrimeHunter about having separate templates. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

{{Anaconda & Lake Placid}} has been speedily deleted as a recreation. I have reverted {{Lake Placid}} to only show Lake Placid (film series).[1] The crossover Lake Placid vs. Anaconda is the only article to display both {{Lake Placid}} and {{Anaconda}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Art film categories at CfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Sony Dynamic Digital Sound

I have placed a question on Talk:Sony Dynamic Digital Sound. - Bob.v.R (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Track Down or Takedown (2000 film)

A discussion regarding the above titles at Talk:Track Down#Requested move 14 January 2019 may be of interest.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

New columns at List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes

Regarding List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, three new columns were added and subsequently reverted. Please see the related discussion here: Talk:List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes#New columns. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:R from upcoming film

You can use Template:R from upcoming film to tag redirects for future films. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC) (please  mention me on reply; thanks!)

This template has a corresponding category. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

YouTube sources for retrospective analysis

Hdzkupres1992 has added language as above to The Crow (1994 film) ("one of most important and influential films of the 1990s") and Leviathan (1989 film) ("cult film") cited to a YouTube channel called "GoodBadFlicks". Any thoughts on whether this YouTube channel is reliable and due weight? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Source looks highly dubious to me. Might be OK to establish weight in conjunction with a more credible source but not on its own. Betty Logan (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Page move for List of films considered the worst

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:3D re-releases

Can I just get a sense as to whether other editors feel that Category:3D re-releases is appropriate? I only noticed it because an IP added a bunch of films to the category without there being any indication at those films' articles that they actually had been re-released in 3D, but I question whether being re-released really constitutes a defining characteristic. I'm happy to go either way on it. DonIago (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

We have a shortcut lying around that essentially says that categories must be verifiable (and can be challenged as such), regardless of their being definitive. --Izno (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:CATDEF for defining characteristic and WP:CATVER for reliably sourced info needing to be in the article. MarnetteD|Talk 20:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that there a at least a couple films in the cat there were released in 3-D originally. I could be wrong though. MarnetteD|Talk 20:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I pruned off the ones the IP added, but was curious as to the disposition of the category itself. Happy to open a CfD but didn't want to do so if I was immediately going to have other editors saying it met CATDEF and should be kept. :p DonIago (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I am in two minds about this. Some of them can be notable (I am thinking of Titanic here off the top of my head) so you can probably at least justify the existence of the category. It then becomes a case of whether it is a "defining" attribute or not, but editors will probably just add films regardless if the category exists. Betty Logan (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Super: Broly - Box Office sourcing

Please see the discussion Talk:Dragon Ball Super: Broly#Box Office figures and request for third opinion regarding sourcing of box office gross estimate(s) for the film. What is the general practice?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

List of films with high frame rates

Hi folks. My recent AFC submission Draft:List of films with high frame rates has been rejected. Reviewer User:AngusWOOF comments: "Please provide some sources that show that such a combined listing is notable. Otherwise this is original research to compile such a list." Perhaps someone from your WikiProject can shed their light on the situation. I feel like I've personally done enough for the subject, so I will most likely not try to alter or improve the article to get it accepted. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I would not say that it is "original research" to create such a list, but WP:NOTESAL has to be satisfied. This in particular, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." For example, I created List of films featuring eclipses (and a few similar lists), and if you look at the "References" section, you can see that numerous references discuss the films as a group or set. You could go back and review the current references to see if any film-specific reference also names other films. You can also search online for lists of films that have high frame rates. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Erik, we meet again. ;) I have to say it hurts that the reviewer stated in their edit summary that the "submission is improperly sourced and nn", which seems to imply it would be both improperly sourced and non-notable. As is the case with all my articles (not just from this IP address), it includes solid inline references. Also, at least one of the references, at The Hollywood Reporter here, discusses these HFR films as a group/set:

The next two Hobbit films—The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug and The Hobbit: There And Back Again—will both have an HFR release. James Cameron has been a vocal champion and plans to make his Avatar sequels with HFRs. Douglas Trumbull has also said he intends to make movies at HFRs.

Just 10 minutes passed between my submission and the rejection. I doubt the reviewer put in the effort to properly inspect any of the sources... --77.173.90.33 (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello again! I did not recognize the IP. I think that source is a good start. We'll have to find others like that. You can follow WP:REFNAME to repeat a reference. While it is not required, I think it helps to have overlapping references because it makes clearer how many times a film has been in a group or set. Another tip for searching is to put two or three film titles in the search query, and articles mentioning them collectively will appear more readily. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I added a source. This also has a little background about it regarding "polarized audiences". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to personally leave it at this. If it's not enough as is, then so be it. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page: Are any of those citations showing that a list is being made of all HFR films? Those only cite that a particular film is verified to be HFR and will justify that it can be on the list, but what I'm looking for is whether lists of HFR films are being put together by news articles or film websites that aren't IMDb user-generated.

I am not rejecting that the individual entries are sourced improperly, those citations are fine. I'm questioning whether such a list has been attempted by a news source or has been discussed as a list as something noteworthy to share. If you want an example of someone else putting together a list, see http://4k.com/news/contentthe-full-list-of-all-4k-and-hdr-content-available-now-on-netflix-23127/ for a list of 4K and HDR films and shows. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

So, Wikipedia policy is that there must have been (ongoing) attempts outside of Wikipedia to create a list, or such a list must have already been created, before Wikipedia can publish such a list? That does not make any sense to me, in particular if we have already established the notability of the high frame rate subject. By the way, isn't Erik's example of films featuring eclipses an apples and oranges comparison, given that one is about an expression (content) while the other is about a characteristic (feature). Ugh. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Explicit list sources are not required. If sources discuss films with similar characteristics while discussing one mainly, then that counts as discussing as a group or as a set. Wikipedia follows, it does not lead. It's to prevent indiscriminate listings. WP:IINFO says, "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." So for example, making a list of films featuring pencils or crossword puzzles would be indiscriminate (as far as I know), even if an editor could technically find reviews and such mentioning these elements in passing. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I strongly believe that, if I would not have gone through the AfC process and would've simply created the article from a registered account, not only would nobody have raised any objections, it would be among the lists whose notability is best verifiable. Thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of lists exist on Wikipedia that have no references whatsoever, making it impossible to verify their notability. Even if I limit myself to lists about films with certain technological characteristics, similar to my draft about HFR films, it's easy to find lists worse than my draft. Examples are List of VistaVision films, List of early wide-gauge films, List of Technirama films and List of Techniscope films. Looking at lists about films in general, I could give you too many to mention here. Some examples are List of Allied propaganda films of World War II, List of biker films, List of films about animals, List of punk films, List of films based on the Bible, Films depicting Latin American military dictatorships, List of films featuring the United States Marine Corps, List of LGBT-related films by storyline, List of films based on Greco-Roman mythology, List of character-based film series and List of Hindu mythological or devotional films. Of course, my draft should be evaluated on its own merit. But again, my draft with inline references aplenty is not about the content of films, such as this List of films about horses that has 0 references, but about films with a technical feature, high frame rate, whose notability has already been established. This is also why your recent example of films featuring pencils or crossword puzzles, like your example about films featuring eclipses, does not apply. Anyway, with your recent edit of the draft, is it ready for resubmission? Also, User:AngusWOOF, thoughts? --77.173.90.33 (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree with you on all these points. I do not think the AfC process was necessary, and my feedback above was only given in the confines of the process. But I agree that you could have created it and put it in the mainspace straightaway and not worry about the institutional bias you encountered in this process. I would support it being in the mainspace now. A few more sources about this as a group or set would not hurt, though. Even my fully-sourced list of films featuring eclipses got taken to AfD because some editor thought the list was ridiculous. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the other lists, if they aren't sourced or meet notability, you can tag them for that, and if they haven't been improved in a while and there's no chance of them being listable then you can consider AFD on them. But thats WP:Other stuff exists for now. The Wired magazine listing is helpful; I think that's enough to demonstrate notability (people caring to make a list of such items). I just didn't want it to have to go through AFD like the eclipse one, but I also didn't want it to be a useless sub-classification like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most viewed kpop music videos That was a list that was put together strictly by original research by the Wikipedia editors. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I tagged the lists mentioned. The draft in question seems to meet notability to me too, and I hope it gets accepted. Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I see you've accepted the article; thank you. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Mary Poppins film, song "I Love to Laugh" needs Refs

Expert help please

JoeHebda (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, The article I Love to Laugh was tagged in 2006 as needing References. Asking for help from WP Film members. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Navbox categories

There is some debate (between me and

• Treker) about the propriety of categories such as Category:Animated film navigational boxes and Category:Children's film navigational boxes for templates about stories from books that have numerous film adaptations: {{The Little Mermaid}} and {{Chicken Little}} are currently at issue for incorrectly including such categories. Can people who work a lot on templates help me understand what is correct.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Pinging: @Woodensuperman and Frietjes:-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

More input would be good.★Trekker (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey @Woodensuperman and Frietjes:, I know you guys are constantly opining on my editorial efforts in Template space. I am guessing that your silence may mean that you don't disagree with me since you never seem to comment in ways that agree with me. We have a major argument here that has very significant broad implications on all the templates that you two get involved in. As I understand the argument, I have been using categories to state that "This template includes these types of links" (Animated film, Children's film, etc.). *Treker believes categories should be used to describe the main subject of the template. I had hoped you guys would comment here, but I will take this conversation to Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates for further discussion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I typically use the title of the navbox to determine the category. in this case, the title is a book, so it would seem as though it would go in the literature category. I don't really have a strong opinion on whether you would also put it in a film-related category (e.g., see Template:Cinderella). in my opinion, the purpose of categories is to group "link things" to assist with finding things. so, if having the template in a film-related category is more helpful than hurtful, I would say why not. but, as I said before, I don't have a strong opinion. Frietjes (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi TonyTheTiger. No strong opinion here either. I think I'm pretty much agreement with Frietjes in that if these "secondary" categories, Children's films, etc, are "helpful" for people wanting to find the templates, then I don't see any real problem. I often find the category trees for navboxes to be somewhat lacking, but I'm not sure how much use these template categories are anyway. --woodensuperman 08:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I am hearing that the categories were designed to be used based on the main subject of the template, but if they have evolved to an expanded use there are no issues. When I started doing these templates, I believe that I was building upon what was done before. Thus, if I have gone beyond the original intended use, it is because that is what I saw in other templates. Whatever way we go, it should be handled considering the broad spectrum of templates and not just the two I mentioned above. Certainly, others such as {{Cinderella}} are of concern.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC on using the "As of" template, or some similar wording indicating that the score may have changed over time, for review aggregators

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Review aggregators#RfC: Should the "As of" template, or some similar wording indicating that the score may have changed over time, be used for review aggregators in articles?. A permalink for it is seen here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment invitation

What are the criteria for including an award in a biographical article? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Crediting The Wachowskis

Hi!

How should we credit/gender the Wachowskis?

Please give us your input and help us decide. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Opening weekend discussion

Hi all, may I please trouble a couple of you to please contribute your thoughts to Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films#Highest-grossing opening weekends. I have a strong opinion, but it may not be correct and I wouldn't mind other thoughts on the matter. The short story is that List of highest-grossing Indian films has a ranked list of various films' opening weekend gross figures, only some of the ranked films have 4, 5, and 6 day gross totals, stretching the definition of "weekend". I'm curious how you'd deal with this. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Should Rotten Tomatoes scores go at the beginning or end of "reception" sections of older films?

I've noticed that some articles for 20th century films provide contemporary prose first and the Rotten scores at the end. Was there ever a discussion, or Wikipedia doctrine, that determined where Rotten should be placed when it comes to older films? Thanks. 151.231.110.243 (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

MOS:FILM#Critical response says, "For older films, it is important to distinguish between contemporary critical reception (from reviews published around the time of initial release) and subsequent reception (from reviews made at later dates). Use secondary sources to determine if a film's initial critical reception varies from the reputation it has today." As far as I know, there is no wider consensus on how exactly to approach this kind of thing. For example, for a film panned at the time and now critically acclaimed, it seems more appropriate to talk about the latter as a "current" status and to follow that up with context like, "At the time, it was not well-received."

However, there are probably many films simply in the middle. For 20th century films, I would probably prefer to lead with prose (on a summary level, either at the time or in retrospect) about the film's contemporary reception and perhaps follow with RT/MC if it is about the same. I would probably lean more toward putting it at the end if it is a bit different. It's possible that excluding RT/MC entirely would be appropriate, especially since the sample size is weaker and slanted more toward periodicals that successfully made their article archives available. These are my thoughts. In essence, it seems best treated on a case-by-case basis. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:ROTTEN expands on this: "Commentary should... be sought from reliable sources for critics' consensus of the film. Such commentary should come before reporting aggregate scores because such sources are likely to be more authoritative and to provide descriptive prose. The aggregate scores can complement this commentary." There is a great degree of latitude in where the aggregator scores are placed, but for older films you have to consider adding them at all: "Aggregator scores are most effective and accurate for films released in the 2000s and beyond. This is because more reviews are available online and as a result contemporary critical reception is more clearly defined. Prior to the 2000s, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic did not exist, and reviews were typically not online. Sources besides Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic should be sought out for films released before the 2000s;" There could be too few reviews for the score to be effective, but in the case of many older films Rotten Tomatoes mixes up reviews over a large span of time so it's not clear whether the score reflects the contemporary opinion or the modern opinion. For the classics such as Citizen Kane, Casablanca, and Gone with the Wind there are many other alternatives so it is not necessary to use RT in such cases. Betty Logan (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Merger Proposal : Merge Endemol into Endemol Shine

I would like to make a proposal in merging two pages together. This would mean merging the Endemol wiki page into the Endemol Shine Group wiki page. These are the pages I am referring to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endemol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endemol_Shine_Group

The reason doing a merger proposal for these two pages makes logical sense because Endemol merged with Shine Group in 2015. You can already see on the description for Endemol Shine Group that it has incorporated this information, Endemol is incorporate in the History part of the Endemol Shine Group.

I think this is quite important because Endemol Shine make very popular shows globally such as Peaky Blinders and Black Mirror. However, if you were to type Endemol Shine into google, you see that Endemol comes up first. I think this is so confusing to people who are trying to understand the diference between endemol and endemol shine group. When I type it into google endemol is the first thing that seems to come up.

For this reason , I think we should merge the two so that it reflects the merger.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojmarson (talk • contribs) 15:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I added a notice at WT:COMPANIES about this proposal, since this is in their scope too. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Question on point of film article creation

There's basically been all but official confirmation that a Breaking Bad film is happening, and there are now people around Albuquerque reporting seeing production happening. I know the general criteria for creating a film article is confirmation of principal filming... but this doesn't feel like truly official confirmation. I am holding off creating an article on it right now (but have a redirect in place to the TV show for this information), but making sure this is the right course of action. --Masem (t) 19:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I would say that the bar for confirmation of the start of filming is quite low. I would accept this, for example. I think Twitter posts have been used in the past. It's simply to indicate, "Yes, they're really doing this!" much more clearly than development/pre-production activities. So a film article could be created now. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Venezuelan cinema task force

Is this a legit task force? It was created in December and appears to have a few interested users, though I don't see any prior discussion either here or at WT:VENEZUELA. PC78 (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit war over production companies

At Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole, there's a dispute over whether unsourced production companies should be added to the aritcle. See Talk:Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole#Production companies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

RFC at Bohemian Rhapsody (film)

There's a RFC going on at Bohemian Rhapsody (film) about whether or not to include Dexter Fletcher in the infobox. Please join the discussion to help reach a consensus on the matter. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 15:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Direct link to RfC DonIago (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Halloween (2018 film)

Why is this article not design as good article? --Binco91 (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Because no one has nominated it for review. If you feel that it meets the criteria listed here, then please feel free to follow these steps on how to nominate it for review.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that I'm not english and I have translated it into italian. Looks like it's responding to the criteria. --Binco91 (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Then lI would probably post this on the Halloween talk page to see if the regular editors of that page feel it's ready to go up for review. They would be the best to answer that. The Film Project doesn't handle GA or FA reviews directly like that. It's an editor decision and then the community at large reviews it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Please let me know any news, so I can nominate it. —Binco91 (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Infobox question

Is there a way to collapse content within the film infobox? My query relates to the article for Cold War and the overly-long list of production companies. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey Lugnuts if you don't get an answer here you could try at the WP:VPT. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 06:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

{{Collapsible list}} might serve your needs, Lugnuts. Betty Logan (talk) 06:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thanks for that - works a treat. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

While it works, please see MOS:DONTHIDE which states Collapsible templates should not conceal article content by default upon page loading. --Gonnym (talk) 08:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I went off the code in the article for Hamilton, Ontario, which is in the template example, and the article is a Featured Article too, with the data auto-collapsed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Considering their tables at Hamilton, Ontario#Sports don't use scopes and that the lead uses references, I'd say that it isn't really a good 100% FA example. --Gonnym (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Lugnuts, another possibility is to simply have an anchor note that the reader can jump to. I did this with Wolf Totem (film). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Erik - that's a good solution too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me}

Cast sections and div col templates

Whenever I see a film article's "Cast" section with extraneous white space on the right, I add {{Div col}} and {{Div col end}} templates as bookends. Depending on how you view Wikipedia, the number of columns will vary. E.g., mobile view will show one column, and I usually see two or three columns in desktop view. I am wondering if there is any reason we should not roll this out universally? The only exception I can think of is to not do it for lists where each bulleted item has a lot of text to go with it, like the blockbuster films that get a lot of fan-driven attention. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Any article with a ton of whitespace in the Cast section is always immeasurably improved by columns IMO. The only time I wouldn't do it is if you end up with more columns than rows, which always looks slightly weird. Betty Logan (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I've been using Template:Cast listing, but the principle is the same. I believe I'd be fine with this. DonIago (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

If you have white space add images. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Please join the discussion

I have started a discussion of interest to the members of this project here Template talk:Infobox film#New field?. Please feel free to add you thoughts there. MarnetteD|Talk 03:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Death Watch or Death Watch (1980 film)

A discussion regarding the above topic at Talk:Death Watch#Requested move 10 February 2019 may be of interest.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

List of cult films at Afd (again)

Please see this discussion. On a related note, I seem to recal the size of the article being discussed in the past. Attempts to split it into more managable sections have been undone on the main article, but lists for each letter still exist. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Films by editor categories

Just seeing if Category:Films by American editors is a category scheme that should be expanded upon or something that should be avoided. While editing is a very important part of the film making process, most films already have "directed by", "produced by", "screenplay by", "score by" categories, not to mention any film winning an Oscar for best editing being in Category:Films whose editor won the Best Film Editing Academy Award. Just curious as to where most think "Films by job" should stop. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the editor categories are defining. Looking at Category:Films edited by Kent Beyda - I don't think anyone's first impression of This Is Spinal Tap is - "oh yeah, that film edited by Kent Beyda!" Directors' categories are defining, the other three you mention probably are too, although I don't personally bother with them. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

These are now at CfD for further discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

List of cult films at Afd (again)

Please see this discussion. On a related note, I seem to recal the size of the article being discussed in the past. Attempts to split it into more managable sections have been undone on the main article, but lists for each letter still exist. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Films by editor categories

Just seeing if Category:Films by American editors is a category scheme that should be expanded upon or something that should be avoided. While editing is a very important part of the film making process, most films already have "directed by", "produced by", "screenplay by", "score by" categories, not to mention any film winning an Oscar for best editing being in Category:Films whose editor won the Best Film Editing Academy Award. Just curious as to where most think "Films by job" should stop. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the editor categories are defining. Looking at Category:Films edited by Kent Beyda - I don't think anyone's first impression of This Is Spinal Tap is - "oh yeah, that film edited by Kent Beyda!" Directors' categories are defining, the other three you mention probably are too, although I don't personally bother with them. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

These are now at CfD for further discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Glass (2019 film) / Metacritic

There is currently a dispute over at Glass (2019 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) about how to describe critics reception of the film. An editor there takes issue with using Metacritic as a source, and prefers using a source that says critics were generally negative of the film. However, I believe that may be putting too much weight on one source when there are other sources that are reliable that say the critics reviews have been "mixed". Is Metacritic an acceptable source from what others have seen in this project? There is a discussion at the article talk page that is pretty hostile, but would also be helped by additional input (currently it's just two editors: I've elected to sit the debate out thus far because of the hostility). —Locke Cole • t • c 06:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

In general, when reliable sources come to different conclusions, they should all be combined with in-text attribution. Variety and Metacritic, while being different kinds of sources, are both still good sources that should be considered. Periodicals can differ in conclusions too. Maybe we can figure out the more appropriate weight based on whether or not other periodicals also said "generally unfavorable reviews" or not. Like for example, if five periodicals said that, and one said "lukewarm", we'd favor "generally unfavorable reviews" more. Wikipedia has to try to combine such conclusions best they can. It can help to research further with search queries like "glass" "shyamalan" "critics"|"reviews" (with the latter to emphasize plurality and filter out single reviews).

Another consideration for using Metacritic is to write out how many reviews are in each of their categories. In this case, 9 positive reviews, 35 mixed reviews, and 8 negative reviews. Some sources may lean more on RT's % (based on simply positive or negative) where its score average is more valuable. RT does the % thing as a marketing gimmick, to indicate how many critics liked a movie vs. how many didn't, with zero in-between, in its main figure, to tell website visitors if it is worth seeing. Wikipedia is not in the business of doing that. The score average is a better (and more encyclopedic) gauge for Wikipedia, even though some other sources may focus entirely on the percentage. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Television films

Many TV film articles using {{infobox film}} are being converted to use {{Infobox television}} simply by replacing "film" with "television", which is not appropriate as not all parameters are the same. Even editors who correct some of the fields don't usually fix everything. This invariably results in articles ending up in Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters so somebody has to fix the articles. The process of converting infoboxes is relatively simple. It's just a matter of substing {{Infobox television film/Cleanup}}. For those not familiar with substing, it's simply a matter of doing the following:

1. Open an edit window
2. Replace {{Infobox film with {{subst:Infobox television film/Cleanup
3. Save changes

This replaces infobox film specific fields with infobox television fields and reformats the infobox into the format used by infobox television. Happy converting. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Another thing that can be done, is standardize the parameter names between the templates. For example, there is no reason why one template has |narrated=, while the other has |narrator=. --Gonnym (talk) 11:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the Pokémon films

There's a relevant discussion regarding a potential plan to get the Pokémon films to GA status. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Pokémon film plans. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

9 to 5 (film) or Nine to Five (film)

The discussion at Talk:9 to 5 (film)#Requested move 23 February 2019 may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Life Between the Waters

Hi, As I am not very familiar with notability requirements for movies, I'd appreciate if somebody could have a look at this article and the related bio, Ardit Sadiku, created by an editor with a declared COI (see their user page). Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Skin page move

Interesting one, with the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

List of Japanese films of 2019

I have removed a huge amount of hoax nonsense from List of Japanese films of 2019 that has been added over the span of several months, and semi-protected it for 6 months. There's probably some collateral damage in there, so anyone with an interest in Japanese film might consider taking a look. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

List of Japanese films of 2018, List of Japanese films of 2017 and List of Japanese films of 2016 are also filled with hoaxes. Maybe nuke them all and call it a day? —Xezbeth (talk) 07:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the 2019 list. I do think WP:TNT may apply to the others. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Captain Marvel review bombing

This is just a notice that there is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Captain Marvel (film)#Modify the review bombing statement. All are welcome to participate.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The Thin Man discussion

Members of this project may be interested in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Need some advice with the page Downfall

Backstory: I worked on this page and had nominated it for GA status, though I revoked it once someone showed me that it needed work. The reviewer was kind enough to post his review, so I have his points to kind of as a guide.

Anyway I created a section for the film's themes, but I can't determine whether the facts that I've gathered so far from the sources are lacking in what I should have included or not, if that makes sense. I need help because I'm having trouble understanding that. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 04:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Una farfalla con le ali insanguinate or The Bloodstained Butterfly

The discussion at Talk:Una farfalla con le ali insanguinate#Requested move 28 February 2019 may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Notability of not yet released films

In a bunch of current AFD discussions on unreleased films, it's become clear that different people have very different interpretations of what's implied by WP:NFILM about the notability of films that are still in the production process. My understanding has always been that most films normally have to be released before they're considered notable enough for Wikipedia articles, and films that are still in the production pipeline are considered notable only if they can show a volume of production coverage that goes well above and beyond the norm (i.e. approaching the kind of coverage that Star Wars or James Bond films get, and not just the two or three routine production and casting announcements that the vast majority of films can always show.) However, some other people have interpreted WP:NFF as indicating that an unreleased film is always eligible for an article as soon as you can reliably source the fact that principal photography has started, regardless of any other tests for volume of coverage beyond that.

Accordingly, I wanted to ask how other participants here have traditionally understood this: am I correct that the notability test for unreleased films requires an unusual volume of coverage that goes significantly above and beyond what most films get, or is the other user correct that the notability test for unreleased films merely requires us to be able to reliably source that the film has graduated from the development process to the principal photography phase? Some parts of NFILM will need to be rewritten either way — the parts of it which are geared toward making theatrical release the notability baseline for most films will need to be deprecated if the other user is correct, while NFF will need to be rephrased for greater clarity if I am.

So I'm certainly trying to be fair and not prejudge the outcome, but I wanted to ask: what do other project members understand as the notability test for not yet released films? Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

In my experience, when trade papers write about films being in development, pre-production, or production, such films pretty much always have post-release coverage. It seems like these industry sources have a good sense of what will be notable in an enduring sense (or perhaps they even prompt that notability with such coverage). In addition, we operate on the assumption that when filming begins, it is highly likely that we will have an enduring standalone article. Before filming, while there can be pre-release coverage, there is no actual film that is near-guaranteed. It may be worth considering the kind of sources. For example, a local newspaper writing about a film in production in the neighborhood would not have as much weight as if Variety or The Hollywood Reporter wrote about it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

A couple thoughts:

• Assume we have a film that we only know it is in production and we have casting/directing details - the question I would then ask is high likely the film will reach some type of broad release to get the usual coverage from reviewers? If we're talking Speilberg's latest film where details are otherwise short, that's a very high chance, so there's no reason to delete it prematurely. On the other hand, if it is the latest Asylum film... I'd be careful. We want to discourage article creation before much can be said but we do want to use common sense on deletion and not target those that clearly will be notable once someone has made them.
• In the case of sequels, if all we have is bare-bone production/casting information for the sequel/latest film in the series, that all can go into the original film or series article until it gets unreasonably big in there, and then it can be moved.
• If we have significant information on the background of the film - the concept, writing, development process - that might warrant spinning out the article if only-bare bone production info is there. For example, if we get confirmation on a live action Akira film, the long history of trying to get it made would be appropriate to use to establish the article. --Masem (t) 17:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone get frustrated by the vagueness of WP:NACTOR?

I'm just feeling out the community here--have any of you gotten frustrated by the vagueness of the WP:NACTOR notability requirements, specifically the "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" aspect? I find that people take "multiple" to mean 2. Is that what we mean? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it, as long an article about the actor does not engage in too much unnecessary prose. If an actor is not hugely famous, then their article should be more of a list than anything else, an accumulation of credits and a kind of way station for readers to explore other films out of curiosity. I feel the same way with crew articles where if they've been nominated for a big award (or won), then it warrants listing their contributions, even though there may not be a ton of biographical information. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

This response kind of confuses me. I'm asking more about whether we generally agree that a mere 2 significant roles in a film (or on TV) would be enough to warrant the creation of an article. Ex: The daughter of two famous Bollywood actors, has a lead role in a released film and an upcoming one. De-facto notable? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd say it applies to released films and tv series that have been shown to pass GNG, but does not apply to unreleased films as the coverage is often mainly hype, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't have a yes or no in regard to two credits. We also have to consider WP:BASIC, and one approach is to look up detailed coverage like interviews. It appears that this particular actress has been interviewed by multiple periodicals, so that is evidence of notability in that regard. It is possible for there to be an actor to be the lead in two technically notable films, meaning neither film was mainstream, nor did anyone write about the actor specifically. That would likely be a weaker case than Kapoor's. I am assuming the guidelines exist because there are many more non-notable actors than notable ones, and to have at least appeared in notable works is a kind of baseline. Maybe "multiple" here means more of a career slant, compared to a one-off actor who performed in a lead role but never acted again. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Given concurrent discussions at other notability pages, I do have concern that if allowing for actor/crew pages that only end up being lists of works they were in and absolutely little in-depth about them is running afoul of WP:NOT#WHOSWHO and other issues at play. We're not IMDB. --Masem (t) 19:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• They'd effectively be index pages and I can't see what's wrong with that, also Wikipedia should aim to be much more reliable than IMDb who are not responsible enough to be left as the only source for a great deal of information in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• A lot of people interpret that NACTOR criterion as meaning that any actor is always eligible for an article as soon as you can offer technical verification (e.g. IMDb or another IMDb-like directory) that the person has had roles, so the fact that the article contains a list of roles automatically exempts the actor from actually having to clear WP:GNG on the sourcing. That, of course, isn't actually the way it works — every actor is always verifiable somewhere as having had roles, because having roles is the job description. So if you're aiming for "notable because they've had roles", instead of a stronger claim like "notable because they won or got nominated for a major acting award", then the notability test isn't the list of roles itself but the depth of reliable source coverage they received in media for having roles: journalism about them as people, reviews of their films or television shows singling their performances out for dedicated attention and not just glancing namechecks in the plot summary, etc.
  At the same time, however, the number of roles a person needs to have had to clear that criterion isn't an arbitrary cutoff — a person can get enough reliable source coverage to clear the bar on just one acting role (there have been actors who became notable stars on, or got notable award nominations for, their debut performances), and a person can have 20 or 30 acting roles but still fail to receive enough reliable source coverage to clear the bar (not everybody actually perceives the distinction between a "verifiable" role and a "major" role in the same way). The test is less about the number of roles per se, and more about how much reliable source coverage can be shown to demonstrate that their performances were notable enough to pass the criterion.
  So yes, the criterion may indeed need to be rewritten to better clarify that the notability test is not just the list of roles itself, but the quality of the sourcing that can be shown to support it. But it's fundamentally less about an arbitrary number of roles per se, and more about the quality of sourcing you can provide to support the notability of the roles.
  Winning or getting nominated for a major acting award works differently, yes — in that case, as long as the award nomination/win is reliably sourced, the article has to be allowed to exist even if the person's sourceability isn't otherwise very strong yet (although personally, I still always wait until I can find something more than just "[Person] is an actor who won an award, the end", which is why there are still some redlinks in the Canadian Screen Awards actor/actress category lists) — but that's because the award represents a distinction being conferred on the person, while simply listing roles just demonstrates that the person is doing their job. And we also have to be careful in how we use Q&A interviews in which the actor is talking about themselves: we can use them as supplementary verification of additional facts that aren't notability factors, such as their hometown or the fact that they're LGBT, but we can't stack a person's basic claim to passing WP:GNG in the first place on a sourcing pool that consists entirely of Q&A interviews with no evidence of any media coverage having been written about them in the third person. People have, for example, tried to curveball themselves around GNG by getting their own friends to "interview" them in pieces they self-published to user-generated blogs, press release distribution platforms or "citizen journalism" projects to obfuscate their lack of any coverage in legitimate media — but that falls under the "quality of the sourcing" test. Q&A interviews in genuinely reliable sources help more, but still can't be the only kind of sourcing the person actually has at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Film reviews from Exclaim!

A discussion thread about film reviews from Exclaim! has been started here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Exclaim! film reviews. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• I commented in that thread as well, but I'm copying my comment here as well for context.
  Exclaim! cannot be blacklisted outright, as it is a fully reliable source which is essential to be able to use when it comes to (especially but not exclusively Canadian) music, and important to have on the list of options for (especially Canadian) film articles as well. (I'll grant that film isn't the magazine's primary subject domain, so it's not as unavoidably essential in film as it is in music — but its use in film articles cannot be entirely verboten, because it's still a necessary and useful option sometimes.) If people are adding it in a not-useful way, such as sticking it as a superfluous footnote on content that isn't actually supported by it or just quoting very short snippets from it that aren't actually saying anything substantive to add value to the article, then that's a problem with their editing behaviour as individuals — but it's not a problem with Exclaim!'s fundamental acceptability as a source, and should not result in its use being comprehensively disallowed. If it gets blacklisted, I am fully prepared to fight to the death over that, because there is no across the board problem with its use as a reference for Wikipedia content. Just because you've never heard of it doesn't automatically mean it's bad — it's a long-established print magazine that's been around for decades and meets all of the criteria to be considered a reliable source, so it's not automatically an invalid source just because it's distributed only in Canada but poorly known in the United States. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  You'll have to pardon me. I really loathe it when outside sources try to use Wikipedia to promote themselves, having seen this kind of thing every so often over the years. It seems pretty obvious to me that there is a concerted effort by magazine staff to make Exclaim! more known by shoehorning citations into film articles. That kind of persistent self-promotion, to me, warrants punitive action. Maybe we can message the staff to highlight their conduct being problematic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm certainly not denying that punitive action may be necessary, but it has to be aimed at the individual editors who are citing the magazine in a problematic way, and not at banishing the magazine from ever being usable as a source at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Domestic films

Huh? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's none of the things that occur to me when I see the word "domestic". Daß Wölf 15:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The categories have been emptied per WP:CATVER since none of the articles had sourced info using the term in the way that the new editor described it. IMO they should be speedy deleted before anyone confuses them with "domestically released" films in a given country but other editors may have different thoughts. MarnetteD|Talk 16:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I support getting rid of these categories. This kind of categorization has no definition rooted in the real world. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks all - I thought I'd missed something obvious when I saw this added to an article on my watchlist. I agree I thought it would be something to do with "domestically released" too. That WP:CATVER is a very handy shortcut to know - thanks MarnetteD! I've tagged all the sub-cats for speedy deletion. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome Lugnuts. CATVER and WP:CATDEF are ignored all too often. One question can the main cat be speedied after the subcats are deleted? MarnetteD|Talk 16:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, once the child cats are gone, then the parent cats can go the same way. I'll keep an eye on them and tag them as needed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

They're slowly moving up the queue for deletion! As of typing this, they are near the foot of the second column. Early yesterday, they were at the foot of third column. This category is based on date/time of tagging, so not too long now.... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• That was definitely a crock of hooey. What actually happened here is that the creator simply copied the category description on Category:Buddy films without actually revising it to reflect the actual definition of "domestic films" — judging by the films they applied it to (which included The Fisher King, Annie Hall, Midnight Cowboy and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid), they weren't actually applying a counterintuitive definition of the term, but just failed to rewrite the text they were copy-pasting from another category (or to recognize that it's not a defining or useful point of categorization.) And at any rate, the categories were all empty and tagged for speedy anyway, so I've already knocked them all off. (Just to be clear, the speedy deletion process doesn't actually require administrators to delete content in chronological order of addition to the queue — it'll usually happen that way if people are working inside that queue, but an administrator can always speedy anything in that queue anytime it comes to their attention at all without having to detour to the queue and speedy all the older stuff first.) Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Bearcat and for deleting the cats. MarnetteD|Talk 19:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Bearcat! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Return of the Jedi GA reassessment

Return of the Jedi is being reassessed and the concerns are as-yet unaddressed, for those who are interested in attempting to bring it back to GA quality. DarkKnight2149 19:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The Old Man & the Gun

There's an ongoing debate between two editors at The Old Man & the Gun over whether the phrase "...as per an opening title card the story, which is "mostly true" is based on the life of Forrest Tucker..." should be included in the lead. I tried to intervene, to no avail. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion Talk:The_Old_Man_&_the_Gun#Still_WP:OR here. –dlthewave ☎ 22:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Film censorship in China

There is a(n admittedly confusingly laid out) RfC at Talk:Film censorship in China#List of edited films over whether a particular source is adequate to add a group of films to the list. There appears to be a related issue of whether or not shortened to decrease their runtime to maximize commercial profits is considered censorship. Please note, there is edit warring at the article and also a similar RfC (still on the talk page) about whether or not runtime differences can be taken to indicate censorship took place a year ago. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Some blocks need to be handed out to editors of that page. What a mess. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

One 48 block was handed out the other day to one of the editors, and it's likely they're going to get a longer block soonish if the edit warring continues. Thinking about it now, my concern would become that will be taken as a sort of de facto consensus as the dispute is pretty much between two editors. (I just joined the current discussion.) ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Article about 'The Perfect Murder' film

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Perfect_Murder_(2019_film) I've created an article about the short film 'The Perfect Murder'. There are some issues raised.

The below reservations have been raised.

1. This article consists almost entirely of a plot summary. It should be expanded to provide more balanced coverage that includes real-world context. (March 2019)

2. The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for films. (March 2019)

3. This article relies too much on references to primary sources. (March 2019)

4. Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable. (March 2019)

I had added links to coverage of the director in TellyChakkar.com http://www.tellychakkar.com/tv/interviews/my-films-have-strong-visual-grammar-vikkramm-chandirramani-190228

I had added a link to a review by Richard Propes of The Independent Critic.

TellyChakkar.com has been cited as a source in over 2000 articles on Wikipedia. It has been cited at over 2000 articles on Wikipedia. What makes this an exception? It is an important website in India and disseminates news about the Indian television industry. It is present within Google news.

An interview on IWMBuzz was removed from citations. This too is an important news website in India. I cannot cite US or Europe based newspapers and websites because this is an Indian short film and these are very rarely covered by media outside India even when notable. https://www.iwmbuzz.com/digital/personalities-digital/short-film-perfect-murder-break-stereotypes-vikkramm-chandirramani-writer-director/2019/02/26

Richard Propes is a well known critic and disability activist. You can read about him here. He has been frequently cited on Wikipedia. https://theindependentcritic.com http://indianafilmjournalists.com/contact What makes him unreliable? He has been at this for decades and is well known.

There are eleven reviews about the film including by Richard Propes, by Ronita Tarcato for Free Press Journal (a Mumbai newspaper since 1930.) The film was covered by The Afternoon Despatch and Courier, a newspaper from Mumbai since 1985. https://www.freepressjournal.in/entertainment/the-perfect-murder-movie-review-cast-director/1449992 http://www.afternoondc.in/bollywood/doctoring-a-perfect-murder/article_240444

News about the preview of the film on Times News Now/Zoom TV, a national TV channel in India. https://www.timesnownews.com/amp/videos/zoom/telly-talk/the-perfect-murder-short-film-screening-hiba-nawab-rohan-gandotra-niharica-raizada-more/21974 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas t5 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Here are all the reviews: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9638410/externalreviews?ref_=tt_ov_rt

I have also cited an interview published in the July -September 2018 issue of the magazine 'Sindhian', a Mumbai based print magazine which is published every quarter. There are links to the PDF online.

It is apparent that this short film is notable and the sources are independent media (not primary).

I would also appreciate some tips about what I can do to 'to provide more balanced coverage that includes real-world context. (March 2019)'. I wrote a paragraph about the influence of Hitchcock on the film director citing some interviews but that was removed. Please guide me. Thank you. Thomas t5 (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:2010s films by year has been nominated for discussion

Category:2010s films by year, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for merging to Category:2010s films, along with all other instances of "Category:YYY0s films by year".
. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Navboxes for non-prolific directors

Special:Contributions/190.167.121.99 has recently added code for a film director navbox on a bunch of articles by not very prolific directors, example. Should we create a real navbox in template space for these people or simply revert this? 3-4 films seems kind of few for a navbox IMO. What is the norm here? Daß Wölf 23:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I've personally been fine with a minimum of three films for a director navbox. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Alright then, I'll go with that, thanks. Daß Wölf 19:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Film archives and amateur filmmaking/filmmakers

How can wikipedia be used to correctly represent the category of (early) amateur filmmaking and filmmakers? This is a gendered category, but increasingly gaining academic attention through material from moving image archives and their catalogues? This work is repositioning amateur films in the historiography of film production. There is considerable published research and secondary material availble to support this.

We can develop the Amateur film stub, but are keen to specifically look at Women Amateur Filmmakers. Any ideas or advice would be appreciated. Nz18 (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nz18, I'd never heard of this topic before, but a quick Google search brought up a lot of interesting information! I think that developing the amateur film article would be a great place to start: perhaps you could create a history section that traces the beginnings of amateur film and how it's evolved since then? If the films are old enough, their copyrights would have expired, which means it might be possible to feature the film (or parts of it) in the article. I see that we already have two categories that might be relevant as well: Category:Amateur filmmaking and Category:American amateur film directors. I hope that answers your question. Also, it looks like you might be a new editor, so if you ever have questions about the editing process in general, feel free to leave a message on my talk page! --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Informal RFC: Should professional organizations be added after a film person's name?

In biographical articles about film folk, like cinematographers, directors, actors, etc., should professional organisations/clubs/unions be added behind their names in the infobox and lead? And if not, how should we include the info?

Examples:

• R. D. Rajasekhar, I.S.C. (Indian Society of Cinematographers)
• Quentin Tarantino, D.G.A. (Director's Guild of America)
• Bernard Telsey, C.S.A. (Casting Society of America)

Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• No - As query opener. These tend to look like royal honorifics or university degrees and as a general practice we virtually never do this. It's fine if these folk want those initials after their names in film credits, or on posters or whatever, but we are not beholden to recreating that preference. I've seen an uptick of this in the context of Indian film,[2][3] but it looks like a spam campaign from people affiliated with the ISC. (They often misuse the |title= parameter of the infobox,[4] which further makes the initialism look like an honorific). I think it's fine to indicate in prose, i.e. "Jane Smith is a member of the American Society of Cinematographers", and I wouldn't be averse to the usage in the |organization= parameter of the infobox, but I think we should omit it from after names. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• I take these to be somewhat in the vein of MOS:CREDENTIAL and would advise against it strongly outside of the article about the person (wherein they would be noted once if necessary). --Izno (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Only in lead of biographical page - I agree with Izno that they should not be used in articles outside of the article about the person themself. MOS:POSTNOM also seems like a relevant guideline. I found many examples of cinematographers with "ASC" after their names in the lead, which I mention not as a WP:OTHER sort of argument, but because it seems there is a sort of silent consensus about including it: Wally Pfister, Roger Deakins, Emmanuel Lubezki, Anthony Dod Mantle, Robert Elswit, Guillermo Navarro, Dion Beebe, Russell Boyd, and Conrad Hall. However, notice that there isn't a consistency about the formatting across these articles. I agree with Cyphoidbomb's opinions about the infobox: no to the name parameter and yes to an organization parameter. --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

IP ruling the roost on Navbox policy at Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse

I have never seen an IP control a page content like it is at Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse where it is overruling every editor and establishing a new policy not to include award templates and director templates. Here is a look at some IPs edits (by no means an exhaustive list) to revert template additions at this page: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], and [14], [15].-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Director navboxes should definitely be included. This control aside, award navboxes are a growing problem. I've seen them get created more and more. Maybe something like Oscars and BAFTAs can make sense, but there are so many awards out there that it is easy for the footer to get bloated with such templates. Maybe it's worth having a discussion about where to draw the line. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah it feels like the same general issues for template bloating—detracting from content in some misguided effort to categorize and catalog and collate everything in a highly visible way. Frankly, the IP is right—having 10 navboxes at the bottom of the article likely only decreases the utility of the navbox entirely and makes it unlikely readers will actually use them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC on restructuring the Michael Jackson article with respect to child sexual abuse allegations

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Michael Jackson#Request for comments on restructuring the article. A permalink for it is here. Restructuring has been suggested in light of the recent Leaving Neverland documentary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Dubbed films has been nominated for discussion

Category:Dubbed films, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, along with its 48 subcategories. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Art films

Hi. Just a heads up that Jkrn111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is going on a category-adding spree, populating all film articles with this category based on who directed the film, regardless of if it is cited in the body of the article or not. I've dropped a friendly note on their talkpage about not doing this, unless it's sourced. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Look at the List of directors associated with art film. For example Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, J. L. Mankiewicz, Vincente Minnelli and Howard Hawks (they all have references). Are their films for niche audience ? Of Course, No. It is quite easy to recognize art film, i think (Jkrn111 (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)). For Example, film "Pastoral: To Die in the Country" by idiosyncratic filmmaker Shūji Terayama was deleted (from cat. Japanaese art films) I wrote "In a 2011 case for the film's release into The Criterion Collection, Robert Nishimura lauded Pastoral: To Die in the Country as "an important film by an important filmmaker". He cited its "effortless phantasmagorical freedom" and referred to the work as "so unique and spellbinding that it transcends all classification." Is it not enough ? And there are many similar cases in my work.(Jkrn111 (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)).

Not all films by the same director are of the same genre/theme. Are all of Terrence Malick's films experimental epic dramas or are they period crime films? If you believe X film is an art film based on the director, you need multiple sources to confirm that it is ineed the film that meets the critieria, regardless of who directed it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Music of the Heart

Hello. In the Music of the Heart article, I've discovered that the plot summary needs to be expanded and we should include a Production section, as well as more reviews in the reception section. I plan to improve it to at least a B-Class article. Any thoughts? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

MDMA (film)

Hi

Just made a new film article, can someone please attach the relevant banners on the talk page?

Cheers Chaosdruid (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. The article is missing some key info, such as when it was released. And as it stands, it needs a lot more sourcing, and not just links to the film studios involved. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended RFC on Bohemian Rhapsody (film)

There is an RFC extension on Bohemian Rhapsody (film) about whether or not to include Dexter Fletcher in the infobox. The credited director Bryan Singer was fired from the film and Fletcher finished the work. Please join the discussion to help reach a consensus on the matter. oncamera 10:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

About a movie

Hey, I'm french and i translate some movie from English to french. And recently, i've started to made the biography of Joan Sims and she played in Carry On Movies... But on English wikipedia, you got 2 articles for the same movie... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carry_On_series_on_screen_and_stage + https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carry_On_(franchise) Are they the same ? I mean is one article for the movie list and one for the history of the movie ? Can someone help me please ? Need i to translate both or one article ? Thank you so much ! Datsofelija (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)datsofelija

Hi. The Carry On series on screen and stage article is a filmography, or list of films in the Carry On series. The franchise article is more about the history of the series and other projects. Yes, there is a bit of overlap, but I think the former is the best starting point. Hope you enjoy our British humour, esp. in Follow That Camel! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey thank you so much for your answer ! I really love english culture and humour so no worries ! Ok, that's why i've thinking, thank you so much !!

Datsofelija (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)datsofelija

No problem and good luck with your translations. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much !! Datsofelija (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)datsofelija

Discussion about changing the order of the credits in Template:Infobox film

Please see this discussion about changing the order of writer/director/producer/screenplay credits in {{Infobox film}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Wonder Park

Regarding Wonder Park, the studio did not officially credit anyone as director. Please see the related discussion about whether or not to name the person in the infobox, lead section, or article body: Talk:Wonder Park#Director credit. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Rfc that Hyde Park Picture House, Leeds be renamed/moved to Hyde Park Picture House

See Talk:Hyde Park Picture House, Leeds#Requested move 14 March 2019. Shearonink (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The footnote credit for "Credited as The Wachowski Brothers"

How the footnote should appear in relevant Wachowski film articles is being discussed at Talk:The Matrix (franchise)/Archive 3#Footnote implementation. Please join the discussion and weigh in with your thoughts and suggestions. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Upcoming films by language has been nominated for discussion

Category:Upcoming films by language, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Ghost in the Shell (2017 film)

Hello. At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Flyer22_Reborn#Ghost_in_the_Shell_(2017_film) I was asked to contact you here to answear my question on what was wrong with this edit of mine. 91.141.0.129 (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Overcategorization?

I have nominated, as a test case, Category:Films produced by B. F. Zeidman for deletion. I believe that only a select few producers deserve such a category, Val Lewton being a prime example. Opinions are welcome. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Films by medium at CfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

AFD issue

Several weeks ago, I listed a film for AFD as I don't believe it has either a strong claim to passing WP:NFILM or adequate reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG, but the discussion got closed as "no consensus" because after three weeks it had failed to attract any attention at all besides a circular debate between me and the article's creator — so I relisted it for a second kick at the can, but almost two weeks in and it has still failed to attract any attention at all besides a circular debate between me and the article's creator. It desperately needs some outside eyes to come weigh in so that it can be resolved one way or the other instead of just landing as a no consensus again.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kin Fables (2nd nomination) is the discussion.

Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Not the article's creator, the editor who approved it at AFC and has hardly edited it in any substantial way Atlantic306 (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Dancin': It's On!

Does Dancin': It's On! meet the film notability guidelines? It doesn't even have enough reviews on Rotten Tomatoes for a score, and the only hits I can find for it on Google are social media and sites selling the movie. The director and some of the actors are notable, but WP:NOTINHERITED is in full force here. Can anyone find some better sources than I was able to? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

There are a couple of key reviews: The Seattle Times and Los Angeles Times. I also found other coverage with Panama City News Herald and Boca Life Magazine. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Emilie Johnson

Hello. The Emilie Johnson article was created recently by a brand-new user, Mtjannetta (talk · contribs), and looks like textbook "what Wikipedia is not" to me. We cannot keep this article in the Mainspace, yet the subject is probably notable. I have tagged it as essay-like and original research and I would have stubified it (quote from WP:STUBIFY "in response to an article that has some verifiable material but is otherwise full of original research, self-published, or primary sources"), but maybe someone can think of a less bitey approach and offer some guidance to the article creator? Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the sources are available online, so you should be able to edit it down to just the facts without doing anything extreme. You could try asking for help at WP:CLEANUP, but, in my experience, nothing really happens on Wikipedia unless you do it yourself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Uncredited cast on It's a Wonderful Life

Comments are welcome at Talk:It's_a_Wonderful_Life#Uncredited_cast where there is a discussion on the inclusion of seventeen uncredited actors in the film (along with the flaming bird too)! To my mind this list—on top of the extensive cast of 35 already listed—is too long and shouldn't be there. Others may or may not agree, but the discussion is there for all opinions. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kin Fables (2nd nomination) is now just five days away from its sixth straight week as a circular one-on-one debate without a single piece of outside input from anybody else. Would somebody from here please come weigh in one way or the other, already? Bearcat (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Cast indicator

There is a new template for cast lists that include a list indicator, at {{Cast indicator}}, to provide a standard list indicator. The list entries can be customized per the documentation. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there any sort of discussion around the development of this template that I could review? Thanks. DonIago (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Doniago, no, I created the template to improve the encyclopedia, as is the reason that we're all here. If there was, I would have linked it. Why does there need to be a discussion? -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Because the scheme you came up with for indicating cameo roles and such isn't, AFAIK, something that we're currently doing, and it would be better to discuss it before putting it into use than to start using it only for a consensus to emerge that changes are needed. DonIago (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

All of the entries that I added into the template were entries that were already being used in other articles. I added no new entries into the template. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you link me to a film article using the schema you've come up with here? Because I'm not aware of having seen it in use before. DonIago (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I can give you two: [16][17]. As I said: I've only implemented what has been used already, I have not "come up with" any new entries. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, while we're at it, here's 15 and 25 more. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, so this is intended to be used for film series articles then. That wasn't clear from your initial description. I don't typically do much editing on those in any case. Thanks for the examples; I'm assuming nobody has expressed concerns about your implementation? Assuming your intention is that this be applied strictly to series articles and not individual film articles, may I suggest that the documentation clarify that? DonIago (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Are cast tables such as those provided in the examples used in any other articles? Can you provide an example of where a cast table is used in a individual film article? -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure. There's been discussions of presenting cast lists in table formats in the past, but I don't think they're typically used these days. That doesn't preclude the possibility that some might be out there. Anyway, I think clarifying that your template is intended for film series articles would be helpful and require minimum effort. I'd be happy to put that change in myself, but I don't really want to edit others' template work without permission. :) DonIago (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

So, there are no examples. The documentation therefore clears up any disambiguity over the matter. And nobody owns anything on Wikipedia, so. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Being John Malkovich/Get Out Theory

Editors of this project might be interested in participating in this discussion on whether the theory that Being John Malkovich and Get Out take place in the same universe deserves coverage. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Motion Picture Association of America film rating system

Can someone please look at the Motion Picture Association of America film rating system article. It appears to have a talk page embedded within its contents. I'd remove it myself, but I must admit not being an expert on the subject. --dashiellx (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Good catch. It seems there was an error with a maintenance template that cause this problem on multiple pages. I replaced the template with a similar one that is hopefully more stable. More info can be found here: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Template:More citations needed section is a talk page?. --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Pre-emptive disambigiation for film articles

I've started a discussion on this issue over at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)#Pre-emptive disambigiation for film articles, if anyone would like to add their thoughts that would be appreciated. PC78 (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Awards table for My Fair Lady

I'm unsure of the proper place for this query, but here goes:

My Fair Lady currently lists awards as a bulleted list; it would be nice if someone proficient at such things would convert this to a table on par with other film articles. Considering the scope of awards this film achieved, the article overall needs attention and review to bring it up to a class above 'C'. Thank you for your attention, —107.15.157.44 (talk) 03:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Triple Frontier (film)

There is an ongoing content dispute on this article regarding the inclusion of an actor in the infobox. Contributors are welcome to join the discussion at Talk:Triple Frontier (film). Jalen D. Folf (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:David Heyman

Template:David Heyman has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Overcategorization?

I nominated Category:Films produced by B. F. Zeidman for deletion as a test case (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 17). It was declined "without prejudice against a fresh wider nomination". I contend that, with a few exceptions (e.g. Val Lewton), the vast majority of these categories are WP:NONDEFINING. Comments? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it is overcategorization. The same thing is happening with producer navboxes that are bloating article footers. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Spider-Man: Far From Home#Requested move 26 March 2019

Surprised this wasn't listed here. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Some eyes over at Template talk:Infobox film awards

Hi there is a semi-protected edit request over at Template talk:Infobox film awards asking for the addition of |music= so it will produce Music by for the infobox. I'm not very good with templates and I don't want to potentially break it so I thought I ask for more eyes on this particular request since this template is supported by WP:FILM. Thank You! Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 03:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Turner Classic Movies (TCM) and the TCM Movie Database (TCMdb) on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of Turner Classic Movies (TCM) and the TCM Movie Database (TCMdb) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § How would guys consider TCM (Turner Classic Movies) especially their TCMDb section for sources and citations. — Newslinger talk 07:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

TV series, anthology or short films?

Since the release of Netflix original Persona yesterday the article has been changed from "film" to "tv series". It seems that Netflix have released each segment as a separate episode. Most external sites refer to this as a film though. How then should it be classified on Wikipedia, as a tv series, an anthology film, or a collection of short films? PC78 (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Netflix describes the installments as "episodes" and the whole series as a "season" so it seems to be using TV terminology. I appreciate we are splitting hairs to some extent, but if TV terminology is going to be used to describe the show that means we will probably end up using the TV infobox which will place it under the jurisdiction of the TV Wikiproject. Betty Logan (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move of The Toxic Avenger (film)

I have requested that The Toxic Avenger (film) have its name changed to The Toxic Avenger. You are invited to comment on the requested move discussion on the article's talk page. Sock (tock talk) 23:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Critical response

Hi. @TropicAces: insists on writing every film article the same as the following: "On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an approval rating of X% based on Y reviews, with an average rating of Z/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "..." On Metacritic, the film has a weighted average score of A out of 100, based on B critics, indicating "... reviews"." This is not an improvement of formatting, thus violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Critical response, Wikipedia:Writing better articles and Wikipedia:The perfect article (A perfect Wikipedia article is engaging; the language is descriptive and has an interesting, encyclopedic tone.: It is not engaging and interesting if you use it on every article you contribute to.) I wanted to see other opinions about this issue. Sebastian James (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no mandated way of documenting these metrics. Provided that i) editors agree on which aggregator scores to include, ii) the scores are clearly explained, and iii) don't interpret the scores themselves, then the wording is entirely left to who is doing the writing. While it is fairly common for editors to come along and re-write something, these summaries are not required to be written in the exact same way. Whether this is a problem or not depends on the motivation of who is doing the re-writing. If re-writing something improves the phrasing/makes it clearer then that is something that is in the spirit of Wikipedia, but if somebody is insisting that summaries must be written in an exact format with no deviation from that format then they are misinterpreting the MOS. Betty Logan (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

It can be rewritten in a better way if you don't like it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Are there concerns regarding the particulars of the language itself (e.g. that it's misleading?). I think I'd tend to support a standard of clearly-worded language for these metrics, especially as they are sometimes presented in articles rather less clearly or accurately by well-meaning editors. DonIago (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I never insisted there was one “exact” way to order it, merely said that Rotten Tomatoes’ big thing is their approval rating, that’s what people check the site for. No one ever wonders “I wonder what the average score of the reviews is” so to list that first (then put the in my opinion repetitively worded “overall X approval rating”, what’s the “overall” in contrast to?) just seems to be disingenuous. Obviously if I’m in the minority of a consensus, Wikipedia is a consensus-based website, but just going off what I think is best for both reading flow and delivery of information. TropicAces (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

As BettyLogan wrote, TropicAces is is insisting that summaries must be written in an exact format with no deviation from that format and they are misinterpreting the MOS. Do you really want me to waste my time copying the links of the pages you "corrected" with those sentences above? The average rating exists for a reason, you can not assume: no one ever wonders “I wonder what the average score of the reviews is”. As I mentioned in the first place, you are violating Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Critical response, Wikipedia:Writing better articles and Wikipedia:The perfect article. The actual point here is not to write summaries in an exact format, that's why I have already used 2 different sentences, not just the one that included "overall". Clearly, copy and paste is not the best for both reading flow and delivery of information. Sebastian James (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Distributor of Fox Searchlight films

It appears that some users (such as this IP) are editing the articles on Fox Searchlight's upcoming films to say the distributor is Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures without providing a source. This feels like OR or at best synthesis to me, because it has been reported that (unlike Fox 2000) Fox Searchlight is going to remain operational after the merger; and even before the merger, we were using "Fox Searchlight Pictures" as the name of the distributor of their films, not "20th Century Fox", "Fox Filmed Entertainment", or "21st Century Fox". Can somebody review these articles? Is there a consensus or a policy that supports these edits? Nardog (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

This editing seems to happen whenever these studio mergers take place. IMO they are jumping the gun since all of the contractual ins and outs take time to shake out. I suspect that this has not been addressed in WP:MOSFILM but maybe it should be. MarnetteD|Talk 22:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

"Editied for accuracy"?

A month ago, on March 20, the line "So actually this isn't very accurate, considering that this article has been damaged from chrnoic vandals." was added to the lead paragraph of Hawas. The line should certainly be deleted, but if the lead paragraph is indeed inaccurate, someone familiar with Hindi cinema may wish to make correction(s). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The Last Man to Hang

Re 'The Last Man to Hang?' page The correct title for this film is actually 'The Last Man to Hang' - without the question mark. This is obvious from the opening titles and also from posters. I did try correcting this but couldn't find out how to correct the actual page title. I'm not actually very good at this! There is an alternative title for this film: 'The Amazing Daphne Strood' - again, a photo of the poster is available. I would appreciate any help anybody could offer...Bob4Trish (talk) 07:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Here is a link to the article in question The Last Man to Hang? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). MarnetteD|Talk 07:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Since this entry did not even have a redirect (the title without the question mark was a redlink), it was simple enough to move The Last Man to Hang? → The Last Man to Hang and the move should be almost certainly uncontroversial. References, including IMDb and BFI indicate no question mark. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The 8th Plague

Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at The 8th Plague and assess it per WP:NFILM? It appears that the article was AfD way back in 2008 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/13th Child, but kept only for procedural reasons. The article was also prodded prior to ending up at AfD, but deprodded here. It's been over ten years and there is still no indication of it being a notable film; however, there does seem to be an attempt at User:Justinbs1998/sandbox by a student participating in dashboard.wikiedu.org/courses/York_University/Information_and_Technology_(Winter_2019); so maybe someone from this project could also look over the student's draft and see if it's promising; if it is then incorporating content from it into the article might be preferable to deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I see a lot of reviews here. Beyond Dread Central, I am not sure which are considered reliable for notability purposes. NinjaRobotPirate, do any of the other sources count? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I've cited HorrorTalk, HorrorSociety, and KillerReviews a few times. However, I've since become skeptical of most of these indie horror websites, which generally seem to be run by enthusiasts. Now that I can search archive.org for Fangoria backissues, there seems to be less need to resort to websites written by people named "ChainsawSlasherDude666" and "HorrorBabe69". Although, I guess I probably shouldn't criticize people for having silly usernames. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I thought your username was a reference to TVTropes, specifically to the Ninja Pirate Zombie Robot page. Personally, I simply use the first four letters of my family name "Dick" (also the way we are nicknamed in every day life), and a version of my brother's name. He is named "Dimos"/Demos, but his Ukrainian co-workers have called him "Dima" for the last 20 years or so. Dimadick (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Cinema of qatar

Could someone from this WikiProject take a look at Cinema of qatar? It was directly added to the mainspace by its creator, who appears to be a student participating in Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Northwestern University in Qatar/History of Film (Spring 2019). There are quite a MOS and formatting issues (e.g. capitalization of the title) which need cleaning up, but that can be done if this topic is notable enough for a stand-alone article. I'm not sure, however, if that's the case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Possible GA?

I created Judge Doom awhile back. Mostly when List of Who Framed Roger Rabbit characters was merged off. I was wondering if the article has potential for GA? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Genre discussion

There is currently a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Should Kodomo no Jikan be categorized as lolicon? Is Oreimo of the incest genre? if genres such as Lolicon, Incest, and Ecchi should be included as film genres. Feel free to share your opinion so we can reach a consensus on the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Good Deed Entertainment

Do you think Draft:Good Deed Entertainment would survive the AfC process if submitted in its current state? The company distributed Loving Vincent in North America, a drama film nominated for Best Animated Feature at the 90th Academy Awards. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• It looks promising and may be accepted but if you are connected to the company you need to make full disclosure as per WP:PAID and WP:COI, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not connected to the company in any way. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Release and reviews

I am having trouble confirming a proper release year for the film Superstition (1985 film). While not using IMDb, information suggests the film was not release widely in the United States until at least 1985 briefly before being released on home video around the same time. We have found evidence of a home video release in Norway in 1983 and I have found a review of the film based in 1982 in Italy (which does not state it was released, but its a full review in a known newspaper). While the Norwegian release suggests a 1983 release, the Italian paper has at least seen the film in 1982 for a public release. How should this be handled? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I have found some more information regarding the release for 1982. If anyone wants to add to it or comment, it would improve the article immeasurably! Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing requirements for casts

In looking at certain film articles, e.g. Carol (film), I often see cast lists with no citations. Is this complete lack of WP:SECONDARY sourcing acceptable for the cast? Do we simply rely on the WP:PRIMARY source of the film credits for the cast? I read WP:FILMCAST, and it does not seem to answer my question in black and white terms. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• The film's credits are the primary source for cast and crew, there is no need to refbomb cast lists Atlantic306 (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your response.--David Tornheim (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• If content in the cast list is challenged, it should be properly sourced. Otherwise, it can be understood to be sourced to the film itself. In unreleased films, any cast members should be sourced, either in the cast list or the production section. Articles that have been historically subject to sustained hoaxes/vandalism are sometimes extensively sourced so that it's easier for recent changes patrollers to spot the vandalism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the extensive, precise answer. I work on counter-vandalism, and this is one of the reasons I ask. I constantly see cast members added by IPs without including edit summaries (and other red flags). --David Tornheim (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Uncredited roles, should, of course, be sourced regardless. :) DonIago (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Doniago: Any suggestion on how to verify the film credits without actually watching the film? --David Tornheim (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

It would depend upon the nature of your concern. While IMDb isn't a reliable source, I usually consider it reliable enough to confirm whether someone's in a film. DonIago (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with Doniago. Future films would probably require a simple Google search and a check of reliable sources that pop up. For released films, IMDb is actually pretty accurate then. Once a film is released, those page usually get adjusted (if they need to) to be representative of the SAG listings and rarely do they allow editors to change them. Where you might find issue sometimes could be with spelling or character names, though I would say it's usually rare that they are different than what is in the film itself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback; I'll check there. I must admit that the first time I heard IMDB was unreliable here, I was a bit shocked, because I almost never found serious errors with it; however, I do understand it is user-generated and that's the glitch with our using it for WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

If you need an actual source for whatever reason besides the film itself the BFI database is always a good place to start! The credits for Carol can be found here: [18]. Betty Logan (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Content dispute at WALL-E

Posting this here to get some informed opinions. See also Talk:Wall-E#Criticism. Multiple anon editors have been removing the following line from the lead: "The film criticizes consumerism, corporatism, nostalgia, waste management, human environmental impact and concerns, obesity, and global catastrophic risk." I disagree with the removal, but I also disagree with the line as written. First of all, it's a long list, and some of those seem like a bit of a stretch. But focusing on just the first one: the director has stated he did not intend "to make a movie about consumerism" (quoting from the article's transcription of Stanton's comments in the DVD commentary). He is also quoted more directly as saying "I don't have a political bent or ecological message to push."[19] The line in the lead is apparently sourced from a single Jump Cut essay, and while many other critics have seen the film the same way, it's still problematic. Shouldn't we be more careful about stating analysis (even from a reliable source) as fact? What's factual is how the movie is interpreted, not what it does or does not criticize, it seems to me (which implies intent, not interpretation). --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Academy Awards for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Academy Awards is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Academy Awards until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

FAC copyedit request

Hello. It was suggested at the FAC for Soultaker (film) to have a copyedit done for it to make it better. Would anything here be interested in doing a copyedit for the article? GamerPro64 01:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984 film) or 1984 (1984 film)

A discussion regarding the title form for this film at Talk:Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984 film)#Requested move 19 April 2019 may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Alternate title? (Discussion at Godzilla: KOTM)

The new Godzilla: King of the Monsters is being marketed by Village Roadshow as Godzilla II: King of the Monsters in some markets. Does this alternate title go in the lede or the infobox or somewhere else? Also, there is a discussion in the talk page for the film at Talk:Godzilla:_King_of_the_Monsters_(2019_film)#Title_move. There seem to be some sock puppets advocating for adding the title. Welcome any input. Alaney2k (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Dark Ascension at AfD

Hi. Interesting one here. Possible that this film never existed. Please see the discussion for more. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment: overcategorization

The consensus is against the proposal.

Cunard (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2019 (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.

---

I'd like to get rid of (or at least severely prune) Category:Films by producer and all its subcategories per WP:NONDEFINING. IMO, a producer's contribution should be, and in the vast majority of cases are, invisible to the audience. Off the top of my head, I couldn't tell you who the producer is on nearly all of my favorite films. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – (Summoned by bot) Clarityfiend, have you tried simply discussing this first? Other than the brief section above on Overcategorization, in the last twelve months I see only five discussions about categorization (Films by editor, Navbox categories, Invented film genres, Video games and soundtracks by director, Gotti (2018 film) ) with no discussions about producers. See WP:RFCBEFORE. Mathglot (talk) 08:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia does not have a problem with overcategorization, but a chronic one with undercategorization. Films are currently categorized by their directors, producers, and composers. Information on all of them are widely available, and it is typically the producer who receives awards for "Best film", etc. Dimadick (talk) 09:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose (arrived via FRS) I agree with Dimadick about the general problem with Wikipedia and on the specific case of films. Additionally, I think we should look at the equivalent for other media, which would be books by publisher or editor and albums by record label or producer. For books, we have neither of these categories, while for albums, we have both, but from a cursory scan only producer is regularly used. I would oppose the deletion of these categories, as I would support the expansion of the others. However, if the others were to be deleted or not expanded, I would support the deletion of these to maintain consistency. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment "books by publisher or editor" We usually categorize them by publishing house/company, not by individual human publishers. See: Category:Books by publisher. Dimadick (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
• It seems like we should discuss the extent of non-director crew members being used for such categories. Do we want to have films by producer, films by screenwriter, films by cinematographer, films by editor, etc? All these win awards, after all. Yet only some people in these positions are more noteworthy than others. I agree with Clarityfiend that producers are being over-categorized. Over-categorization is definitely a problem, which is why we have an entire guideline page devoted to that. Like it says, there is such thing as "category clutter". If we had to do films by <crew member>, it should be special cases, like a category for cinematographer Roger Deakins but not for Maxime Alexandre (plucked from the Shazam! infobox). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, The category is by no means overflowing, and could be useful for serious students of film. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2019 (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.

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Production logo, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

A notification for Alien Resurrection

I'm trying to improve Alien Resurrection, any help will be appreciated. By the way, Metacritic reports that the film received "generally favorable reviews", but the article states "mixed" without a clear source. Should we change it? Sebastian James (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Aggregators only speak for the reviews they sample and their conclusions are based on different methodologies, so we have to take care not to editorialize, especially when the aggregators are drawing different conclusions. Metacritic, for example, surveys 21 critics which is arguably not a representative sample so in this case I would exclude a summary statement unless one can be sourced from a book or something. Betty Logan (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

So, I've come across a New York Times article that says "with a budget of $70 million for Alien Resurrection, 20th Century Fox is reported to have paid her $11 million." Should Box Office Mojo (which displays the budget as $75 million) and The Numbers (which displays the budget as $60 million) be ignored? Also, The Numbers reports that Alien (1979) grossed $203.6 million (including all re-releases), while Box Office Mojo shows that it grossed $104.9 million (including 2003 re-release). Should we only include The Numbers since it includes all re-releases? Sebastian James (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Multiple estimates of the budget are put in a range: 60–75 million. If necessary, the various budgets can be reported in prose. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Untitled Imtiaz Ali’s next

Hi, does anyone have a better article title suggestion for Untitled Imtiaz Ali’s next? That's how they describe films in Indian trades, but I feel like we could do better. "Untitled Imtiaz Ali film (2020)"? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I think Untitled Imtiaz Ali film should be fine. Daß Wölf 22:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Categorisation tree for films by writer

Would anyone like to join in at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 10#Category:Screenplays by writer? --woodensuperman 11:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Need eyes on Kinok/Kinoks discussion

Hi friends, I could use some insight and thoughts on the discussion started at Kinoks. (pun intended, but only a little bit)

Much appreciation, Elfabet (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on adding IMDb to the RevertReferencesList

There is a request for comment regarding whether IMDb should be added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, which tells XLinkBot to automatically revert citations of IMDb by unregistered users and accounts under 7 days old, subject to additional limitations. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § RfC: IMDb. — Newslinger talk 18:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Creating a genre

Recently I noticed that IceBrotherhood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been changing the genre of various film and TV articles to "tragedy" here is an example. Some of the changes are unsourced. Those that do have references (see this) seem to look for reviews that use the word tragedy in them but do not place the film in a genre called tragedy. The change of genre seems to be an effort to add titles to this list List of tragedy films and TV programs. When I found that article it had a note at the top which I removed here. To my eyes it states that WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:SPECULATION are okay for articles added to the list and also justifies adding tragedy as a genre to those articles. In trying to decide how to proceed I thought the list could be renamed "List of films and TV programs with tragic elements" but, since that applies to virtually every drama film and some comedies and documentaries as well that would have WP:INDISCRIMINATE problems. Another possibility is to file an AFD but I wanted to see what ideas other members of the project may have first. MarnetteD|Talk 14:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I should add that I know tragedy is a genre but AFAIK it is mostly used when referring to plays. I have not seen it used when referring to films or TV shows. Any use of it in article space should be accompanied by a WP:RS. MarnetteD|Talk 14:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I cannot find coverage to support the tragedy film genre, so I would reject it in individual film articles. I would also support putting the list up for AfD for the same reason. The use of "tragedy" in the sources in that list are not using it as a genre classification. If anything, the term "tragedy" is very broad, and we would be better off with lists that talk about specific tragic themes, like films featuring alcohol abuse. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Erik. IceBrotherhood also tried to add it here, but the sources again were not using it as a genre classification. Sebastian James (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I found a recent use of "tragedy film" that could be meant as a genre [20], although it's to substantiated with "drama" later on. I agree that so far there's no substantial coverage of it as a genre. I'd suggest at least trimming the list to tragicomedy films, which has some use in RS [21][22][23], though all of it seems to be recent as well. Daß Wölf 18:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The AFD discussion has begun here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tragedy films and TV programs. MarnetteD|Talk 17:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Screen Rant on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of Screen Rant on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Screen Rant. — Newslinger talk 07:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Osianama on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of Osianama (osianama.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Kalpana Mohan Page. — Newslinger talk 08:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of plot inclusion at Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

I started a discussion at Talk:Once Upon a Time in Hollywood as the plot being included is what I consider to be premature. IP editors are running roughshod at the moment however, and refuse to allow it to be removed for the duration of the discussion. Rusted AutoParts 21:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

You are removing topically-relevant content from Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. However, Wikipedia is not censored. This has been discussed to death at WP:SPOILERS and the days of tagging articles with spoiler alerts are over. We do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. This is a unique situation brought about by Tarantino's ego and unusual request. His screening was not closed-door or private. It was at the very public Cannes festival. And his request to the public NOT to spoil his movie was directed in spirit at the mainstream press and critics, not at wikipedia or the audience who saw it. Wikipedia's mission is that of journalism, not fan service. When some films premiere at Sundance or other festivals, they sometimes do NOT get wide release. Do we not report on them? They are reported on and scooped as soon as they receive some reasonable public screening. Again, this is not of concern to wikipedia and is WP:POINTy. If people don't want to spoil this movie for themselves, then they don't have to read wikipedia, problem solved.2601:282:8300:B761:88F5:B3C7:5CEE:9B88 (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Reception section at The Iron Throne (Game of Thrones) article

We need opinions on the following matters: Talk:The Iron Throne (Game of Thrones)#Let's try to keep this article balanced and Talk:The Iron Throne (Game of Thrones)#False balance. A permalink for it is here. In other words, we need opinions on assessing and presenting the critical consensus and/or appropriate weight per WP:Due. Obviously, the episode is not a film (although it's as long as one), but, given that part of the discussion concerns Rotten Tomatoes, we have a Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Critical response section (and "Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics" subsection) that addresses it, and this project has ample experience with regard to summarizing consensus on matters like these and presenting the Rotten Tomatoes score, some here might be willing to offer their opinions on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Anyone recognize these edits...

...to "List of films..." articles and filmographies? [24], [25], [26]. Such edits were made by 69.158.67.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 76.65.0.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 69.158.64.176 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and now by new user Blastspilt. Blastspilt, can you explain what is going on here? Are you really editing while logged in and out and in? These edits seem redundant and unconstructive to me, by the way. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• And Devidrams, would you like to join the conversation? Drmies (talk) 01:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Film adaptation categories

Can I get opinions from other editors on whether Category:Films adapted into novels and such are appropriate categories? I have my doubts as to whether such is really a defining characteristic of the film. Tagging Old Schooler (talk · contribs) as they've been doing a great deal of this categorization. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

IMO they are not a defining characteristic of the film and are WP:INDISCRIMINATE items. OTOH the reverse is true for the novel and if any of the books have an article could be added to an appropriate category. MarnetteD|Talk 18:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I would tend to agree the reverse is certainly a metric - novels based on films, films based on novels, etc. --Masem (t) 18:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I've put them up at CfD. DonIago (talk) 03:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Malayalam cinema for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Malayalam cinema is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Malayalam cinema until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Driven movie article Comment

I am considering making an article on the movie Driven about John DeLorean that only has had film festival releases in 2018 and might have a wide release this August. So I am wondering if the article name should use 2018 or 2019 in the title? --Frmorrison (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Release dates are based on the earliest public showing, and festivals count toward this. So, it would be a 2018 film. We don't treat wide releases as anything special. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Nationality of films and edit-warring

Can someone familiar with the practice of WP:FILM please take a look at the following on Judge Dredd (film), from 2A00:23C6:5492:4300:9C8C:BCB3:E8E3:DE3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2A00:23C6:5492:4300:59A8:AA00:ADBC:4340 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), repeatedly changing "British-American" to "American" on the grounds of "No British companies involved", despite it having been made at Shepperton.

This is particularly unimpressive. Removing films from List of highest-grossing films in the United Kingdom on the grounds that they're "not British" (whatever that means) is clearly wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion about this at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films_in_the_United_Kingdom#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_27_May_2019. Apparently the BFI are publishing contradictory data, in that their database is using different national classifications to their Yearbook. I think the editor is acting in good faith but he needs to stop edit-warring so we can resolve the issue. The problem is really with the BFI and we first need to establish which dataset is correct before any more countries are ripped out of articles. I will email them tomorrow to query the contradiction. Betty Logan (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Does that matter? I see this as a list of films being shown in the UK, no matter where they originate from. So questions like this are an irrelevance.

Dredd is a more complicated question and the IP might have a point. But I see a film made in Shepperton as being "British" to at least some degree, unless WP:FILM has an arcane reason as to why it isn't (possible, but not something I know). Andy Dingley (talk) 11:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Filming locations have no meaning for nationality of films. The 3 production companies listed in the infobox are all American. --Gonnym (talk) 11:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

But Shepperton isn't merely a "foreign location", it's a British studio. What are the FILM rules for such? They shouldn't be based solely on production companies, to the exclusion of studios? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

From the documentation for Template:Infobox film - According to the European Lumiere project, the value of this parameter is seldom found in the primary source (the film) and often involves original research: "defining the nationality of a film is a complex task. There are no widely accepted international or even European definitions of the criteria to be used to determine the country of origin of a film. This is both a legal and a statistical problem. It is enlightening to compare the lists provided by the different national sources that we use: countries involved in a joint production are not always indicated (even when the main coproducer is from another country). Different national records – and the statistics on which they are based – can show the same film as having a whole range of nationalities." (from "Identification of Films in the Lumiere Database". European Audiovisual Observatory. 2006.) '

In any case, my personal understanding is that the nationality of a film is determined by ownership, not where it was filmed. A German-funded film that was shot in a studio or on location in NYC wouldn't be an American film. DonIago (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Correct. For film and television productions, "country of original" generally = "who put up the money". Filming locations generally do not factor into this – e.g. think of all of the "American TV series" that are filmed in Canada. Ditto films – lots are filmed in Canada, but are not "Canadian films". My suspicion is that the 1995 Judge Dredd is indeed an "American film" for "country of origin" purposes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, not correct (although filming location is certainly irrelevant). As per MOSFILM (and as per the rest of WP), nationality is determined according to how it is described in reliable sources. (although to be clear, I am talking about nationality in the lead - the OP’s query above - and not the countries listed in the infobox) MapReader (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

No respected source would call an American film being shot in Tunisia an "American-Tunisian film". Nor would they call said film an American-British film if parts of it were filmed in Elstree Studios which is near London. Anyone doing so, would be trying to push a certain point of view. --Gonnym (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

True. Nevertheless we are guided by the sources, not by our own analysis of where the money comes from, as suggested above. And my perception is that sources are generally more concerned with the nationality of the creative input than of the finance. MapReader (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

This. The fact that sources arrive at different sets of countries means that there are different methodologies. In many cases we won't know the underlying business, creative, and financial composition of a film. For example, in the UK a film can legally qualify as "British" in principally three ways: via a "cultural" test, through a co-production agreement with another country, and by a European treaty: [27]. Obviously other countries may have different mechanisms and draw to different conclusions, so this is not just an issue of [[WP:Verifiability] it is also an issue of WP:WEIGHT. The context can also matter: a film may qualify as British in the UK market but not as British in the US market, so if you are discussing markets rather than the films themselves (which is the issue at the UK box-office page) this is also a critical factor. Betty Logan (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

True. But then, weighing sources is what we do. It’s our core competence; I won’t even bother to give an example, there are so many that editors will be able to think of. Yet, particularly in film and TV, it is striking how often you see a discussion about this without ANY reference to sources. Some editors seem to think they can construct their own argument from their own analysis of their own preferred criteria to reach their own conclusion, and somehow this isn’t WP:OR. Many of us may come here knowing a lot about film, but our role here is as editors, not experts. MapReader (talk) 04:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Edwin L. Marin (and the four other Maisie directors)

Template:Edwin L. Marin has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)