Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Comic book films task force/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Film. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Task force name

Regarding the name how about we call the task force; Comic book film task force to be more in line with other task forces such as Christian films task force, War films task force?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I would be fine with this as well, though I feel like "comic book films" was slightly unwieldy. I had planned to ask if that alternative name was preferred. It's not hugely important to me, and we can see what others think. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought so too that's why I removed the "s", also "film" is more in line with the new project name: Wikipedia:WikiProject Film, not Wikipedia:WikiProject Films.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't considered that before. I think "films" might be more appropriate here because we will largely deal with individual films or various groupings of them (franchise, box office ranks, etc). I think that WikiProject Film is meant to encompass film genres and sub-genres, as well as filmmaking techniques. I think the only relevant one of these to the task force is superhero film (interesting how we don't have a real comic book film article, there are some non-superhero comic book films that could use this genre grouping, such as Road to Perdition). Erik (talk | contribs) 17:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Any new thoughts on the task force name? I'm fine with either "Films based on comics" or "Comic book films". Nehrams2020 on WT:FILM said he's fine with "Comic book films". What about the rest of you? Erik (talk | contribs) 16:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I still think "Comic book films" has better ring to it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any real preferences but I would probably go (if I had to choose that is) with comic book task force. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed logo

Hows this for the logo? I created it by merging the WP:COMIC and WP:FILM logos.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it looks too much like "speaking of film" since the comic logo is more like a speech balloon, which I'm not sure is obvious about the comic book nature. I would prefer to hold off on a logo for now. We need to make sure we have enough people interested in being part of this task force first! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 17:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Very well, I'm getting ahead of myself.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This was already in the Commons, maybe we can adopt it?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you think we can do anything about what's inside the film reel? I'm not a fan of these contents. Too bad we're not artistic enough to draw a Cinema Man superhero figure. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 23:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

How about a onomatopoeia like "BAM!" or "POW!"?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a great idea! I'm fine with either of these or even "KAPOW!" I have GIMP but no skill. I can try to take a stab at it. Do you know anyone who could do a good job and release it under a free license? Erik (talk | contribs) 23:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hah, here is a possibility. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I have photoshop, I can try this tomorrow. In the meantime I'd still like to see what you come up with.---TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't have a cinema man action figure. But we do have a superhero action figure. See here. I wouldn't recommend it though unless it can be altered. It would be nice if that was a film not a book. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 23:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hows this? I think the onomatopoeia is better than a generic superhero figure, since we cover more than superhero films and is still easily identifiable as being comic related.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I love this one. If not the onomatopoeia, I was going to push for a spiked speech bubble. But this is great. I vote for this one.Luminum (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This is great! I support this logo. One nitpick: would it be possible to make the clapperboard larger or the word smaller, so there is more space in the margins? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I slightly decreased the font size, but I worry if I make it too small it will become illegible at lower resolutions.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This user participates in the
Comic book films task force.

Heres a userbox using this logo.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the word looks pretty squished. Is there any way to modify it so each letter is read more clearly? Maybe we could stick with just "POW" or "BAM". :) Erik (talk | contribs) 16:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I'll see what I can do.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hows that?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Is Comic Book Resources a worthwhile source to add? I recall using it as a source early in my wiki-career, but I was not sure if it kept up with film news as quickly as the other sources. We don't have to if it has not been substantial. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It is used extensively in comic articles, they do occasionally have articles on comic adaptions so I would say so.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay. How about visual effects or costume design or production design? Any websites or periodicals that have covered such films in the past? Periodicals especially would be out of easy reach but could add a lot of value to an article, especially enough to provide illustrate images. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I not familiar with any trade specific publications such as costume design or production design. There are numerous blog sites (some reliable, some not-so) that cover these films. Should they be added as well?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Some of the more reliable include Cinematical, Collider, /Film, Latino Review --TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say to hold off on blogs for now. That was the reason I added one of the goals to seek out alternatives whenever possible. For example, no one is going to contest Los Angeles Times or Cinefex, but I think that these websites you mention can be challenged. Would it be worth working to minimize their use? For example, if one of their articles reports so-and-so information, we can use the keywords to see if a concrete publication has reported it also. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the things I try to do in my edits is it link back to the original source, most of the blogs I mentioned do a good job of posting their sources so they could be helpful in that respect. Occasionally they do their own reporting and have interviews with filmmakers and actors. But I agree lets only use the most universally uncontested sources for now.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

In response to your original question, I was going to add CBR. They're certainly reliable for comic pages, and for a big enough film, they'll more likely than not cover do some interviews. I assume that it's going to be more comic-related, so you might find some illuminating bits if there's a writer who is contrasting the film and source material or something similar.Luminum (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Joining the task force

Don't know the exact steps to join a wikipedia task force, but I'd be interested in participating. Do I just place my own name onto the list of contributors? Thanks -Fandraltastic (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Fandraltastic! Yep, just list your name at the end. Nothing too formal! I am wondering, what name do you think the task force should have? A couple of people say "Comic book films task force". I'm okay with that or the current one, "Films based on comics task force". Do you have a preference? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No real preference, either works for me. -Fandraltastic (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Automated process to tag articles in project scope and/or auto-assess unassessed articles

A request has been made to tag & auto-assess articles in the scope of this project based on categories and/or auto-assess the project's unassessed articles.

To auto-assess, the bot looks for a {{stub}} template on the article, or inherits the class rating from other project banners (see here for further details).

Feel free to raise any questions or concerns regarding this process. The task will commence after 72 hours if there are no objections.

--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The full list of categories within our scope can be found here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Worth noting that it should be "Comic-book-task-force=" and not "comic-book-task-force=". The casing makes a difference. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe we have the correct casing, you may view the request at User talk:Xenobot Mk V/requests#WP:CBFILM.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Comic book characters in film

I propose guidelines on how we can have articles about comic book characters in film. While we initially created film series articles, there have been a couple of moves (Batman in film and Spider-Man in film) which seem more suitable. It allows us to provide an overview of a character's appearance in film without being constrained to a film series. I am wondering if there is any interest in standardizing this practice and determining the threshold for which an overview article can be created. I would recommend more than two feature film appearances since Hulk (film series) was deleted even with two films. It is also worth considering what an overview article can cover that an individual film article cannot. Below are some possible highlights of an overview article:

Compiled box office figures and scores based on critics' reviews
Focus on transitional information, such as if the director or star changed, explain what happened
References that compare films to each other like in Spider-Man in film#Critical reaction (less needed in individual films' articles)
Academic coverage of the films as a series or part of it
Combination of details about the comic book character's portrayal (e.g., different conduct through writing, or evolving visual effects appearance)
Coverage of projects in development
Listing of animated non-feature films to accommodate readers, though secondary information probably scarce
Infobox for overview article (less detailed than film infobox), perhaps showing the character as seen in the film, identifying first feature film appearance, listing portrayals somehow, etc.

These guidelines would help because we will have recurring appearances through sequels and reboots. To use a hypothetical example, assuming a third Iron Man film, we can have Iron Man in film where we start out with identifying his feature film appearances, supported by an infobox showing what he looks like in the films. We can list all the feature films from the get-go, then talk about how the director and the cast got on board, and note any major changes (like Terrence Howard to Don Cheadle). We can also talk about changes in the films' visual effects, like how they improved on showing Iron Man in flight, which is easier to discuss than in one individual film article or the other. We could also use the article as a place to cover an academic's analysis of the film trilogy (assuming a third film) in regard to the military-industrial complex. We can identify critics who have reviewed all the films and put together a paragraph for each critic reflecting what he/she thought of each succeeding film. (Or even better, critics' reviews of an entire trilogy or series.) What do others think? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Those all seem like strong topics for any compilation film article. In my mind the main difference between a film series article and a in-film article is the amount of in-universe detail given to film series articles, for example Marvel Cinematic Universe spends a lot of time on the interconnectivity of the films (using third party sourcing of course). This might not be possible with in film articles because it would be comparing apples and oranges because the films are set in different universes. Regardless the guidelines you listed would benefit articles in either scenario.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

So what you are saying is you prefer the title X in film over X (film series) when it comes to films of the particular character. The only time I really thought was necessary is if the film got rebooted such as the case with Spider-Man, Batman and Punisher and in the near future Superman as well. Although there's a few reasons when I questioned it as well because a certain film series article will maybe talk about spinoffs of a different character such as the Fantastic Four (film series) talking about a Silver Surfer spinoff. Another film series threatened to be rebooted. And the X-Men (film series) talking about a Deadpool spinoff. So I am not entirely sure of a change like that but it may work. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 21:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Just 2¢... "X in film" seems the better format. Clear identification about the topice and it doesn't get bodgged down in "The 'series' is only these films" debates - J Greb (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat, I think an "in film" article can work because the real inter-connectivity is what takes place outside the fictional universe. While Schumacher's Batman films have no in-universe relationship to Nolan's own films, Warner Bros. worked behind the scenes to continue the franchise in a different direction. An "in film" article can follow so-called character rights. For example, we would not see certain crossovers because certain rights are separated among competing studios (though Marvel Studios is trying to bring all the rights together). @Jhenderson, I think the benefit of an "in film" article is that the character does not have to be the title character. For example, Wolverine has been in three X-Men films and one stand-alone film (and possibly another on the way). An article can focus on that character's development throughout the films, such as which in-universe details came from the comics or were invented by the filmmakers. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It could maybe work, but the main time I think I would think it's necessary is if needs splitting on the In other media section or article. I am already getting Hulk in film ready by creating it as a redirection. Pefect title when there is a third film. To be honest it could already be ready if you count his animated films on the article. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I actually agree that "in film" is always more preferable to "film series" where applicable. Come to think of it theres no reason why we cant apply the same information to "in film" articles. "In film" articles just have a longer reaching scope and if a section on a particular series becomes too long we can always split it off into its own main article. I would also be okay with starting every compilation film article as "in film" article to leave room for expansion without the problem of scope creep.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI to all: Talk:Fantastic Four (film series)#Requested move. We may also want to consider a request to move X-Men (film series) to X-Men in film; it is a good example of films that share common subject matter but are not necessarily in a series. Should we adapt the "in film" approach as part of the comic book films guidelines? Erik (talk | contribs) 20:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Well so far the X-Men (film series) seems to be still a true film series (even though some might rumor X-Men: First Class is going to be a reboot) so I am not seeing the necessity of it yet unless the franchise gets rebooted. But you can always try to purpose it if you like. And I know this is not a comic book film but what about the Star Trek (film series) being changed to Star Trek in film since the latest film is a reboot? Either that or say (film franchise) or something. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 14:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a note...

I've added the taskforce to the Comics Project talk page header just to cover all bases. Couple things to note:

The will generate categories for requests for cleanup, images, and/or infoboxes. Righ now these are under "work group".
It can create issues with "Class" if the article rates higer under one set of criteria than the other.
It will create categories for pages that Film may not track.

I'm going to play around with the WG page later to see if I can cobble one together that meshes with the existing Comics WGs. That may include setting up part of this page to transclude and redirecting the WG talk to here.

- J Greb (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible just to redirect the entire WG here?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

For the most part, most likely. There is at least one item that would need to be added here though - Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Comic book films articles by quality statistics - J Greb (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

There are quite a few options. I soft redirected the work force link on the WikiProject Comics banner (which was red at the time) to here. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Guidelines

Thought I'd start the ball rolling on the guidelines listed on project page

Ideal approach to crediting source material (e.g., do we credit Batman's creators in every film article?)
Presentation of actors and roles in "Cast" section, like when to use or avoid table formatting
Proper selection of film's poster image due to such films having many variations
Preferred kind of non-free images (esp. with characters' film appearances shown in characters' articles)
Appropriate and inappropriate information for an article's "Marketing" section, to ensure a NPOV
Placement of developing project information in mainspace and in incubated areas

My suggestions:

The source material should always be credited in the articles infobox. The creators should listed in the "based on" field and authors of any credited storylines should be listed in the "story" field.

Actors and roles in individual film articles should always listed in a Cast section accompanied by any background information written in prose (for example; brief role descriptions, contract deals, cast changes, actor's preparations and/or inspirations). Actors and roles in compilation film articles (i.e "in film" articles) may be tabled. This should only include actors and roles who have appeared in more than one film.

The threshold for a film's poster image is the teaser poster. Film logo's should not included the article's infobox. Theatrical release posters are always the most desirable. International posters are acceptable however native language posters are preferred over non-native language posters. Character posters should not be included unless there is no alternative and even then only the main character's poster should be included.

Images released by the film studio as promotion for the film are preferred over other types of non-free images as they are less intrusive on the film's copyrights.

Major milestones in the films marketing campaign and other major work are appropriate information for the article's Marketing section (for example; the first footage/trailer released, comic-con appearances, extraordinary television appearances such as Superbowl commercials and derivative works like comic books and video games). Insignificant works such as Magazine appearances and ordinary television appearances such as regular advertisements spots, interviews, and behind the scenes features are not appropriate for the Marketing section.

Articles may be incubated at any time however they should not be included in the main space until filming begins or as a "film project" article when it has accumulated significant media coverage (~20+ articles of different topics related to the film).

--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Amazing Spider-Man

The new Spider-Man film's title will be The Amazing Spider-Man. The title The Amazing Spider-Man redirects to The Amazing Spider-Man (comic book), which has a hatnote linking to the disambiguation page The Amazing Spider-Man (disambiguation). I've requested a move to either make the comic book series article the primary topic or to move the disambiguation page if there is no primary topic. The discussion can be seen here. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Marvel Cinematic Universe

Template:Marvel Cinematic Universe has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thor: Tales of Asgard

Sorry if this is the wrong place for this but could Thor: Tales of Asgard (film) be moved to Thor: Tales of Asgard, please? Thank you. --124.183.160.155 (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You are in the right place! I cannot move it either so I made a request at WP:RM. It should be uncontroversial. Thanks for the heads-up, and feel free to frequent this page. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Eyes needed

Something under the perview of this TF/WG - Template talk:DC Comics animated films#Gen 13 Animated Movie - needs some additional eyes looking at it and likely some comments.

Thank

- J Greb (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Superman in film

I made a request to move Superman (film series) to Superman in film. The discussion can be seen here. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sequel or reboot?

There is a new section about this going on in Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance. I need your help figuring out if this is constructive material or just original research. Weighing in first might be nice. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I would place that information in the development section, and simply relay the quotes without the analysis. -Fandraltastic (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Fandraltastic. Also the CBM citation, which we cannot use as a RS, should be traced back to the Collider article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Be bold and give it a shot. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 22:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thor (film) prepartion for GA review

This article was recently assessed as B class. I have started a discussion on the article's talk page about preparing the article for Good Article review. This might be the first comic book film article to be nominated since the task force's creation and as such I encourage all participants to help out with the preparation.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Top 10 summer superheroes of all time

The Hollywood Reporter recently came out with this list of the top 10 summer superheroes movies of all time and was wondering if it was worth including in each of the respective articles.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

McClintock, Pamela (2011-07-27). "Top 10 Summer Superheroes of All Time". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 2011-07-28.

If we do, let's correct the headline writer's unthinking, bush-league redundancy: Unless it's being qualified, any "top number" list of anything IS "of all time."

The danger I do see is when the list changes, as it will do frequently with ticket-price inflation and other factors. That means going in and changing 10 articles — and unless THR, Variety, Film Journal International, etc., comes out with a new, updated list each time, that means we need to compare each new superhero movie's grosses with the old list to see where it would fall.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Also — and I do feel bad bringing this up with a suggestion by an editor I respect very highly — I'm wondering what the encyclopedic advantage is to having a list of just the top summer superhero movies. Assuming a list a top superhero movies, period, exists, would we be mentioning both lists in each affected article? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not mean to create a list of just the top summer superhero movies but rather just possibly include a line in the film article like, "In July 2011, (insert movie title) was listed as # on The Hollywood Reporter's Top 10 summer superheroes movies." I know its bit trivial but thought it might be worth including, that's why I brought it up here first. Inclusion of the publication date "July 2011" is important in order to keep the accolade in perspective to prevent what you mentioned about future films.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

No, no, I understood; that's why I mentioned "going in and changing 10 articles". But if my fellow editors think it can be done pragmatically, and that "summer" (as opposed to all releases) is significant, I'm behind it. --Tenebrae (talk)

Fair enough, its no big deal to me either. Like I said it does seem a bit trivial.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

New development in labeling practices

There has been a recent development regarding the common practice of naming (or not naming) widely recognized comic book entities in film with potentially task force wide implications. I suggest everyone see Talk:Iron Man 2#War Machine and comment if you choose.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Wonder Woman (film)

I was wondering if Wonder Woman (film) shouldn't be renamed "Wonder Woman (animated film)". When I first looked for information about the oft-abandoned live-action film, I got the first term. I think that by changing the name to reflect that it is an animated film, we leave room for an (eventual?) live-action counterpart. The problem with this is that I don't really know how to move an article, and don't want to mess it up, which of course would invariably lead to a zombie apocalypse.:) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There was no live-action film actually made, so per WP:PRECISION, there's no need to disambiguate further. That article has a hatnote pointing to a section about unrealized plans for such a film. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

So, if one actually goes into production, we change it then? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, presumably a live-action film would be the more searched topic. But the current article should probably be moved to (2009 film) not (animated film) because there were no other films named Wonder Woman in 2009 but it is conceivable that another animated film called Wonder Woman could be made.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that would work great, as it would dispense with the need to address this at a later point. As previously mentioned, I do not know how to move an article, and am a little worried about messing up.misplacing or otherwise mangling the article and article talk. If someone could tell me how to do so or (even better) perform the move, I can learn from the DIFF how to do so in the future. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You can try it yourself. Type in some text at User:Jack Sebastian/Wonder Woman (film) and on the talk page too. Then check the down-arrow next to the search box in the upper right and choose "Move" and move to User:Jack Sebastian/Wonder Woman (2009 film). You can delete it all afterward with {{db-author}}. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

If I perform a move to the new article name, will I have to got to each article that links to the original name and change it as well, or will it automatically redirect? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It will automatically redirect but if a new article takes its place on the old page, you'll have to manually edit those links. It should be too hard though, you can find all the transclusions here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually the majority of those links are result of Template:Wonder Woman and Template:DC Comics animated films. So fixing those should take care of most of them.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A new wrinkle has appeared in the matter. Apparently, moving the film thusly has been attempted before, and won't allow for a move (the previous title already apparently being in use). Not sure how to proceed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You can always request an admin to preform an uncontroversial move.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean, how to proceed? We shouldn't be moving anything in the mainspace right now. Since that article's page history is related to the live-action film, we can move it to whenever the new film would be released (if it starts production). Let's say Wonder Woman (2013 film). Then we'd delete Wonder Woman (2009 film), which is a redirect, then we would move the animated film article to that now-empty space. Then fix all the links. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I just considered the vaue of not procrastinating. If you think it causes more problems than it resolves, I'll fall in line, Erik. But why put it off? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Because as of now there is no reason for further disambiguation as no other film exists. The live-action film has been in development under various incarnations for over 10 years, there is no telling right now if it will ever get made. Once production starts that likelihood will increase enough that a stand alone article is warranted.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for answering my questions on the matter. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Triiiple is referring to WP:NFF about the threshold. I can recall a couple of situations where a move was made too soon. There were remakes in development of The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (film) and Sunset Boulevard (film), so these were moved to The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (1947 film) and Sunset Boulevard (1950 film). However, the remakes never started filming, so the articles were moved back. With the start of filming, it's a very sure thing that a film will come out. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

cultural impact of Wonder Woman article discussion...

I've initiated discussion in Talk: Cultural impact of Wonder Woman, and would really welcome some feedback on the discussion topics I've initiated there. I'd like to have some consensus before proceeding with some overhauling of the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Comic book - taskforce

This is just a suggestion (and I see that there was somewhat of a discussion at the top of this page).

But I would like to suggest that you replace "comics book" with "comics".

This was done at WP:Comics because there is a difference in term usage internationally between what a comic, a comic book, and a comic strip is.

It would also broaden your coverage, merely through clarity in naming : )

As to what form is should take, I personally prefer the already suggested: Films based on comics format.

Thanks for your consideration : ) - jc37 02:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The Avengers (2012 film) preparation of GA review

See Talk:The Avengers (2012 film)#Preparation for GA review.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

List of articles in need of improvement

I went through and added a bunch of articles to the list. I tried to cover most of the major theatrical releases, although I probably missed some. -Fandraltastic (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Iron Man's armor (film)

I see this article has recently been created. There appears to be a lot of in-universe cruft and was wondering if the article should be kept or merged back to Iron Man's armor.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents, but if both articles were cleaned up a bit, there appears to be enough referenced material, for the movie armor to be in a separate article from the comic book armor. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like just a big chunk of in-universe trivia and plot regurgitation, outweighing the small section on production which really belongs with each film, and if it is alreday there, is also regurgitation. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the production info is good, although I'm not sure how much of it is already on the film pages. However the list of what every armor in the film can do doesn't really seem appropriate. I think this could probably exist as a section in the Iron Man's armor article (which is in desperate need of cleanup itself, it's about 15 pages of in-universe cruft with almost no real world info) -Fandraltastic (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Both pages are in dire need of clean-up but once done, I think the two can co-exist in the same article quite nicely.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that the bulk of this material is of interest to hardcore fans only and falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE, in-universe trivia for the most part. I would merge the real-world stuff — what the production designers had in mind, how they produced the various physical and CGI portions, etc. — and ditch all the the fancruft. What's left would probably fit into each Iron Man movie article. Having a whole article on a movie character's fictional armor — that's like having a whole article about James Bonds' various suits: "And in his first 1970s movie, the lapels became noticeably wider. In the following film, the jacket went fron single vent to double vent. In films such-and-such to such-and-such, the standard ochre changed to light brown, while the French cuffs soon disappeared .... " -- Tenebrae (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Iron Man's armor (film)

Iron Man's armor (film), has been proposed for a merge with Iron Man's armor. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC) TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Bruce Banner appearances on the Hulk page

Hello, we have a discussion going about whether or not an appearance by Bruce Banner belongs on the Hulk (comics) in other media page going on over here. Any comments and input are welcome. Cheers. -Fandraltastic (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ant-Man incubator up for deletion

Here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Ant-Man (film).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutral notice

This is a neutral notice that the recently created List of accolades received by Marvel Cinematic Universe has been nominated for deletion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Man of Steel userspace draft

I convinced TreCoolGuy (talk · contribs) to start a userspace draft for the untitled Man of Steel sequel instead of repeatedly starting an article prematurely. However I'm afraid he may need some help from experienced editors. So if anyone is interested you can find it at User:TreCoolGuy/Untitled Man of Steel sequel. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about List of films based on Marvel Comics: More people needed

Over at Talk:List of films based on Marvel Comics we are having a discussion about whether the movies released direct-to-video in the US should be split out from the main 'Live-action films' list. We could use more people to discuss this. Thanks. -Joltman (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Tank Girl at FAC

The 1995 comic book film Tank Girl (film) is currently nominated for FAC. All comments on the nomination are welcome – see here. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Wanted GA reassessment

I've opened a community GA reassessment of Wanted. The article has had quite a fall from grace since its promotion in 2009, and I believe it needs to be demoted. Corvoe (speak to me) 15:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

A serious problem with MCU articles

I've been noticing a recurring trend lately, and it's getting a bit alarming. While the effort to make the MCU film articles look similar is admirable and sensible, some of the responses to changes that go against how other MCU articles look is getting worrisome. I need to put a very, very heavy emphasis on ~~WP:OTHERSTUFF~~ WP:OSE. This is what reverting has largely come down to, and it's a problem. Any time I've tried to make what I believe is an improvement to formatting, I end up with a response regarding how other MCU articles don't do it. For instance, I recently removed the post-credits scene description from Guardians of the Galaxy (film). I know that was a bold edit, and I completely understand it getting reverted. However, an edit summary reading "Other MCU films include post credit scenes in the plot section." is a perfect example of why ~~OTHERSTUFF~~ OSE was written. This has just happened again at Ant-Man (film), when I tried adding actor last names to characters. The rationale? "it might be nice, but we don't do that in MCU film articles".

I don't want to come off like I'm complaining that my edits are being reverted. I'm not. It's not like I'm really fired up about removing a credits sequence or adding some names. I'm concerned about the mentality across MCU articles. Just because the current standard across the articles may say one thing, that doesn't make it right. That doesn't make it the best option. And that certainly doesn't make it a reasonable reversion rationale.

I love working on these articles with you guys. You're a very knowledgable group of people and I respect every single one of you immensely. But we need to stop this blind reverting for the sake of unity. We need good rationale, or we need discussion. We have to accept that people not "in the loop" with these articles have ideas that could vastly improve them. We need to figure out what's best for each article, even if that isn't linear with what the unified format is. And most importantly, we don't need to talk about other stuff.

Some of you might see this as trivial (a user said that about my discussion over the Guardians scene), and if you do, I apologize. But I'm legitimately concerned about this, and I think it's worth discussing. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 20:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the concern Sock. Part of that reasoning is that we ARE striving to find that unity across the film articles, is so that they will be compliant with WP:GT?. However, I'm not stating this to discourage you or other from attempting changes. Yes, the complacent response has been what you said, but only in the interest of uniformity. If something such as the post credit scene wants to be removed, that is something pretty large that will effect all the other pages. Changing the lead, not so much. But then again, if you change one, we should change them all. For the record, I don't really mind that one, because readers may not know who the actors are for the characters. So I will be bold and say we should make that change. But for the post credit scenes, that one deserves some larger discussion, which maybe should be had at the main page or the List of films page. And that's not to say we shouldn't remove them, as we may find a great solution to do so. As an example, I recently subsectioned GotG because we had a large amount of various content to warrant it. I was really hesitant to do so, because we are striving or the uniformity, but I realized that it was necessary, and would not detract much in the long run. I hope that answers some of your questions/concerns. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Favre. I totally agree that larger discussion involving the post-credits scene was necessary, but again, the actual content of the edits wasn't what I was attempting to discuss here. It was based more on the response to the edits. I'm glad that you see where my concern is. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 05:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

First of all, WP:OTHERSTUFF has to do with notability, not formatting. Beyond that, the post-credit scenes receive widespread media coverage, so an individual judgement call about the significance of its content is likely trumped by its notability. And the actors, first and last name, are listed with their characters in the section just below the plot. It is common practice among all WP:FILM articles to not include actor names in film summaries, not just MCU articles. You're right that "Other MCU articles do this" is not the best justification on its own, but it can be difficult to get into expanded reasoning in an edit summary. So never hesitate to use the talk page if you disagree with an edit :) -Fandraltastic (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, I've updated my post to refer to WP:OSE (my intended target). I forgot that OTHERSTUFF and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aren't the same. Again, this comment is not about the content of the edits, but rather the method in which they've been handled. And I wasn't suggested to include actor names in the summaries, simply in the lead section (which is done in many Good and Features articles). Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 05:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Superhero names

Following a dispute at Captain America: The Winter Soldier, I requested a third opinion about the form in which superhero names are presented and was told by Ryk72 that, "A search of related WikiProjects does not show any MoS, guidelines or standards documenting a consensus on this specific question." See the "Superhero names" thread on the Captain America: The Winter Soldier talk page. The issue is whether superhero names should be given as "real name / codename" pairings (for example Bruce Banner/Hulk) outside the cast section. I think it's unnecessary and unhelpful to readers to do so. Ryk72 suggested that "the question be referred to WP:WikiProject Comics & WP:WikiProject_Film/Comic_book_films_task_force for development of a wider (more editors) and more specific (this exact question) consensus." Comments? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for comments

This is a neutral notice that there is a discussion concerning comicbookmovie.com at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#comicbookmovie.com.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Archived old addressed threads

I've archived some old and/or addressed threads. Addressed means for example notifications for deletion discussions that have since been closed.

Archived threads older than two (2) years old. — Cirt (talk) 04:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment of Joss Whedon

Joss Whedon, 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. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Film MOS Change proposal

I'd like to get your opinion on a discussion regarding production sections over at Film MOS. It can be found here which attempts to better articulate how to make a production section. --Deathawk (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

RFC at GOG (film)

There’s an RFC at Guardians of the Galaxy (film) that could use some more eyes. —AdamF in MO (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Rfc

If interested, please share your opinion on the Rfc on Character Names in plot summaries. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. — Preceding undated comment added 18:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)