Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 49

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51→Archive 55

A Cup of Love

I just saw a great feel-good movie with (among others) Morgan Freeman and Greg Kinnear, and wanted to know more. I thought the title was A Cup of Love, but there's no article, and it's not mentioned in Freeman's or Kinnear's articles. Am I wrong on the name of the film?

HandsomeFella (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Found it. It was Feast of Love. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The "Lords" or "Lord's" of Flatbush?

JesseRafe has started an interesting discussion on The Lords of Flatbush talk page about what the title of this article should be. The official title, according to IMDb, is The Lord's of Flatbush, so there should be a good reason for why the WP article is not at that title. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Tables featuring Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores.

I removed a recent addition of a table at List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films, which just listed Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB scores, and I've also removed one at List of Pixar films, although that shows Rotten Tomato and Metacritic scores. Personally I don't think these are encyclopedic per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but what does anyone else think? I note that DreamWorks Animation has these scores included in its table also. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Over at WP:VG we often use score review tables, including Metacritic and GameRankings as aggregate scores. I don't see their utility in film articles, however--film reviews do not have the same uniformity in scoring conventions (usually point scores out of 5 or 10) and often don't have scores at all. It makes Metacritic's weighting even more suspect. Rotten Tomatoes is better since it has a looser, and easier-to-identify criteria, but I don't see why either site needs to be called out in a sidebar when they can be summarized in less than a paragraph of prose (and also couched in the appropriate language to contextualize the numbers themselves.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree: remove the tables from film articles and retain contextual prose, which is more informative since it contains explanations and nuances. Besides which, Wikipedia disallows audience ratings from IMDb, since they can be manipulated. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
We don't need tables in solo film articles, but the goals of list and franchise articles are slightly different: box office charts and tables for RT and MC scores are there for comparative analysis. If you are comparing things then a table is a convenient and economical way of doing that. I know that editors take different views on the relative merits of RT and MC scores, but something like Star Wars#Critical reaction accurately conveys the accepted viewpoint that the Star Wars prequels are not as well liked as the originals. In that particular case, the section would be greatly enhanced if we had some prose actually qualifying the data, but I don't think the problem in that article is the inclusion of the chart, it's just that it isn't properly contextualised. I fully agree about IMDB though: our guidelines (I can't remember which one off-hand) are explicit about not including IMDB user scores. Betty Logan (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Betty. I should have been clear that I was referring to solo film articles. Guess I'd only skimmed the original post. My oops. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The use in VG is not at all analogous to the use in film lists. As for INDISCRIMINATE, I don't see how critical reception is any less discriminate than a gross listing. In DreamWorks Animation for example, trying to move the table to prose form could easily double the space needed to convey the same information. — Reatlas (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
And just another note from VG: it is a project guideline "requirement" that if you are listing a review score in our review table, that review needs to be also sourced in the prose of the reception, otherwise, you're just filling in lines. And as another point related to the above, the VG market is one where the Metacritic score is king, for better or worse (bonuses and payouts for games are often based on having a certain MC aggregate score), while the film industry is about getting people into theater seats, a far different goal, and I agree that film articles, such tables are not as effective as using prose to discuss the reception. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
This is not about compilation of different reviews scores in a table (e.g. Halo 4#Critical reception), this is about the use of tables to show differences in rotten tomatoes or metacritic scores across different films in a francise or list article (e.g. DreamWorks Animation#Feature films). — Reatlas (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Help needed at TDKR

Your input would be appreciated at The Dark Knight Rises' talk page, where a debate is currently under way as to whether the actions of a certain character amount to kidnap. Thanks in advance for anybody who contributes!  drewmunn  talk  21:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Without getting into the issue I advise all parties to bust open a thesaurus and find a neutral term; perhaps the character "absconds with" another, which is free of either connotations of kidnap or seduction while still seeming like a crime or illicit act. GRAPPLE X 22:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Grapple, thanks for your advice! My only reason for using the term "kidnap" is that it shows her illegality, but I'd be open to using another term that similar denotes this. If anyone has anything to say on this matter, I've now opened an RfC on the matter, and opinions would be greatly appreciated.  drewmunn  talk  12:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Film director navboxes

Do we think that a film director's navbox would need splitting down into decades - an arbitrary split anyway? I've been tidying up some navboxes and removing decade splits (unless the navboxes are exceptionally large) but another editor isn't happy with this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

no, there is no reason to split them by decade. the years after each film indicate when it was made, and the splits only make the templates larger. Frietjes (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I've seen some with, for example, one film in the 20s, the majority of the output in the 30s, then one more film in the 40s. I can understand splitting by era (if absolutely necessary) - say silent films vs. sound films, but the decade thing makes no sense. --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
This is an example before vs. after. --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Edit war them to death! Don't back down! Aaaarrrrroooooooooooooo!!! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Seriously though, I like the decade breakdown. Infact, they look odd without them. Surely it makes it easier for Johnny Average to read? And don't call me Shirley... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
But you'd end up with someone who has made 8 films over 4 decades having a split, but someone who had made 20 films in a single decade not - it isn't logical. --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't tackled any of the really large ones, but if there is a necessity to split, it shouldn't be by something as arbitrary as decades. Take {{Alfred Hitchcock}} as an example. If it must be split, why not by silent and sound? or silent, British sound, Hollywood and later? --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

We don't need to divide by decade, and we don't need the years either unless they are a disambiguating term. They are navboxes, not lists. There may be an aesthetic argument for introducing dividers if there is a lot of information to go in (or if the box hosts different types of media), but generally I favor the minimalist approach. Betty Logan (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The years are another issue, but I also agree that they don't need to be there. I think people get confused as to what navboxes are actually for, and start treating them as articles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Meanwhile in Syria. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Use of flags

What do other users thing of the use of flags in the other countries section of this article? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Fails WP:MOSFLAG and should be removed. The nationality is important data but it is the director/film that is the primary topic of the table. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Anyone else with thoughts on this? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

What determines the "nationality" of a film?

IMHO, films are generally considered artistic works that are 'signed' by the director and or the author of the book upon which they based, whichever is the better known. Or should their "nationality" follow that of the studio that produced it or financed it? I have been trying to align dates of such film articles, and some editors seem to have been upset that I had deemed films by British artists, such as Charles Chaplin, Richard Attenborough, Alfred Hitchcock and Ridley Scott as non-american, changing the dates to dmy format and the spelling to British spelling, even when the underlying works (books upon which they are based) are unambiguously British. Sure it will be a multi-factorial decision, and I accept that buildings designed by British architects located in the USA will have a "US formatted" article. The way I look at it, and there seems to be very little dispute about it AFAIK, record companies don't "own" nationality over works of the recordings of the musicians in their stable. Same goes for books' "nationalities" with respect to their authors vs publishers. It is certainly not the convention here on WP where each tangible and moveable work such as book, album or single most definitely takes on the nationality of the artist(s) and not the notional "backers". Just take a look at any of the James Bond or Harry Potter film series articles – these seem to correctly reflect the nationality of the creation – British author and British directors meet big monolithic American film studios. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 13:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

In short, there is no simple answer: {{Infobox film#Country}}. Both the BFI and AFI databases list the "countries of production" though, so if they list the same countries then it's probably best to just go by what they say. Betty Logan (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
In film, its the person or studio who own the intellectual copyright of the work. That is who owns the film because they own the right to make the film and to do so at their sole discretion. A studio sometimes purchases the film rights to a novel or other work and may decide to not make that film and sell the film rights to someone else. The person or studio who purchases the intellectual rights own the film, not the director, who is in most cases, simply an employee. In books, its the author of the work. The author is the sole creator of the story as it is written. The publication company ONLY purchases the right to print and sell the story and pay the author a percentage of the book sales, but the author is still the creator of the story. In music, its mixed, because many aspects go into the creation of music. It could be the writer of the song, or it could be the person or band that records that song, or both in some cases. If an American song writer writes a song that is sung by a British band and then distributed by an American record label, who owns the song rights. That is very fuzzy. In some cases, such as The Beatles, the wrote sung, and produced many of their songs and therefore own the works outright, but in other ways, its not so clear cut. Many artists were shocked a few years ago when Youtube pulled down their songs because the record label decided not to pay the fee. In those cases its clear that the artist had no control over their recordings and the that the songs were owned by the record labels.--JOJ Hutton 13:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It's funny you should use that argument, as much sense as it seems to make. That logic would seem to imply that, for example, Most Michael Jackson songs should have dmy articles, because Paul McCartney is the copyright holder. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 14:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't believe I made an argument for or against the music, I was only giving facts and scenarios. I just said that it wasn't clear cut. And you may notice I haven't edited any of the song or album articles that you made changes on so you are arguing against on wall on that. But the films edits you made are clearly wrong.--JOJ Hutton 14:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
But there is not widespread agreement on using either the production company or the copyright holder. For example, the British Film Institute has a multiple criteria method to determine if a film is British for their purposes; they take account of the director's nationality, the production company, the language of the film, the shooting locations, and the nationalities of other key personnel. Other countries and other institutions have similar criteria for determining which films are theirs. Rarely is mention made of the copyright. It's unfortunate that online databases conflate a film's nationality with the production company's home office but they do that for their own reasons that don't apply to the needs of the best encyclopedia. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
We've been through this many times before. We simply report what the sources say. So, if a source, like the BFI or AFI databases, say that a film is British, then we mirror this and also put British. If there is conflict between sources, then it's best to leave out of the lead and infobox and discuss the conflict in prose. The nationality of the director is largely irrelevant for our purposes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Thats about what I have been saying, but Ohconfucius seems to feel that who the director is makes the determination and he/she has been changing dates to DMY and spellings to British, based solely on the director credit, and using an automated bot to do so, which makes it even harder to detect since the bot can make several edits a minute. Ohconfucius accused me of stalking, but how else am I going to be able to keep track of all the edits without going through the accounts contributions?--JOJ Hutton 14:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm a bit worried that this bot might suggest that Top Gun isn't an American film! --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
It gets worse: all-American classic Casablanca is now Hungarian! Betty Logan (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Why not? It decided that A Chorus Line (film) was British with this edit, despite the fact that it has an American cast, an American writer, an American composer, an American production company, and an American distributor, and which is based on an American play also written by an American playwright. But since the director was British, it was now a British film. Hogwash if you ask me. And on top of that Ohconfucius edit warred with another user over the fact. Making two additional reverts.--JOJ Hutton 14:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Ohconfucius has a right to his opinion just like anyone else; not only is it very sensible, it's backed by a lot of reliable sources. The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences has this in their rules for foreign language film submissions: "The submitting country must certify that creative control of the motion picture was largely in the hands of citizens or residents of that country." So the leading professional organization of filmmakers does not mention the production company in their own criteria for determining the nationality of a film. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It's hardly "very sensible" that the bot decided A Chorus Line was a British film. I think Betty and I were joking with our examples, but clearly the bot is out of control. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that we ask Ohconfucius to have his bot stop making edits to film articles, especially based on this criteria. This isn't a new development either. I have been slowly correcting this for years and the edits always seem to be be attributed to this account. As far as the edits to novels, which seem to be within reason, and the edits to music, which I am mixed on, I think we should let those specific projects make the determination on those.--JOJ Hutton 15:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I think that's a fair request - the criteria for judgement is more simple if you're talking about a British author or a British musician (although I seem to recall having to argue the point for Hugh Laurie once). However, that isn't how films are decided, and sources generally do not base the nationality of a film on the nationality of its director. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Unless there is any other disagreement on the issue, would it be reasonable to simply just ask Ohconfucius to stop making the edits to film articles without having to go through a formal and binding topic ban on the issue? Hopefully he will agree and we can move on.
@User:Ring Cinema- Ohconfucius has the right to his opinion, but the problem is that he is not applying his opinion equally across the project. His argument is that the director determines the nationality of articles, but he recently made an edit to Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets reaffirming the use of DMY dates and British English, despite the fact that the director is an American. He has also done so at Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone, but not recently. Clearly the user is not applying his "signed by the director" philosophy but is making edits in favor of British English only.--JOJ Hutton 16:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, please, don't misrepresent me as some sort of hypocrite. My words were: "films are generally considered artistic works that are 'signed' by the director and or the author of the book upon which they based, whichever is the better known", and yes, I did align the dates in them all. IIRC, the majority of the dates there were dmy before I got there. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 17:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Further correction: as testified by certain reverts, my edits were not by bot. The population was chosen bfrom Category:Works by British people. The edits were script-assisted, meaning they may be subject to occasional tweaks as and when called for. I opted out of aligning a fair number of the articles in those categories even before I got complaints because it was obvious there were "strays". I accept that it may have been presumptuous of me to change the styles on the basis of director/author when a simpler, binary determination seems to be preferred, and have since stopped touching of those films that have "|country=USA". So, poke me if I do it again. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 17:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh Please, what were the majority of dates at A Chorus Line (film) when you got there? Or any of the numerous others you have been changing over the years? Make a statement and stand by it, but you make only edits changing American usage to British usage and never the other way around, despite the articles fitting into your criteria. So I will ask, will you please stop editing film articles?--JOJ Hutton 17:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes he did, and is that your sole determination for deciding what date format and spelling to use in an article, or is there any other?--JOJ Hutton 17:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Hopefully then there won't be any more American film articles incorrectly formatted to British English or DMY. I would hate to ask for a formal topic ban on the subject.--JOJ Hutton 17:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not endorsing the use of any bot and didn't comment on that. Any single criterion yields absurd results, and production company is no different. Cache is an Italian film? That's laughable, of course. Again, I would suggest anyone who wants to be informed on the subject simply check the link on the BFI criteria. They are very sensible. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is getting pretty convoluted, and I hope I'm following correctly. I don't think anyone's saying anymore that the nationality of the director determines the nationality of the film, but if that's still in discussion, let me say I've never heard that as a defining criterion, and on its face it makes no sense. The main (not sole) considerations generally used by every reference source and institute I can think of are primary production company and primary distributor. After that, in some rare, complex circumstance,s may come other considerations. And as someone already said, we leave this to reliable third-party sources to say — using our own judgment is OR. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I just hope that the point has been made. One should not simply change the dates and spellings of articles based solely on who the director was. I hate topic bans. I'm no fan and I think they should be enforced only as the last resort, so I was only requesting that OhConfucius stop editing film articles, but I will not hesitate to ask for a topic ban if I think one is warranted and I think that there is no other option. It seems that he still wishes to edit those articles. I'm fine with that unless he makes more unsatisfactory edits by changing American spelling and dates to British on what are obviously American films. A Chorus Line (film) stands out fairly bad. --JOJ Hutton 18:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Tenebrae is quite mistaken if we follow reliable sources. As the Academy says, for a film to be submitted as the work of any country, "the submitting country must certify that creative control of the motion picture was largely in the hands of citizens or residents of that country." The BFI criteria take no account of distributor nationality. Again, if you haven't read the BFI criteria and if you don't follow the leading professional association in the world, you are not following reliable sources. If there was only one criterion available, director nationality would be the one to use. Based on reliable sources, it is the most important index of a film's nationality. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not mistaken. If the production company, which includes both physical crew and funding sources, and the distributor are not the primary "hands," as you put it. then nobody is. If an American company funds the film, produces the film and distributes the film, then it's an American film even if Kenneth Branagh directs it in Vancouver rather than Los Angeles because it costs less. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I have support for my views from the leading film industry organizations. Can you cite a reliable source that supports your view? If so, that would be telling. There are other institutions in other countries that also have criteria for determining which films are theirs. They can be found online. I believe if you look, you will not find support for your view. Again, the AMPAS criterion is creative control; it must have been exercised by citizens or residents of the country in question. That is a very general criterion, but it's clear that it refers to the director, screenwriter, actors, cinematographer, etc. I mean, that is what the sources say and for good reason. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Using BFI criteria only determines if the film is British, not if it is only British. Many films have multiple nations involved and in those cases it would be fair to use Wikipedia guidelines of WP:DATERET and WP:RETAIN. Still just because BFI doesn't use intellectual copyright as its determination, does not mean that the owner of the film rights does not matter. In fact it matters a lot. More so than any other criteria. Its their job to protect their copyright. When they need to sue to protect the copyright, its the studio that owns those rights that does it, not the director. The director is just another employee in the chain.--JOJ Hutton 18:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

How can it matter more than any other if no reliable source ever ties a film's nationality to the copyright? I agree that the copyright is a useful index of... something. We might even consider replacing the Country field with the Copyright Country field. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If we start using our own judgement and applying the criteria that Ring links to, that is synthesis/OR. And of course that is just one set of criteria - there are others around. All we need to do is follow reliable sources (like the BFI database as one example), and report what they say. If they are largely in agreement, then we don't have a problem. When they conflict, as I said above, then we leave it out of the lead and the infobox, and if warranted, discuss in the article. To repeat - it is not up to us to make judgements based on a list of criteria. And as Ring is aware, we've had this discussion before. --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

As per his usual, RobSinden wants to ignore sources that disagree with him. I am emphatically not suggesting that we use our own judgement, but let me clarify: Rob's statement above (use sources unless they disagree, in which case sat nothing) is correct for our purposes. But when it comes to formulating guidelines and policies, the opinions of industry leaders about the semantics of a film's nationality are germane. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

So we agree that we should follow the sources and not make judgements, yet still you insist on arguing? And which sources are you implying that I am ignoring? --Rob Sinden (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
When drafting guidelines and policies, the relevant sources should be followed, not ignored. That's where we differ. Even though you don't have reliable sources that back your view about production company primacy, you continue to repeat it. Now, that is a symptom of ignoring the sources. You know the sources contradict your view, but you don't change your view, or at least admit that for our purposes your personal opinion has to take a back seat to the sources. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) I noticed Ohconfucius had made date/spelling changes to three Hitchcock films, went through his edits found three that had already been reverted by three different editors and then found twenty-three more films that the articles only state themselves as being American films (mostly in categores.) There were some that could have been changed back per WP:RETAIN because they were American and another national film, but I left those alone. I reverted the three Hitchcock changes, left a note and then reverted the other twenty-three I found, to have my edits reverted first without any discussion and then reverted again despite an ongoing discussion. I was thinking about heading here, so I am glad someone else was able to start it. Since my last edits, I have found another eleven, but from what I can tell they were all before the discussion here. In all of these cases, the film articles state the films are American and Ohconfucius makes no additional edits to the articles to change the lead, infobox and/or categories to change them from American to usually British, so that the dates/spelling then go against what the article says. A good faith editor would probably come along and change the dates back to American since the articles state they are American films. The Hitchcock films are funny examples because in his article it talks about all of these American films he made, but then Ohconfucius changed the dates/spelling based on Hitchcock's nationality. Aspects (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems that we are arguing over interpretations of WP:TIES and WP:RETAIN here. I would say that WP:RETAIN applies most. WP:TIES cannot be argued unless there are strong national ties to the country in question. If a film's nationality is dubious, in dispute, or shared between countries, then I would say it has no strong national ties to any one country and WP:RETAIN must be applied in the absence of ties. Ohconfucius has gone against WP:RETAIN and his only defense is to argue WP:TIES. But WP:TIES fails if a strong tie is not established. I contend that Ohconfucius must first argue WP:TIES and demonstrate his evidence (of course, as always, with reliable secondary sources) and finally gain WP:CONSENSUS for the change before he can make them. Meanwhile, we always have the admonition of the MOS that debates about national variety of English are not productive and should be avoided wherever possible. This whole thread is such a debate and should have been avoided in the first place. But I say that there is no consensus to change anything and WP:RETAIN must be observed until such time as that consensus changes. Elizium23 (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
In all honesty, I think we're all in agreement. I think we'd be hard pushed to find a source that would claim that Amadeus or Casablanca are Czech films, or that A Chorus Line, Rebecca or Top Gun are British, and even if we did, they'd be in such a minority that we could discount them as being a wildly outlandish theory. The vast majority of publications do not consider a director's nationality when determining the nationality of a film, and thus, neither should we. --Rob Sinden (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Concur with Elizium23 and Rob Sinden. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Rob, that's just something you made up out of thin air. Now, since there is some kind of weird effort to distort this, let's be clear: no single criterion is adequate for determining a film's nationality. I've said that many times and the sources back me up. What I have said is that, if we were limited to one criterion, the director's nationality is the one. This is a mainstream view, reflected in countless reliable sources. Of course there are exceptions, but ths is true of any single criterion. So, maybe you can explain why you remain at odds with the sources after they are put in front of you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Pardon my bluntness, but "if we were limited to one criterion [for a film's nationality], the director's nationality is the one" is insane. Thor is not a British movie because Kenneth Branagh directed it. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
That would be true of any single criterion. Exactly my point. Sure, director's nationality is best, but it's not that simple. Sure, production company nationality is determinable, but if you use just that criterion you get a lot of garbage. On that perhaps we agree. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Ditto with the above. If we used director's nationality's it would get out of hand. Is Hard Target Chinese because John Woo directed it? Are the Hitchcock films all British? Are Fritz Lang films all Austrian because he was born there? So yeah, don't do that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
You might be right but what's the source that backs you up? Again, no single criterion is adequate. Look at all the absurd results that you get when you go by production company! So many laughs to be had when you see how completely silly that would be! Interestingly, the Academy says that nationality is tied to creative control. That seems like a good way to think of it, and it has the advantage of being supported by the most important industry organization in the world. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad you find it funny, but most serious film discussions do not follow suit. The International Federation of Film Archives refers to the country of production "FIAF defines the country of origin as the country of the principal offices of the production company or individual by whom the moving image work was made. Because of the complex interrelationships of persons and corporate bodies in the creation of a moving image work, film and television archivists believe that only main entry by original release or broadcast title can provide the level of consistency and standardization requisite for any national international networking or sharing of cataloging data.". It does go on to say that other countries in the world have other rules (such as Canada for taxing reasons) but since it's not general, we have to take it how it is. I think my source is pretty strong so unless you have some wide sweeping allegations against it...I suggest you drop it because I'm tired of having this argument with you again year after year. 00:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting you would like to follow the sources? If so, that is good news for my argument, since I have offered sources for my view. For example, the AMPAS criterion is concerned with creative control. The BFI method involves multiple criteria. Well, I'm probably boring you since you probably already read it. AMPAS is clearly the most significant source, and they don't agree that production company determines country. So perhaps we agree that we should follow the sources. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Contrary to "this assertion, it's not "insane" although it could transgress nationalist fervour. Unfortunately, ENGVAR actually feeds such fervour. RC has already stated, and most here already seem to agree that there are many complex interactions making contributing to the DNA of a given film. People like to create pigeonholes or categorise, to help understand the world. But we must not shout down a dissenting view because what was said about a weighted artistic measure may have been uncomfortable or may challenge people with a binary world view of a film world "owned" by the Americans. To insist on what reliable sources say is fine if they were all in agreement, but it seems that is not the case. Even in my OP, I did not suggest it was a single criterion in play, but I'm genuinely surprised that the presently assembled seems to feel in fact the reverse – that one criterion must be the production company's nationality or what one source has determined.

    The truth is, the director is much more than "just an employee", as has been reductively suggested (or was it tongue in cheek?). One could equally simplistically argue that Britishness or "Americanness" is only a small matter of geography or a piece of paper called a passport, but it's a lot more than that. Although Hollywood has tried to monopolise the film industry, it cannot monopolise creativity or artistic expression, which is why the hire directors of other nationalities. People see a film because of the director and the underlying work or subject matter, but they don't necessarily use a building because it was designed by Norman Foster. And in the case of many viewers, it's also the actors. In the same manner that readers follow an author (because they usually prefer an author's style or subject matter) and not the publisher – which not only prints but markets, distributes, translates – the public most certainly doesn't go to see a film simply because it's an MGM or Warner film – it's probably the very last reason anyone would. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I think WP:TIES probably extends beyond just the nationality of the film. For instance the original Superman film was a British production, but I would regard the topic area of Superman as American. Likewise Harry Potter is a British topic area, regardless of who makes the films. Something like Gandhi which was a British film should probably come under the Indian topic area, due to its subject matter. TIES should be applied in a more general sense so we should avoid applying it to rigorously. Film nationality results from a specific application of whichever criteria the sources use, but TIES is more about intuitive connections between an article and the subject. Betty Logan (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
In those examples, the films appear to be dual-nationality productions in any case (according to the sources, not my own criteria). --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Nevertheless, we would still need to base our decisions on WP:RS and not intuition. Elizium23 (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Including names of actors and characters written in a non-Latin script

After a discussion started here: User_talk:Hildanknight#Chinese_names_in_articles_about_films, a user pointed out that several Indian GAs do not include the original spellings of the characters or actors. The film project needs to decide on whether to include spellings of characters and people in articles about Indian, Russian, Japanese, Chinese, etc. films. Articles about Japanese books and anime and manga universally include the Japanese name spellings of characters and of real people without their own Wikipedia articles.

Also please keep in mind that in many cases you will be working with other country-based WikiProjects and they often have a habit of including non-Latin spellings.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

  • I would tend to agree with this edit that removed non-Roman text template that is visually too disruptive. Real-life individuals are already covered by MOS:CHINESE, so we are only talking about the characters. This is so incredibly difficult to parse – especially with the multiple systems and links to language pages that are not germane to the article. What is more, the Chinese names mean nothing to the non-Chinese reader, and as such makes it pointless. I would simply do away with Chinese characters altogether except for the film title. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Fictional characters should also be covered with MOS Chinese. With Anime and manga articles you see it all the time. The reason: What if you want to look up information about the character in Chinese? How will you know what to type? Sometimes fictional characters are notable and get articles on their own, and there is an entire WikiProject devoted to them (Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters). It is fine to ask for a way that is less visually disruptive, and surely there are such methods available. You can make a cast list. Or you can not use the template and only use Simplified and Pinyin for that article. What I did here was only list Simplified and Pinyin for I Not Stupid Too. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Diana film page move request

Please see the discussion here for the new biopic starring Naomi Watts. Cheers. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hip-Hop Films

Why aren't movies like Payed in Full or Friday included as Hip-Hop films. These films reveal the aesthetics and culture of Hip-Hop? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlpinkney (talk • contribs) 00:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Paid in Full (film) is already in Category:Hip hop films. If you feel that Friday (1995 film) qualifies as a hip hop film, then find a reliable secondary source which says so, add it to the article prose, and then add the category. I would have no objection provided these steps are followed. Elizium23 (talk) 01:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Little Nemo (1911 film) Featured Article canditature

I've put up Little Nemo (1911 film) as a Featured Article canditate, and would appreciate any and all feedback on the article. Please join in the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Little Nemo (1911 film)/archive1. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

List of multimedia franchises

You might be interested in this list, as it includes multimedia franchises with film components. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The Tourist (2010 film)

Can we get some comments from this project on these matters: On August 15, Inflight Allright made this edit to the Angelina Jolie article, which, by including "received mixed critical attention," made it seem as though there was a balanced reception among critics' views with regard to The Tourist (2010 film). I reverted because saying that the reviews "[weren't] all bad" does not equate to "mixed" in the typical way "mixed" is used at Wikipedia with regard to films. The film, according to Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and most sources on the Internet about it, received mostly negative reviews (an overwhelming majority of negative reviews). In this case, we should not call the critical reception "mixed."

On August 19, Inflight Allright added a Worldwide gross receipt section. Obviously, that is not how we format biography articles. Not typically anyway. And so I reverted, with the suggestion that perhaps it should be added as prose or to the Angelina Jolie filmography article, and I included this WP:Dummy edit note clarifying.

On August 21, Mr RD added Jolie's most successful commercial films to the lead; I reverted, stating, "Add this in a better way without duplication; it's already addressed in the previous paragraph, and, per WP:LEAD, the lead should not surpass four paragraphs." Mr RD did as I advised.

On August 24, Prayer for the wild at heart made this edit, stating, "Streamlined box office hits in lede. I don't think this information should be included here at all, but titles below the top three highest-grossing are certainly overkill." Some time later, Mr RD added The Tourist (2010 film) back to the lead, stating, "'The Tourist' to the lead as it has acclaimed greater appreciation worldwide esp. Europe.)" Prayer for the wild at heart reverted a day later, arguing, "Rv. The Tourist was a critical disaster and financially underwhelming; it does not belong in the lede. Plus you removed 'action star' career; the juxtaposition of action movies and serious dramas is intentional." Mr RD reverted a day after that, with the edit summary: "Undid revision 570126918 by Prayer for the wild at heart. I disagree with you on matter of under performance, the movie was more successful in international cinema outside US even more than salt." But did add back "action star."

On August 26, Verdict78, who edited the Angelina Jolie article today, made this edit to The Tourist (2010 film) article; I'd seen it that day, but I didn't pay much attention to what was changed. Today, after Allright took the The Tourist matter to the talk page (Talk:Angelina Jolie#The matter of The Tourist), I went to the Wikipedia article about it, and finally paid attention to all of what was changed. Though the film received mostly negative reviews from film critics, Verdict78 asserted that reviews for the film were mixed (a designation, as discussed above on this talk page, that signals that there was a balanced reception among critics' views with regard to the film). Verdict78 also downplayed the Rotten Tomatoes, gave precedence to a Top Critic from from that site over what most of the critics of that site state, and added "Despite the positive reviews" in front of the Peter Travers text. Before I restored the opening line of that section, and made other tweaks to it, as seen here, here and here, the Reception section read as though the film received generally good reviews. Like I stated in that third diff-link that shows an edit I made to the article, when you have to resort to using sources like the Daily Mail, Examiner.com (which is a site anyone can write for), DVD Talk and The Sun for the Reception section just to make the film seemed well-liked, there's a problem. We typically do not use such sources for Critical reception sections, though DVD Talk is used more often than those others for such means. Maybe that is why Verdict78 changed the heading from "Critical reception" to "Reception" -- to cover more than just the views of professional critics.

Verdict78, Mr RD and Inflight Allright are all relatively new registered accounts (in that order), with Inflight Allright being the newest. However, Inflight Allright's contribution history (the use of Template:By whom) signals to me that Inflight Allright is not new to editing Wikipedia. These editors perhaps need to get better acquainted with editing Wikipedia film articles. But I do find it odd that three different editors would show up within days of each other presenting The Tourist (2010 film) as either a film that did okay with critics or as being on par with Jolie's other biggest successes. Flyer22 (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be quite a bit of POV editing going on here. I will take a closer look and leave my comments at the article pages. Betty Logan (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Betty. Very much appreciated. Flyer22 (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
As you can see, I'm trying to get into editing film articles more. Personally, I felt that the coverage for The Tourist was pretty biased, so I just tried to give a fairer view. The reality is that a few critics did give it a bad review, however some didn't. A rotten tomatoes top critic put it in her top 10 films of the year, and it was nominated for a Grammy. I did feel that the overall review of this film was 'mixed'. Some really bad reviews, but then good ones also. To say it received bad or good reviews as a summary in my opinion would be wrong. Does anyone agree with this logic? Verdict78 (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The reviews for The Tourist are biased towards being negative because most critics presumably thought it was a bad movie. As I pointed out at Talk:Angelina Jolie#The matter of The Tourist, the aggregate scores from Rotten Tomtoes (20%) and Metacritic (37 - "generally unfavorable reviews") seem to back that up, while The Washington Post call them "not terribly kind" and The Atlantic call them "tepid". The consensus seems to be fairly consistent in that it didn't review well. Betty Logan (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
If you look at other threads here you can see that we've moved away from providing an overall review of films, especially where there's disagreement, as it's a form of synthesis. DonIago (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Verdict78, as I pointed out above and as Betty pointed out on the Angelina Jolie talk page, it was not a few critics that gave the film a bad review. It, from what the evidence we have to go on shows, is a few critics that gave the film a positive review. Rotten Tomatoes, for example, is made up of many critics, and it is standard practice to give that site precedence. It is not bias to give WP:Due weight to what most of the critics stated. That you felt the need to use the poor sources you used to give the film a more positive view (a view that actually seemed to present the film as a generally positive reviewed film) is also evidence of how poorly the film did with critics; while those sources may be okay to use for some things, they are poor for sourcing film reception. One of them, as noted above, is completely poor. As for the matter of providing an overall review, which is still commonly done in Wikipedia film articles, being a form of WP:SYNTH: As shown in the Mixed to positive / Mixed to negative thread above, I somewhat disagree with that (as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic usually show how a film was generally reviewed by critics, and Metacritic even uses precise wording to indicate "generally positive," "mixed" or "generally negative"), but other WP:FILM editors advise that we stay away from those lead-ins and let the sources do the talking (like I stated in this edit)...unless the line is backed against/supported by Metacritic's wording or a very WP:Reliable source. Flyer22 (talk 15:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
And Verdict78 is back at it, downplaying the negative reviews and giving the positive reviews WP:Undue weight again by moving some of them ahead of the negative reviews. If a film received the significant majority of negative reviews, then we present why the film was judged so negatively first. Vice versa for a film that received the significant majority of positive reviews. Verdict78, if you keep this up, I am going to add at least four WP:Reliable sources to the lead-in summary of that section that specifically state that film was mostly panned by critics. In fact, I'll likely do that anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 11:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I hadn't checked this page in a while, thanks for tagging me in it. My intention was never to bury the negative reviews, as I think you're suggesting. When I read the article the first time, I couldn't believe how negative it was. I merely tried to show that some critics did complement the film such as Stephanie Zacharek and The Sun to name a few. The changing of the first sentence was just an extension of this work. When I checked the page a couple of days ago I noticed it had been reverted, at the time I hadn't checked for recent arguments on this page so I apologise for that. On a slightly different note, does anyone think this section could benefit from a box office section similar to other films such as Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl? For a film grossing nearly $300 million, I'd say that the box office stats and figures could do with some coverage. Verdict78 (talk) 10:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
The article isn't negative. The Reception section leans significantly toward the negative side because of what has been explained above in this section. Per the "balancing aspects" and "giving equal validity" policies, which are a part of WP:Neutrality/WP:Due weight, we should not try to artificially balance out the reception when there is no balance. And, yes, the section would benefit from a box office subsection in that article; it should obviously have one. Flyer22 (talk) 10:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Gendered pronouns redux

Since we all enjoy talking about the problems of which gender pronouns to use for transgender people, I thought I would ask a different, but related question. Let me make it clear up front that I don't really have an idea what a good answer to the question is. It has been a long time since I saw The Crying Game and I have not seen Albert Nobbs. In the plot summary for the former, Dil is referred to as "she" throughout and in the plot summary of the latter Albert and Hubert are referred to as "he" throughout, including when describing a scene where they go in public in dresses presenting as women. For The Crying Game I don't remember if anything is said to settle whether or not Dil is transgender or a male-identifying gay drag queen. For Albert Nobbs I just don't know if it is ever addressed.

Other films come to mind where characters present, at least part of the time, as a gender different from their sex. Tomboy is about a 10-year-old, who: "At home, she is a girl and goes by Laure, but to all the neighborhood children she is a boy and goes by Mikäel." Sometimes presenting as a different gender is done comedically, like Mrs. Doubtfire and Tootsie. The plot summary of the latter includes the phrase "Dorothy has her own admirers to contend with" while the plot summary of the former tells us "Miranda quickly befriends 'her'."

So there is a real question here about how to refer to characters who present as a gender different from their biological sex. In the case of Dorothy Michaels in Tootsie and Mrs. Doubtfire it seems natural enough to think of those names as the names of characters and since the character is a (non-transgender) woman, the female pronoun fits when using that name. For Dil, Albert, Hubert, and Laure/Mikäel however, we seem to need to come to some conclusion about their actual gender in order to know how to refer to them. For the article about Let the Right One In, editors agreed that Eli's gender is intentionally ambiguous and so in the plot summary no gendered pronouns are used when referring to Eli. That's a solution that can be used in other cases where we just might not know (or not agree) about what a character's gender actually is. But gender bending in fiction is common enough that it might be worth considering having some sort of guidance about how to handle the pronouns in the film MOS. 99.192.71.46 (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

RFC at Léon: The Professional

Having seen this edit summary I have opened a RFC here Talk:Léon: The Professional#RFC in an attempt to forstall any edit warring and to gain a new consensus. Comments and input will be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 16:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

People (magazine)/People.com at Brad Pitt article or other WP:BLPs

Opinions are needed on this matter: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#People (magazine)/People.com at Brad Pitt article or other WP:BLPs. Flyer22 (talk) 04:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher Abbott

Dear film enthusiasts: The above article has been waiting in the Afc for more than two weeks. Would anyone like to review it? —Anne Delong (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess not, but it's been declined by one of our regular reviewers. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film)‎

Less than 24 hours after the announcement that J K Rowling might be writing a new film in the Harry Potter series, of course someone creates an article without being familiar with WP:NFF. My attempts to redirect keep getting reverted, so might be one to keep an eye on. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

send it to the incubator and get protection for it because you are not going to out-muscle the fanatics who will be drawn to that article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I opened an AfD before I saw this. Clearly fails the criteria, though I expect a lot of "surely notable" votes. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Fast and Furious: Tokyo Drift sequel/prequel discussion

There is an ongoing discussion at the above link with a user who feels it is necessary to mention that the film takes place after 3 films, rather than simply the latest film it takes place after. If anyone wants to lend their input as the discussion is going nowhere. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Redirect hatnotes

Should hatnotes such as the ones at Thor: The Dark World and The Avengers: Age of Ultron be removed? All they say is that something redirects there. I tried removing one, but it was reverted, so I come here to discuss. (There is also some discussion about this on the Age of Ultron talk.) Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

As stated in the other thread, it is there to inform the reader that that they reached the proper article even though it has a different title and to inform them that the referenced material which may not refer to the topic by the current article title are indeed the same topic. Here is the original disscussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 47#The Avengers 2, Thor 2, Captain America 2, etc., in article lead..--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
But... the hatnote doesn't say that. It just says "so and so redirects here," not "Bob Smith's Big Adventure 2 is the same as Bob Smith: The Final Chapter". If you're looking to remove confusion, modify the hatnote, but it's still pointless. Just read the lead. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 20:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

She Shoulda Said No! at FAR

I have listed She Shoulda Said No! for a featured article review: click here to see it. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes

Interested in documenting all of the films which have a 100% rating on the website. As a film buff I'm interested in such a list as a must-see. Help is needed expanding it.. I f it isn't too long, it can be put at the bottom of the main article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll help ya. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
There is already an article for List of films considered the best, presumably any film with 100% at Rotten Tomatoes would qualify for that list as well. Making a separate list for Rotten Tomatoes seems a little undue to me. Fortdj33 (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

About Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hepburn-afternoon.jpg

Dear Friends, did you know about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hepburn-afternoon.jpg?

File:Hepburn-afternoon.jpg ( enwiki FP ) has been listed at Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. Thanks. --Degueulasse (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Forheavenssake3.jpg

File:Forheavenssake3.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 11:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Now-voyager.jpg

image:Now-voyager.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 11:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Leiden International Film Festival

Dear film buffs: It looks like the submitter of the above article could use a little help. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

DMAX (company)

I'm wondering if the article name is right. Is this a film format, a company, a kind of theatre, or what? Any thoughts or suggestions? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Reading this source it seems like it is just a film format in the same vein as IMAX. It certainly doesn't seem to be a company since the source says it was developed by the China Film Group Corporation. Betty Logan (talk) 12:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. So should it be DMAX (technology) or DMAX (film format) or DMAX (not IMAX, not even close)? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Film formats isn't my area at all, but it seems that articles that are connected to filmmaking are disambiguated with (filmmaking) as per WP:NCF#Articles about filmmaking, so in this case that would be DMAX (filmmaking). Betty Logan (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for the feedback. I've proposed it at Talk:DMAX (company)#Page move DMAX (company) to DMAX (filmmaking).
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Third opinions needed at Hello Dolly

I would appreciate some third opinions at Talk:Hello, Dolly! (film)#Disputed box office section in regards to a sequence of edits at Hello, Dolly! (film). I'm not getting anywhere in discussion with the editor involved and now he's removing the whole section. Betty Logan (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all who responded. Hopefully that will be the end of it, but if not at least I can ask for enforcement of the consensus now. Betty Logan (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

RFC at The Departed

There is now an RFC regarding recent edits at Talk:The Departed#RfC: Discussion of Lead Section comment on film sources neglectfully or inadequately discussed in main article. The rather lengthy discussion relevant to the RFC is at Talk:The Departed#Whitey Bulger and The Departed, but to cut to the chase the text the editor actually wants to add is at Talk:The Departed#Draft. Betty Logan (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

21st-century Indian film actresses

Category:21st-century Indian film actresses, which might be relevant to this project, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. I have also added some comments to the discussion which seek imput on the larger issue of which categories we do and don't want to use.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Assistance sought to improve an article

The original Young Malang film article was speedy deleted... perhaps without due consideration that otherwise tag-able concerns, including a sense of WP:PEACOCK, were addressable underWP:IMPROVE, WP:ATD andWP:WIP. It was most likely written by a newcomer who lacked understanding of how PEACOCK terms give an unsourced article a very bad reputation. It was then recreated in a much shorter version asYOUNG MALANG by another apparent newcomer and sent immediately to AFD. As the film's production has received significant coverage and the film is due to release on the 20th, I undeleted the original version and moved in into my userspace. I seek assistance in bringing the original into line for a return to mainspace. Who's up for helping improve it? 'Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

What makes a film (insert nationality here)?

A question came up on the War Horse (film), wherein Jojhutton asked how the film was being categorized as British, when "not one of the production companies are British. Most are American and one appears to be Indian. The screen writers are British but that's about it from what I can tell".A
This would seem to be a fair question, since all but one of the production companies are American (Reliance is a conglom out of Mumbai, India). True, the book it was adapted from was by an English author, and most of the cast is English, but because the perception that its an English film make it such when determining naming conventions and categorization purposes? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

See the discussion above: #What determines the "nationality" of a film? Betty Logan (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, the British Film Institute don't consider it to be a British film: [1]. Betty Logan (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Was there a failed application for British designation or are you just going by their database which uses a different set of criteria? --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I think too much weight is given to the British Film Institutes interpretation of what is and is not considered a British film. Their criteria is far too broad for Wikipedia to take one entities determination too seriously. What should matter is the copyright holder. The owner of the films copyright should be the obvious determination. Not some random actor or director credit. Or in the case of War Horse, screen writer credit. JOJ Hutton 16:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The director credit is "random"? Is it also then "random" that Hamlet was written by Shakespeare? No, in fact, the BFI is a reliable source and the criteria they employ are also used by many other institutions. The most important industry group in the world says, in essence, that a film shouldn't be considered from Country C if the creative control of the film wasn't exercised by C's citizens or residents. Many national film organizations have published criteria for determining which films are theirs. Please consult them. I don't know of any reliable source that says that copyright determines nationality but if you can find one that would be outstanding. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

So is it your opinion that every article should use British spelling and DMY dates if even a single person related to the project is British?--JOJ Hutton 16:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Your attempt at a reductio doesn't work very well. Your logic, apparently, is that I cited a British reliable source, therefore I think all things British trump all other sources. But I am also citing the American AMPAS (the group that distributes the Oscars). So, even if I had only cited a British source your logic fails, but it fails again because I also used an American source, not to mention urged you to read the criteria of national film boards, etc around the world as I did a couple years ago. Please take the time to find out what I'm talking about. There are many national organizations that explain why they think a film is of their nationality and the primacy of the director's role is widely recognized. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I have came across this, The Last Days on Mars, classed by the BFI as from Great Britain, yet the production compnaies are Irish and American. Directed by an Irish director and filmed mainly in Jordan and Ireland. I have read the above section, yet am still wondering. Murry1975 (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
According to the IMDb British production companies were involved in producing The Last Days on Mars, which may or may not be the reason that the BFI categorize it as a British film. But as described in the discussion above, production companies are not the sole criterion, and neither is copyright. Nationality is a confluence of legal, economic and cultural factors and as such {{Infobox film}} instructs us to consult a selection of sources. There are many different criteria which is why different sources list different countries; the purpose of Wikipedia is to simply represent the real world usage in sources, not what we think they should say. The BFI doesn't trump any other RS in this regard, in that there isn't a universally accepted definition, but if the BFI rejects a film as being British then I think that is certainly a compelling argument for not listing it as British on Wikipedia. Often nationality is clear cut, but in the cases where it is isn't (i.e. there seems to be no consensus between sources) we need to evolve beyond this simple database labelling approach, and explain what roles these countries each played in the film's production. Betty Logan (talk) 12:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Betty, will update with more information, will also take nationality out of the lead, American/Irish/British- its too long. Murry1975 (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I usually agree with the BFI, but War Horse is not an Indian/US film. As far as I can tell, Reliance was not involved in its development or production. It's a co-financier on DreamWorks productions. And note BFI does not list Reliance as a "Production Company", but instead under "Presents". It does the same with Spielberg's Lincoln, also not an Indian/US film. - Gothicfilm (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

You are stressing the wrong partner, and kinda missing the point, imo. It is a US/Indian production, and not the other way around (I suspect you did that to make some point, though); just because the Indian conglom tossed money at it doesn't make it theirs (for the purposes of this narrow specification); it relies on where the film was assembled/produced. One English actor doesn't make a film English, any more than the author's nationality makes it their nationality. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I put Indian/US because that is how the BFI labelled both War Horse and Lincoln. The missed point appears to be that I do not believe we should use that on WP for either film, unless you're going by financing companies, which does appear to be what the BFI is doing - and then they appeared to alphabetize them. But I believe we should go by where the production company is. Usually that will be the same country as the financing entity, but when you add a co-financier like Reliance you get an additional country like India. As has been pointed out in earlier discussions on this, the BFI also labelled Superman (1978) as Switzerland/Great Britain/Panama/USA which is rather inexplicable, as it's neither alphabetical nor in order of importance. As far as I know Switzerland and Panama weren't even financing sources, but were merely where some of the producers' banks were located.
Let me add that I have found the BFI and AFI databases to be the most consistently accurate sources for film credits. It's only when this co-financier country issue comes up that I don't think we should always follow their labelling. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't know the specifics of War Horse, some sources label it as a US production, others as a co-production between the US and India, but if all India did was provide equity (and we could provide RS verification of that) then the logical approach would be to state it is an American film, but make it clear in the production section it received financial backing from an Indian company. That would clear up the disparity between the sources that include India and those that don't. The first two Superman movies are a really good example actually: the Salkinds were an independent production outfit based in the UK. They took out a 20-year lease with Warner on the Superman property, and funded it by pre-selling US distribution rights to Warner for $40 million, and taking out a $70 million Swiss bank loan for the rest of the cost. I'm not sure how Panama fits in—I'm guessing it was some dummy company to hide away the profts (the top rate for UK income tax stood at 90% around this time, so who can blame them?). Superman has quite a complex national identity, and I'm surprised the BFI didn't just toss Krypton in there for the lark, and it's a prime example where this simple country labeling thing doesn't really do justice to its underlying identity. Betty Logan (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
All things being equal, I personally wouldn't care how many countries are added to the credits. Add one for every single nationality involved, straight down to the catering company. But all things are not equal. Despite there being Wikipedia projects for just about every language and dialect, after all this time, we are still stuck using a shared English Wikipedia among several English speaking countries. All things are not equal in this respect because the United States and other English speaking countries have different spelling rules and date formats. We have to choose which spelling and date format to use based on several factors, including WP:TIES and WP:STRONGNAT. Most of the time its a simple decision and WP:RETAIN tends to drive the decisions. Many times, especially in film articles, there tends to be arguments because many films usually get financial support from several different production companies, who may or may not hail from the same country. This divide leads to arguments and unnecessary time and energy trying to sort it out. I have noticed a slow but strong shift over the last few years of more and more articles being switched to DMY and non English American spellings. Some based on WP:TIES, but some based on very little than a single factor, or what I call the one drop rule. User:Ohconfucius was applying this rule a few weeks ago when he decided that only the directors nationality was relevant, and he was making mass spelling and date changes to film articles, based on nothing more than that. To be fair, he stopped doing that and has contacted me on a few occasions to apologize when he makes a mistake, but those mistakes are rare now, so I credit him for that. I'm a bit more concerned with how User:Ring Cinema applies the criteria based on only BFI alone. I fear that if he had his way, every film that BFI considered British would be written in British English and DMY, even if the film had stronger ties to another country. Thats why I prefer to go the legal route. There is no mistaking the copyright owner. Its a legal contract. The copyright owner owns the film and is the one who makes the decisions for the films production. Many sources simply refer to the copyright owner as the financier, just in case anyone thinks that the copyright owner isn't important or isn't mentioned in sources as being important.
In the case of the film "War Horse", if the production company from India is only a co-financier of Dreamworks, then they should be removed as they were not directly involved in this films production. And then the dates and spellings should be changed to MDY and US spelling based on TIES and STRONGNAT. This hopefully will avert the crisis, at least for now.--JOJ Hutton 22:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
With apologies, Hutton, you completely misread what I said so I redacted your error. As for copyright, apparently no one at all says that copyright indexes a film's nationality, while by contrast it is widely understood and mentioned repeatedly that the director's nationality is pretty significant on this point. When it comes to matters of citizenship, we follow the local authorities on who does or doesn't belong. A similar method could be employed here, since national film boards are widespread and they have criteria for determining which films are theirs. It's not a method that is foreign to WP. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hutton, you restored your incorrect attribution to me of views that you know I don't hold. What is the point of intentionally getting it wrong? The most obvious explanation is that you can't answer my actual arguments so you prefer responding to fake arguments instead and pretending you've responded to mine. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Please do not refactor the talk page posts of others; I know of fewer things that can get you blocked faster, apart from calling someone a fucking moron who is deaf to criticism. If you think they've made a misstatement, log in and post that they are wrong. That is the way it works. Learn. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Pared down cast list

Please consider offering your opinion at Talk:G.I. Joe: Retaliation#Pared down cast list, regarding whether certain characters should be included in the article or not. Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The Scarecrow (short film)

Project members are welcome to come assist with the expansion of The Scarecrow (short film), a recently-released animated short film and advertisement that has received quite a bit of press (see talk page for sources). Any assistance is much appreciated! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Moved to the correct title. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Development of Jurassic World ??

I came across Development of Jurassic World. A film that has been rumoured for over 10 years. The article is full of rumour and "confirmed" details (even "conclusively confirmed") that all come to nothing, it's always happening "next year". Article clearly was named to try to evade WP:NFF, which it violates blatantly. 202.81.242.216 (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The article is not trying to evade the notability guidelines for future films, which at the end of the day is a guideline, not a policy. Most films currently in development will not have a history as extensive as this particular project. This article does not use the film infobox, but it needs to be revised further to exclude the film-related categories and to have a different introduction. As for the rumors, there is not speculation; there are people working behind the scenes to make this happen, and it just has not happened (yet). This needs to be an article about film history, not about an actual film. As an encyclopedia, with a topic like this, I think it is reasonable to have a stand-alone article that can trace the development timeline. I say this as someone who typically endorses merging most articles about films-yet-to-be-shot to a broader article. There are bound to be exceptions like this one with extensive coverage. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Any proposed sequel to a big film will have "extensive coverage". But notability is not inherited. If this argument was allowed it would negate WP:NFF. Anyone could make an article about any proposed film by prefacing it with "Development of...". Fans of a movie would immediately do so for every hint of a sequel. It was to put a stop to that that WP:NFF was created. Everyone thinks their movie is "special" and "important" and "an exception to the rule". This proposed film has been "in development" and "hotly anticipated" for 12 years. What value is it to record all the empty press releases and announcements and most hilariously, "confirmed release dates" that never eventuate? There is a place for what few hard facts there are, at Jurassic Park (franchise)#Jurassic World (2015). The rest can be erased with no loss. Look at any article of a real film. How many have 25,000 kB (the current size of this article) on all the hot air that precede it actually beginning? If the film is actually made (which is not a surety, no matter what anyone says, or wishes) then there will be an article and all that's there now will be covered in one paragraph. Hollywood has people whose job is to create buzz about a movie project. We aren't part of that machine. We should just stick to things that have actually happened, not regurgitating endless promotional press releases that cheerfully claim things are "confirmed" for some future date that then passes without event. 202.81.242.216 (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not a huge fan of these "development of" articles either, but ultimately if you think it fails notability then simply AfD it. Its existence is not something the Film project has control over. Betty Logan (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
IP editors cannot AFD. Anyway, I was not appealing to the Film project per se to do anything, but it seemed a place to raise the issue and get some input, since obviously those actively editing the article aren't going to be receptive to deleting it. 202.81.242.216 (talk) 05:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
You should create an account, then. DarthBotto talk•cont 00:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Not something I am willing to do. Anyway, the editors at that article will prevail over me alone regardless since no one else is interested. 202.81.242.216 (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Assistance requested

At Soylent Green we have an editor who keeps renaming what's essentially an "In popular culture" section to "Trivia" claiming that...it's trivia. Without commenting on whether the information might be best removed (it does appear reliably sourced at this point, with non-sourced information purged), I don't believe it's in the article's best interests to have a section labeled as such, but I'm on the edge of 3RR at this point. Thanks. DonIago (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

It's trivia. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

George of the Jungle 2 - because even bad films deserve decent articles

Been having a bit of a problem cleaning up the article for this film (my drive by wiki past time when I'm bogged down at work and can't get into anything more detailed). Editor Stiarts erid (whom some of you may know from other content disputes as this is not the first film article to receive problem edits by said editor) keeps attempting to add a lot of unnecessary detail back in. He very much wants to be helpful but no attempts to point him towards relevant policies and guidelines has been working (on this or other disputes with him).

Wait, let me start over. I went through the article and cleaned up the cast list (absurd amounts of plot summary regurgitation) and restored a clean plot from 2009 that had been stable for several years prior to that (stable since shortly after the film's release in 2003 as near as I can tell). The plot problems were many and came in two major edits over the last two years (poor encyclopedic tone, contractions, appallingly bad grammar, that juvenile writing style that plagues many films aimed at kids, and a glut of fancruft details). I dropped a note on the talk page trying to bring the involved editors around to seeing how we could add some of the detail back in if we were careful. Then I started pulling 80 hour weeks at work for a bit at the same time another content dispute with said editor was heating up over at The Fog (and heating up in such a way that it felt like communication was not going anywhere). Given my time constraints I backed out of the whole mess for a bit.

Now with a bit more free time, I went back to doing some article clean up and this article came up again because the bulk of the problem material had been re-added to plot. I'm not sure what to do next. Strictly speaking, the edits aren't vandalism, just incredibly nonconstructive. Some of it only goes against guidelines but some of it goes against actual policy, as well. Can anyone try to communicate on the talk page of the article about possible compromises (if appropriate)? Or possible suggest a mentor to Stiarts erid? Or something?

Not sure I'm explaining this well. Stiarts erid's edit history and the film's page history might be more helpful. Millahnna (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I've offered a third opinion on the talk page for what good it will do. The disruptive editing seems to be a community wide problem though, so it looks like he's heading for ANI and a long block. Betty Logan (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorting film titles starting with "A" or "The"

Maybe it has been discussed elsewhere, but is there a consensus on whether to include the article or not, when sorting films by title on the talk page? For example, movies such as The Century of the Self or A Certain Sacrifice are sorted in the C's because the {{WikiProject Film}} banner has the |listas= parameter on the article's talk page. Yet most film titles that start with "A" or "The", default to being sorted by the letters A and T respectively, because they do not have the |listas= parameter. Is there a preference whether these films should be sorted by the first or the second word of the title? Fortdj33 (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't think it really matters for the talkpage sort of a page, as long as the mainspace article is correct. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the {{DEFAULTSORT}} and the |listas= parameters do not always match up. Therefore, an article could be sorted by "A" or "The" in one case, and by the second word of the title in another. Personally, it doesn't matter to me which one is preferred, but I think that there should be a consensus, so that it is consistent across all film articles. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Director photo in Template:Alfred Hitchcock‎

As this already director navbox is already pretty large, couldn't we make it a little less cumbersome by removing the director photo? Thoughts here please :) --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Attention to Warcraft would be nice

I just wanted to bring it to the WikiProject's attention that there is now an article for the Warcraft movie, but what I noticed is that it's actually a copy-paste from WoWpedia. How do I know? I wrote that article over four years ago. Anyways, I'd appreciate it if I could have some assistance with cleaning it up and possibly making it focus on "Development of...". DarthBotto talk•cont 00:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

At In a World... there is warring over the inclusion of {{rotten-tomatoes}}, {{metacritic film}}, and {{mojo title}} in the external links section. See this recent removal. Can I get a third opinion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted them because a) they are used on every film article and b) they are anon. IP scum. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:HUMAN, and WP:CIVIL applies even to IP editors. 202.81.242.216 (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:NOTPEOPLE. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL "applies to all editors and all interaction on Wikipedia," not to mention WP:AGF. Anyway, I'm less "anonymous" with my IP than you are as "Lugnuts". 202.81.242.216 (talk) 09:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Extended content
99% of IP edits that appear on my watchlist are vandalism, so there's no need to apply WP:AGF. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Assuming a whole class of users are vandals is exactly what the guideline says you cannot do. And eventually someone will make a formal complaint if you really act on this assumption. (i.e., reverting all IP edits regardless of merit.) If particular articles are really getting 99% of IP edits as vandalism, apply to have them protected. It will be an easy case to make. 202.81.242.216 (talk) 05:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
guideline - There's the keyword. It's only a guide. And the facts that I see support me. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL is a policy. And "anon IP scum" very clearly violates that. I've been put through the wringer for much less. 202.81.242.216 (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
For info, the page has now been protected. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Naming conventions section tagged with [who?]

Some of you may be interested in this. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Outside opinions at Dredd

There is a discussion at Talk:Dredd#Assuming_fail.2C_versus_accepting_fail. that may be of interest more to people interested in the film than general policy. The incredibly lengthy discussion is over a single word, "accepts" vs "assumes", which in my opinion change the entire meaning of the scene depending on which is used. The thing is very lengthy so a basic summary is:

  • Assumes

We cannot know what is going on in Dredd's head and so it is incorrect to say she accepts she fails when he might not have failed her at this point, so she cannot accept it.

  • Accepts
    • In film
      • [Timestamp 10:44] Dredd - "Losing your primary weapon or having it taken from you is an automatic fail"
      • [Timestamp 58:10] Anderson is disarmed, loses her primary weapon, is captured by Kay
      • [Timestamp 1:19:33] Dredd - "Mind explaining yourself Rookie? Abetting a felon is not just a fail offence, it's a crime" / Anderson - "I already picked up the fail when I lost my primary weapon, I'm not going to be a judge and I don't need to be a mindreader to know it".
    • Out of universe

    • No, I fully embraced it and I think that’s one of the great strengths about it. Dredd is seemingly unchanged. He is seemingly like just a tower of strength and everybody else is bending and buckling and changing and oscillating where Dredd is a constant. To me that’s a huge attraction and a huge plus, but an actual fact if you really study the film there is an arc for Dredd. There is a change. Dredd does something at the end of this film that he never would have done before meeting Anderson and that’s really the beginning of the cracks and the questioning I think for him. I don’t want to get too much into spoilers… By Urban who plays Dredd.

    • "I didn’t think Dredd could have a great epiphany, but there is definitely a change in him over the course of the movie. He makes a very clear statement at the beginning of the film which he then contradicts at the end. That’s about as far as the shift goes." By Garland who wrote the film

Triplethreat offered a third option but it would require a lengthy description of events and ultimately would require one word to be used over the other anyway. The discussion was going nowhere and so needs further input by other users. Note: to retain the neutrality of this request I am deliberately not stating which side I am on. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

It would have been nice had Darkwarrior informed any of the other editors that he was coming over here. It's also kind of pointless for him to not state which side he is on, when the first thing people are going to do is to check the discussion and see which side he's on. Still, there you go.
My arguments for changing "accept" to "assume" are because at no point in the film does Dredd actually pass judgement upon her. It's all well and good providing character interviews and previous plot points, but despite that, Dredd never categorically tells her that she has failed, therefore, despite being fairly convinced she is lacking the empirical knowledge, so it has to be an assumption. The word is not about what is going on in Dredd's head, but what is going on in Anderson's head.
Also, this is interesting, because I see from date stamps that Darkwarrior started this discussion @ 0945h on 5th October, but at 2055h on 4th October he posted "Just change the fucking word and we can all move on and hopefully, hopefully, I will have to deal with you infrequently to never again from here on. Change the word resistance fighter, you beat down evidence, you beat down logic through sheer intransigence and I commend you for it" - which rather implies he's done with the topic, and accepts (no pun intended) the use of "assume". Even though by this point we were discussing alternatives. So - does he concede change to "assume" or not? Is he going to say that he accepts the change, but hope that enough support is garnered here that it will be reverted back by others? It seems a little underhand to claim that one is done with a topic, then subsequently bring it up at one of the more popular projects for all to see? Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I am done with it, at no point did I say I support the change, I opted out of the discussion because it was getting worse. Considering I was forced to opt out because the discussion was endless and unchanging, I have brought it to the attention of the project under which the article is governed and asked them, neutrally, to take part if they choose. The idea behind not stating what side I am on is to not influence their opinions or essentially call for a rally towards a particular side. Hence the word "neutrality". WP: CANVAS. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
(Insert) Sorry, I was under the impression that "Just change the fucking word... <break> ...change the word..." in your above post meant that we could "change the fucking word". Also, I'd be careful spouting WP:CANVAS - when you have broken the rules yourself - you left a "neutral" message for Tenebrae here and then another one for Triiiple Threat here - but failed to "neutral notice" UKER, despite the fact that he had also been previously involved in the discussion. Perhaps coincidentally, Triiiple Threat & Tenebrae had supported your position, and UKER had not? That's called Vote-stacking, and is covered under WP:CANVAS as a bad thing. (You also implied that nobody had ever made the changes before, when you knew that not to be the case as you were the reverting editor each time, but that's by the by.)
Also, your initial summary is flawed, and I'll bold this bit so it stands out, as it's tucked in the middle of commentary the "accepts" part is not based on what is going on inside Dredd's head, but what is going on inside Anderson's head. Whether Dredd intends to fail her or not is actually irrelevent, because at that point in time, Anderson's head contains no empirical confirmation that she has failed, (or passed even,) so based on a lack of confirmation she has to assume that losing her weapon means she will fail. She has to assume that. Whether correctly or not, is not the debate. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Do you have anything to add to the discussion beyond petty bitching? I don't like UKER, at all, I'm not going to message and/or think about him period, that said I KNOW from previous experience and his active involvement in undoing any edit I make on the article that he can barely justify that he watches the page daily, he doesn't need notifying as evidenced by his participation in the discussion. THe discussion is going on there, you can keep your griping there, this is a notice for peoples attention alone. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I added that your summary is flawed, and concerns Andersons head, not Dredd's. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes you also mentioned something about empirical evidence and her not knowing she failed despite being given the parameters of failure and admitted to falling outside them. Like I said, take your griping to the existing discussion. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for reminding us all. You're right - she doesn't know, because nobody's given her the result yet. I thought you were done here? Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
My take on Dredd not failing is that he accepts that her primary weapon isn't her gun but her psychic abilities. However finding a decent reference to support that interpretation may be tricky. yorkshiresky (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

A series of telefilms is ...

See Talk:Jane Doe (TV film series) where we are discussing what is the way to refer to a series of telefilms -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The Sinking of the Lusitania Featured Article canditature

I've put up The Sinking of the Lusitania (the film, not the event) as a Featured Article canditate, and would appreciate any and all feedback on the article. Please join in the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Sinking of the Lusitania/archive1. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:IMDb name nominated for deletion

TfD discussion. As it is primarily used in articles about actors/actresses, you could be interested. Cavarrone 08:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Jessica Lange

I've just happened upon the Jessica Lange filmography article, and it seems that a very avid fan has spent a lot of time on this and other related articles approximately a year ago. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm of the opinion that sadly this hard work should all be reverted as it doesn't comply with our MOS. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I've started a merge discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy Renner and The Avengers: Age of Ultron

There is dispute regarding the reliability of sources that state Jeremy Renner has been cast in The Avengers: Age of Ultron. All opinions are welcomed at Talk:The Avengers: Age of Ultron#Renner. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources for unrelease film's cast

What constitutes a reliable source for an unreleased film's cast? Are certain sources considered less reliable than others? If some editors question a source (or multiple sources), should we begin making assumptions about a sources cast list (and more generally for sources, how deep down the rabbit hole do we want to go when it comes to second guessing reliable sources)? I have a specific instance in mind, but more generally I'd like feedback on what film article editors consider reliable sources when it comes to unreleased film cast lists.

FWIW, I've looked through the MOS style guides and other subpages of this WikiProject, but haven't seen any concrete guidance on the subject (I also searched the archives as well). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Announcements in Variety and The Hollywood Reporter are probably the gold standard since they're doing original reporting and not reporting (and possibly misreporting) someone else. We do have to be careful, when those magazines say someone is "in negotiations," to say just that — not that it's a done deal. Yeah, usually by that state it's pretty much a done deal, but there have been many instances when negotiations fall apart at the last minute. Hope this helps! --Tenebrae (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes, et al.

Has there been any consideration to improving and/or standardizing the fashion in which critical reception is added to film articles?

  • Perhaps creating and using a standardized table, similar to what is being used for video game articles? This would help create some consistency across all the film pages, and promote the addition of more info, with more ease.
  • Creating a template that automatically adds/updates critic's ratings from the site? (for example: {{Rotten Tomatoes|m/ title |X%}} ) I don't know if this is possible, but if so, this would ensure constant, accurate updating of these values, as well as consistency among all the locations they are noted.

Thanks - thewolfchild 01:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, see: Template:Rotten Tomatoes score.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
That's good. What about the rest of it? - thewolfchild 22:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Film poster discussion

You might be interested in this discussion about which version of a poster is best for the infobox. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Actor infobox discussion

Some of you may be interested in the discussion on this discussion on the talkpage of Jennifer Lawrence's article. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Template discussion

I have begun a discussion regarding the Template:Ymovies name here Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 13. Your input is welcome. MarnetteD | Talk 06:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Starring roles in Moonrise Kingdom

There is a discussion here, about starring roles and who should appear in the infobox, that might be of interest to other Filmproject editors. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: Infobox short film series

...or something to that effect. Inspired because users have repeatedly added the Template:Infobox television to articles such as Superman (1940s cartoons) and Tom and Jerry, to which they do not apply, despite this infobox being removed repeatedly. I'm not sure if something like this exists, but it would basically be used on articles about short film series, live-action or animated. Thoughts? --FuriousFreddy (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Moonraker page move

The discussion is here. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Question on dating films

While looking at The Phantom Gunslinger in an attempt to resolve an issue in Sabrina's article I came across a discrepancy in the dates given for the film; some sources say 1967 and others 1970. It seems undoubtedly to be the case that the film was made in 1967, but it's possible it wasn't released until 1970. So my question is which year should be given when describing this film, its production date or its release date? Eric Corbett 15:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Release date. Without a doubt. The release date will be the date used for copyright on the film. If you can, watch the films credits and see what the copyright date is on the film. That's the date that should be used. JOJ Hutton 15:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that. This particular film appears to be lost, so it's not possible to see anything but a few stills. At least that's all I've been able to find so far anyway. Sadly even the BFI is inconsistent on dating films. It gives the release date of 1969 for another of Sabrina's films that was actually shot in 1966, but 1967 for The Phantom Gunslingers, when it was shot but not released. Eric Corbett 16:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Franchise articles of Disney films

Due to the trend on Dreamworks films of writing articles about the franchsies as a whole, I think we should start to create them for Disney films. Lord knows many have been milked for every penny they're worth so we'll have a lot to talk about. I can attempt to create some of them (I was going to do Aladdin (franchise) now but changed my mind), but they'll probably be bare stubs.

Thoughts?--Coin945 (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

A different template discussion though it may seem familiar

I have begun a discussion regarding the Template:Ymovies person here Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 20. Your input is welcome. MarnetteD | Talk 05:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Burton-on-Trent vandal

MarnetteD left a message on my talk page and I feel the information should be shared with other member of the film project. IP 90.200.85.80 (talk · contribs) is the most recent manifestation of the Burton-on-Trent vandal. Here are the previous SPIs Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/90.200.85.232/Archive. He almost exclusively edits film articles, and I would bet that many of you have already encountered his edits. Some of what he does is actually useful, but he never uses edit summaries, never discusses on talk, and will simply repeat the same edits even if reverted. His overall attitude and approach to editing is not collaborative or cooperative. In short, he is a menace. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 17:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Burton upon Trent. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
@LugnutsAt least it avoids the need for this. Cheers!
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 18:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Sorry for the WP:ENGVAR violation Lugnuts. Excuses :-) are a) I am a Yank and b) that is the way the name comes up when I use the alternate geolocate command. Here is another link to info about this long term problem User:Rodhullandemu/Archive/34#The_90.199.99..2A_IP. Thanks for posting here TOJ as more eyes looking out for this editor is always better. MarnetteD | Talk 18:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Based on the post by Bishonen here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive815#Disruptive IP who was blocked two days ago is back. Looks like we can report any new IPs directly to that admin. That should make dealing with this person easier. MarnetteD | Talk 21:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Yep. We can catch that vandal if we wish to, as with my vigilante work with other LTA users. Before I forget, I should let everyone know that I am back from my Wikibreak after two months of semi-retirement. I had to semi-retired partially due to issues with long term abusive editors, vandals, sock puppeteers and my own frustration over Wikipedia's inability to deal with disruptive editors, as well as getting myself busy with classes. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox cast lists (again)

So, I've been operating under the assumption that the infobox film template is correct, and that the billing block of a poster should always be used in the cast list. However, in a few instances, edits like this have happened, and largely as a result of TheOldJacobite's reverting. Note that I completely understand his reverts and I'm not blaming him for anything, but for all intents and purposes, he's breaking policy. Now, I actually agree with the edit I linked, but again, not policy. So, what is the recommended course of action? I didn't revert him in hopes of dodging an edit war, but I honestly think I should have. It seems like the rules on cast lists are very loose and open to interpretation, where as some solid rules would definitely be nice in deciding who is and isn't included. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

We should be following the guidelines for the infobox in these cases, unless a good reason can be given not to. The guideline is to use the billing block, so that is what we should do. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
The billing block is the best concrete option, but if talk page consensus agrees that a better casting order/selection should be used, which otherwise doesn't break OR or POV (eg, listing Tom Cruise as a starring actor in Tropic Thunder even though his part is so tiny), then that order can be used. The case for Seven seems fair - 90% of the film is on Pitt/Freeman's characters, but I am not aware of consensus-building discussion to show this, and it might be wise to engage in that. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Film Posters

Hi All! It would be great if you could give your opinions on displaying film posters, and what evidence is required to authenticate them at the Interstellar talk page. Thanks in advance!  drewmunn  talk  12:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Zombies!!!

Some zombie fans have been having fun at List of zombie films and have split some down to List of low-budget zombie films, and there is also List of zombie short films and undead-related projects. They may need some help at Talk:List of zombie films#Inclusion criteria and elsewhere on the talk page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Character names in the plot section

Please see this discussion about using either the forenames or surnames in the plot to the film Eraserhead. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Genre changes

Last July Taeyebaar (talk) changed the genre to over a dozen articles without discussion, which I reverted. He repeatedly goes to articles on works long established as primarily science fiction and changes them to something else. I've given him WP:3RR warnings several times. He did engage in one discussion, which you can see at Talk:The_X-Files#Fantasy where issues of competency came up as well.

He has also switched back and forth between being signed in as Taeyebaar and using the IP 192.0.173.58. Best evidence is this edit by the IP here followed by the fact it was then signed less than a minute later by Taeyebaar as seen here. As the IP he has put Taeyebaar-type info into Speculative fiction‎, Space opera, Science fiction, Space Western, Space Cowboys and others. After being reverted, he came back later on the first two to reinsert his edits as Taeyebaar.

He has now returned to Space Cowboys and Lost in Space, where he earlier put in a red link, which, if it worked, would violate WP:EGG. He just now restored it, managing to get the link to work. He posted on my Talk page No revert without reason. There is no genre change. If you can come up with a suitable category or reason that will satisfy everyone per wp:consensus then perhaps I'll accept it, but if not you will not revert by which I take it to mean he believes changing science fiction to science fiction is not a genre change when he's now piped the link to Space Frontier, which, as I pointed out to him, also violates WP:EGG. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I would point out that the person is violating WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SUBJECTIVE. As genre is subjective, you have to find sources for it. We aren't allowed to just vote on what we feel like the genre is, we have to decide based on sources discussing the topic specifically. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Andrzejbanas. Generally we don't source genres because they are mostly obvious, but if there is a dispute over it they should be sourced. If there are conflicting sources then the status quo should retained and it should be hashed out on the talk page. WP:GENRE WARRIORS are disruptive and we even have warning templates for them: {{Uw-genre1}}. Betty Logan (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Betty. I would add that since this guy has already been given several WP:3RR warnings, a {{Uw-genre2}} is appropriate, and a higher level {{Uw-genre3}} or {{Uw-genre4}} if he resumes his behavior. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

No..I aint socking, you are just retaliating for my suspicions when you and another account revert warred me and posted bogus 'warnings' on my talk page. Be it known I am not the only one you have revert warred with. It was discussed on the X-Files that adding fantasy would work, but I disagreed and suggested adding something else which others were willing to discuss it, except you. It is known that the X-Files has 2 categories of stand alone and mythology episodes which were science fiction, but not the stand alone. You are trying to mislead people about my edits. Most of my edits were sourced. Taeyebaar (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

No, most certainly were not. The fact you call legitimate warnings "bogus" is not a good sign. The X-Files discussion I linked above speaks for itself. As I already explained on your Talk page (which you have since deleted, with all the warnings) when a film or novel is primarily science fiction, that's what we call it in an encyclopedia. You should not go around changing the genre to over a dozen articles, most without discussion. One writer you found does not overcome decades of sources calling a work science fiction. We could go on and on breaking films and novels into subgenres, but that is not our purpose here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested page move

Hi, you might be interested in participating in a discussion at Talk:Michael Powell.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The Silence of the Lambs (film)

Can someone jump in over at this article and revert the fellow who keeps adding the YouTube links? I have reverted him twice in the last 24 hours or so and do not want to get into an edit war, but he simply refuses to listen. A warning for inadequate sources might also be in order. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe posting on their talkpage would help... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

About the redirections When Worlds Collide (2012 film) and When Worlds Collide (upcoming film)

Hello,

I question myself about the legitimacy of redirecting an article that should be about a movie to the film director... I guess the movie itself deserves its own article, no matter it should remain a stub for a time, redirecting to the film director seems to me a bad idea (link should remain red until the stub is created instead of being rendered blue via an invalid redirection). 85.27.10.97 (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Please provide reliable secondary sources documenting whether it has begun principal photography. Until that time, per WP:NFF, no article is possible. Elizium23 (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I concur with Elizium23. If you take a look at the news section of this
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
You will only find one link to any info about the film. Also a redirect is a common practice in this situation. News of possible remake was announced a couple years ago but since then, as happens in the filmmaking biz, nothing has happened. Even IMDb has removed any mention of a release year for the film. Per WP:TOOSOON and a few other policies. Redirecting to the current director who is attached to the projects article is an alternative to an outright deletion of the article. Some of these films never get made - a remake of Seven Samurai with George Clooney participating was announced a decade ago. In this case, as with several others, should the film ever go into production the redirect will be removed and the article updated. MarnetteD | Talk 23:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Article titles of upcoming films should not be redirected to the film's director (or any other article for that matter). If the film fails WP:NFF, then the redirects should be deleted. Once the film passes this notability, then start the article. A few months ago a user was blocked (I think indef.) for creating hundreds of redirects of upcoming films to the articles for the director. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for the misinformation Lugnuts. I was going off my experience with this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor: Young Caesar. Even after it was closed as delete MichaelQSchmidt convinced the admin to redirect the article. At the time I thought he had redirected it to the director but I now see that it was redirected to the author of the books. For the record I was leery of the redirect but, since this one was allowed, I assumed it was okay. Facepalms for the rest of the day for my errors. MarnetteD | Talk 14:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Followup: Do you think that a discussion should be opened to remove these two redirects and delete the articles instead? MarnetteD | Talk 14:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bourne Ultimatum - Plot Summary Length

Additional opinions are requested regarding the length of the Plot section for The Bourne Ultimatum. Discussion here. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hunger plot section

A serious rewrite is needed for Hunger's plot section. I'd do it myself, but I've never actually seen the film and I don't know what I can and can't trim off. Anyone who's seen it and who'd be willing to put some time aside to trim down and clean up this mess of a plot section will be enthusiastically thanked. Corvoe (speak to me) 00:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I've done a wee bit of cleanup--to me the largest issue is that Sands doesn't appear to be the main character for the first bit but dominates the second half, so it has to be addressed one way or another, and turned into the proper verb tense throughout. As I'm not a BrEng speaker nor have a seen the film I'm unable to finish the job. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The plot seems to be written in a forced perspective from the audience in form of "we see", "is seen", "are seen", etc. This is just bad writing. All perspective should be removed from the plot and just recount the narrative. For example: instead of "The two men get to know each other and we see them living within the cell" write "The two men get to know each other and live within the cell". I'd do it myself but I haven't seen the film.--TriiipleThreat (talk)
User:David Fuchs has done some great work with the plot. For the record, I have seen this film and it's well worth watching. Maybe not when you're eating though... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Huge thank you to David for his rewrites. Lugnuts, I'm intending to see it soon, I just haven't had the opportunity yet. Thanks guys! Corvoe (speak to me) 02:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thor: The Dark World - "mid-credits scene"?

Should this[2] this be the terminology we are using here? 2601:D:9400:3CD:2166:6994:9940:DCF5 (talk) 06:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Well for a start, "mid credits" could refer to the opening credits so it isn't specific enough. The correct terminology for when the scene occurs during or after the end credits is post-credits scene. Betty Logan (talk) 10:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Fuck featured article candidate discussion

Fuck (film) is a candidate for Featured Article quality — comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

And here I was all ready for a rant about the FAC process... Theopolisme (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
He said the F word! On the internet! Wont someone think of the children... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your interest, — Cirt (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Ha! Had no idea the TotC comment was in the article either! "In the film, opponents of the word "fuck" use an argument commonly known as "Think of the children"". Was going down the Maude Flanders route... Made a minor edit, will have another look later to see if there's anything else that I can do. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

RT consensus

It seems to me that this has been discussed in the past, but I could not find a relevant entry in the archives. Regardless, I want to bring this up again because there is currently a difference of opinion at Sense and Sensibility (film) about use of the Rotten Tomatoes consensus in critical reception sections. My understanding is that RT can be used only for statistics and that the site's own opinion (which is all the consensus really is) is irrelevant and not notable. Am I wrong about this? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

There were some discussions about it but nothing concrete either way from what I recall. Personally I would prefer to just let the data "speak for itself", but some editors feel the summaries help to qualify the data. Betty Logan (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you. It is also my understanding that RT itself is not regarded as notable, it is only the data and the outside opinions it collects that are notable. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 19:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The Rotten Tomatoes article says that the consensus is purely a synthesis of critic reviews (When there are sufficient reviews to form a conclusion, a consensus statement is posted which is intended to articulate the general reasons for the collective opinion of the film). However, this statement itself is followed by [citation needed]. Let the irony continue. Theopolisme (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Whatever "consensus" is reached by RT is a synthesis on the part of the site's editors and I do not see why we would give that any weight whatsoever. We quote the numbers, then we quote the actual critics. The RT consensus is beside the point. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 17:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Per MOS:FILM#Critical response, "Commentary should also be sought from reliable sources for critics' consensus of the film." Synthesis cannot be an argument because that only applies to conclusions that editors derive from a set of sources that do not explicitly state such conclusions. Periodicals like the Los Angeles Times engage in this so-called "synthesis" (to use a better word, gauging) of reviews and report a consensus. It's always going to be subjective, but if we consider the source reliable, we can quote the commentary and attribute it to the proper source. I think it is fine to use the RT consensus in articles, but commentary from multiple sources is always ideal, like at Jobs (film)#Critical response. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
It's arguable whether or not even the numbers should be included. RT's "tomatometer" score is derived from a limited set of critics, and the contents of that set appear to be editorially controlled by RT. There's published criteria for whose reviews are included in the main number, but there's a "we reserve the right" disclaimer and apparent inconsistencies; for example, Variety's chief film critic Scott Foundas does not appear in the tomatometer list even though he and his publication meet the criteria. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that particular list is any good. Variety is definitely listed as a "Top Critic". For Gravity here, Justin Chang's review is listed. EDIT: Foundas's RT page can be seen here. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't categorize the Rotten Tomatoes score as "derived from a limited set of critics." And when sources such as Los Angeles Times report the consensus of critics, they are often basing that on what Rotten Tomatoes states, just like we do; they often mention the score at Rotten Tomatoes when speaking of what most critics feel. The Rotten Tomatoes consensus (from my experience) is always accurate with regard to what critics generally felt/feel about a film, considering that it is consistent with what most other sources (outside of reporting the Rotten Tomatoes consensus) state on the matter; therefore, I don't see any valid reason to discard use of Rotten Tomatoes for the reception of a film, and given how widespread and validly accepted its use is on Wikipedia, that is very unlikely to happen. Flyer22 (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
RT seems to list its critics under two sections, the "approved" list and the "top critics" list. Scott Foundas is listed under Top Critics. Most of the major American and British critics seem to be surveyed so I don't think critic selection is a huge problem, although it is restricted to English language media. The RT scores are regularly quoted by other major publications which is what effectively qualifies their use on Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Foreign film titles in Infobox film

Should the original titles of foreign-language films be included in the Template:Infobox film? By searching the template's archives there seems to be a long-standing consensus against including them and they're absent from nearly every non-English language film I've come across, including GA articles such as Eyes Without a Face or The Story of Marie and Julien; but there is a parameter for including them (film name) and they are sometimes used on East Asian films (like Enter the Dragon), but nowhere else. I wonder if there's some agreement (tacit or otherwise) on where they should be used, and where they should be omitted, as the documentation of the template itself is not clear about it.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

{{Film name}} explains the process for adding a film's native title in a bit more detail. There's an example there which should make it a lot clearer. Betty Logan (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I understand the process, but not the rationale behind the choice of adding the original title to the infobox in some articles (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) but not others (Amélie). Right now it's just a few East Asian films that have the original names in the infobox. Is that done on purpose, and if so is there some kind of guideline on where it is appropriate to add them and where it isn't?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
The Asian Cinema task force used to have their own infoboxes which included parameters for the native title, while all other FL films i.e. French, German etc used the main film infobox. It was decided to merge the Asian film infobox into the main infobox, but the native name parameters couldn't be merged because they all had different names. The Asian Cinema task force didn't want to lose those parameters so the Film name template was rigged up to carry the native titles from those infoboxes. There is no technical reason or project guideline why a French or Indian title parameter can't be added to the Film name template; it's entirely up to the individual task forces. My suggestion is if you want to add a parameter for native French titles to take it up with Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/French cinema task force. Betty Logan (talk) 03:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the reply!--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Themes and plot devices in Hitchcock films

Can anyone help? This article, (list article?) has pretty much languished in obscurity since I separated it out from the main Alfred Hitchcock article back in 2008. As was the case back then, it is still embarrassingly full of OR, and is severely lacking in references, having only 2 inline citations and one book listed in the reference section. Some parts were also rather poorly written. I have done a little clean up on it but do not have enough experience with cinema-related sources to know how best to try to fix the article. Thanks for anything any of you can do to make this article more presentable. Invertzoo (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we should remove most of the content and reduce the article to a stub. Like you said, it is mostly original research. If it's been around since 2008, we should go ahead and finally remove it. It may be better to restart it as a list article. For example, this article does mention the book Hitchcock's Motifs, and I found this that recaps the motifs from that book. We could list them to replace the previous content, though someone will need to check out the book to identify the films associated with each motif. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
See also Hitchcockian. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Rob Sinden that Hitchcockian is indeed also an embarrassing mess of an article. And I agree with Erik that the plot devices article should be stubbed and become a list article. I don't have the book, and I am not used to working much on film articles (except on plot summary sections) so probably I am not a good choice to be the person who attempts to fix these two articles. I would however be thrilled to see the work carried out and would be happy to copyedit, etc. Invertzoo (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be helpful to copy this discussion to the article talk page? Invertzoo (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
There's a lot of overlap between these two articles - suggest they are merged into one. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I wondered about that too. I think that is probably the right way to go. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy Renner in Avengers: Age of Ultron

The discussion about including Renner in the film's article is ongoing, where there are sources that state that Jeremy Renner will return for the sequel, but none of them are official. The discussion has led to a potential compromise and a straw poll. Opinions and discussion would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

RFC on The Fast and the Furious

Please consider giving your opinion on the titles for articles about The Fast and the Furious franchise at Talk:The Fast and the Furious#Requested move 2. Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Completely unnecessary article. The article doesn't cover anything the existing The Fast and the Furious (film series) doesn't cover. I have nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fast and the Furious. Betty Logan (talk) 01:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Doc Hollywood/Cars plagiarism

There is currently a discussion ongoing on the Doc Hollywood talk page about the claim that the plot of the film Cars was plagiarized from the previous film. Previously, there was an overly-long paragraph, with 10-15 sources, in the lede about the issue. I moved it to the body of the article, edited it down to a few sentences, with one reliable source. One single-minded anon. is insistent that it needs to be longer, bloating it with extraneous information, and many more sources than are needed. This is a very minor issue, one that has more to do with Cars than it does with Doc Hollywood, and does not need a lengthy explanation. Other eyes on the article and talk page would be appreciated. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 01:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

"One single-minded anon." Ahh, keep reverting them in that case, as they are scum. Go for page protection if they keep it up. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I frequently find that I can't decide how seriously I should take your comments. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I have always taken them literally. Should I? — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 17:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh yes. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
That's very funny but I have always imagined you as more of a Staffie. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 20:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Lugnuts has made a good suggestion, although it's probably better to get the protection before reverting. You know what it's like: in the real world, if you stop a crime you're a hero, but on Wikipedia you're an accessory! Betty Logan (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Those are certainly impressive sprawls of text by Karl, the IP. Shouldn't have called the plagiarism block "bloat", really, though "excessive refs" is certainly true. I concurred with Betty Logan's suggestion there, and Karl did too. --Lexein (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Ben Foster (actor) --> Ben Foster

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Ben Foster (actor)#Requested move, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Corvoe (speak to me) 02:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Top grossers hard limits in "(year) in film" articles?

Is there pre-existing consensus somewhere that xxxx in film articles, like 1976 in film, should only have ten entries in the "Top grossing films" table? User:DeltaSceptile has been persistently pruning articles without leaving edit summaries (see contributions), and breaking lots of brackets without fixing them (see User talk:DeltaSceptile). I personally think top 20 or so is fine.--Lexein (talk) 10:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Top 10 makes sense to me. Looking at the 1942 article, that user has pruned it from 19 to 10. Why it was 19 in the first place, I have no idea. Yes, good edits IMO. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I've clarified above about pre-existing consensus. I prefer top 20 or more, because of the sheer number of films produced each year. There are more than 10 categories in film for which Oscars are given. Seeing sourced content trashed boldly, to some arbitrary limit, is galling. Where does that "top" only mean "top 10"? Rolling Stone does "Top 100" all the time. Time does "Top 50". "Top 10" seems ridiculously tiny, for a year in film article. --Lexein (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Have you tried to talk to the user in question? Maybe that would be a good place to start. And I don't count the token notice added with TW as talking. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Um, yes. I've made it more obvious. --Lexein (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to a top 20 or even a top 50 (we have 50 on the highest-grossing films article) but a top 10 makes sense if you want consistency across the year articles. The only source for many of the older articles are the annual Variety top tens, so in some cases it will not be possible to extend them beyond that. I also think there comes a point where it doesn't matter though: does anyone really care what the 24th highest-grossing film of the year is? Betty Logan (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
The deeper and broader, the better, IMHO. I do like seeing longer lists, especially in articles which are rather broadly entitled "1976 in film". Point being, it's not entitled "Top 10 1976 films". Why fix what's not broken, and why undertake mass deletions without any consensus or guideline backing it up? I'm just not seeing a persuasive deletion rationale yet; consistency of length of lists across articles isn't a priority to me, especially where loss of content is the cost. Meanwhile, the deletions are continuing apace, without discussion from the deleter. Grr. --Lexein (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I fully agree with Lexein. There's no reason to limit a "Top grossing films" table on a year in film page to the top ten, or even the top twenty. It doesn't have to be consistent, especially when early film data is variable. If someone doesn't care, they don't have to read it. Content should not be deleted wholesale without discussion. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, what about this scenario? I've just looked at the 1968 in film article and reverted the edit so it now shows the top 20. I picked one at random, number 17, on the list. The source confirms the box office figure, but how do we know that this was infact the 17th highest grossing film of 1968? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Point taken. I don't think our lists are intended to indicate true "rank" for that year, since sources aren't cited for those "rank" numbers, and no single source is cited to support the set of rankings. So maybe that column can go away, so that it's merely a descending list of box office, per available individual sources. There's this conflicting source for "top films of 1968 by box office": IMDB. We should probably be citing a book or two for ranking ... --Lexein (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Variety published top tens going back to the 1920s, but they would assign the film to the year it made the most money in. If you look at their listings for 1968 and 1969 you see that The Graduate (released December 1967) is ranked as the top film of 1968, while Funny Girl (which was actually the top-grossing 1968 release) is put in the 1969 chart. However, it would be relatively easy to construct a "pure" 1968 chart from the 1967-69 charts, but I'm not sure if that would count as OR. Betty Logan (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
That's a very interesting conundrum. I wouldn't synth a "pure" chart, and I wouldn't like the Variety lists to restrict the content of our lists. If the Variety box office numbers differ from our sources here, that's even worse. As they say, oy. --Lexein (talk) 02:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Star Trek for peer review

Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and myself have put Portal:Star Trek up for peer review.

We'd appreciate helpful feedback, at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Star Trek/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Input requested

Users of this project may be interested in this discussion, regarding lists of awards for film actors: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Should "award" articles be comprehensive? Any input would be greatly appreciated. --Loeba (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

"Based on" in infoboxes when relating to remakes

I've been wondering this for awhile and always failed to ask. Some remakes (ex. Fright Night (2011 film)) credit the remake ("Based on Fright Night by Tom Holland" in this case). However, with other films (ex. The Mechanic (2011 film)), no such parameter is found. So, I have two questions. 1) If a film is a remake of another film, do we credit it as being based on the film in its infobox? 2) If the answer to the first question is yes, who do we credit the film being "by"? The writer(s) or the director(s)? Thanks. Corvoe (speak to me) 23:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Generally, when a remake credits the original film it is usual done by crediting the writers of the original script. The Frightnight remake] credits the authorship as "SCREENPLAY BY: Marti Noxon. STORY BY: Tom Holland. the Film "Fright Night" Written by: Tom Holland." The Mechanic credits its authorship as "SCREENPLAY BY: Richard Wenk. Lewis John Carlino. STORY BY: Lewis John Carlino." In both cases it is the original scriptwriter that is credited. Betty Logan (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I can articulate why, but it does not seem right to use "Based on" in remake articles. It seems more common to talk about films being based on non-film media rather than films being based on other films. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
The infobox credits should match the credits the film itself uses, which will also be reflected in secondary sources. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Is it a formal rule that the film's credits should override Wikipedia's own infobox guidelines? One interesting example is The Wicker Man (2006 film), whose credits namecheck not only the original film's screenwriter and source material writer, but also its director. —Flax5 01:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
That's a good question I don't believe the guidelines address. I've seen this on a handful of remakes. The original director is mentioned in the remake's film credits, but not usually the poster. If I have to make a judgment, I would leave off the director, as it becomes too verbose to include a directing credit in the "Based on" field. I see in your example the name is currently included but not his contribution, making it appear to be a writing credit. - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Genre dispute

I am involved in a genre dispute with another editor regarding a popular film. Before I even address it, I would like some guidance for best practices (and heuristics) that this project uses to categorize films in the correct genres, both in the lead, the body, and the category section. I have never been involved in this particular kind of dispute before. To the best of my knowledge, our genres are determined by what our best reliable sources say, not necessarily by how a film is categorized, since any single film may have many different genre categorizations. As a result (and I am only speaking from experience working on film articles, not from knowledge) we generally speak of primary genres in the lead and body, while the category system may contain other secondary genres (or not). So let me close this query with this question: if I was a new user, how would you instruct me to determine the correct genres to write about it in the lead, body, and category section? Let's say I was going to write an article about Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (pretending for the sake of the argument that it doesn't already exist). Would I find that most sources categorize it as an "epic space opera", or was this genre determined by analyzing our best sources and putting the film in the relevant primary genre through editorial discernment? Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

When the genre is disputed it is better to defer to academic studies of genre or specialist books in the area. There is a good book here that covers the distinction between science fiction and "space operas" in the context of Star Wars. Failing that, databases like Allmovie, the AFI catalog and the NY Times database list the genres, so I would just include the ones that are common to all three listings, or the most frequently occurring one in the absence of a definitive classification. Most genres are obvious and don't require a source, but if editors are disputing it then one is definitely needed. Betty Logan (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this recently came up, and the editor who disputed the genre added an Allmovie listing. However, in the text of the commentary, the correct genres were listed, but in the genre categories themselves, they were listed differently than many other expert critics. Looking into this further, I noticed that the author of the Allmovie listing was a yoga instructor, not a professional journalist with three decades of experience reviewing films. So right away, Allmovie was either being misused or was unrepresentative of most film reviews by experts. Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Which film is it exactly? If Allmovie is at odds with all the other sources it can discounted, and if it is consistent then it's not really a problem in itself because it can be switched out. Generally though, genre classification is analysis of film structure, so ideally you are looking for sources by authors schooled in film theory, and then probably reviews by notable critics before getting on to the databases. Ultimately though, there is no "de facto" source we use for genres. Betty Logan (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Big Fish. You can see the argument on the talk page. I'm also creating a sub-page with sources here, although I've only just begun adding them. I have a lot of sources and it will take some time to add them. Viriditas (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
The word that springs to my mind is "fable", and a word search brings up the production notes which describe it as a "fable-like family drama". Something like that conveys the essence of the film quite well I think. Betty Logan (talk) 03:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is fantasy drama (fable falls under the subset of fantasy). It's also an adventure, which I removed as a compromise because the other editor didn't like it. I'm not sure about adding "family" because that is true of so many films. Viriditas (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why this is not mentioned more often, but Allmovie uses user-generated content that is approved by staff, like at IMDb. You can see a link for it here: http://www.allmovie.com/movie/big-fish-v290352/corrections . Allmovie is much less reliable for credits than IMDb, and I do not consider it RS for anything. I wish links to it would not be regularly included on all WP film pages. - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Please also post this as an advisory on WP:RSN, both name and domain name, as a datapoint for the record. I had been using AllRovi, and I didn't know that this user-generated part had begun. --Lexein (talk) 10:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Captain Phillips (film)

Hello all,

There is a problem that needs attention, and consensus, on the Captain Phillips (film) article. Person(s), without discussing or gaining consensus, added a "Controversies" section to the article. This section contains significant amounts of controversial items, not directly related to the film, but instead surrounding the incident the film is based on, including (but not limited to) lawsuits, statements made in the press regarding complaint made by Alabama Maersk crew members against Phillips, other events of piracy, Phillips history as a mariner, his fitness as a captain, etc.

I initially raised this issue a few weeks ago on the article talk page. I felt the inclusion of these items was inappropriate, that info regarding the actual incident, should be directed to the article about the incident, that lawsuits related to the incident, should be directed to the lawsuit section of that same page, and info regarding Phillips should be directed to the article about him. In that time, only 2 editors responded, both supporting my POV that any non-film-related content should be removed from the article (perhaps added to the appropriate page, if such content is not already there).

As the OP, I was urged toward action yesterday by one these editors, and I took it upon myself to Boldly remove this content (my idea, not his). I also questioned the source cited in support of some of the remaining info. I felt it was non-controversial, in the best interest of the article, and the project, and did not violate any policies. I had hoped that the edit would either stand as satisfactory, or create Discussion. Apparently, as a part of BRD, my edit was reverted, now all this content is back in. Since very little has transgressed on the article talk page, I have brought the issue here, in hopes of bringing more attention to the matter. Please, everyone, take moment to have a look if you can, and comment if you will. Thanks - thewolfchild 10:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

MOS:FILM#Controversies may be of some guidance. I changed the section heading. It seem like we could maintain such a section but shorten it because it is a lot of content for the attention this dispute actually received. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree that section heading is more appropriate. But we're still left with a problem. While a couple of the items are about the films accuracy, the rest is not. The other items aren't even about the film, but about the event the film is based on, about a real life person a character in the film is based on and a lawsuit, stemming from events the film is based on. There are more appropriate articles where these items are also found, leading to needless repetition, undue weight and a lack of neutrality. It seems policy demands this content be removed. Another issue is, some of the remaining content, though apparently relevant and appropriate, is supported by a single source that has been brought into question. I have raised that issue at WP:RS. - thewolfchild 02:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Title of film - Cairo Station or The Iron Gate

User:Betty Logan has seen fit to revert my page move of The Iron Gate to Cairo Station (film). Per the discussion at Talk:The Iron Gate, Cairo Station is the title shown at director Youssef Chahine's official website and The Guardian's obituary of Chahine. There's also the Film Society of Lincoln Center, TCM, Allmovie, the 50th anniversary DVD release, Chicago Reader, Time Out, Dennis Schwartz, the movie poster in the article itself, etc. Against that, Logan feels that IMDb saying otherwise is sufficient. Therefore, I've brought the dispute here. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Why not start an RM discussion? We can look at evidence of either title being the more recognizable one. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree that Cairo Station is definitely the better known title. --Loeba (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
There are three titles used in the English language for the film: The Iron Gate, Cairo Station and Bab el hadid (the native title). All three get a reasonable number of hits (when searched on with the director's name). The Iron Gate gets the most hits on google followed by the native title; Cairo Station gets the most hits on Google books followed by the native title. Therefore all three titles seem to be reasonable options. When determining priority my preference would be to use Google Books so Cairo Station would be my first choice too, but since the title needs to be disambiguated I think The Iron Gate or Bab el hadid would be better choices per WP:NATURALDIS: "If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title ... If natural disambiguation is not possible, add a disambiguating term in parentheses, after the ambiguous name." If you disagree with that interpretation, like Erik points out you can initiate an RM discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I was hoping this could have been handled informally without wasting more time, but fine. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Lost films

Pursuant to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Lost films and tense I think we need to tighten up the guideline regarding tense at WP:FILMLEAD when referring to lost films (i.e. "Cleopatra is a 1917 American silent historical drama film" or "Cleopatra was a 1917 American silent historical drama film". I think we should stipulate explicitly what tense should be used when referring to lost films. There was a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 47#Was it or Is it? over the summer where User:Robsinden and User:Ring Cinema probably pointed the way i.e. when referring to the film as a concept or as intellectual property then the present tense should be applied, and when we discuss it in terms of being "lost" we should perhaps only refer to the prints or the negative being missing or destroyed. Either way, we cover a lot of "lost" films so the MOS should come down on one side or the other. Betty Logan (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:TENSE. Films are works of fiction, and as per WP:TENSE - "Thus, generally you should write about fiction using the present tense, not the past tense." Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I think we're all in agreement, so don't see an issue with being explicit the guideline. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
No problem with making an update to the guidelines. Seems sensible to highlight this somewhere central. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Allrovi -> Allmovie

Is anybody working on fixing the Allrovie movie template? Clarityfiend (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

What are you finding to be problematic with it? I know that there are some quirks in that you can use "Allrovi", "Allmovie" and "AMG" in the template. Then the name of the film title section might have the "+" symbol, which takes one to a search page, or a "-" dash, which takes one to the article. I suspect that neither of these are what you are having problems with. Hopefully some one will be able to help ASAP. MarnetteD | Talk 14:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah now I see why you posted. We can't access there website. I think that the problem is at Allrove's end because I went to Google and Bing and still got the same error message as when we click on our template. I don't know if there is anyway to contact them to fine out what is going on. MarnetteD | Talk 14:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Why are links to this website being put on the bottom of most WP film pages? As I mentioned above, Allmovie uses user-generated content that is approved by staff, like at IMDb. You can see a link for it here: http://www.allmovie.com/movie/big-fish-v290352/corrections. I do not consider it RS for anything. I have frequently seen all sorts of errors in its film credits, like listing a production manager as the production designer. Someone also made up a non-existent brother for a major director and listed him as co-director on two of his films. Allmovie is redundant to the IMDb, which is far more reliable. We had a discussion about deleting the Allrovi/Allmovie template a few months ago which did not go into the issue of user-generated content. I don't want to reopen the deletion discussion, as there are dozens of such templates for websites not usually included on film pages - though some should be, namely the AFI and BFI. But we should stop routinely including Allmovie as an external link. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I concur with not using it as an external link anymore. I've twice nominated the template for deletion, but too many editors find it "useful" even though Wikipedia articles should have most of the information found on the respective Allmovie pages. It's a very entrenched mentality, but it would be nice to start somewhere, such as excluding it from Good and Featured Articles. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the site (I don't think I've ever used it although I know that the NY TImes licenses content from it) but there is currently a discussion about its reliability at WP:RSN. Maybe editors who have specific doubts and examples they can cite should weigh in there. Betty Logan (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Until I discovered that fact I wondered why the NY Times database was such a disorganized, frequently wrong, unreliable mess. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
As I have mentioned before, in our articles for silent films the Allrovi external link goes to a synopsis for the film. This is useful as a large number of our silent film articles do not have a plot section and, especially in the case of lost films, they are unlikely to ever have one. While I agree that we should not use it as a RS I do not find it to be any more or less reliable that IMDb. BTW I have not seen Allrovi used as a source in our articles but I have seen IMDb used time and again. I guess I am saying that, as an EL, I don't see that it is any more harmful to have it that having IMDb. I understand why you may disagree though. MarnetteD | Talk 20:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
When it comes to film credit listings, I can assure you there is a tremendous gap between the IMDb and the disorganized mess that is Allrovi. I would not be against including it as an EL on silent film articles if other sources are lacking. But it should not be routinely included on all film pages. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Concur I've found Rovi / AllMovie ... problematic. The fact it has a professional staff and that the NY Times gives it credibility by licensing it has always been frustrating. I might note that for silent films, the TCM website is a very, very good resource.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The Tourist (2010 film) article again

Comments are needed on this matter: Talk:The Tourist (2010 film)#Cultural Reception Sources. Flyer22 (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

HialeahFL

User:HialeahFL (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user is changing the list table by switching release dates and titles into putting release dates first, like List of 20th Century Fox films. Will you do something about this? --George Ho (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Collapsibility

I saw a discussion where WP:COLLAPSE was mentioned, and it says, "Scrolling lists, and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show, should not conceal article content, including reference lists, image galleries, and image captions." This seems to mean that we should not use the collapsible feature in the article body. I think we tend to do this with soundtrack listings; the FACs Dredd and Fuck (film) currently do this. (Pinging Darkwarriorblake and Cirt, respectively.) Should we basically show the track listings or remove them if they're boilerplate names for songs? Dredd is pretty boilerplate, though Fuck is more diverse and has blue links. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Track listings are often appendix style content that the typical reader won't have the remotest interest in, so would the article really benefit from having a list plonked in the middle of it? At the same time it seems a bit churlish to remove the content on the grounds that a small minority cannot access it. It's a very arbitrary guideline anyway: why is collapsing navboxes permitted but not tables? Betty Logan (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I see it as purely an aesthetic issue, when it's score by a single composer as tends to be the case, it's almost literally just a list of song titles with a large chunk of white space to the right. It also depends on the quantity of content, a short list of maybe around 10 songs is probably more innocuous than a 24-piece score list. Speaking of Dredd, get your butt over there, I rounded the figures. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

An editor is attempting to change a "See also" section from a simple bulleted list of articles into an "Influences" section of unsourced declarative statements claiming relationships between this film and others, with no citations, in violation of WP:V. When removed, another editor, pissed at me because I disagreed with him in a discussion on WP:AN, reverted, so I"m out of it. Declarative statement are required by policy to be sourced, a simple referral to another article, as in a normal "See also" section" is not. Someone(s) please take a look and do whatever needs to be done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Why hasn't there been a discussion on the film article's talk page? Discussion can't be carried out in edit summaries. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion is here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I've offered an opinion at that link and started a discussion at the film's Talk page, where, as Erik noted, it should have occurred to begin with. As the article has been protected, it looks like we have some time for people to form a consensus. DonIago (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
It's been protected in the wrong state - i.e. with the controversial changes included. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
See The wrong version. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Amusing, though I agree with Rob that it should really have been the stable version that was protected. That said, I'm sure Rob would agree with me that any harm that would result from this is likely to be minimal. DonIago (talk) 14:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Catching Fire

Just a head's-up to fellow Project editors that The Hunger Games: Catching Fire seems to be getting its share of fan edits, particularly with the "critical acclaim" euphoria we're we're all familiar with from the last Harry Potter film. Hopefully we can all keep an eye out to maintain encyclopedic tone there. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

We can search for commentary to include by Googling for "catching fire" critics or something like that. Found this and this that way, and they basically say it is better than the first film. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
There is now commentary in the "Critical reception" section seen here, but there is a disagreement about whether or not the commentary should come before the preexisting Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic passage. Can others weigh in at the talk page? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The Fast and the Furious now a franchise

Somehow, the page was a disambiguation page, but the mess got started. It became a set index and was split from The Fast and the Furious (disambiguation). Now The Fast and the Furious (franchise) took over. What are we going to do? BD2412 did a crusade on franchises, as he was doing in WT:DAB. --George Ho (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about what happened with the last discussion. I see it here but it is no longer visible, it seems. Do we need to fix it so others can find this discussion readily?
As for this whole matter, it seems to be an issue of some franchises taking the same name as the original film. I'm not sure if there is a general consensus on what we think readers should expect when searching for the title. For example, while The Fast and the Furious goes to the franchise page, Home Alone goes to the original film's article with a hatnote to the franchise article. And I see that The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a disambiguation page... do we need to set up an RfC for how we should organize these articles? Erik (talk | contribs) 20:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I actually had initiated a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Proposal for a new rule for media adaptations and multimedia franchises, the basic thrust of which is that if all of the supposedly ambiguous titles are in fact installments in a single franchise (or if the primary topic of the term is that franchise), then we should avoid having a disambiguation page at that title. Part of the proposal was that the original work should be at that title unless the franchise as a whole is more notable than the original work (compare A Nightmare On Elm Street and Robocop (original works) with Star Wars and Stargate (franchise articles). Under this rule, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre would not be a disambiguation page, but would either be an article about the first film, or an article about the franchise as a whole, depending which was more notable (as would Rambo, Planet of the Apes, and The Wizard of Oz). I think that it is common sense that a reader going to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre wants to find something about the film/film series, rather than a disambiguation page. bd2412 T 20:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I see that George Ho has now made The Texas Chainsaw Massacre into a set index page, which I fully agree with as a more appropriate tag for that space. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I found the revision that BDD did. George Ho (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I hope that didn't cause too much confusion. My closing remarks on the second RM are hopefully a good summary of the whole situation. Ping me again or visit my talk page with any further questions or concerns. --BDD (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the main page should be the franchise article as per WP:DABCONCEPT. Even though none of the articles are the primary topic it is pretty obvious The Fast and the Furious property is the principal concept associated with the term. The process got botched along the way because an entirely redundant article somehow entered the equation and we had to address that before moving the articles to where they should be. Betty Logan (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Can we initiate another move request right now? The whole thing is not adequately announced. George Ho (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

RFC closure at Ender's Game (film)

Can an uninvolved editor please look into closing the WP:RFC at Talk:Ender's Game (film)#RFC: Is Card's essay on Obama relevant? Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:2013 Indian Films

Should there be templates like this? If not, I will nominate it for deletion. --George Ho (talk) 08:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Already is—and I have added: "Delete. Will cause nothing but heartache." — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 11:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Featured article discussion

I have nominated the article How Brown Saw the Baseball Game for featured article status. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/How Brown Saw the Baseball Game/archive1 is where you can see the nomination. Comments would be very appreciated as it is my first nomination there. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 16:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_49&oldid=1151014623"