Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 73

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

→

Archive 80

Edit-warring at Template:Film Studio

Can some project members take a look at the edit-dispute at {{Film Studio}} and weigh in over which film studios should be included? Abecedare (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit dispute but no relevant talk page discussion there? Anyways, my opinion on this - inclusion in the template should not be based on personal opinions but on the scope of the template. The template scope is "Film studios in the United States and Canada" per its title and has sub-categories for all various types of film studios. By that scope, name and design, inclusion should be any studio that fits that criteria. That said, I think that kind of template is an example of a bad template and is better suited as a list article and category. --Gonnym (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

"no relevant talk page discussion there" Please actually look it is right here: Template talk:Film Studio#Not all production companies. Don't fork the discussion. Spshu (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

One comment over a year and 2 months ago isn't a discussion, nor is it relevant. --Gonnym (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree, that this one should be a list insted. The sub-division seems to be WP:OR with nothing to verify the groupings. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Recently a dispute was reported at WP:AN3, in which User:King Crimson the Third favored a long version of the template including many companies that some might consider minor, and User:Spshu, who favored a short version of the template. Spshu had characterized King Crimson's edits as "repeated mass dumping of production companies and random status changes". In my opinion it is a judgment call for the people who work on film topics as to which version is better. Perhaps there is a question if such a template should exist at all, rather than a list or a category. The template is currently transcluded in 200 articles. EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The merits of the dispute aside, only one editor has gone to the talk page. If the other editor reverts again without doing so they should be subject to a sanction. On the issue at hand this is just a bad template. The template members are associated through type rather than being part of the same topic so it looks to me the template is being treated like a category. Listifying per Lugnuts is a good compromise where an inclusion criteria can be spelled out, but the template itself is poorly conceived and should be deleted IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: I have blocked King Crimson the Third (talk · contribs) since they continued the exact behavior they were warned against. I have restored the status-quo at the template, with no prejudice intended against the smaller studios being added back if consensus is for their inclusion. Abecedare (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Abecedare. Is it just that one editor causing problems with the template, or is it multiple editors? If it's the latter, I'm tempted to take it to TfD and be done with it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

At least in the recent past it is just one ditor who has been bulk-adding smaller studios. The only other minor-tiff I see in the article history is the (likely good faith) periodic addition of "20th Century Fox" by IPs/accounts, which is then removed on the basis of its acquisition by Disney. So the current edit-warring can be contained through blocks if needed but it would be better and more-sustainable if we could point to a "consensus is to include only X-type studios". Currently we are left defending a possibly arbitrary status quo. Abecedare (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

←It is not completely OR as Major and mini-major studios are those listed at Major film studio with sources and are from North America. For a while I had a source for the Independent financers group but that webpage disappeared with out any archive.org backup. The problem is that no real definition for mini-major exists and that its seems to be 3 groups at one point, select large foreign film company (Gaumont Film, Nordisk Film), actual production & distribution company able to compete (Lionsgate) and legacy majors or mini-majors (CBS, Amblin/DreamWorks). MGM was at one point a legacy as it did not have distribution in the US until it set back up Orion Pictures then completely with Mirror Releasing/United Artist Releasing joint venture. There is the major's slate partners, Legendary, RatPac Dune, TSG, with some that no longer fit that category. Probably should just dump the Producer-owned independents. Most should be redirects to the individual producers. Lots of the production companies are really not notable, but they get some fan who whips up an article. Possible other groupings for discussion:

• (mini-) studios - they have to produce and distribute, need physical studio?,
• distributors - companies that only distributes (should joint venture, United Artist Releasing, be listed seperately or just allowed to reaffirm any min-major status thus not appear?)
• corp. production company (not the best name) the unit of a larger corporation that expands into film making usually base on their existing produce line (Hasbro' Hasbro Studios/Allspark, Mattel Films, Random House Studio) Spshu (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

If I can interject here, his statements with Major film studio (as well as Template:Film studio) has been nothing more than confusing. For the Template:Film studio, I was:

• listing studio(s) per alphabetical order.
• using these studios as US and Canada as it was being told.
• exemplifying the more important studios
• exemplifying the more active studios of now

...and all of which are worthy enough for that said template.

As for the Major film studio; I've been editing to check which studio is active or not. So if we include a French company like Gaumont or a Scandinavian company like Nordsk Film, but not Toho; despite that these three also have companies located in the US as well? Plus, I'm not here starting Wikipedia:Revert war or anything. It makes no sense.King Crimson the Third (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

First off, the studios don't need to reordered, the table is sortable. The table doesn't have to order to alpha. And you never stated that you were doing. You are not "exemplifying the more important studios" by introducing errors, like TV units, defunct units in to the Major studios table. Nor are you doing so by dumping every production company you can find on wp. Spshu (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as Toho is concerned being located in the US is not a reason to grant it mini-major status. You must have a source indicating that it is a mini-major. Plenty of other foreign production companies have offices in the US. Gaumount and Nordsk Films have sources that indicate that they are mini-major studios. The template is limited to US & Canada companies, the article is not. Spshu (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

You have done terrible things for yourself, Spshu. You will be blocked for your childlike behaviour. --GroupJWbackup (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree of what GroupJWbackup said. Spshu, you keep reverting my edits consistently. You may need to look in your edit history and your immature behavior.--King Crimson the Third (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

More than half of you edits are reverts, Spshu. And i’d really expect better from a user who’s been on for 13 years. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Spshu; necessary error fixing is needed in Template:Film Studio, such as placing said studios in alphabetical order, which studio is defunct or dormant, etc.; regardless of how many studios are added in there. Yet you still keep reverting the same articles as if you owned and/or created them. I suggest you let a lot of people edit before you consistently revert their edit history.--King Crimson the Third (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Second Glance (film)

Should Second Glance (film) be nominated for deletion? Previous AFD was in 2011 with a "keep" consensus per "it looks good and is informative" sheep-votes. The Fresno Bee link doesn't even discuss the film. I could find no third-party coverage at all, and I've already redirected the director's page to it. Should this go to AFD again? I think it's pretty clear cut. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I've not looked for sources myself, but I say go for it if you think it's justified. Eight years is a long time and it looks like it survived last time because of a weak deletion rationale as much as anything else. PC78 (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@PC78: I asked here because I have been topic banned from initiating XFDs. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Godzilla page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Request to review Soultaker (film) for FAC

The FAC for Soultaker has been going on for over a month and I'm hoping that it can get some more eyes on it before it closes. GamerPro64 22:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Original Soundtrack (disambiguation)

Why it say that original soundtrack "is recorded music accompanying and synchronized to the images of a motion picture, television program, or video game."? OST it's "a commercially released soundtrack album of music as featured in the soundtrack of a film, video, or television presentation" (taken from lead of Soundtrack, where OST is also explained). Eurohunter (talk) 09:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The soundtrack and a soundtrack album are not the same thing. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings (film series)

Hi, I need help with the production section. Since there is the page Production of The Lord of the Rings film series that covers the topic in detail, I think it should be shortened. I would do it, but I'm not that fluent in English and since I should rewrite things to make them shorter, I don't think I can do it. I was thinking in writing a small paragraph like this, which summarizes every production phase. I would appreciate if someone could do this. Thanks. --Mazewaxie 14:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Mission: Impossible – Fallout

Is this the best action film ever made or even the best film ever made in the history of cinema? Does this belong in the lead? Please see Talk:Mission: Impossible – Fallout#Puffery about being the best action film ever made. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Possible MoS proposal on fictional characters

There's a discussion regarding a potential WP:MOS on all fictional characters. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Manual of Style for fictional characters?. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Is this obituary for Suzan Pitt a reliable source?

Animator Suzan Pitt passed away a few days ago, and I finally found this obituary about her, which was helpful in adding some inline citations. Then I realized that some of the sentences appear to be lifted word-for-word right out of Wikipedia's (unreferenced) article about her. Is Animation Magazine reliable? Is this an instance of WP:CIRCULAR? Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

This does sound like an example of CIRCULAR. Obituaries are often written on the hoof (unless we are talking someone really famous) and Wikipedia is a readily available supply of information about the person. If the obituary appears to lift sentences from Wikipedia it is best not to use it. Betty Logan (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

When I start feeling suspicious of that, I sometimes retreat to sources that predate Wikipedia, such as digitized books from Google Books. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Someone doesn't understand that cameo is an adjective or a noun, not a verb

I'm seeing a lot of film-related articles inappropriately using "cameo" as a verb. Not sure yet if it's vandalism or just plain ignorance, but cameo is an adjective or noun, not a verb. The trade papers like Variety and The Hollywood Reporter are usually very consistent about this. --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I've seen cameo as a verb many times, and Merriam-Webster online includes such a use in its definition. I'm not sure it is an error at all. oknazevad (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I just double-checked several dictionaries. Unfortunately, it looks like Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, and Wiktionary are trying to reflect a language shift that they're seeing in general interest articles written by poorly-trained journalists or by amateur, poorly-educated Wikipedia editors who have no idea what they're doing. If you look at more traditional, conservative sources like Dictionary.com (based on the Random House dictionary), they clearly treat cameo as a noun. I just double-checked the trade papers with a "site:" operator search on Google and verified my recollection. Unlike general interest publications, the entertainment industry publications are created by properly educated professionals who deeply care about the industry's traditions and how to write about them properly. They usually say "made a cameo" or "the cameo" or "his cameo appearance in [film name]." They do not say "[star name] cameoed." --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Possible "Variety-speak"-creep. (I'm not sure it should necessarily be changed in every case, as changing it requires many more words and the verb is much more succinct.) Softlavender (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Whether we like it or not ("literally" becoming "figuratively") if it's in the dictionary it's fair usage for our purposes. I don't think you can really prohibit it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Page move discussion

Hi. You may be interested in this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Possible errors on page for 'The Lone Eagle (1927)

Hello,

I'm not a Wikipedia editor, but I just watched the 1927 silent film 'The Lone Eagle (1927)', and then read the Wikipedia article (here) - and there seem to be distinct errors in the plot description. In particular, it says that the leader of the German squadron was the character 'Lebrun' played by Cuyler Supplee, but it was 'von Buehl', played by Oscar Marion. It also says that near the end, the character Holmes commandeers a plane from his friend Sven Linder - but Holmes was with Linder as he died, and then got a plane from another character (not Linder).

There are a few other inconsistencies, but those ones jumped out.

My source is that I just watched a copy of the film from an archive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.229.115.124 (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Input requested

Input is requested at Talk:Super 35 § List in History section. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Help with a manual of style dispute

Hi. On the article Lantouri User:Sc wikinevis insists on adding details of every single film festival this film has been screened at, and all the awards it has ever been nominated for. This was the latest diff. I've removed all this, per the Film MOS and have communicated this to the editor. I've explained this multiple times to them, but they don't appear to be listening. The previous time, they simply blanked their talkpage. Any further help with this matter would be helpful. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I think WP:INDISCRIMINATE covers most of this. You certainly don't need to list every single festival it played and awards should only be included if they have their own article per WP:FILMCRITICLIST. I would point out to the editor that WP:Communication is required and if they refuse to discuss their edits or offer an explanation then warn them for disruptive editing, and if they do it again take it to ANI. I wouldn't worry too much provided you have haven't breached 3RR yourself. They usually take a dim view if one of the editors has attempted to discuss the issue and the other flat out refuses. Betty Logan (talk) 11:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Betty. This is the sort of verbose replies the user posts, rather than addressing any concerns. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Lugnuts I wish I could understand why you doing this and why you became so obsessive about this article. You are ignoring facts that happened already when you are talking to new people! Thanks to wikipedia and the way it is written the history of everything is there and people can find out about them. By the way it is you who doesn't know what his/her concern is.Sc wikinevis (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Betty Logan Hello! Please look at all we communicated and then decide if I didn't communicate : Regarding the movie "Lantouri". I communicated with this user and he was the person who was ignoring me and instead was reverting my edits. He is not clear to himself/herself. I wrote everything about what I did, please read it carefully and let me know of your decision. I mentioned you here so you can read and be aware of what happened. And by the way as I mentioned before, it doesn't matter if my Talk is blank or not here the problem is something else and what is important that I read the Mnual of Style this user talking about. He just doesn't give other to improve and keeps reverting. RegardsSc wikinevis (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Betty Logan Hello again! Could you please help us Betty Logan? This user "Lugnuts" keeps deleting and reverting everything. It is not clear to him/her what is correct or wrong. I've already read the Manual and the Release dates section and I did put only important dates and events at Release section. Also about awards an nominations I put that are important to the movies with reliable sources in their sections of Lantouri. Please look at history of reverting. This user just can't decide what should stay in article and what should be deleted or reverted! He/She changes his/her decision every time he/she reverts. This user even deletes the content of what is already written in Release dates and in that Manual of Style he is talking about over and over. I'm just so tired and confused of what this user doing. He is so obsessed with this article and doesn't allow others to improve it. Please help me understand what should I do? Regards, Sc wikinevis (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

For this film, and others, I'm simply adhering to the Manual of Syle (MOS) for films, which I've linked to many times. This is a long-standing consensus for what should and should not be included into a film article, which in turn are linked to other wiki-guides or policies, such as WP:INDISCRIMINATE, mentioned above. If you don't like that, then you are free to try and get a consensus to change the MOS, but it is not OK to edit-war and keep re-inserting content into articles that goes against the MOS. As you feel so strongly about this, then the burden is with you to convince other editors that the MOS should be changed, using a clear and coherent rationale. Yes, there are other articles that have these lists of film festival releases and award overkill, but that does not mean it's OK to replicate that across other articles. Please take a look at these film articles to see how they are written, which is to WP's highest standards. Also, please stop pinging me. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Sc wikinevis, I suggest you read WP:FILMCRITICLIST. If you still feel there are valid reasons for adding awards without articles in direct contravention of the manual of style then start a discussion on the article talk page please and provide your reasons there. Betty Logan (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: Thank you for your message. I'll read what you mentioned and get back to you later. @Lugnuts: As I said before, I strongly believe you are not clear even to you yourself about what exactly your concern is. You even change the manual of style you are mentioning over and over and you even don't apologize for making other people confuse. Sorry, but What I understand is that you got obsessed with the article you once created and you don't let other people to improve it. What you are doing during the revert is not logical and you didn't answer my simple question I asked about your revert at Ritchie333 Talk. You are not able to think out of what you are focusing on and mentioning over and over. You can't decide about what your concern is exactly about the content of the article and what is important to you. This conversation is not over and I'll get back to you later. For now, due to the shortage of time of mine in real world, I'm leaving the page as it is and get in touch with you and other professionals later in Talk page. Best regards, Sc wikinevis (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: Concur with User:Betty Logan and User:Lugnuts and disagree with User:Sc wikinevis. There is no reason to list every festival at which a film has played. --Coolcaesar (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Coolcaesar:! And thank you for your feedback! And may I ask you please, depending on what exactly you are disagreeing with me? Depend on what Lugnuts user wrote here? Did you check my edits and noticed this fact that I only wrote THE IMPORTANT festivals, awards and nominations in the article? But no matter what, this user “Lungnuts” reverted my edits over and over. If you have time, please take a look at "Lantouri" article and this user's reverting history. You'll notice that this user, unfortunately, is not clear to her/himself which event should stay in article and which one should be deleted. By every revert he was changing his decision about what he previously have already decided to be in article. And this exactly what made me confused. I asked him a specific question about why he is changing his decision by every revert, but I never received an answer from this user about this matter. The user, instead, was repeating over and over “per manual of style”. I read the manual of style when this user sent me, and I was editing the article depend on what I’ve learned from that manual. The problem here is not that manual. The problem here, again, is that he is not sure what should stay in article and what should be deleted. I was not doing war editing or anything. I was just trying to improve an article. And by the way, if you look at the history of this user and my page, which is recorded there in Wikipedia, this user was reverting me over and over without even Talk-ing to me first. And this is exactly war editing! And I could just report him. But I chose to Talk first. So, my recommendation to you is, before deciding and making a judgment, please check it first what have happened or is happening! You as experienced user should help rookies. If you don’t have time to read all that happened before sending out your judgment, well, do you really believe it helps to the process or about anything? Here also you can find out that I tried to talk to this user and understand her/his concern, but he didn't answer my question : Regarding the movie "Lantouri". And, only because you were mentioned here, please read what I answered the user Lugnuts below. It could probably help you to understand the situation better. Best regards, Sc wikinevis (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I just did a little bit of digging, and found that User:Sc wikinevis was blocked for edit-warring three months ago. Guess what for? Not accepting a MOS on an article. I see a pattern in their behaviour. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: So what? Do you believe you discovered something unique by digging a rookie editor’s Talk page!? Of course, I'm not experienced as some of you are! I even didn't know at that time that reverting is not good always because it makes an edit-war. I even was not familiar with this terminology in Wikipedia back then. But that, you should probably know as an experienced user by now!! Yes? What YOU did as an experienced user?!?! Reverting me over and over without talking to other user first?! And then not answering their question and even making it more complicated to them to understand what they should do? Are you proud of what you did?! I could report you at that time when you were reverting me, but I chose to talk to you. Do you know why? Because, I remembered the time I was reported unfairly by the other user who chose to report me instead of talking to me first and waiting for the answer! And if you go dig harder, you can find out it was a stupid thing to get reverted for!! I remember that user also hesitated to talk to me first and instead of Talk-ing, he just reported me!! Probably, I did a mistake, because at that time, I’ve just started to do editing in Wikipedia and I didn’t have any idea what’s going on here. Even now I’m only a rookie and I learn by every edit. But what YOU did exactly as an experienced user!?! You better think about your behaviour pattern not mine. You change your words and it seems that you ignore the facts and you don't think logical. And if you got these much bored in real life, I recommend you go and dig harder in my Talk and in other rookie editors' page. You’ll sure find something funny to laugh at and MAYBE feel better. And please know this childish behavior of yours doesn’t help a rookie editor or Wikipedia environment at all. Be grown up and do represent what you quoted about in your page, but in a positive way! Negativity doesn't help and by the way, you are not a robot! Show empathy. And sanity is provided! Use it instead of humiliating other rookie users and digging their page for negative feedbacks. Well, hope that it was not your concern!! Yeas?! @Lugnuts:Sc wikinevis (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Another wall of text. Yawn. TL/DR. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Errors on page for 'Desert Shores (film)"

Watched this film on Amazon and see that the title was changed to "Salton Sea" upon it's release. The page's title should change with it. Also there is a poster image that can be added from their IMDB page https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BN2IzOWFhMzktNTczZS00YjQyLTg3NmMtNTU3N2IxOTFjYjJhXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjI3MDU2Mzk@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,666,1000_AL_.jpg.

You can see the title change here: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5884434/mediaviewer/rm3720714497 and here https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07TW9TK89?autoplay=1&ref=dvm_us_api_cs_hud_fb_GWRD-singleCW&pf_rd_p=e479604f-233b-4177-b107-fcfc45f79589&pf_rd_r=2344Y5N3JZNF3B6EA5S4

I'm not much of an editor so I couldn't do these changes myself but noticed they were wrong and want to support this film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaredit (talk • contribs) 13:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Highlander articles

Came across Quickening (Highlander) through some series of clicks that started with Starship Troopers and noticed it seemed pretty heavily reliant on primary sources. Clicking around to some other Highlander-related articles, I'm seeing a lot of that: Watcher (Highlander), Ahriman (Highlander), Four Horsemen (Highlander), Nick Wolfe, Immortal (Highlander), The Kurgan, etc. Could maybe use some attention from folks more familiar with the degree of sourcing available for this one. (I was a fan of Highlander 2 when I was a kid and didn't know better, being one of the first rated R movies I had seen, but that was the end of my knowledge of the series). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Average row removal

Regarding The Lord of the Rings (film series), there is a dispute about whether or not the "Critical and public response" table should have an "Average" row. A discussion has been started here: Talk:The Lord of the Rings (film series)#Average row. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Harold Holland

I am having trouble getting this draft approved and I'd be happy to have assistance. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (2005 direct-to-video film)

A move request at Talk:H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (2005 direct-to-video film)#Requested move 12 July 2019 might benefit from a few more eyes. See also an earlier discussion from 2016 at Talk:H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (Hines film)#Requested move 2 July 2016. PC78 (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Todd (now Emily) VanDerWerff having come out as transgender

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

---

Because of this edit by an IP, which I followed up with this, this and this edit, I just found out that VanDerWerff has come out as transgender. As some or all of you may know, VanDerWerff is a critic we commonly use as a source in our articles regarding popular culture. I'm sure that there have been changes to a lot of Wikipedia articles regarding VanDerWerff, with respect to name usage and gender pronouns. And there is the MOS:GENDERID guideline to follow. At the article the IP popped up at, I chose to use the name "Emily Todd VanDerWerff" because, as seen here and here, it's currently what VanDerWerff uses, the source was changed to use that name, and because "Todd VanDerWerff" is still more recognizable than "Emily VanDerWerff." It seems that VanDerWerff is easing into the "Emily" name publicly because she is so well-known as Todd. But her blog commentary here indicates that she won't use "Todd" for long; she states, "I'm going to be publishing under the name Emily Todd VanDerWerff for a bit." She also states, "If you use my former name, well, I won’t like that very much." So maybe we shouldn't use "Emily Todd" at all, especially since she's likely to stop posting under "Emily Todd VanDerWerff"?

I'll alert WP:TV to this section for a centralized discussion per WP:TALKCENT. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the WPTV notification. So just to make it clear, at present Vox and A.V. Club have both changed the name to "Emily Todd VanDerWerff", which retroactively changes the byline in each of the articles she wrote. VanDerWerff is using just "Emily VanDerWerff" on Twitter and from the blog, it seems like she's planning to switch to that for Vox and A.V. Club articles in the near future. Currently it looks to me like "Todd" serves as a faux middle name on the bylines, so it wouldn't be inaccurate to just cite her as "VanDerWerff, Emily" (and refer to her as "Emily VanDerWerff" in prose), and this would prevent us from having to make the same name changes again if/when she switches to just "Emily VanDerWerff". — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 19:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Flyer22 Reborn: any thoughts? — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 22:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems fine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Bilorv, don't forget the pronouns. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I have been looking for them, just forgot to on the first couple of pages I edited. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 18:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Looking at your updates with regard to VanDerWerff's gender identity, I see that a lot of articles, perhaps most, actually hadn't been updated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, there are hundreds of articles that haven't been updated, though it looks like over a hundred have been. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 22:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

My understanding of the MOS:GENDERID guideline is that there is no consensus on how to handle people who have changed genders when mentioning them in articles other than the one directly about them prior to their gender transition. Translation: from my reading, there did not seem to be an agreement on whether to retroactively change their name when citing a work that has been published by their previous name. The policy states to handle on a case-by-case basis using context which... is very unclear. So in this situation, are we deferring to Van Der Werff's personal preference to retroactively have all works published as Todd to now be referred to by her new name? I just want to understand what factors have been considered in this case so I know how to handle in future cases. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my understanding of MOS:GENDERID too. You say whether to retroactively change their name when citing a work that has been published by their previous name but I think the operative phrase is "has been". Both The A.V. Club and Vox only exist as websites, as I understand it, and their bylines have now changed to read "Emily Todd VanDerWerff", so it's no longer correct to cite the author's name as "Todd VanDerWerff", and I also don't believe it would make sense for the prose to not match the reference. "Emily Todd VanDerWerff" would be a correct way to cite it, but it's not mandatory to cite an author's middle name, and Emily has expressed the intention that they will be changed to "Emily VanDerWerff" in the near future, so in the interest of not having to make the same hundreds of changes again in the near future, that's how I came to the conclusion that "Emily VanDerWerff" / "VanDerWerff, Emily" was the appropriate name to provide in this context. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 22:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand what you mean about biographies vs. other articles. I've addressed this in other cases. But I don't think "Todd VanDerWerff" should be used in some articles and not in others. The bylines have changed, and VanDerWerff clearly doesn't want to be referred to as "Todd" anymore (except temporarily as "Emily Todd VanDerWerff"). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I came here based on some edits I found saw in regard to this series of edits. Correct me if I am wrong, but don't we usually go by what their name is at the time something happened? For example, if you look at Barb Wire (film) it stars Pamela Anderson Lee. Raw Justice however lists her as Pamela Anderson. Just because in 1996 she changed her name, we didn't go back and retroactively change who starred in the movies. 1976 Summer Olympics says Bruce Jenner won, not Caitlyn. This should be no different. Anything prior to their name change should show Todd, anything after should show Emily. Wikipedia always goes by their name at the time, not their name later retroactively. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 18:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Galatz: do not mass revert the edits I made. I established consensus before making them. I am in a hurry now but I will reply to this message later; I've got plenty of responses to your questions. If I get back and see dozens of reverts then I'm reporting you for edit warring. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 18:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Where do you see a census? There was a few people here who discussed and no clear consensus. You are making sweeping changes, and this should probably be in WP:VPP since it has major repercussions. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 18:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• Just a comment about this statement by Galatz: "Anything prior to their name change should show Todd, anything after should show Emily. Wikipedia always goes by their name at the time, not their name later retroactively." The byline on her Vox and A.V. Club stories has been changed to "Emily Todd VanDerWorff", so if the reader clicks on the link in one of these articles, the author of the story would be "Emily", even if it was written years ago when she was known as "Todd". If the byline was changed retroactively, it not only seems appropriate to me that the Wikipedia articles should be as well. In fact, to not do so would be both inaccurate (since the cited author name would conflict with the source) and confusing to the reader (if they see Todd on the Wikipedia page but Emily if they visit the reference). So it would seem to me that Bilorv's edits are appropriate. — Hunter Kahn 20:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Hunter Kahn: If a female that writes for one of those websites got married, and their by-line changes, would you suggest we go through and change every article to reflect their new name? Then when this said person got divorced and reverts back to their maiden name, do you propose we then go back through and change them all again. Then said person gets remarried, you then want us to go and change everything for a 4th time? There is no benefit to this - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 21:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Galatz: the policy being cited here is MOS:GENDERID, which applies only to issues of gender identity, not of marital status. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 21:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • And even putting that aside, if somebody did' go through and change bylines to reflect their new name, I certainly wouldn't mass revert every one of those edits. Especially since they ultimately made the article more accurate... — Hunter Kahn 23:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Firstly what you are referencing is a MOS not Policy. The vast majority of what you are citing relates to the article about the person's article itself. The only information about other articles than the person's article itself is Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis. Generally, do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. It states to use context on a case-by-case basis. Therefore in following this MOS there is nothing wrong with the ones before the name change remaining Todd and the ones after remaining Emily. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 11:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

(ec)In general I agree with Flyer22 Reborn take on the situation. Because modern day publishing allows for online bylines to be updated Emily is the name that makes the sense to use because it is what is showing now. Additionally, the change in our articles will prevent users from inadvertently using an incorrect name in future content discussions for this living person. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Hunter Kahn and FloNight and to anyone reading this, whether they agree with my edits or not I welcome discussion. What I don't welcome is someone reverting 100 of my edits as I frantically ask them to stop so that we can have a discussion, but I'll deal with that at ANI in a moment. As for Galatz's comments, let's break them down:

Correct me if I am wrong, but don't we usually go by what their name is at the time something happened? and Wikipedia always goes by their name at the time, not their name later retroactively.

Yes, you are wrong and a simple check against policy would have shown this, had you cared to spend 30 seconds before making 100 reverts. As the users including myself in the very discussion I linked to in each of my edit summaries pointed out, MOS:GENDERID is the relevant policy and it says: Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis. That is, no it does not say to go by someone's name "at the time something happened". Your subsequent examples are just that—examples of where context has been determined to provide former names. And this is a different context.

This should be no different.

Again, you're betraying that you didn't bother to read the above discussion. The bylines in the references you have changed are now factually incorrect, because if you follow the link you will see that the bylines contain "Emily" as the first name and "VanDerWerff" as the surname. "Todd" is a middle name but it is simply not correct to cite somebody by their middle name and surname. In fact, what you've restored is worse than factually incorrect (for Wikipedia's purposes)—it's unverifiable. We have discussed in this section that VanDerWerff plans to get the bylines changed in a short time to just "Emily VanDerWerff", at which point the references to "VanDerWerff, Todd" will no longer exist. With the sources in question, The A.V. Club and Vox, both exist only as online sources. It is standard, uncontroversial practice to update online references when they change—doing otherwise would simply make no sense. For instance, I've done it many times with these sorts of edits, in which a prior reference like "Ranking all 20 episodes of Charlie Brooker's chilling Black Mirror" no longer exists, having been replaced with a reference "Ranking all 23 episodes of Charlie Brooker's chilling Black Mirror". It is an uncontroversial change to update a reference to match the source it actually references. "Todd VanDerWerff" is no longer the name of the person who wrote the source and so it's not correct to cite them in the reference or in the prose; the references now say "Emily VanDerWerff", referring to a female contributor, and hence we need to use that name and female pronouns. MOS:GENDERID says to use context and the broader context of reference data integrity, which itself is fundamental to WP:V, is what makes the name changes the logical option in this case. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 21:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I am familiar with both the policy and the discussion as I read both in full prior to reverting. I am aware that you linked to a conversation between two people, and deemed that a consensus (you only linked part of the conversation for some reason). The context between the example I gave and this are no different. At the time of the review the articles were written as Todd. Just like how she was Pamela Anderson vs Pamela Anderson Lee. We use an access date in references for a reason, and an archive.org pull of the page will show what it looked like at the time of the sourcing, where the name was Todd. If the review was taken down and replaced by a bot to the archived page, it will show Todd and not match your change to Emily, would you then go through and change them back? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 21:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Archive pages have nothing to do with it; if we have cited a source then the references should match our reference metadata, as demonstrated by my Black Mirror example above. We use access dates for a reason, yes, but that reason is not so that we can continue citing an old version of a source no matter what—rather, it's often to say "this is when we checked the reference and if that's a long time ago, this part of our article may need updating". Consider if we link to an article which has a factual mistake which is later corrected by the newspaper—we cannot continue citing the "old fact" rather than the actually correct information. We then need to update the Wikipedia page. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 21:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• Discovered this through ANI. The person has expressed a desire to be known in their entirety as Emily, so I support changing her name retrospectively. I'm unwatching this page and won't change my opinion, so please don't drag me into an extended argument, but please ping me if you need to. SportingFlyer T·C 22:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Same. Using trans and non-binary people's current names is what we normally do - there's no reason not to do it in this case.--Alexandra IDV^talk 00:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

This popped up on my watchlist, I checked out the discussion, noticed that it had progressed beyond the permalink but was still of same general disposition, was pleased that this was happening in compliance with policy in such a low drama manner and went about my business. I was disappointed to then see it at ANI so I'm back here to express my explicit support for the change. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I ask the question of why does a gender change resulting in a name change take a different answer than a person marrying changing their name. If you were to ask Todd/Emily my assumption would be that they will tell you they have been a girl since they were born. Therefore they were a girl name Todd who chose a new name they more closely identified with. No one is changing Bruce Jenners medals to being won by Caitlyn, why is this different? If Bill Clinton came out and said he is changing his name to Jefferson Clinton would we change who was the president of the US? If he came out and said he was becoming Betty Clinton would that change your answer? What if the US government changed their website to say she now goes by Betty and showed the 42nd President as being Betty Clinton? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 11:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

As was mentioned several times above, each of those hypothetical examples is slightly different from the Van Der Werff situation and per MOS guidelines, we would want to use context in each case to determine what to do. I am not going to give a blanket "yes" or "no" answer to each of them because we should not handle each case the same way. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 12:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Obviously every case is different, but the underlying issues are the same. As I stated above Emily/Todd would say they have been a girl since they were born, this is a name change, not a gender change.

Lets look at this exact same example, but take the gender change out. If Todd became Keith, would you want to go back and change everything to Keith? If they were born in a female body, and was given the name Tabatha, but decided to change her name to Emily, would you want to go back and change everything to Emily? If you are answer is no, then please explain why Todd/Emily is different. If your answer is yes, please explain why, based on what MOS/Policy. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 12:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

There would be no reason not to use the new name. VanDerWerff doesn't have a Wikipedia page, so a lot of the thornier issues with when and where to use old names and gender expressions is removed, doubly so given that most of the major publications she wrote for have also changed their bylines. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Here to offer explicit support and to note that if Galatz is the only person objecting to the change, at this point, the consensus appears crystal-clear to me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• I also support Bilorv's changes to make the byline match what's on the news articles. Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• I also support the idea to change Todd to Emily. And I'm going to be frank: this is a silly argument that shouldn't have happened. Emily changed her name, and many of the websites that she wrote for changed their bylines to match. Changing the text so it reads "Emily" is useful because a) it now matches what those major websites have and b) does not confusion for readers (as seeing two different names might). Using "Todd" may not only be hurtful to the author (for a variety of reasons) but frankly it is just confusing to readers.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Although it would mean more work, if we're going to change the specific references, then we should use whatever the article credit currently is when you click on the reference and go to the web page: Emily Todd if that's what it says, and Emily if that's what it says. If Emily Todd is a stepping stone, then use that while the sources do, and change again whenever the sources make that change. References should reflect the source as it is today, not as it is anticipated to be at some point in the future. (In any event, I think it should change from Todd, since that isn't the name on it. I haven't checked the reference changes, but "access-date" should change to reflect the date the name change is being made in the reference, since it was Todd at the old access date.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • If you're interested in editing the 1000 or so relevant articles yourself twice each, you can, but it's never been mandatory to cite somebody's middle name. Thanks for the accessdate note, something I hadn't considered, which I'll look at when making future edits. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 17:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: obviously I can't do this as I'm involved, but if someone could either snow close this discussion or comment saying that there's now a consensus, that would be helpful. I count 12 users in support, 1 with concerns and Galatz in (presumably) opposition. I trust that if Galatz actually had any interest in discussion, as they so claimed, that they will now revert their 116 edits from yesterday. Otherwise I'll make the changes myself between 20 and 30 hours from now, because every time one of those pages gets an intermediary edit it means that the edit will have to be undone manually, not a task I look forward to. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 17:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Category:World War II films made in wartime

Gildir is deleting this category from a large number of film articles, presumably with a view to emptying and deleting the category.

However, the category describes a well-defined, relevant class of film, and provides a direct method of retrieving such films for study. The edit comment is overcat[egorisation], but no other category enables just this search, and the films I examined did not have a specially large number of categories. I would be interested to know what other editors think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

My intention isn't to empty and delete the category, only to remove it from articles which are in its subcategories (and subcategories of those categories). Gildir (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

List of American film actresses

I removed the ***** that had been added to identify actresses at least 80 years old, but the edit was reverted. Could someone from this project take a look and adjudicate. See the comments on the talk page. Thank you.--76.14.38.58 (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I support your edit. Those asterisks just look weird, and I don't understand why they are needed. Betty Logan (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I also agree that the asterisks are unnecessary. Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• If there were to be a designation like this, it should be one asterisk or some other single character, not 10 asterisks like it previously was for some confusing reason. But in any event, I don't think the designation is particularly necessary either... — Hunter Kahn 21:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the other comments here and have taken the liberty of removing it again. Arbitray and unnecessary. PC78 (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

By closing down an ongoing discussion on the talk page Atlantic306 (talk)

...and I've been reverted. Seems like most users think this should be removed though. PC78 (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Star Wars (film)

How comes this is rated back down to B class? Wouldn't FA drop to GA? Govvy (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

No, demoted FAs need to be run through GAN to get to GA class. When they're demoted, someone must reassess them. JOEBRO64 13:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Ditto. Any article that is demoted from FA or GA status automatically reverts to B-Class. I assumed from the question that this happened recently, but the article lost FA status way back in 2010 and then failed a GA review in 2012. PC78 (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Been a while then, I am just surprised this article isn't even GA is all. Govvy (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Captain China is not just a movie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_China presents Captain China as a movie.

It's actually also a comic from Excel comics (English version) translated to English, which appears to have quite some influence from Marvel's Captain America: https://www.excelcomics.com/store/c2/English_Version.html

Plot summaries can be found at https://comicvine.gamespot.com/captain-china/4005-110719/

The comic is (still in 2019) featured as a rare sample of non-Finnish comics in a Finnish comic book museum in Kemi up in Lapland, which is how I ran into it. Written source: https://www.excelcomics.com/english-blog/captain-china-exhibition-in-finland - the comic book museum is described at https://www.visitsealapland.com/en/sarjis-en-us/kemi-comics-center/the-arctic-gems-and-comics/ but that page does not detail the features.

Do you suppose it would be possible to split the current page into a disambiguation page splitting to the film and at least a stub about the comic? I don't edit Wikipedia regularly at all and don't want to risk annoying a project by a clumsy attempt at setting up a disambiguation split.

Sini Ruohomaa (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

There's no need to split anything, just start a new article at Captain China (comics). If you don't have much experience editing Wikipedia, consider going through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process. PC78 (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Kjell Knudde

Kjell Knudde has been adding a lot of articles to Surrealist film categories for which there is no referenced basis. Some people might think that WB's Looney Tunes are "surreal," but that is irrelevant. No article should be added to a category unless the article in question clearly supports such categorization. In general, Kjell seems obsessed with over-categorization, as his contributions page shows, and he has been the subject of discussion here on the FilmProject for that problem. -2602:306:37FF:C990:1CBA:A552:5147:9FB9 (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a more clearly defined category of what a 'Surrealist Film' is might be a solution. Because if according to you Monty Python films, films by Fellini and the Fleischer Brothers don't fit in that category - which is an opinion - , even though their surrealism is mentioned in their respective articles, then one could wonder whether the category isn't too vaguely defined in the first place? In fact: the whole category Surrealist filmmakers seems rather vague. If we would only include films directed by representatives of the Surrealist Movement - which is fine by me - then there aren't that much films to begin with. Perhaps the entire category Category:Surrealist filmmakers could be removed altogether: for I didn't create it. - User:Kjell Knudde 19:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC).

It's not the first time this editor has been questioned about adding categories to articles. Simply put, every category you add must be supported in the text in the article. Rather than removing the whole category tree, maybe a topic-ban on adding categories for this editor would be a better solution. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Genre inflation

Here's a genre inflationist on a small spree in case anyone wants to pad their edit count. Daß Wölf 22:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Box office take adjusted for inflation

Avengers: Endgame is now the highest-grossing movie of all time, but only if one does not adjust for inflation. If you adjust for inflation, it still hasn't beaten Avatar, and the top film is Gone With the Wind. Most people don't think about inflation. Most readers will think that Endgame is literally the most profitable movie of all time, when it in fact isn't if you think about it. I know it's not customary for Wikipedia to list inflation-adjusted takes, but I think we should do that in certain cases. After all, in the article "List of highest-grossing films" there is a table of inflation-adjusted takes, and the article for Gone With the Wind explicitly mentions that it is the highest-grossing film when adjusted for inflation; S'so I don't see what's wrong with mentioning inflation in the article for Endgame. Kurzon (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• The Endgame article does currently address this distinction: "It is the highest-grossing film of all time,[152] as well as the second-highest-grossing film of all time in the United States and Canada, and the fifth-highest-grossing film of all time worldwide when adjusted for inflation." — Hunter Kahn 13:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Hunter Kahn: Why can't I put that in the lede? Kurzon (talk) 07:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Slipper and the Rose that would benefit from your opinion. Please come and help! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  21:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources for Ghostbusters

Hi all, I am trying top this article off and insanely I am really struggling to find sources relating to it's cultural impact, fans, conventions, references in other media, influences on other directors, etc, etc. I thought it would be like EVERYWHERE, but I'm coming up with little to nothing. Masem has already supplied some but I can't help but feel there should be more info about this film. If anyone has better researching abilities in this area I'd be muchly appreciative. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

One source I've used is WorldCat.org since it shows tables of contents, so if there is a chapter discussing the film, the book would come up. For example, this has the chapter "Undead anarchy in Ghostbusters". You can then track down the book. This is another one. Hope that helps. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

This is an example of what some academics call a "cult blockbuster": a blockbuster film that attracts obsessed fans. You might have better success if you check academic sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both. And yes NRP, I did try googling "fans", "Fandom", "popular culture", "impact", etc, so I'll try cult blockbuster and see if I can come up with something. Problem is it generally bring up unusable fan sites. I thought there'd easily be a good news article or two about the impact of this film. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

New media available for early 20th-century media and media persons

A scene from "Behind the Door"

I wanted to let this project know that I am uploading a few thousand new public-domain images to Commons that might be useful to you. The images come from the collection of J. Willis Sayre and were digitized by the University of Washington. They date from the first quarter of the 20th century and are largely portrait shots of various people involved in theater, film, and other media at that time, and shots of scenes from plays and films.

You can make use of these images in articles, and we also need help categorizing them on Commons.

All the images are in Commons:Category:Images from the J. Willis Sayre Collection of Theatrical Photographs. The upload will be finished within the next day. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Great work, there should be many articles where they can be added to improve the visual presentation and add quality, thanks for your efforts, Atlantic306 (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The One (2001 film)

I've done a few updates, I wanted to try and find the two positive reviews online according to metacritic there was one by Chicago Tribune and one by Seattle Post-Intelligencer. They seem to be dead know, is anyone able to find these reviews online? Govvy (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

They're both archived in the Wayback Machine: here and here. --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Secundus Zephyrus, I have expanded on the reception of the film, I hope that helps with removing that old verification template at the top of the page. I put that first archived down as work=Chicago Tribune even know the website looks like something else. Not sure if that needs changing know. Govvy (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I was curious about that too but didn't have time to look into it until now. It appears that website Metromix is run by Chicago Tribune. See their about us page. --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I was able to find a syndicated copy of the review by Loren King article using Google and the search terms "The One" "Loren King" "Jet Li". Judicious use of quotation marks and the fragments of text from the reviews provided by Metacritic make it less difficult that you might expect to find articles if they have been moved and are not entirely dead. Quotations marks are very effective in Google searches, not so with other search engines which seem to ignore punctuation. Ditto I found the SeattlePi article was moved not dead, using a Google search and the keywords: site:seattlepi.com "The One" "Jet Li" Jet Li is hero and villain in action film 'The One'. For sites that are dead and older articles and publications Google books can turn up useful results but not as easily.

I was going to rename this section "Finding dead sources" because it is relevant advice for many film articles not just one, but I'll leave that as a suggestion to the person who started the thread. -- 109.77.229.35 (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Mussicel film

Can anyone help fill in Highest-grossing musical films by year chart Fanoflionking 21:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced film plot on Wikipedia article is being called "Just utter made-up bullshit."

A plot summary was added to Once Upon a Time in Hollywood following its brief showing at the Cannes Film Festival in May. The film plot has been permitted to stay despite the fact its veracity has been challenged. The plot was unsourced, and since the film had not entered release there was no mechanism for checking the plot.

I believe that the presence of the plot under this circumstance violates WP:V which states that "verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." I also believe it violates WP:FILMPLOT's condition for not requiring a secondary source:

Since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary. Exceptions to the rule include upcoming films and "lost" films (which are not available to the public to verify), for which editors should use secondary sources.

We have traditionally only not required a secondary citation for films that are accessible to our readers in some form in some part of the world. For the past couple of months this has not been true of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. I started an RFC on this issue but it failed to find any traction and those who responded were clearly unconcerned about the lack of verifiability and the "call out" in regard to the plot summary.

Now a film reviewer has posted a reply to the comments section on their own review: "That Wikipedia entry is completely wrong. Just utter made-up bullshit."

This does not reflect well on Wikipedia or indeed film project editors that we permitted such misinformation to be spread through our refusal to enforce Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Should we amend our MOS guidelines so that film must be publicly accessible in some form somewhere in the world to not a require secondary source? I feel this situation is a poor reflection on the hard work we do and we should take action to address it. Betty Logan (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I would support this amendment per WP:SOURCEACCESS. In a sense, letting editors write plot summaries of film-festival releases is a bit like WP:NOTNEWS #1 when that film/event is not available after the one time it happens, and someone who was there writes about it based on their own experience. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to think that any common sense reading of the above would clearly apply in this case, but no objection to providing further clarification if you feel it's necessary. PC78 (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

That plots should be cited to secondary sources in the absence of a wide release seems to be utterly common sense. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I can agree a showing at Cannes cannot be considered a sufficiently wide release for allowing a plot section to go unreferrenced per WP:V, but lets take an example of common "sneak preview" weekends, where maybe a dozen theaters across the country show the film on a screen or two, a week or so ahead of the mass availability? I would argue that is sufficiently public enough, and that its WP:V will be easily determined in a short time, but this is a case to consider since I've it used several times before. --Masem (t) 18:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• I agree that the lack of genuine wide avalaibility means the plot summary fails WP:V. Hell, that reviewer is probably correct that the plot summary is false. He's a professional film reviewer and likely to have seen the film at a major festival like Cannes while the plot summary here was added anonymously by an IP address. We have no idea if it's remotely valid. Clearly it needs to be spelled out that removal of such unverifiable plot summaries are valid edits. oknazevad (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I also support an amendment to prevent this from happening in the future. I also want to add that it's possible that whoever wrote the plot summary was correct: it is not uncommon for changes to be made to a film between a film festival premiere and the wide release, which is another reason why I support Betty Logan's proposal. Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The veracity of the plot summary was also being challenged by people who claimed to have watched it at Cannes. Betty Logan (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Further story about it here: https://www.inquisitr.com/5545648/once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-wikipedia-entry-repeatedly-vandalized-with-false-plot-summary/ Betty Logan (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• And more here [1]. I'm also looking to add something to WP:SPOILER related to WP:V-ness of what is being spoiled. (Covering more than films, but obviously films being the biggest issue. --Masem (t) 19:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

  Rusted AutoParts, you're famous. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

  Well, that’s quite something. I didn’t even factor in that the plot was fake when advocating for its removal. There really needs to be a verifiability clause added to WP:SPOILER because this can’t happen again. Rusted AutoParts 06:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Erik, PC78, David Fuchs, Masem, Oknazevad, and Secundus Zephyrus: Since I am proposing a change to the MOS I have suggested some new wording at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film#Revising_the_guidance_on_plot_sourcing should any of you wish to comment. If you think the wording can be improved then obviously feel free to make suggestions. Betty Logan (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
• "It wasn't verifiable, but it wasn't demonstrably false either." A succinct appraisal of what went wrong on this page: https://www.esquire.com/uk/latest-news/a28560628/once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-wikipedia/. Betty Logan (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of A Cowgirl's Story

The article A Cowgirl's Story has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The page cites no sources and this has not changed in nearly two years

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AutumnKing (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Marketing

I noticed lately that The Hollywood Reporter has had a couple of articles analyzing films' marketing campaigns, mostly recently Hobbs & Shaw here. The journalist Chris Thilk has written these kinds of articles for the past two years or so, so I wanted to highlight this as a worthwhile source to write "Marketing" sections of value. So if you work on a recent film's article, see if he has written about the film's marketing. Any other marketing-related sources you know of, feel free to share. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The Invisible Man (2020 film) and the Dark Universe

@DisneyMetalhead: has been insisting that this film is apart of the Dark Universe, which had not had any announcements made about it in a few years. None of the recent news surrounding the film have made any reference to it being apart of or a new relaunch of the franchise. I’ve tried removing the sentence about the DU twice now but DMH keeps readding it. Am I wrong here? Rusted AutoParts 22:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• Has there been ANY reference to this being part of Dark Universe in the past? You say there has been no mention recent news articles, but are there any from years back that say it? If so, maybe there is a way to include something in the article like "It was announced in February 2005 (or whatever) that this film would be part of Dark Universe, but recent publicity around the film includes no references to it." Or something like that? I realize that probably borders on WP:OR, so maybe other editors would agree or disagree. (Alteratively, if there has never been a reference to this movie being part of the Dark Universe, the solution is easy: there should be no reference to it in the article at all.) — Hunter Kahn 01:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Hunter Kahn: there is sourced suggesting this, and already exists in the article. The issue is @DisneyMetalhead: insisting its still part of the Dark Universe when there’s nothing to bolster this claim. Rusted AutoParts 03:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• The Dark Universe hardly even existed. Outside of The Mummy, there was talk of tying Dracula Untold to it and a few projects in development, but it was really nothing more than a plan Universal had before The Mummy bombed. I agree that it's entirely incorrect to say The Invisible Man is part of the same franchise. Also worth noting this has been a recurring issue with DMH for some time; we've had tons of similar problems at the DC Extended Universe article for the same reasons. JOEBRO64 22:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I’ve provided a link for DMH from Variety about how Universal was moving from the Dark Universe but I got reverted and was told I was “reading between the lines”. Rusted AutoParts 22:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

That behavior doesn't surprise me. JOEBRO64 22:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: are you kidding me? What issues have you had with me, and what 'behavior' do you reference? @Rusted AutoParts: what I have repeatedly stated is that there is no statement from the studio stating that the Dark Universe has ended. Likewise to say that the Dark Universe never evolved past a concept is also incorrect. The only official statement is the one that you have stated before. they do not state that the Dark Universe is over/past idea/nor that they are moving on from it. They state that they are focusing on individual installments. @Hunter Kahn: is exactly right in stating "Has the film ever been Dark Universe?" the answer is yes. Conversely, has the film officially been declared as "not a part of the Dark Universe?"...the answer is no. We cannot make decisions for studios based on tabloid commentary.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The Variety source directly says The move is part of a fresh strategy for Universal’s monsters properties, bringing creative directors with distinctive visions to the classic characters and moving on from the interconnected Dark Universe concept. Rusted AutoParts 20:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Let's see. Blatantly editing against existing consensus ([2], [3], [4]), repeatedly reverting to your preferred revision of the page ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]), and editing against/going beyond what sources say ([11], [12], [13]). And this is far from an exhaustive list—if I had more time, I'm sure I'd find a lot more. JOEBRO64 21:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: No, each of those reverts as due to the fact of dispute on reliable sources. That is the intent/reasoning behind any of those you just linked. Assume good faith, bruv. Additinoally you need to re-read guidelines regarding WP:Don't be rude. Your scornful comments are lacking in WP:Civility (see: WP:CIVIL-Avoid condescension). I trust that each of us have the goal of making Wikipedia as accurate as possible.

The factual sequence of events regarding this film is as follows:

• 1. The Invisible Man announced to be in development with Ed Solomon writing the script
• 2. franchise given the name of Dark Universe
• 3. Johnny Depp cast in the role/slate of films announced
• 4. Dark Universe stalled: The Bride of Frankenstein filming put on hold for scriptwork
  • Franchise as a whole re-assessed after The Mummy was not as well-received as they would have liked
  • The co-runners/producers of the franchise, depart the franchise due to creative differences.
• 5. President of Universal production states: "We've learned many lessons throughout the creative process on Dark Universe so far, and we are viewing these titles as filmmaker-driven vehicles, each with their own distinct vision. We are not rushing to meet a release date and will move forward with these films when we feel they are the best versions of themselves." (emphasis added)(ref)
• 6. Ed Solomon leaves project stating that the studio is "reconfiguring" the franchise(ref)
• 7. Bride of Frankenstein still continues to be in development with director hiring crew. (ref)
• 8. Jason Blum expresses interest in helping to shepherd/oversee the franchise, directly referred to as Dark Universe in this thread. The filmmaker expressed interest in several public instances, including stating that he is not making a new monster franchise.
• 9. Graphic artist announces that he's been hired by the studio to collaborate on future movies within the Dark Universe, identifying the official new team behind the franchise.(ref)
• 10. Jason Blum is hired as producer for The Invisible Man
• 11. Leigh Whannell is hired as director/writer for Invisible Man. Blum states that elements of Solomon's script may remain. - studio considers keeping Johnny Depp
  • Invisible Man ultimately re-cast

As you can see here, I'm not just attempted to 'preserve my opinion' as you both have insinuated. I'm looking at all the facts here. At no point does the studio say that the franchise is dead, nor do they state that it is abandoned. They have simply 'reconfigured' the franchise to be standalone features in order to make each installment "the best versions of themselves". --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

• P.S.: additionally, @Rusted AutoParts:' source from Variety states: "The talent previously attached to various monster roles like Depp, Javier Bardem, Tom Cruise, and Russell Crowe still have the option to appear in the movies after a filmmaker with a new vision is brought on."(ref) - indicating continued continuity, as a priority for the studio... The franchise of films is continually referred to as Dark Universe in each of these sources. All that has occurred is - at this time - the franchise is focusing on individual characters, not a shared universe as initially planned (a similar approach was recently taken by WB/DC with their [[DC Extended Universe|shared film universe]).--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

And you say I read between the lines. Okay, first off the bat, Blum saying he’d like to take it over doesn’t equate to him actually taking over Dark Universe as of now. Saying script elements from the DU version MAY remain isn’t confirmation it’s still the planned DU version. Whether or not Bride of Frankenstein was still in development in....February 2018? (talk about outdated information) doesn’t have any barrings in the development of The Invisible Man. That graphic artist posted that in May 2018, nothing came from it since. So until you provide a reliable source from the production notes made in regards to this iteration of Invisible Man that has anything saying directly “The Invisible Man is part of the Dark Universe”, saying it is part of the Dark Universe is baseless speculation. Also cool it with the pings. The actors still having options to return isn’t confirmation they are or that this has any connection to those films. Rusted AutoParts 04:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I reference @Hunter Kahn:'s input again: Has there been ANY reference to this being part of Dark Universe in the past? Yes in every instance/reference.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Reliable source please. Rusted AutoParts 04:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

....I gave the reliable sources, please.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Screenrant and Slashfilm aren’t aren’t as reliable sources as Variety, Deadline or Hollywood Reporter. Besides all those sources are outdated, and make no reference to the current iteration of The Invisible Man. Rusted AutoParts 04:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: again, I have no beef with you. Do not tell me what to do, I will ping when appropriate. Refresh your memory to guidelines: WP:Don't be rude. Refer to WP:CIVILity-Avoiding Incivility, bullet 3: Nobody likes to be bossed about by an editor who appears to believe that they are "superior". A reference being from 2018, does not render it inaccurate. Additionally I clarify - that I was not stating that Blum is running the Dark Universe. I stated that the facts are he had/has interest in the franchise. The resounding/defining statement comes from Universal President of Production: "We've learned many lessons throughout the creative process on Dark Universe so far...will move forward with these films when we feel they are the best versions of themselves." Your Variety source explicitly states: "The talent previously attached to various monster roles like Depp, Javier Bardem, Tom Cruise, and Russell Crowe still have the option to appear in the movies after a filmmaker with a new vision is brought on." All things I have stated have reliable sources, and quote the actual developers of the projects.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

And you're now stating that Screenrant and Slashfilm aren't reliable as Variety, Deadline or Hollywood Reporter... each of my references has a direct source within them. I also just debunked your theory from the Variety source.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Dude, Stop. Pinging. Me. I’m already watching the discussion I do not need constant alerting you’ve responded. You see it as me bossing you around and being superior, I see it as me asking you to stop badgering me with pings. That quote you keep using is from 2017. Since then in January this year they have now said “We are excited to take a more individualized approach for their return to screen, shepherded by creators who have stories they are passionate to tell with them”. No mentions about Dark Universe were made in that statement, so to say it’s Dark Universe is inference on your part. Either way we’ve both said our pieces. If you respond, please please do not ping me about it. It’s borderline hounding. Rusted AutoParts 04:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment As The Invisible Man (2020 film) reads right now, the sentence (which is properly sourced) says "In February 2016, the project was redeveloped to be a part of Universal's shared cinematic universe, intended to consist of their classic monsters." It seems to me this is fair to include. However, to the point made by Rusted AutoParts, the Universal Classic Monsters page cites this reliable source in saying "In January 2019, Universal announced that they were moving on from the Dark Universe, and would instead serve as standalone features." It would seem to me that it would be appropriate to include this in the Invisible Man article as well. So that article could be revised to something like: "In February 2016, it was announced the project was being developed as part of Universal's Dark Universe, a shared cinematic universe intended to consist of their classic monsters.[14] However, in January 2019, Universal announced that they were moving on from the Dark Universe, and would instead serve as standalone features.[15]" It would seem to me this would be a better solution than just straight-up omitting a mention of the shared universe altogether, and could possibly be a compromise between the two differing opinions voiced in this argument? — Hunter Kahn 04:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I’m not against mentioning it was intended to be apart of a shared universe in the production section, I’m just against saying it’s an instalment of the Dark Universe in the lead paragraph like it was being edited as, when it’s not been said to be so. Rusted AutoParts 05:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Your refusal to get the point is astounding. "Your scornful comments are lacking in WP:Civility (see: WP:CIVIL-Avoid condescension)." Really? I just provided over 10 diffs showing numerous instances of your troublesome behavior, which includes violations of WP:OWN, WP:3RR, and WP:SQS. You're just trying to use WP:Civility to discredit my observations when in actuality I have just proven you are problematic. JOEBRO64 12:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Hunter Kahn: I like your angle. This resolves the issue until there is direct answer one way or another from Universal. I did find this interview from yesterday. I originally mentioned it on my talk page and am bringing the same references here -- The UPDATE follows: Here is a recent interview that is noteworthy. iO9 recently did a press interview Chris Morgan during the release of Fast and Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw. In the interview the discussion turned towards Dark Universe. Morgan had originally been tapped as one of the co-runners/co-architects of the franchise, only to walk away after the studio decided to re-evaluate the situation. Repeatedly in the article, it states that there have been a couple of attempts at a shared universe scenario, only to have various iterations of angles to take with it. Morgan said this: "I don’t [have] regrets or anything like that ... I think it’s just, you know, I think it probably was trying to come together too quickly, I would say. And I think everyone got to take a breath and take a step back and take a look at it, and now just focus on maybe doing it a little bit slower ... I think Universal’s going about the monster films the right way, which is to really focus on taking a good script, good story, put it out there, if you’re going to build a universe build it from something strong like that. And I think they’re not so much worried about putting a universe out there as they are making great monster films, so I’m looking forward to seeing them". All these things again re-state what I have been saying this entire time. The studio hasn't dropped the Dark Universe film studio, nor have they dropped the title of the name they have given this film franchise. Morgan states it plain as day here. This interview was from July 30, 2019. That's as recent as it can get. No more need to debate anymore. ...Thoughts? ([https://io9.gizmodo.com/chris-morgan-talks-dark-universe-mistakes-and-fast-and-1836858662%7C reference).--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a former member of creative stating what he thinks they should do. It’s rather interesting you’re not bolding the major tells this isn’t an official declaration about its future. And I think they’re not so much worried about putting a universe out there as they are making great monster films. Regardless, this does not confirm anything as he’s not speaking for Universal, he’s only stating what he thinks they’re doing, and even then he also says it in a way that co-oborates what I’ve been saying this entire time, that these new remakes aren’t in a shared universe/the studio isn’t focusing on a shared universe. Rusted AutoParts 02:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

There's an awful lot of "if"s in that interview with someone who is no longer involved for this to be called confirmation of anything. In fact, I'd say calling it confirmation would the mental gymnastics equivalent of a perfect-10, gold-medal winning routine. oknazevad (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: once again, what I have stated from the get-go, is that the franchise as a whole is titled Dark Universe. I have stated that the intentions of the studio have been to build individualized standalone features, before they build out into a shared universe situation. The fact that Morgan has left being involved with the franchise, is irrelevant - as he was talking about what the status was when he left. He obviously knows more about it than any of us do. He states what I have been saying the entire time, here as well -- I previously posted this on my talk-page, and am moving it here for this discussion:

Second UPDATE: Morgan has once again discussed the future 'plans' Universal has for the Dark Universe. In an interview with Coming Soon he stated, "I think with the Dark Universe the lesson that became very clear was putting it all together too quickly as a universe. It doesn’t naturally want to happen that way. It wants to happen with one movie that’s great, and then you let that build love and support and grow it. And I think that’s the lesson that Universal and we have taken away. Now it’s kind of the way that those monster movies are rolling out. Build it with love and care." (reference). The franchise is obviously not 'dead' as has been the debate here since your first message. In the same interview, he states that he may become involved in the franchise in the future, specifically stating that he would like to make Van Helsing for the studio. He may not be the co-runner/architect of the franchise anymore, but he still has his foot in the door. I'm not too sure what @Oknazevad: meant with their gold-medal comparison.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You’re once again looking to make the source work the way you want it to work. Morgan is not an authority anymore on the development of the movies. Universal has made a clear statement that they’d moved on from the shared universe concept and would be focusing more on individualized projects. So it’s still just the same thing, we’re going around in circles: you link a source, you make it work the way you want it to work, myself or another editor poke holes in it and we wind up back where we started, with you having provided no concrete sources that the Dark Universe is still the franchise that this Invisible Man movie is part of. Rusted AutoParts 16:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

And I’m pretty sure I’ve asked you to knock it off with the pings. Rusted AutoParts 16:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: I can ping you to the conversation whenever necessary. You don't get to boss other editors around, as though you have the authority to do so. This is an online encyclopedia contributed to by any and all editors. I would refer you once again to the regulation and guidelines here --> WP:CIVIL - Avoiding Incivility, 3. Try not to get too intense; 5. Take a Real-Life check; 6. Be professional; 8. Avoid condescension; & 9. Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment. There is nothing wrong with pinging your username, when I have something to say - (see Help:Notifications... "pinging is a Wikipedia web-service designed to inform users about new activity on Wikipedia in a unified way.") There is no need to be Wikipedia:Rude in your responses to others. Assume good faith, and let's get back to the topic.

Each of the sources I have provided are from one of the original co-architects of the Dark Universe. Each of the statements I have quoted have him stating that the plan is for the studio to create individual movies, and perhaps "build a universe around that". You continue to believe that I am saying that the franchise is still a shared universe (akin to Marvel Cinematic Universe, The Conjuring Universe, and the like...And I am not<--[ WP:CIVIL- Avoiding Incivility, 1. Explain yourself ]). What I have repeatedly stated is that the studio has not abandoned the 'franchise' title. Each of the sources I have provided include "Dark Universe" in respect to upcoming/future releases. Citing an individual who was involved, up until the point that he chose to leave is constructive and valid. What kind of source are you looking for?! Johnny Depp who was cast as The Invisible Man at the franchise's inception, was involved with the reboot movie up until March 2019. That is long after Morgan left the franchise.... --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

What you’re interpreting as incivility is irritation because I’ve repeatedly asked you to stop pinging me. I have the page in my watchlist, I can see whenever an edit is made and thus see whenever you respond. I do not need alerting to whenever you respond via ping, so for the last time, Stop. Pinging. Me.

And Morgan’s input is irrelevant because he isn’t involved anymore, he does not speak for Universal. Depp possibly being involved before the current actor was cast is not indication that the film was supposed to be Th same as the DU version so saying it is part of the DU is speculation on your part and it won’t be added in as such unless Universal explicitly says its part of it. Period. Your entire argument has been contingent on the belief that since there’s been no explicit statement the Dark Universe is dead. We have a valid and more credible Variety source that explicitly says the studio is focusing on individual movies. You can choose to personally view that as Dark Universe not being dead but it will not be included in The Invisible Man article, and the table at Universal Monster Movies will not include the titles you kept trying to add into it. So to me this is now a closed discussion. Do not ping me if you add in anything more or I will consider it an act of incivility in your part to defy my wishes. Rusted AutoParts 21:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're completely misapplying WP:CIVIL here. RAP saying he disagrees with you is not the same thing as being uncivil. JOEBRO64 21:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Happy Gilmore

So recently I've been drafting a rewrite of the 1996 Adam Sandler comedy Happy Gilmore with intent to bring it up to GA status (you can see my work at User:TheJoebro64/drafts/HG). I just wanted to ask: does anyone know of any good sources about the production of the film? I've got a bit on its genesis and some casting, but more detailed information (such as principal photography) seems sort of sparse. JOEBRO64 17:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The American Film Institute usually describes any production information on major Hollywood films if they can find anything. Otherwise, you'd want to check the archives of Variety and possibly Entertainment Weekly. The local newspaper for the city (or cities) in which shooting took place will have the most detailed information. If a film was shot in a smaller city, it will probably receive a lot of attention. If it was shot in Los Angeles or New York City, coverage will typically be sparser, but you should at least find an interview with the star in the Los Angeles Times or The New York Times. Retrospectives are sometimes more informative in this circumstance. Newspapers typically don't spend much time interviewing writers or directors, so you'll want to go to filmmaking magazines for that. Finally, human interest anecdotes about the production may show up in celebritity magazines, such as People. Don't trust anything in a tabloid, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Film Literature Index shows the following source that may have information: "Hamilton, Kendall and Yahlin Chang . Oh, you silly boy. Newsweek 132 Nov 9 (1998): 68-69." I would suggest searching for the title combined with the filming location (e.g., "British Columbia") to find sources that discuss filming there. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Erik, I've never heard of the Film Literature Index before, how does one get access to it? My public library does not have a subscription. --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you need access to it. At that website, you can browse production titles, and it will provide a list of references related to that title. Sometimes it's a great list, sometimes it's not. There are other film-related resources that have similar lists behind paywalls (some are listed at WP:FILMRES). I suggest asking library staff what other film-related resources they may have. University libraries are good places too. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Two lists of characters for the Halloween film series

There are currectly two different character lists of Halloween franchise characters, one named List of Halloween (film series) characters and another named List of Halloween characters. I can't imagine this is beneficial in any way or in line with Wikipedia guidlines.★Trekker (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Unfilmable

I just created unfilmability. It's going to be a hit! Or a miss, I don't know... But there's this one scholar, Kamilla Elliott, who has written a lot about this which made me think the concept could sustain its own article. Haukur (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I dig it. I found a couple more sources here and here. Time also appears to have had an article called "The Screen's the Limit: Cloud Atlas and the Lure of Unfilmable Books". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I find it an interesting article Haukur. You will have seen the edit I made to fix the WP:EGG. Another question about that sentence comes to mind. When I read the Golden Age of Television (2000s–present) article it mentions this Golden Age may have started as far back as the 1980s so labeling it as a 21st century phenomenon might need some altering. I'm not sure about that though so I mention it as food for thought. MarnetteD|Talk 19:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it's great that you've made this!★Trekker (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both! Haukur (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

How to cap translations

Consider this lead intro:

Mannavan Vanthanadi (transl. The King has arrived) is an unreleased Tamil language romantic drama film...

Since the translation appears in the middle of the sentence, it seems weird to me to capitalise any aspect of the translation unless there is a proper noun. But does...

Mannavan Vanthanadi (transl. the king has arrived)

...look OK? Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood cast section

There's a discussion at Talk:Once Upon a Time in Hollywood#Cast about who to include and how to format the list. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Origin of Batman

Just giving a shoutout to anyone who can maybe help out or expand on this article. It’s off to a rusty start but I believe it’s a notable topic that has been in various media including film. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 04:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Netflix as external link

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Netflix as external link. --Sid95Q (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Dredd

You are invited to participate in the discussion at Talk:Dredd#Country_of_Origin regarding the production countries. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 in film

You are invited to participate in the discussion at Talk:2019 in film#Proposal. Thanks, DeluxeVegan (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Neutral notice of discussion

This is a neutral notice of discussion that is under this project’s scope regarding the naming of phases at Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. All opinions are welcome.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Ridicule page

We could use more opinions at Talk:Ridicule#Requested move 14 August 2019. A permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

External links

I removed AllMovie and TCM Movie Database from the "External links" section of My Favorite Wife as maintenance and left comments on the talk page. The section has not yet grown as large as some but I didn't see that the two links offered anything extra, unique, not covered by the article and references, or the two other links in the section. It was reverted and after reflection I thought I would explore the editors rational but the edit summary was pretty clear on reasoning that stated "More or less de facto standard; if you don't like it, take it up at the film wikiproject.". As this seems like a personal opinion being advanced as a WikiProject "normal", that I didn't see, I thought I would inquire here. My issue isn't with any reversion but the reasoning advanced in the edit summary that I think is flawed and certainly didn't address any of my concerns. Otr500 (talk) 03:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

You're right to remove these links. These pretty much never belong per WP:ELNO #1 because these links don't provide anything unique that a fleshed-out Wikipedia article would have. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

ELNO #1 seems a bit silly to me: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." Woulda, coulda, shoulda. The fact is My Favorite Wife is not a featured article, and may not become one anytime soon, so the notion that TCM should not be linked, despite providing additional info (e.g. links to reviews from reliable sources), is puzzling. And while WP:ELP is not a guideline, it votes "generally yes" for IMDb as an external link, so yes, it is the de facto standard. AllMovie, on the other hand, is so error-ridden, I'd be happy to dance on its Wikipedial grave. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Blinded by the Light (2019 film)

If anyone has seen this film, and/or has time to help trim the plot length, it would be appreciated. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I think I'll go listen to some 1970s prog rock instead. But I'll get around to it, I guess. Just as soon as I'm done with some Manfred Mann, Supertramp, and Styx. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Took a while. I got caught up in listening to some Pink Floyd, too. I usually listen to heavy metal or punk – the Melvins and the Butthole Surfers – but I do love a bit of prog rock every now and then. Anyway, it's down to about 800 words now. Does the stuff about Mr. Evans need to be there? He seems like a minor character. I also don't really see the point to the part about Javed's sister going to the dance hall. It seems to have no impact on the rest of the story. I haven't seen the film, though. Never particularly cared for Springsteen. That kid should have been listening to something better, like The Clash or Public Image Ltd. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look and trimming it down. Can't go wrong with the Melvins. Seen them live a few times. Two drummers can hurt the old lugs (hehe). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Punjabi cinema task force

See discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Punjabi cinema task force; this malformed "task force" was created without prior discussion by an indef blocked user and has no other participation. It is also redundant to the project's other task forces for Indian and Pakistani cinema. PC78 (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:Romani people in film

The above category has been nominated for renaming to Category:Films about Romani people. We could use some additional opinions on this proposal. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. DonIago (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Rfc at 2019 in film

You are invited to participate in the Rfc at Talk:2019 in film#Request for comment. Thanks, DeluxeVegan (talk) 08:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

List of Kill Bill characters nominated for deletion

Discussion here. Popcornduff (talk) 09:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Death of a Nation

Regarding Death of a Nation (2018 film), there were recent changes that were reverted. A discussion was started on the talk page. Editors are invited to comment here: Talk:Death of a Nation (2018 film)#Recent changes. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Infobox RfC

There's an RfC regarding the potential inclusion of composers for both the score and the songs to certain films. Project members are welcome to comment at Template talk:Infobox film#RfC: Is it relevant to list all composers for the film's music score and songs?. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Is AintitcoolNews a source we consider reliable?

Asking for a friend. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:FILM/R lists it as reliable. JOEBRO64 16:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks JB. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:Films with twist endings

A heads-up that multiple editors have been applying this category to film articles that have no discussion of the film having a twist ending (at least, that I saw). For us to categorize a film in this manner without any verifiable discussion within the article is original research. I'm open to starting a CfD as to whether it would be better for this to be a list, or addressing in some other manner. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

You could virtually argue that all films feature a twist ending. "Oh that was unexpected", bam twist ending. It's not a notable category and should probably be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkwarriorblake (talk • contribs)

Definitely not appropriate for a category but definitely for a list where reliable citations can be used. Everyone "knows" that films like Sixth Sense and Usual Suspects would be on this and those you can source forever. But you likely won't find any such sourcing for, say, Ghostbusters, so the list absolutely can be tamed. --Masem (t) 16:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/best-movie-twists-film-endings-the-perfection-netflix-spiderman-saw-sixth-sense-a8734561.html Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Similar categories have been deleted twice before (one, two). A few years back, but unless something has changed in the meantime, this new one should go too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and deleted, the same should happen with this latest effort. David J Johnson (talk) 12:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I've now listed it at CfD. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! DonIago (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:FILMPOSTER

Resolved

There's an on-going debate in the talk page of the Crank: High Voltage article regarding the poster. Few weeks ago, I changed the theatrical poster (http://www.impawards.com/2009/crank_two_ver2.html) into the ones currently used in the article because I personally find it visually appealing than the former and it was used at some multiplexes in the US. 109.79.190.97 then contested my uploading a different design, accusing me of violating Wikipedia's guidelines. I thought WP:FILMPOSTER said that it's only "ideal" to upload the official design and not necessarily a requirement. Nevertheless, IP insists I revert the official design (so did Erik) since it didn't have a billing block that could render it an official poster, among other reasons. I'd like to request for a second opinion from the regulars on here. You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Screwball comedy film page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Considering this RM discussion made me think about romantic comedy (to which romantic comedy film redirects). Considering that the film genre is its own beast, it should have a standalone article, with perhaps "romantic comedy" having multiple sections by medium (with one being a summary section linking to the film genre), and other media may be appropriate as a section (unless expansion warrants splitting it out too). There seem to be more romantic comedy TV series than ever before, for example. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Ghostbusters II

Similar to my last request, I think it'd be nice to have these long-overlooked articles at FA status by the time of the third film, but I've exhausted my ability to find sources for the sequel. It's significantly harder as it's the more overlooked film and there is a lot less interviews (or seemingly less) about the writing process. I would appreciate information on the design or music side of things, EDIT: This striked part is sorted and if anyone HAS or can help me get access to Cinefex #40 it would be appreciated as it apparently contains a lot of info from Aykroyd on writing the film. Thanks Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Earl and Edgar McGraw nominated for deletion

Another Tarantino-related AfD. Discussion here. Popcornduff (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

hive4media.com

I found this website a while ago. It's great for VHS/DVD release dates(I've barely scratched the surface here). I propose we add this to WP:FILM/R. Timur9008 (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The site does not work for me, looks like a dead domain... BOVINEBOY2008 13:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Its the online version of the Video Store Magazine. I've used the Wayback Machine. Been creating home video sections for various films(past films). I've searched under Product here[16]Timur9008 (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Another Tarantino article nominated for deletion

Following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kill Bill characters (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Earl_and_Edgar_McGraw, I have nominated another Tarantino article for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deadly Viper Assassination Squad. Popcornduff (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

List of film director and actor collaborations at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

It (2017 film)

The box-office section is very big, if someone is interested in putting a machete to it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

some historical films require updating... - 'drama' → 'docudrama'

Fact-based historical films based on real-life events are more precisely defined by the genre 'docudrama', instead of simply 'drama'.

I believe making this distinction, and making it early, is important because it allows readers to instantly ascertain whether a film is fact-based, even when just viewing the small amount of text one sees when hovering the mouse over a film ref. e.g. 'The Report is a 2019 docudrama film written by ...'.

I am using the search "drama"+"historical"+"film" to find and update films. Search term suggestions welcome.

Films with largely fictionalized stories may not qualify as being a docudrama, instead being a 'historical drama'. Guidance on the distinction can be found here and here – some excerpts:

• a docudrama strives to adhere to known historical facts, while allowing a greater or lesser degree of dramatic license in peripheral details, and where there are gaps in the historical record ... historical fidelity is the keynote ... is generally distinguished from a film merely "based on true events", a term which implies a greater degree of dramatic license
  
• A docudrama, in which historical fidelity is the keynote, is generally distinguished from a film merely "based on true events", a term which implies a greater degree of dramatic license; and from the concept of "historical drama", a broader category which may also encompass largely fictionalized action taking place in historical settings or against the backdrop of historical events.
  
• Some works attempt to accurately portray historical events or persons, to the degree that the available historical research and the length of the work will allow. These types of works are also known as docudrama ... Other works are fictionalized stories based on actual people or events
  
• "historical drama", a broader category which may also encompass largely fictionalized action taking place in historical settings or against the backdrop of historical events"
  

Please note that, by convention, the following genres take precedence over both 'docudrama' and 'historical drama', where a story leans strongly towards that category:

• 'musical' - (e.g. 'The Sound of Music')
  
• 'biographical film' – when a film concerns the life of a non-fictional or historically-based person or people (e.g. 'Braveheart')
  
• 'war film' – when a film concerns warfare (e.g. 'Dunkirk')
  
• 'comedy'
  
• etc...
  

The genres are listed in order of priority, from highest to lowest — notice that Braveheart is a biographical film, as opposed to to being labelled a war film; and 'The Sound of Music' is a musical, as opposed to being labelled a biographical film.

========== Discussion: ==========
I'm fairly sure docudrama is the correct genre for 'The Report (2009)' as the script does seem to revolve around actual events... thoughts?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.249.156 (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

From what I can tell with a search engine test, both drama and docudrama are acceptable. It's not like saying "drama" prohibits it from being based on real-life events (since we explain this in the next sentence or two anyway). I do favor "docudrama" as simply more precise. I am not seeing any dispute in that article's edit history, so I suggesting being WP:BOLD and making the change. If it is disputed, this can be discussed further on the talk page. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Change made. Looking for other films manually... slow. Other thoughts: films with the genres such as 'biographical drama'/'biopic' should probably remain that way rather than 'biographical DOCUdrama', which would indicate the fact-based nature twice. I have changed the heading of this section to indicate that more updates may be required. 122.151.249.156 (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I would say that we do not need to ensure "docudrama" or "historical drama" on a universal basis. I think that oftentimes, the first or second sentence will indicate if it is based on real-life events or not. The Report could easily have had that done (though I support the "docudrama" use). Don't sweat yourself too much with that kind of thing. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Good point. A universal update wouldn't be feasible anyway without large scale support. That said, I do want to ensure that film entries (like The Report) that currently don't mention their real-life vs fiction status are labelled as such. One should be able to check the nature of a film in the small amount of text one sees when hovering the mouse over a film ref. 122.151.249.156 (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you. The fix to The Report was good. On Wikipedia, sometimes I am simply in reading mode about different films, but when something is off, I can switch to editing mode and make the improvement. You can usually make a change like that without issue. If there is resistance for some reason, you can use WP:3O or post a neutral notice here at WT:FILM. Maybe there's a good reason for the resistance, maybe not. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Hm, the period drama page contains a contradiction discussed here. Suggestions anyone? 122.151.249.156 (talk) 06:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• A film isn't always automatically a docudrama just because it's based on real events; to be a true docudrama, a film has to be told in a certain specific way, such as blending scenes of straight documentary with dramatic reenactment. The term does not just mean every historical film that happens to be about a real person or real events, because even a historical drama film can be purely narrative invention rather than literal documentary. Yes, in actual practice the distinction gets muddled — just as the distinction between mockumentary and docufiction often is — but our job as an encyclopedia is to be more careful about upholding the distinction. It is certainly an appropriate term in the case of The Report, which is actually literally based on a government intelligence report, but we would not consider Lawrence of Arabia or Vice to be docudramas just because they were based on real people. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Gallery cruft on cast sections of Filipino film articles?

Can anyone look into these articles? Some IP-hopper's been insistently adding portraits of most if not all principal cast members, and I'd like your opinion on whether this is necessary or flat-out unneeded and unencyclopedic. Also tagging @WayKurat: as he has also encountered such edits lately. Blake Gripling (talk) 10:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Your first and third link are the same, and the article only has one photo (depite using the "multiple images template") which is of the lead actor and therefore perfectly reasonable. I agree that the middle one was excessive, though images of the three main actors would probably be fine. Placement and layout could maybe be improved though. PC78 (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Should we settle on a consensus on what is deemed excessive though? I've noticed that in most if not all film article pages, galleries of cast members are sparse if not absent even though the images in question are mostly freely licenced. Blake Gripling (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• Suggest three cast photos as a maximum so as not to distort the page formatting, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• My 2p on this is that, are the images necessary to provide context to the reader? I've noticed that, even if the images in question are freely-licenced, most film articles typically don't use photos of cast members unless if it is either properly laid out or added for people to better understand the subject; the IP simply threw up a gallery of principal cast members even if I don't think that such a gallery is needed at all. All the anon did was add a bunch of images, then the caption "X plays character Y" or something along those lines; if it was something like "Vice Ganda's performance in Fantastica received mixed reviews from critics..." to further justify his portrait on the article, I'd give it a pass, kind of like how images were used in Real Racing 3 where a detailed explanation is added in the captions. Like with the cast member cruft in the articles in question, it would be equally incessant to see an exhaustive gallery of cars used in the game, even if there's no licensing restrictions as far as fair use is concerned. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Umbrella Entertainment

Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at this article and assessing it for notability? It was prodded for deletion a few days ago, but de-prodded earlier today. I've been looking to see if I could find any WP:CORPDEPTH type coverage which might show that the company meets WP:NCORP, but haven't had a lot of luck. I'm finding official websites, some press releases/interviews and mentions on what appear to be questionable sources (i.e. sites which look to be WP:UGC type of stuff), but mostly these seems to be trivial or about the films the company is releasing. I'm not really finding anything significant about the company itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not finding much either. There are some marginal Google Books search results. While this isn't the best article, maybe redirect that article to List of film distributors by country#Australia and add an inline citation for it? (Not that the other companies listed have citations...) If others can find sourcing to reflect notability, I can change my stance. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Request

I've just created an article about the film The Obituary of Tunde Johnson, which premiered yesterday at TIFF, but I need a bit of help with something.

Since for the most part I normally only start articles about Canadian films (with the occasional exception for LGBT-related international films), I'm not familiar with the process of adding American films to the "List of American films of [Year]" lists since they're structured differently from the Canadian lists. Firstly, is the USian practice to list films under their original premiere date on the film festival circuit, in which case the film should be added to List of American films of 2019 under September 8, or is it to list them under commercial release dates, in which case we have to wait since a comercial release date isn't known yet? And secondly, even if we do go with the original premiere date, the American lists are coded so differently from the Canadian lists (rowspanning for month and days, whereas we just list the Canadian films alphabetically) that after several attempts to revise my prior attempts I still can't seem to add it without breaking the table.

So if the practice in the USian lists is to add the film at its initial film festival premiere date instead of holding off for commercial release, then could somebody who has more experience at editing the USian film lists add The Obituary of Tunde Johnson under September 8? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Anyone? Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bearcat: - how does this look? Feel free to add any missing info. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Doctor Sleep

Regarding Doctor Sleep (2019 film), there is a dispute about whether or not to identify Cliff Curtis in the film infobox due to differing presentations in sources. Editors are invited to comment. See the discussion here: Talk:Doctor Sleep (2019 film)#Starring. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Editors are invited to comment to break a stalemate. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Mentioning the name of various film reviewers in critical reception section, when rottentomatoes, metacritic score is available

For years Wikipedia film editors mentioned the name of critics in film articles' critical reception section. Nowadays there are many notable TV media, newspapers and entertainment channels, including notable youtube channels. We can't enter the name of every notable movie review in that "critical reception section" of movie page. Now the debate will be which reviews should be selected among almost 300 notable reviews in case of movies like Avengers, Harry Potter, Avatar, Lord Of The rings.

So, I suggest that if rottentomatoes final review is available, along with Metacritic score, let's avoid mentioning some individual critics in critical reception section as:"Peter Gomes from this channel gave this review"; "Wilson Scott from that newspaper gave this review".

There are some editors, who have preference for a particular movie critic, there are many movie critics who are not notable, but the news channel or newspaper, in which the post their review, is very notable news channel and newspaper. So, even they cannot be ignored.

Nowadays Hollywood movies are being reviewed by movie critics outside USA in countries as China, Japan, Korea, Nigeria, Brazil, India, Thailand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:6089:4CA7:7154:F13B:B7A0:6B49 (talk) 06:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Hard no. We can't just use the agrregated scores, that gives pretty much no context for readers, it just becomes arbitrary numbers and small comments.★Trekker (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

No One of the main points of notability for film is the existence of published reviews by recognised professional critics. Agregators don't substantiate the basis of their scores. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

If you are quoting somebody's opinion rather than just describing a general sentiment "in prose" attribution is important. I agree that we should refrain from name-checking just for the sake of it though. Betty Logan (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• No, if a critic is writing for a reliable publication his name and the publication need to be given for the review .The critical reception can still give the rotten tomatoes and metacritic aggregate and consensus before giving a sample of quotes from reviews or summaries of reviews but not every rs review has to be included, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

While I am sympathetic to this suggestion in general, sampling reviews is an acceptable part of reporting critical reception. As with any other topic, editors need to decide what content and how much content to add. If Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic were more analytical of the reviews they collect, like identifying trends or divisions, and reported prose about that, I could see us referencing these to provide an overview without much of a need for sampling individual reviews. However, both of these websites are commercial in nature and provide a flattened perspective, like Rotten Tomatoes having their percent based merely on the fact that a review is positive or negative and nothing in between. Metacritic is not as problematic, with a "mixed" reviews middle ground, but sometimes it can have an overall score that differs from the quantity of reviews, e.g., being mixed overall despite more positive reviews than mixed, due to its weighting system. It really should depend on the film article to have a mix of the aggregators, any high-level summaries of the reviews (outside the aggregators), and review sampling. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'd have to agree with everybody who's responded. Quoting passages from a selection of critical reviews is an important part of demonstrating that a film is even notable enough to have an article at all — see WP:NFILM, where "has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" is one of the notability criteria, and some films would have a hard time meeting any other notability criteria at all if we deprecated critical reviews. So simply collapsing critical response into just its overall score on an aggregator, while eliding any actual citations to any specific reviews, is not helpful. It is indeed important that we take steps to manage the number of reviews being quoted in any given article instead of just indiscriminately listing every review a film ever received — for example, if a film receives over 100 film reviews, then we could apply an "only quote the reviews by critics who are actually prominent enough to have their own standalone Wikipedia articles about them" filter, or we could sift for "only reviews which offer a profoundly original insight into the film's contextual importance", or some other method of picking and choosing which reviews to quote and which to just skip. But deprecating the use of film reviews entirely, and using only the film's aggregated Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic scores as the sum total of its critical reception content, no. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• Ditto. The purpose of including critics and quotes from the review is to give the reader an idea of what specifically critics noted about what a film did well and what it did less well. It also gives rooms for insightful observations that flesh out a film, such as a critic pointing out in the Johnny Depp Lone Ranger movie that because it was all told in Tonto's flashback that it was making use of the technique known as "the unreliable narrator." Raw numbers don't give any of that. --Tenebrae (talk) 10:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thriller drama?

Hi folks, I'm looking at Category:2010s thriller drama films and Category:Indian thriller drama films. Aren't thrillers almost always drama films? Anybody know why we need the extra specificity? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the synthesis of two separate genres to me i.e. a made-up sub-genre. I have never come across such a genre anyway. If you check the sub-genre listings at https://www.allmovie.com/genre/drama-d649 and https://www.allmovie.com/genre/thriller-d942 you will see sub-genres such as psychological drama or psychological thriller (which both share elements). Even if something is classified as a thriller and a drama, you shouldn't be merging them into a single category unless such a sub-genre exists. IMO the categories need to be upmerged to the parent categories and then deleted. Betty Logan (talk) 10:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I see what to me looks like a similar issue with Category:Action drama. Aren't most action films dramas unless otherwise specified? Die Hard, First Blood, Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Matrix, any Avengers film? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that these so-called drama sub-genres need to be upmerged. Just because there is a set of drama sub-genres doesn't mean that drama needs to be juxtaposed with any other primary genre to add to that set. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I've noticed a trend of creating genre mashups, where two random genres are combined. I think many of these categories are pushing the boundaries of "is this really a thing?". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Genre stuff and categories in general ain't exactly my comfort zone or area of expertise. Is this something I could leave here and entreat the issue to the lot of you as I quietly tiptoe away? I promise I'll be here for you when you need help dealing with Indian film article stuff. Hmm? Hmm? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• It is true that thriller films are usually dramas, but thriller comedies are also possible if less frequent — see also Category:Comedy thriller films, which is certainly less populated than the drama subcategory, but is not entirely unpopulated. (Action comedy films do also exist, for the record.) I do, however, agree that creating separate genre-intersection subcategories for every possible combination of genres is sometimes excessive — I just don't know, given the existence of thriller comedy films, if that's true here or not. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• Virtually all thriller films are drama, and the reader can reasonably infer that if we give "thriller" that it's also a drama. In the rare instance of a thriller comedy, use both genres ... which is what we do for "action" and "horror" movies: We just give "action" and "horror" unless it's an action comedy or a horror comedy.--Tenebrae (talk)

• Looks to me like it's time for CFDs on these. As I'm just coming to this now I'd prefer someone else take the lead, but I'm willing to do so if nobody else is comfortable opening them. DonIago (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Saturn Award for Best International Film - wrong years

Looks to me like the dates are wrong. For example Pans Labyrinth was released in 2006 but won the award in 2007. --Neuhaus (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Dredd

Per the previous request this time last month, noone came to participate in this discussion. It is a Featured Article and needs input.

Previous message - "You are invited to participate in the discussion at Talk:Dredd#Country_of_Origin regarding the production countries." Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Relevant discussion

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Animation#Lots_of_unsourced,_non-notable_articles. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Whether TCM should be an external link for films in general and My Favorite Wife in particular

@Otr500: This started out at Talk:My Favorite Wife#External links, then was continued here (subsequently archived). User:Otr500 has claimed that one opinion supporting their view (User:Erik) establishes consensus. I don't buy it; it should take more than one third opinion for something that is so entrenched in the majority of film articles. In the specific case of My Favorite Wife, TCM provides links to an article, reviews, notes, etc. which are not in Wikipedia. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Clarityfiend, you said, "ELNO #1 seems a bit silly to me: 'Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.' Woulda, coulda, shoulda." Like My Favorite Wife, most articles are not featured and will never be featured. That point exists to guard against laziness and merely structuring Wikipedia as a way station to other resources. It's why WP:ELMAYBE #1 was repealed, because it was so easy to just add reviews as external links rather than doing the real work of incorporating content. In the case of TCM, MOS:FILM says, "Alternately, the TCM Movie Database may be a useful external link mainly for classic films, where they would not add anything for most newer films." Reviewing the TCM page for My Favorite Wife, I am seeing very little that indicates that it is a unique resource. There may be some other classic films that are famous enough to have very detailed TCM pages, but this does not appear to be one. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Erik: So we should penalize the reader because an article hasn't been brought up to featured status? That doesn't make any sense to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Similar objection to "unique resource". If the information is available in two or three places, that somehow makes it unacceptable? Absurdity squared. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The point exists based on the policy of Wikipedia not being intended as a repository of links. WP:LINKFARM says, "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." In this case, we have a fair number of film-related websites that may have a page for each film in a particular set. For example, AFI has a page for the film here. It is similar to the TCM page, so why don't we include that too? For me, in both cases the pages are not unique resources. They could be easily used as references with the relevant content implemented. The policy is certainly a selfish one, but EL sections can suffer link creep over time. There is no inherent "right" to pop in an EL; there has to be a good case made for its inclusion, one beyond the rationale of, "I don't have time to work on putting it in this article." If needed, we can drill down about what makes the TCM page for My Favorite Wife compelling to include that cannot just be summarized and cited in the article body. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The exact same argument can be applied to IMDb. Nothing there (that is encyclopedic at least) is unique. Should we delete that too? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Honestly since IMDb changed it's layout and it's information it has become rather useless honestly, I wouldn't mourn if we decied to phase it out 100% for films.★Trekker (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

To reply to "Whether TCM should be an external link for films in general": I am certainly not against using any relevant site as an external link that is not on some exclusionary list and, as far as I can tell, that includes TCM. The second part "and My Favorite Wife in particular" is a different story. When I reviewed AllMovie" and "TCM Movie Database I provided the rationale on the talk page. I will jump straight to the reply I received as a major reason this may need to be examined more closely. The reply was "Have you not noticed that TCM, and to a lesser extent AllMovie, is a standard external link on the majority of films?". A comment "There is already a solid community consensus that IMDb and TCM are appropriate external links." has not been questioned. I would certainly hope that if they are used on "a majority of films" it would in every case be because of some added value to the particular article and not just being added.

A fallacy is that because a link is acceptable to use does not mean it "must be used". Because a link is found on one article certainly does not give blanket approval that it can be used on all like articles. What is likely a concern is exactly what I mentioned on the talk page about sites that inundate Wikipedia. I have not reviewed any of the "top 10 of the top 100" so I don't know if they are sites that contribute value to the article or just were added for no particular reason. What I do know is that many times a site can be added by one or more editors without any review to determine value. That would be a problem as well as creating link farms. It is not my intention to go on any crusade. I do not have the edit count of either of the two other editors here but I have been patrolling "External links" for several years now and balance need (article enhancement) with the number of links presented. I have seen the "External links" section grow to 15 and as high as 22. This is insane but starts with editors justifying adding "one more likely unnecessary link" creating a "repository of links". "It is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic.". Otr500 (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

New page: Independent Movie Theater

Hi all! I created a page for indie cinemas, since they seem like a distinct enough category of cinemas to merit coverage. It's pretty bare-bones right now, so I'd appreciate any contributions you all could make to help build it up. Thanks! Cheers, Sdkb (talk) 07:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for making it!★Trekker (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Rogue task forces

I've stumbled upon the "Malaysian Cinema Task Force" which, like the recently deleted Punjabi cinema task force, appears to be a rogue page created by a now indef blocked user without prior discussion. It is, of course, redundant to the exisiting Southeast Asian cinema task force. I've nominated it for deletion at MfD if anyone wishes to comment: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Malaysian Cinema Task Force.

There is also the Venezuelan cinema task force and the Romanian cinema task force; these look a little better so I'm more inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. If there's any genuine interest in them perhaps we should add support to the project banner? PC78 (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

MfD notice, Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Malaysian Cinema Task Force

wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Malaysian Cinema Task Force has been nominated for deletion. Please comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Malaysian Cinema Task Force. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Banana

I think the article is short and could have more details. What age are the workers? Keirasullivan (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Which article are we supposed to be looking at? PC78 (talk) 03:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Naming conventions for upcoming films

See discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)#Upcoming films. I would welcome any thoughts on my suggestion for changing the current advice. PC78 (talk) 03:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

FA nomination for The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari

FYI to anyone interested, I've nominated The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari for featured article. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 04:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Need help with reference.

Ok, so this source [17] mentions street dates for a few of the films(which is good) but it doesn't say whether there released on DVD, VHS or both. Can I use this source to note all those films mentioned there were released on Both DVD and VHS? Timur9008 (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Shooting Clerks

Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at this and possibly keeping it on their watchlist? About a month ago, someone claiming to be the film's director tried to make significant changes to the article that he felt were needed in order to protect the film's brand. Since then a WP:SPA and IP have showed up to try and do the same; these accounts might not only be WP:COI, but also WP:UPE accounts. The main cause of contention seems to be when the film was actually released; there are sources cited in the article which suggest one thing, but these might be wrong or whomever added them might have done a bit of WP:SYN when adding the content related to them. I guess it's possible for a film to have a "minor" and "major" release even years apart, but that's probably how the article should be written if that's the case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

List of films considered the best

Comments are welcome at the discussion Talk:List of films considered the best#Rotten Tomatoes Updates. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 11:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

What is/was Columbia-Delphi

Does anyone have any idea? I'm putting Ghostbusters through the FAC process and Columbia-Delphi isn't mentioned on the poster, it's presented as "Columbia Pictures presents an Ivan Reitman film, a Black Rhino/Bernie Brillstein production". But in the end credits it says "From Columbia-Delphi" at the end. I cannot ascertain what capacity of involvement they had and if it is warranting a credit in the infobox. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Need attention

Hi Hope you doing good. Kindly go through the below link and provide a solution.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_considered_the_best#/talk/6

SchroCat doesn't really seem to care about it there and he even blocked in talk section once. Ashokkumar47 (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

TompaDompa and Kolya Butternut are agreeing about this but SchroCat seems to be intentionally ignoring.

Look I have been warned to not talk about User but I don't know what to know with this, so kindly look into this. Ashokkumar47 (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Ashokkumar47, as I posted on the talk page, I have already pointed out the thread and asked for comments. The thread is two above this one. I did so in a neutral manner, as we are supposed to. As I have asked you in that thread, and on your talk page: do not talk pabout other editors, but on the question you are trying to discuss. You have been uncivil to Betty Logan (and wasted her and other people's time in opening an quickly-closed ANI against her), been canvassing other users, and been generally disruptive in not listening to what several people have told you. If you continue to cast aspersions on other editors, I will have no hesitation in filing a report at ANI. - SchroCat (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Vital articles

I've set up a vital articles listing for this project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Vital articles. This is a bot generated listing of articles that are tagged for WikiProject Film which have also been selected by Wikipedia:Vital articles.

We don't necessarily have to do anything with this, it can quite happily exist as an FYI for anyone who is interested, or perhaps it might encourage members of the project to participate in the selection/deselection of vital articles. On the other hand, perhaps it could be used with (or even replace) Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Core which appears to have gone stale. Just a thought. PC78 (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

AfroCine: Join the Months of African Cinema this October!

Greetings!

After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:

• Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
• Diversity winner
• Gender-gap fillers

For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hive4media.com

Timur9008 (talk · contribs) has been adding material sourced to hive4media.com, which no longer exists as a website, to "Home media" sections in film articles. I revered the editor here and here, stating that there is no indication that this passes as a WP:Reliable source and that hive4media.com no longer exists. This comes across as WP:SPAMMING to me.

Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this is a spamming attempt, if it's a dead site then there is no real use in spamming it. I think the user is acting in good faith. As for the source itself, we can examine if it passes as a reliable source, if it does then it doesn't really matter that only exists in archives.★Trekker (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it might not be a spamming matter. But I still see no indication that this source passes WP:Reliable source or should be used. So, Doniago, regarding this, why do you think we should use this obscure source? If there are no better sources for what this source is relaying, it's a WP:REDFLAG matter. And if there are better sources, why not use those instead? Erik and Betty Logan, can I get your thoughts on this?

I might take the matter to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

From what I can tell, it seems like a valid source. We have Home Media Magazine which (with sources) says that it was Video Store Magazine then Home Media Retailing then Home Media. So I think hive4media.com should redirect to one of these; the Titanic example shows that the website is titled HomeMediaRetailing. By itself, "hive4media.com" sounds like a spam website. I know that there are some home media-related sources that never had an online presence, like DVD News and Video Business, likely because of how specialized it was (or still is). Essentially, the source seems fine, though I would encourage Timur9008 to diversify their edits. If it weren't for the archived status, it would look like WP:REFSPAM. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

My view is that until the consensus is that it isn't an RS (and right now there's no consensus that this was bad-faith editing and there's no strong indication that the source is a problem per se), there's minimal harm caused by retaining the information. If it's subsequently deemed an unreliable source, we can pull the information at that time. If it was a BLP or such, or the information being added was more controversial, I might feel otherwise. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 12:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your views, Erik and Doniago. I won't address the source at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard at this time. Not sure if I will in the future. If I do, I'll leave a note about it at this WikiProject and point to this discussion, which will be archived by then. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Republic Did Not Buy Out Chesterfield or Invincible.

Quoting from http://dukefilmography.com/republic_pictures_library.html

"Although part of the rumor mill in 1935, Invincible Pictures Corp. and Chesterfield Pictures Corp. were not involved in Republic’s creation in any way—both companies were financed by Pathé. This myth still persists today." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.81.80 (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Recreation of Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film

Hi. I've just spotted that the page for Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film has been recently re-recreated. It was previously deleted in March 2014. I don't know if anything has changed since then. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not exactly the same, but there are only so many ways you can say that it's a local Boston awards ceremony. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

War of the Worlds (2005)

Hi everybody, I turn to this talk for ask you to give an opinion. I'm from it.wiki and I wanted further information here, where you are more experienced. Spielberg's War of the Worlds is a remake of Haskin film? Thank you.--BincoBì (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

No. It is completely unconnected to the previous film. It is just another adaptation of Wells' novel. Some commentators may refer to it as a remake but this is factually inaccurate. Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Grants:Project/National Film Registry

I have applied for a grant from WMF to subsidize a personal project to request digitization and upload films in the Library of Congress collection to Commons. I would appreciate your feedback and support. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Jojo Rabbit

Hi, me and another user, DiscoSlasher, have been reverting each other's edits at the Jojo Rabbit page for two reasons:

1. Production company and distributor. DiscoSlasher thinks Fox Searchlight is a distributor of the film rather than a production company of the film. He also removed TSG as a production company of the film. Fox Searchlight is now the production company of such films and Disney distributes such titles, as far as I know. 2. Country of production - Because DiscoSlasher thinks neither Searchlight or TSG are production companies of the film, he thinks America isn't a country of production. He also added New Zealand and Czech Republic as countries of production but the sources he added imo don't state them clearly. I added four sources to prove that the US is a country of production but he removed the sources and the US nonetheless.

Another issue is that DiscoSlasher refuses to respond to the entry I made in the article's talk page regarding the issue. (at least for the latter) Would like to see your input regarding these two issues. Daerl (talk) 08:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I have looked over the edits and commented on both issues at Talk:Jojo_Rabbit#Country_of_production. I have also aligned the article with what the sources say but given how unstable it is I highly doubt my edits will stay in place. Betty Logan (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Joker content dispute

There is a content dispute regarding Joker (2019 film) and what we should list for its budget range. You are invited to join the discussion here. JOEBRO64 11:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 in film

I'm not happy with the format changes with Rfc ruling of the thing they did with 2019 in film that was done by DeluxeVegan. It doesn't solve WP:WORLDWIDE and the new format just makes things more complicated and there has to be better ways for this while keeping the previous format intact. I want a revert of this ruling and make a discussion of this in better argument terms. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Now, what we should do is to find a way to make compromises with some things that will maintain the same format with the films released that year while working a way that will meet with WP:WORLDWIDE. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

What ruling is it that we're talking about here? I'm not aware of any recent changes.★Trekker (talk) 02:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

This is what the proposal was about. Talk:2019_in_film#Proposal. It's about the changes it was done from this to this. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

That was done by DeluxeVegan–Please stop turning this into a personal issue. Consensus was determined on the talk page by an RfC. I fail to see how the current revision does not address WP:WORLDWIDE, and your argument does not touch upon anything to convince me otherwise. A neutral invitation was put up during the Rfc here. DeluxeVegan (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

For the interested, this is the Rfc: Talk:2019_in_film#Request_for_comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the change was an improvement, the title "2019 in film" obviously goes beyond American/English-language films. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not an improvement. It only makes things more complicated & difficult for readers to browse through movies that should be on years in films, not on the list of certain country films and it didn't improve anything for WP:WORLDVIEW. We should find a way to bring back the original format of the years in film in 2019 in film while trying to find the way to have it met up WP:WORLDVIEW. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, you have not made clear how the current revision is more complicated, and does not improve things for WP:WORLDVIEW, other than alluding to it. DeluxeVegan (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

You want to why is more complicated? Because all it had it's lists of certain country films which means nothing to readers and it's clearly annoying that you have to click of them. You could have just settled for having a new column "Country" of where it wad distributed from while maintaining the previous format on it, but you instead made that so-called new format as one of the choices, which it does not improve WP:WORLDVIEW by one bit and it's very inconsistent with the meaning year by film articles. It's better where it was before and if you want to make it more towards WP:WORLDVIEW, you could have settle for compromises with adding "Country" column on the film tables and add films from those countries instead of that so-called list of certain country films. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Your compromise was already discussed as the second proposal in the Rfc and was primarily decided against owing to size concerns. Clicking on a link is supposed to be annoying? Your reasoning still doesn't address how the current revision fails to meet WP:WORLDVIEW. DeluxeVegan (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It is only "more complicated" if you are solely interested in US release dates, and even then they are now only one click away. I haven't checked for a while but the last time I did check the English-language was only a first language for 60% of the English Wikipedia's readership. Only 40% of the overall traffic comes from the United States itself, so I think it is fair to say that the new format will serve the interests of the majority of readers that visit this page. Even if that were not the case that still does not mean we should favor the readership in one part of the world. The article is called 2019 in film not 2019 in American film or 2019 in English-language film. The scope of the article is set by the title. Betty Logan (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

While I'm not particularly opposed to the change, the split was based on a false claim / misinterpretation that WP:YEARSINFILM mentioning "country" implies we should list ALL films from ALL countries. That's not the case. It simply implies that there can be films from different countries. There's the issue of WP:NOTABILITY and what's relevant to enwiki's English-speaking audience, which would narrow down the films included to just North America, Australia, UK and just a few other notable ones from the rest of the world. And therefore would fit in one article. Otherwise, you're going to have a bunch of articles with little traffic. Starforce¹³ 18:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

That's exactly what WP:WORLDWIDE is all about. We should not be writing about just North America, Australia, UK etc. who are presumed to comprise the bulk of Wikipedia's readership, but the whole world. Notability is indeed a valid concern, but non English-language sources can also be used for demonstrating notability. DeluxeVegan (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the consensus was based on a false claim. The consensus was primarily based on two things: a correct interpretation of WP:WORLDVIEW and a realistic presumption based on the WP:SIZERULE. In my comment at the RFC you will notice I actually kept open the option of having a "complete" list in the article itself provided it didn't discriminate, but other editors clearly did not think this was a biable option. It is simply not the case that there will only be a few non-English films on the list; for example, List of Bollywood films of 2019 already stands at 70kb, so the viability of such a list must be taken into consideration. Betty Logan (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

To DeluxeVegan - Well, that third idea you came up with is not helping either. Size concerns is irrelevant. What matters is the consistency and the meaning of the year in film articles that should have all the films in different countries, not with the list of certain country films. It's a hassle to have the list of certain country films which is annoying to readers and it's best to have the films with the column "Country" on the tables of it. I will not settle with the list of certain country films in year of films. It takes away the meaning of the year in film articles.

To Betty Logan, Well, having the list in certain country films isn't helping with the consistency and the meaning of the year in film articles. It's better we should add "Country" to the tables of the more notable films which would help with WP:WORLDVIEW. Having the list of certain country films take away that meaning. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Saying the structure is "annoying" is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which isn't really a valid argument. And yes, article size is a concern. So, if we're not just doing the English + notable ones, then the split is necessary. You don't want to have extremely large articles that strain the system when loading. Starforce¹³ 04:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

not looking to take a jab or anything but whether or not you personally can settle is irrelevant, the consensus was to do it the way it’s been done. It’s a concept I took forever to get but it’s true. The appropriate way to go about questioning this would’ve been opening an RFC a little ways down the road. You can’t uproot the status quo like that. Rusted AutoParts 05:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled with the set up of the new format and structure of it. It takes away the meaning of year in film article and what was meant to be. There has a better way to bring the old format back while finding a way to make it more towards WP:WORLDVIEW. This is not the answer. It's better to browse down to each three month section of the year to find that movie you want to look for, rather than clicking on a certain list of certain country films, which does fit the criteria of the meaning of the year in film articles. Size of of this does not matter. It's a matter of consistency and what year in film articles are meant for and having the list of certain country films takes away that meaning. The original format understands the meaning of year in film articles. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll tell you all this. This format doesn't help improve anything and it takes away the meaning of what year of films articles are about. It was better with the previous format and it had that meaning. The new format just has list of certain country films which takes away that meaning. We should find the way to keep the previous format while adding country in table of it to make it fit WP:WORLDVIEW and size of it should not be relevant. I'm not gonna stop until the new format is reverted and make the previous format is met with the criteria of WP:WORLDVIEW. Think this over. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

You can’t just pressure people into reversing course on a consensus, you need to establish a new RFC. But it would be highly inappropriate to restart it so soon after the previous one. So please wait. Rusted AutoParts 18:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: Now you see. The new format of this article takes away the meaning of year in film articles. Year in film articles are about films that have been released in a certain year, not about lists of countries in films. The previous format tells you about which films that have been released this year. When the Rfc voted for the new format, it took away that meaning and is really an inconvenience to have to click on certain countries in films. There should a way to bring back the previous format of the films released this year while trying to find a way to have it with the criteria of WP:WORLDVIEW. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Leonardo DiCaprio article up for FA review

Need more opinions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Leonardo DiCaprio/archive1. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)