Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 77

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

Archive 70

←

Archive 75

Flyer22 Frozen

Those of you who work on the film articles regularly will have encountered Flyer22 Frozen at some point. Maybe you collaborated, or maybe you just noticed her making an improvement (and she may have been a hard-ass on one or two of you), but it is my sad duty to inform you of her passing earlier this week. She was a great, level-headed editor who made a massive contribution to Wikipedia and she will be sorely missed. RIP Flyer 22. Betty Logan (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh wow. Thank you for letting us know, Betty. How awful Kingsif (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

That's terrible news. Made a huge contribution to the project. Popcornfud (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh man, horrible news. Thank you for the notice Betty. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Very, very sad news. May she rest in peace. JOE BRO 64 23:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources for horror films?

Anybody got any opinion about what sources could be used to make a horror film meet the GNG? I'm contemplating the nomination of Islamic Exorcist for deletion, because of the dearth of reliable mainstream sources. The only stuff I see at Google News are sites like Dread Central (which at least appears to be potentially notable and used in at least 1000 articles at the English Wikipedia). The only other source that I could find that talks about the film in detail is pophorror.com, which feels bloggy to me. Neither source appears to have been discussed at RSN, so I have little to go on. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Pinging NinjaRobotPirate, who I believe is familiar with assessing sources for reliability when it comes to horror films. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

And who created the Dread Central article. Thanks Erik. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Dread Central and Bloody Disgusting are probably the most popular ones. They're both professional websites and widely used on Wikipedia. Fangoria is tougher to source because of paywalls. However, you can use the Internet Archive to search and read back issues. Check out KNB EFX Group for an example of how I cited some old Fangoria issues. Rue Morgue in Canada and Scream in the UK are both worth checking. Science fiction magazines like Starburst are also a good source, even if there isn't a science fiction angle. Sometimes science fiction websites review horror films to expand their demographic appeal. For less mainstream films, you're best off checking sites that cover independent films or cult films, such as Filmmaker, Screen Anarchy, IndieWire, or maybe Ain't It Cool News. If a film was released in the US, it probably opened in Los Angeles, so the Los Angeles Times and Variety are worth a check. The Village Voice or Slant Magazine might review a sufficiently artsy horror film that opened in New York. The Austin Chronicle reviews lots of random stuff and is always good to check for horror films. Local newspapers will often cover the major genre film festivals in their vicinity. Major European and Asian cities sometimes have English-language dailies that you can check if you don't want to worry about translations. Screen International might cover film festival premieres that American media ignored. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thanks for that. Do any of the deleted sources here (minus Bloody Disgusting) strike you as suitable? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The Dread Central review is good. Otherwise, it looks like bloggers to me. It played at the Horror-on-Sea film festival at Southend-on-Sea per this article, but it's hard to find any local coverage. It looks like there are a few interviews, but interviews aren't considered independent coverage by some editors. From poking around on Google, I think Sheitaan might be a remake of this film, but I'm not sure. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox filmography list

I have a question. Someone added the Template:Infobox filmography list to List of Leeteuk performances which I've brought to FL last year, and the editor also added it to other filmography articles. The infobox is not currently inline with FL criteria and I saw that an editor had reverted the edit in Akshay Kumar filmography saying such. Should I do the same too? Lulusword (talk) 08:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lulusword: I guess you are talking about me, however please provide me with where the FL criteria for infobox inclusion is explictly stated, I'm interested to known as well. Because I asked the question at WT:FL and 1 editor replied that there's no such as criteria on whether inclusion of infobox will eliminated it from FL status. — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 17:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: There's none per se but usually when you try to elevate an article status to FL, you have to go through other FL articles for examples, and none of them have infobox. However, through the huge infobox debacle in 2013, summarised here Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-10-02/Arbitration report, the direct quote says

The use of an infobox in an article is a content decision, not a maintenance decision. They should be added as part of content creation; they should not be added systematically to articles.

, so it really depends on editors of an article whether to use infobox or not. I was also quite on the fence whether to undo or not because I don't know if it lower the value of an article, but I saw User:HAL333 who participated a lot in FL discussion revert here with WP:BOLD so I did. Lulusword (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Side note, I see on the infobox template, you say that using the "television" parameter is not recommended but during my article promotion, they explicitly asked me to combine the TV series and TV shows table into one large table here. In fact, I think only Korean filmography article make distinction between these two, so I think the "not recommended" remark is not appropriate. Lulusword (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lulusword: I think the situation here is simply, the respective editor preferences as there isn't clear guidelines (for instance MOS which is the go to document) stated anywhere. Actually, the diff you shared. The editor simply suggested should probably be which again is editor preferences/opinion, and yes you're right that only Korean filmography article/section make distinction, this is also because the respective TV series (drama) and TV shows (variety, reality, music, etc) articles listed them as so in the lead section. Which is why, there's split between both. ~~I initially created the infobox template based on Korean filmography articles which is why I put it's not recommended. I can change it if you want to.~~

In addition, it's also because of most FL not having infobox. So there's like a undefined guidelines which everyone just "copy-paste" the look and feel. And as I stated in the See Also linked (provided below this section heading) article, there's differences in how awards and nominations list article and filmography list article featured list nominations is handled even though the editor replying to my question in the See also article said there isn't. — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 03:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lulusword: Fyi, I updated the infobox with two formatting and elaborate more. — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 03:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I just saw the changes. I think it's cool although the wording is weird and it's double negative. I think what you want to use for the television parameter is either "Not recommended for Korean filmography article" or "Recommended for non-Korean filmography article".

For the distinction discussion, western artist articles still put acting roles and hosting roles in reality/variety/music shows in one table such as in Dwayne Johnson filmography or Ant and Dec#Filmography, I honestly don't see why we need to do differently, but that's a discussion for another day since this is about infobox haha. Lulusword (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Done I have updated the description for the infobox. Korean artist/singers/entertainers article always differentiate between the television categories, actually I think there's cleaner rather than lumping everything together. Anyway, we just leave as it is and like I said earlier, there's pretty much no explictly defined guidelines, just like awards and nominations featured list article allowed infobox (as in editor editing those articles don't see it as an issue) whereas filmography list article don't allow infobox. So yea, we just leave as it is. — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 04:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Panavision

I have nominated Panavision for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Conversion of the {{cite rt}} code

I've currently started a discussion at Template talk:Cite rt#Convert to Citation Style 1 wrapper template to discuss converting the {{cite rt}} (Rotten Tomatoes) template to a wrapper of {{cite web}}. Please join the discussion there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Plural parameter

There is a discussion about plural parameters in regard to Template:Infobox film that can be found here: Template talk:Infobox film#Plural parameter. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Titanic film poster

Hi. Please see and add to the discussion about the poster blocks used for the Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Poster block. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Vanity awards essay

Hey, I recently nominated an article for a vanity award for deletion. I laid out some reasons as to why it's a vanity award and some explanation as to why this was pertinent, and MarnetteD suggested including this information somewhere.

I've started on a draft about identifying vanity awards, which can be found here. Right now it's in a rough draft format, so I thought it would be good to get some feedback and see if anyone would be interested in working on it as well. Film is one of those areas where there are often a ton of vanity awards, so this is one of the WikiProjects I wanted to reach out to. Books and companies are two of the other areas. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes template

I've started a discussion about adjusting the Rotten Tomatoes template here: Template talk:Rotten Tomatoes#Specifying reviews page. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

On-set grading

This stub has been unreferenced and tagged for nine years. Please, either fix the issues, or I shall nominate it for deletion. Template or tag me. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's notable. I couldn't find anything. I've proposed it for deletion. Not sure if the term could redirect anywhere. I couldn't find clear enough information to know if color grading would be an appropriate target or not. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Scent in film

~~Please can a subject expert check whether the references to R. Porcar's Olorama added by Rporcar olorama are helpful?~~ Thanks, Certes (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This request is now stale, as the contributions have been reverted. Certes (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Notability of newly-released films screened at film festivals

As an example, Superior (film) premiered at 2021 Sundance Film Festival.

I tagged it for "notability" but another editor said that because 9 critics were quoted at Rotten Tomatoes (there are now 14, including 3 "top critics"), that was enough to qualify under Wikipedia guidelines.

For films like this, which are not historical, not in wide release, and not nominated for any awards, are there "cutoff points" for "number of professional critical reviews"/"number of 'top' critical reviews" below which the film can be considered "very unlikely to be notable" on the low end, "very likely to be considered notable" on the high end, and "further investigation is recommended" in the middle? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The reviews themselves are significant coverage of the topic, so it passes the general notability guidelines. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

This. One or two reviews and little other information may not be enough, but RT has enough reviews that we can cite and they can give a RT-meter, that should be considered significant coverage. Also, a number of these films get additional "news", like being picked up by distributors at that time. --Masem (t) 02:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

There's tons of reviews if you enter "superior film "Erin Vassilopoulos" review" into Google. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

One can also find non-review coverage by specifically excluding "review" from the query. Results show these: [1], [2], [3]. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Some film festivals attract massive press attention, others not so much. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser

Sandbox Organiser

A place to help you organise your work

Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

John Cummings (talk) 10:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Documentary now listed as "fiction"

We now describe the 2020 Amazon documentary series The Last Narc (TV series) as "fictional," because some editors on the talk page argue that the documentary is contradicted by trial transcripts from the 1990s. I have objected, to no avail. Outside input appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Music (2021 film)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Music_(2021_film)#RfC_about_the_neutrality/balance_of_this_article,_and_which_type_of_English_to_use.? - A discussion on which form of english should be used, and also about the ongoing controversy surrounding the film 188.220.86.46 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Films set around Easter at AfD

Hi. This discussion has been relisted twice, so feel free to chip in if you haven't already done so. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Citation highlighter user script. Includes film websites.

Hello friends. I've been working on a user script that highlights sources based on quality. It's called CiteHighlighter. Today I added the list of reliable and unreliable sources located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources. I will continue adding sources to it until hopefully I've added all of WP:RSP, the WP:NPPSG, and several WikiProjects. Feel free to install, give feedback, etc. Hope you find it useful. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Award tables

Hey all, does this addition seem typical for a director's award section? I see one at Martin Scorcese, but at first glance, it seems odd to me that the directors are getting credit for stuff like best actor noms and best sound mixing. Am I being too critical? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

No. You earn awards for your role not someone else's. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

No, you're not too critical. It is indeed misplaced. Maybe in certain contexts it can be mentioned in prose, but I think tables tend to spotlight elements. Here, indirect awards should not be spotlighted. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Valid point, Cyphoidbomb, although I would differentiate more than Darkwarriorblake and Erik above. I think the first table, "Awards received by Shekhar Kapur's films", is named objectively & correctly, and by comparing the three awards, there is a benefit to having a table. The second table though, "Directed Academy Award Performances", strikes me as a bit over the top: Sure, he directed those performances, but it is a subjective matter how much his direction contributed to making them award worthy. Plus the table format adds nothing in this case; like Erik said it would be better placed in the main text body, with a sentence like: "Cate Blanchett's seminal performances as Elisabeth I in the two films directed by Kapur, earned her two Academy Award nominations as Best Actress."

A more general point on Darkwarriorblake's: "You earn awards for your role not someone else's" – again, this needs differentiation. Film is a collaborative art form, and so excellent directing does have a strong, formative influence on the final acting performances. Plus, speaking as a film editor myself: This works in other ways too. An inexperienced, uncertain director can be lifted to great heights by fantastic actors, cinematographers and editors who enhance his or her work. Whenever a film edited by me has won an acting or directing award, I know that I can feel like I earned at least 5% of that. Of course that does not enable me to claim the award as my own, but it makes it legitimate to mention the award in the sense of "awards won by films that were edited by...". There is a limit to such correlations though: As there really is no collaboration between e.g. costume designers and sound designers, it would be a bit of a stretch naming an award won by one of them in the biography of the other! But the director/actor collaboration is certainly a very deep one, as is the director/editor relationship, etc. Greetings from --Sprachraum (talk) 09:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: creation of the Uruguayan film task force

Hi fellow Wikipedians. I come here to propose the creation of the Uruguayan cinema task force. There are already some 70 films which are Uruguayan, and/or set in Uruguay, and/or shot in Uruguay. Further looking into the Spanish-language es:Categoría:Películas de Uruguay there are some 170 Uruguayan films which could be translated into English. So, there is plenty of work to be done! What do you think about this? Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I say be bold and go for it. Although the task forces might have fallen out of fashion in the last few years, it can't hurt to have a specific focus on a new area if people are keen to do so. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Fadesga: I've translated quite a few films from Argentina to the English Wikipedia. I'd be happy to join this Project! PoliceSheep99 (talk) 08:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: @PoliceSheep99: thank you both for the kind support. Starting out straight away! Regards from Uruguay, --Fadesga (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

About the Paraguayan film task force

Hi people. There happens to be a half-made Paraguayan film task force that seems not to be fully operational. There are already two of us users working on it, Bruno Rene Vargas and me. I am bringing you this into consideration in order to validate what is needed, for instance, including Paraguayan-task-force in the {{WikiProject Film}} template. Best regards to everybody, --Fadesga (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

GAR

Cool World, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Heart of a Dragon

Wanted to ask for a bit of assistance with a film article that's got something a little bit weird going on — over the past couple of weeks, the article Heart of a Dragon has been attracting an extremely large and steady stream of weird edits from newly created single-purpose accounts that mostly seem to have been created solely to fuck around with that specific article. There isn't necessarily a consistent pattern to what they do — some edits are clearcut vandalism, such as this and this and this, while edits like this aren't so bad, so I don't know if there are solid grounds for an WP:SPI request, but it's still somewhat strange that an article about a fairly obscure film is attracting such a constant stream of edits by users with little or no prior edit history.

Even checking its pageview statistics, prior to February 6 it attracted very little traffic at all — it would get four views a day at its peak, and zero views a day was not unknown. Since February 6, however, it averages between 30 to 60 views per day, and as I already noted a large proportion of that sudden traffic influx involves the commission or reversion of vandalism.

I applied pending-changes review to the article about a week ago, and had to bump it up to two weeks of autoconfirmed sprot today because pending changes didn't slow down the barrage very much at all — so I wanted to ask if anybody else has any insight into what's going on here and how we can make it stop without applying permanent protection if we don't absolutely have to. Bearcat (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The talk page shows a template that says, "This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between January 4, 2021 and April 15, 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LanaKhudhur." That seems potentially related. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

What are the chances of all the other student editors deciding it would be funny to mess with the article being worked on by one of their classmates? Kingsif (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

It's possible. I'm going to ping the instructor of the course Professorclee and the Wikipedia Expert Ian (Wiki Ed) so they are aware of this discussion in the event the vandalism Bearcat described is related to the course and its students. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Please see

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleven Arts, and see if you can help editors figure out whether the sources mentioned are independent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Faisal Saif

Hey all, so there's this guy Faisal Saif who mostly makes Hindi horror films. He also seems to "make" films that never get released. There are at least three:

For Adults Only, "The most dirtiest film you'll ever see"[4]. We don't care about this one, as there is no article, but that I add for context.
Amma, which allegedly started filming in 2014
Danger, which allegedly started filming in 2016

Now, I'm starting to suspect that this guy might be a bit of a publicity hound, and these film announcements might be stunts to keep him relevant, but assuming that they're totally legit, it seems odd to have articles about unfinished/unreleased films in perpetuity, unless they're notable for why they are unfinished, like Midnight Rider. Thoughts? Should I merge the relevant content to the Saif article? What's the normal procedure on this? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Am I alone on this?

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Dinosaur films category at CfD

Please see this discussion. And quick, before the asteroid hits! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

List of filmmaker's signatures

The article name is not grammatical, and should be changed to "List of filmmakers' signatures" (plural apostrophe) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.98.114.93 (talk) 06:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Done —El Millo (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

30th Saturn Awards

I'm currently working on a draft where a film received a nomination for Best Horror Film at the 30th Saturn Awards. Now, I know some award ceremonies don't get much attention "media-wise", but I think there has to be at least one, active, website out there. Just wanted to see if anyone could help me search for a link or archive about the ceremony and its nominees. Any help at all will be greatly appreciated. Some Dude From NC^{wanna talk?} 22:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

You are almost certainly screwed unless the film won the award. I have had to completely ignore some nominations because you just can't find legitimate sources to cover it. I have gotten lucky now and again finding something like this for RoboCop but even then it didn't list every nomination. Your best bet is to search individually for the person/thing who won and "saturn award" and you might get a mention of it on some news site if the person was notable. If you can find a mention of in a magazine for instance you can use the Resource Exchange REquest to see the content, but you need the magazine and a page number for them to help. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: Thanks for the kind response. I'll try my best to look for a source. Some Dude From NC^{wanna talk?} 22:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I did have a quick Google to no success. Is there a specific award/film you're looking for? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: I recently made an article covering the Jeepers Creepers film series, and the only award that needs a reference is the 2004 Saturn Award nomination for Best Horror Film received by Jeepers Creepers 2. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Dude, had a look on Google and Google Scholar, searched specific sites like the nytimes, latimes, and variety to no avail. I think the only chance you'll have is it being in a magazine like Fangoria if that existed at the time, but I don't know how you'd search for Fangoria contents. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: A fellow editor found a source, but I'm not sure if it's reliable. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I would question it, looks like an Italian IMDB, but maybe someone here has more experience with it. Good luck! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Here you can see some information about the website. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Fangoria, NinjaRobotPirate mentions here being able to look up Fangoria back issues. Not sure if that helps. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a great idea for resources from Fangoria, too bad I couldn't find any from 2004. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind. I was searching up the year when all it needs is an issue #. Thanks for the tool! Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Star Wars spinoffs

Template:Star Wars spinoffs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Audience says?

Rotten Tomatoes added a new feature "Audience says", where it seems like the RT staff writes a consensus from user reviews similar to critics consensus. Here is an example. I'd like to see your thoughts on this, especially on whether it should be included in the Reception section of film articles. nyxærös 15:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

We should not be including that at all. We may need to update MOS:FILM to reflect this. User ratings are subject to vote stacking (or vote brigading) and demographic skew. There may be rare exceptions where a secondary source analyzes it, but it should not be used as a matter of convention. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I've boldly edited the MOS to exclude "Audience Says" here. An RT editorial that discusses the feature is here. It says,

"'Audience Says' is a short blurb that summarizes what fans think of a movie, drawing on common points made in user reviews written for the title. Want to know, at a glance, whether audiences think a film is funny, scary, disappointing, or mindblowing? Check it out.... Plus, if we become aware of any external factors impacting the Audience Score and user reviews, such as a controversy affecting sentiment around a title, we may address that in the Audience Says blurb – all in an effort to equip you with the best and most relevant info to help make your viewing choices... Note that for now we will only have Audience Says blurbs for new films with a significant number of user reviews; we will not initially have them for older movies, nor for TV and streaming seasons or episodes. But: Watch this space."

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

On a related note, it may be worth putting together a Wikipedia article like user ratings of film and consolidate all the related coverage, like this, for sharing. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Favre1fan93 thanked me for adding it to the MOS, so I am assuming that is an endorsement of the new text. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Yup. It's just a coalescing of audience info, which isn't any different than audience ratings/opinions in the past, which we don't include currently. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

TropicAces, please see above. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Miroir (film)

The article Miroir (film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Single, weak source exists for this subject, little other information exists for this subject. No further information available and without a doubt fails WP:NOTABILITY

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. Theprussian (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I removed the template and explained why on the talk page here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Miroir (film) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Miroir (film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miroir (film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Theprussian (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Coming to America (film series) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Coming to America (film series) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coming to America (film series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Formal request has been received to merge: Jojo Rabbit (soundtrack) into Jojo Rabbit; dated: 24 February 2021. Proposer's Rationale: This article has no reason to have it's own, as there is enough space to place it in the original Jojo Rabbit article, as you can see in its Music subsection. It also has little things to say here. User:Gerald Waldo Luis. Note: target article is 122k size. Discuss >>>HERE<<<. GenQuest ^"scribble" 01:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Emptying out Category:Films by director

Hello, WikiProject Film,

I'm not sure exactly what is going on but some editor is depopulating director categories on Wikipedia. Starting with the "A"s (first name) yesterday, 5-10 director categories are being emptied out a day. You can see the daily list on Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories. At WP:CFD, this is called "emptying out of process" because the correct way to delete categories en masse like this is to post a proposal at CFD and argue for deletion. And it's difficult for editors, like me, who are unfamiliar with film to know what films are being removed from these categories or to know whether this editing is following a decision made by this members of this WikiProject to eliminate these categories for lesser known directors.

For those who are not familiar with how empty categories are handled on Wikipedia, they are tagged CSD C1 and sit for a week at Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion...if they are still empty after 7 days, they are deleted. However, categories deleted simply for being emptied can be restored whenever they are needed. What we try to avoid though is for individual editors to set about doing mass changes that then have to be undone later. So, I hope someone with this WikiProject could ferret out what's going on, see if it has any widespread support and who might be doing it so we can check in before this starts involving hundreds of categories. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

To save everyone some hunting this looks to be the editor in question Sprachraum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It also looks like JJMC89 has tried to explain to things to them at this thread User talk:JJMC89#Mass reverts. Of course there will be more to the story as I am only doing a quick look see so that the rest of you wont be starting from scratch. MarnetteD|Talk 03:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I had hoped to introduce myself differently to this page, but anyway... I am not a new Wikipedia user, but most of my work so far has been in the German Wikipedia, where there seem to be plenty of rules and processes that are handled differently to here. Although I'm learning, I keep running into new and unexpected differences. In the German WP, a category that has no corresponding main article, is routinely tagged and quick-deleted, especially if it has been around for a while without the article been created. I'm actually going through the A's of "Films directed by" for a different reason, but thought I might make myself useful while doing that, not just by creating a link to the main article wherever it is missing, but also by preparing for removal of such categories where no main article exists. The first two such pages I found, were Category:Films directed by Aaron Blaise and Category:Films directed by Abdul Razak Mohaideen. I tagged those for a quick delete with the comment "no article about the director exists to go with this category", removing the one film that was in each beforehand, because otherwise that has a red link when the category is deleted. And an admin here in the en-WP, Anthony Appleyard, quick-deleted these two pages several hours later. So it seemed to me I was on the right path, but I asked one of the category experts anyway, and got the answer: It is at least unusual to create a category without a corresponding article, and they would probably be deleted in full discussion – but no rule exists, and it is not a quick delete criteria. So I stopped tagging categories that way, but removed the films in preparation for bringing these categories into CfD. Apparently that was an error too, because I have now been mass reverted by JJMC89, who has also restored the two deleted categories, calling them "inappropriately deleted". Obviously there are differences of opinion even amongst admins where these sort of categories are involved.

I will of course now stop removing films from the categories without a main article. But I would appreciate input from here whether you (apart from my wrong approach to it) agree these categories should not be created and have a good chance of being deleted after full discussion. Because if that too is in dispute, I won't waste any more time on this. Greetings from --Sprachraum (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

American titles for American films and British titles for British films?

A discussion at Talk:Escape to Victory#Requested move 8 March 2021 aims to resolve whether the entry for the American production Victory (1981 film) should have its main title header under its British release form, Escape to Victory or under its American release form, Victory (1981 film). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Film poster in infobox

For the image in the infobox of an article about a film, if more than one film poster is available, which one should be used? I was thinking that the best one to use was the poster for the main theatrical release. I'm asking because an editor has recently changed the infobox poster for Hugo Pool, replacing the poster for the main theatrical release with the poster for the Sundance premier (which presumably was earlier), as can be seen here. @QuestFour: Hello! I thought I'd start this discussion here, where more interested editors will see it. — Mudwater^(Talk) 22:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It's more common to use the main theatrical release poster for the infobox. From what I've found, the current poster isn't for the Sundance premiere, but the DVD cover with the DVD logo removed in the bottom-right corner. —El Millo (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The FUR for a non-free image in a film infobox is to provide visual identification of the topic, so the "main" release poster is usually the most suitable choice. Festival posters are a poor choice, especially if they are too dissimilar from the main theatrical release poster. Betty Logan (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@El Millo and Betty Logan: Thanks for the input. I'm going to go ahead and revert it to the theatrical release poster. @QuestFour: Feel free to continue the discussion here if you like. — Mudwater^(Talk) 23:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Film series guidelines

I've boldly added film series guidelines to the MOS. See it at MOS:FILM#Film series and discuss at WT:MOSFILM#Film series. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks good Erik. Thanks for being Bold and taking the time to do this work. MarnetteD|Talk 18:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

PSA: Army of the Dead was never a Dawn of the Dead sequel

Since this was reverted twice over the past few months and the topic is open at Talk:Army of the Dead, I wanted to give everyone a head's up.

Army of the Dead (Zack Snyder) was in development hell for a while until around 2018. When it was first announced in 2006, a number of reliable publications reported it as a sequel to 2004's Dawn of the Dead (same director). This led to the widespread misconception that the film was originally intended to be a DotD sequel. However, this isn't actually true. In an overlooked interview from 2007, the screenwriter actually debunked any connection to DotD:

"It’s not a sequel. It’s its own being, its own film,” he said, clearing up any confusion that this is a sequel to Snyder’s 2003 remake of George Romero’s Dawn of the Dead. “I think what Zack wanted to do was make the ultimate zombie movie. If you could do anything, what would be the epic be-all-end-all of zombie films, which is a hell of a challenge but very exciting to do. We took it to the next level. I’m extremely pleased with it. It’s definitely out there, it’s crazy, and â€” much like Awake – it’s not just a straight-up genre film. There’s a lot of action elements, there’s a lot of horror elements, it’s not just your traditional every day zombie movie. We really take it and run with it." [5]

Likewise, it was also originally going to include rape zombies that impregnate women, giving birth to zombie/human hybrids [6]. This actually contradicts the zombies depicted in Dawn of the Dead, which were human corpses whose brain function was partially reanimated by either (according to writer James Gunn) an unexplained supernatural occurrence or (according to the DVD box) an unexplained viral infection. In that interpretation, calling a "human/zombie hybrid" is as nonsensical as saying "bread/sandwich amalgam."

But aside from the screenwriter debunking the proported connection, nobody attached to the film has ever referred to it as a sequel. It's just a Chinese Whisper that started from one reliable third party publication and then got spread over to several more. Like a viral infection in itself... "The misreports are coming to get you, Barbra. Look, there comes one of them now!" Dark knight 2149 05:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Pasolini (film)

Hi. On the article for Pasolini (film) the same editor insists on adding Salvatore Ruocco's name to the infobox as starring in the film. I don't think that's right based on the character he plays being listed as "Socialist politician". However, they say that it's like that on the Italian page, so therefore the same applies here. Can anyone help with this? Also raised on the article's talkpage. THanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Potential disruptive editing on multiple film articles

Editors with the time and inclination to do so may want to review edits by CejeroC (talk · contribs). I first noticed that this editor was misusing the color_process parameter, which is intended to only be used for animated films; the documentation clearly states this. I warned Cejero about that previously, and warned them again today as they apparently did not heed my prior warning. I've also noticed that they've applied unsourced and potentially inaccurate genres (notably neo-noir), and in at least one case they changed a film's runtime from what's listed at AllMovie to another value. Because they also don't leave edit summaries, it's difficult to know what their intentions are.

In any event, I'm cleaning up what I can; most of it's not recent enough that it would likely warrant a block, but I think it definitely merits review. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

If they're editing through the mobile app, they likely don't see any warnings since apparently such editors don't get notified that way. Not sure what the community's solution for that is. See this for a discussion about it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Well that was a fun read. Will they even notice if they get pinged? In any case, blocks are intended to curb disruption, and they appear to have a possible pattern of (I'm willing to assume unknowing) long-term disruption, so whether or not they're aware of the situation may ultimately be immaterial? I'll agree it would be poor form to block an editor who doesn't even know they've been warned, but if we don't have any other good options... DonIago (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

FA considered for review

Just to let the community know, although I have not made any nominations, I have started discussions on Talk:Battlefield Earth (film) and Talk:Tank Girl (film) on why those FAs may no longer meet the criteria. Please join if you have the time. Thanks. HumanxAnthro (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion on reliability of Collider

There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of Collider in the context of the article Alien (film). If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Collider. — Newslinger talk 04:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

As a sub-note, there isn't really much concern towards the Alien article. I'm working on Jojo Rabbit, which has citations to Collider. Gerald WL 04:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

This is why overlinking is bad. There are four links in that sentence, and most of them are irrelevant. I honestly don't feel like trying to figure out which one will take me to the thing you want me to click on. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Awards navigation templates

It seems like the awards navigation templates are getting out of hand. At Chloé Zhao, there are nearly 30 such templates in the article footer alone. See screenshot here. Is it time to come up with guidelines disallowing them based on the related disadvantages listed at WP:CLNT and start posting them at WP:TFD? A case could be made for the most well-known awards, but without specifications like here, the whole matter gets out of hand. Pinging SibTower1987 and Charge2charge as involved editors. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I've never seen an issue with awards nav templates for major awards and critics' awards. We seem to have a precedent that actors don't necessarily have critics' awards templates added, that may be contributing to sleekness, but it's obviously getting out of hand when a single person serving as director/writer/editor is winning every critics' award. Zhao seems like an anomaly on that front, but with the rise of multi-hyphenates it may prove to be an issue in the future. That doesn't really require action now, especially since the templates are all condensed under an "Awards for" banner. If you're really that concerned, I think the best course of action is to, on Zhao's page and not CREEP further due to her anomalous status, only include the major awards and major critics' awards templates. This would reduce the block to 2x Critics' Choice, 1x Golden Globe, 1x London Film Critics, 1x LA Film Critics, 1x National Society Critics, 1x NY Film Critics, 3x Online Film Critics, and 1x Satellite Award (11 templates). Kingsif (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I think to get to the heart of the matter, is it really the best assumption that a reader wants to know who else won the Boston Society of Film Critics Award for Best Director (or whatever else) in preceding and succeeding years? Navigation templates are like more organized "See also" sections (WP:NAVBOX says, "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles.") So these templates essentially mean listing other people's names in a "See also"-esque section, yet the relationship is far more tenuous than if the main person had actually worked with them at some other point. The links to the awards organizations already exist in the article body, so it seems excessive to also provide other winners' names in the immediacy of the one person's article.

Disadvantages of navigation templates include:

Inclusion of article links or subdivisions in a template may inadvertently push a point of view. (In this case, even more detail from minor awards organizations than the minimum necessary).
Can take up too much space for information that is only tangentially related
Includes the full list of links in every article, even though often many of the links are not useful in some of the articles

In other words, it's like we're essentially importing an awards organization's article content into another article, especially considering that organizations don't have much content besides the nominations and wins themselves. I still think the need for awards navigation templates should be reconsidered. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

What's the polite way of saying burn it all to the ground? WP:NAVBOX "Navboxes are not displayed on the mobile website for Wikipedia, which accounts for around half of readers." More than half of users already go without Navboxes, I suggest getting rid of them for the other half too. That's what I'd like to see happen. WP:NAVBOX also says "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article."
What is probably more likely to actually happen is that existing rules such as WP:DONTHIDE or WP:NOTABLE or maybe even WP:OVERLINK will be applied and NAVBOXES will be treated with at least as much discipline as we would expect from links being added to the See also section, or the External links (which I hope is essentially reiterating what Erik has said already). I can understand including a Navbox when you actually want to show the Navbox, but I cannot understand why anyone argues to include NAVBOXES and them immediately hides them! If you don't want to show the contents of the Navboxes you include why exactly do you want to include it at all? It is particularly egregious when editors include Navboxes for things that are otherwise not mentioned anywhere in the article. They are already not supposed to do this, but they do it anyway (see WP:NAVBOX "Do not rely solely on navboxes"). As I have already mentioned Navboxes are not shown to most users, so anything actually worth noting should be included in the article as WP:PROSE. Wikipedia is supposed to be about WP:PROSE, not lists and tables, and just as I would prefer to see bloated Accolades tables split out of film articles and into separate list articles, so too would I like to see Navboxes (which are another tables full of links) relegated to list articles only.
Deep breath. I rant but I grudgingly admit it can sometimes be reasonable to include a few (say three) of the most relevant Navboxes (eg. A Navbox for the director, and maybe one for the topic, see Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992 film)) but when we get past 5 navboxes in total we are making excuses for list cruft and tedious tables we would not allow otherwise, and editors have developed a blind spot, a bad habit of accepting Navboxes as normal. We don't include every category possible we only include the most notable ones, why must we include anything more than single most notable Awards Navbox? (Hint: There is no requirement to include any Navbox at all.) I urge you to pick some of the existing sensible rules and apply them to Navboxes, or preferably ban them entirely, because very little of value would be lost (again more than half of user already never see those navboxes). I'd be happy to see Navboxes relegated to the list of things Wikipedia doesn't do anymore.
As Erik has suggested, I think the existing guidelines already give plenty of of justification to reduce the number of Navboxes to only the essentials. -- 109.76.128.149 (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing why they are hidden on mobile. They are hidden on mobile because the WMF believes (reasonably) that a) they display like shit at mobile resolutions, and knows b) that they add 30-40% to HTML page loads served. Over mobile. That's suboptimal. It was not our decision. Izno (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I never said anything about why they are hidden on mobile. I'm not even a little bit confused about the technical reasons why they are hidden on mobile. Nonetheless the fact that more than half of users never see the Navboxes still goes to show just how unimportant they are. Navboxes are suboptimal cruft in most cases, not just mobile. -- 109.79.170.28 (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

It may be worth nominating a navigation template at WP:TFD with the applicable disadvantages to see how it goes over. We can go with an awards organization that barely passes notability because it tends to mean that the related Wikipedia articles are nothing but awards details, which are being imported into other articles in condensed form via navigation-templating. I think stuff like the Oscars and BAFTAs and that general league may be more accepted (which I don't really dispute if the rest of the templates are discarded). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Featured article review of 300 (film)

I have nominated 300 (film) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. HumanxAnthro (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 26#Category:Male villains

A discussion on whether categories of villains should be divided by gender or lumped together, in case any one has an opinion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Anyone here willing to peer review

Since there's no request page in WP:Film. Apparently some reddit user said the article for Shiva Baby looked astroturfed, and while I was just trying to get it to the formatting/coverage standard of Scott Pilgrim vs. the World on my TIFF binge (still working on Pieces of a Woman, months later), I can see adverse reactions since it just came out today. I know people thinking an article looks too good is no reason to change anything, but if it looks promotional that would be an issue. I'd just open a peer review but would like to see if the film project would leave comments or not first. Thanks, Kingsif (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I think in the lead section, "universal" is a strong word and seems based exclusively off Rotten Tomatoes, which categorizes reviews as positive or negative for the main score. There is no mention of its average rating, which is 7.9 out of 10. In the same vein, the Metacritic passage does not mention "generally favorable reviews" (where the topmost conclusion would be "universal acclaim"). Also finding the "Critical response" section to run afoul of WP:SYNTH, with individual reviews repeatedly combined to imply an collective conclusion. Seems more appropriate to go off the elements of the RT consensus. Others can comment on that, though, since I know interweaving sampled reviews is a complicated matter. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. The line between a well-written review section and SYNTH is particularly thin. I will check sources to see the same comments are explicit. RT consensus is often very brief. Kingsif (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Battlefield Earth FA review

I have nominated Battlefield Earth (film) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 👨x🐱 (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

A Love Song for Latasha synopsis

Hi all, I’m wondering if anyone has seen the Oscar-nominated documentary short A Love Song for Latasha (on Netflix in the US). I noticed an IP editor replaced the synopsis with what read like PR copy, so I’ve been trying to fix it up from what I can read in secondary sources, but would be a great help if someone who’s seen it could contribute to the synopsis section (and of course anything else). Thank you in advance to whomever might have the time/interest! It’s already 5x expanded so we could make a DYK of it pretty easily, too. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Avatar: highest or second-highest grossing?

Additional eyes are requested at Themes in Avatar, where there's a disagreement over whether Avatar should be reported as the highest or second-highest grossing film in history. I believe the key issue is whether not adjustments for inflation should be considered. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm finding it difficult to assume good faith with you at this point. (For context, this guy has been going off about this on my talk page for a while now, without understanding the subject of the article, or bothering to read the sources that were linked in it.)

The opening statement to that article has been the same for over a decade. It was changed when Avengers surpassed Avatar. And then I changed it back after Avatar surpassed Avengers again.

To learn why "adjusted for inflation" isn't taken seriously as a box office metric, go look at the hoops and original research that the folks over at List of highest-grossing films had to go through just to cobble together a top 10 list.

This does not warrant a section here. Please drop this. Stop vandalizing the page. Do not tag me or write on my wall again. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that we provide both statistics as a compromise. Given your aggressive tone, is it reasonable to assume that you would oppose such a compromise? DonIago (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

No. The actual relevant figure is the one not adjusted by inflation. It's the one that's completely objective (inflation isn't the only thing that influences how much money a film makes), and the one there's consensus for it as the most notable one. That's why we clarify "adjusted for inflation" when we talk about it, because it's not the actual figure. It's a conditional list which, given that only one variable is being changed, doesn't make it more objective. —El Millo (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Personally I would not get into inflation metrics on an article about themes. The List of highest-grossing films considers inflation because, you know, it's an article entirely about box-office, and the inflation adjustment is there to provide a counterpoint to the nominal list. But it's not factual at the end of the day, it's analytical, and different inflation considerations can lead to different rankings. I personally find the inflation-adjusted list more interesting than the ever-changing nominal one, but it shouldn't be treated it as a fact. Betty Logan (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback thus far. I agree with Betty that the inflation-adjusted list seems more meaningful ultimately, but there appears to be an emerging consensus that that's not the gold standard, and I'm happy to defer to that. Perhaps another question worth considering: How is this relevant to the article at hand? Will the Themes article suffer in any way if this information isn't included? I'm not trying to move the goalposts, just raise an additional (minor) concern. DonIago (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not the core issue, but as an aside. Why its gross record relevant to an article about themes in the film? Surely there is a more appropriate first sentence for the article about the widespread commentary and analysis of its thematic substance than a remark about how much money it made. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 23:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

ETA: I literally didn't even see DonIago raise the same concern in different wording. I literally read their comment, and missed it. I echo the sentiment. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 23:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I think I just saw a tumbleweed blow past... Given that at least one other editor shares my question regarding the need to discuss the film's gross record in an article about the themes of the film, and that that sentence could, in our estimation, be removed with minimal (if any) disruption the rest of the article, is there any objection to that text being removed? DonIago (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The article is perfectly fine as is. It went through a review process to earn its "Good Article" badge. It does not need you to cutting sentences out of it. The first sentence establishes why the film is so discussed in the first place. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

There isn't really a correlation between box office gross and discussion on thematic substance, I find. Otherwise, there would be a more robust scholarship on the Despicable Me and less on Citizen Kane. And Good Article status, especially when promoted eleven years ago in April, isn't really endorsing every single sentence for inclusion and relevance. Removing the sentence would both make for a tighter and more relevant opening sentence, would avoid this exact dispute on whether inflation should be taken into consideration, and ensure that it doesn't need to be updated every time Disney repeats this feat. It's better for long-term stability and relevance. Honestly, just glancing at the lead, it feels like it's less the box-office gross that made it so widely discussed and more the fact that the film itself is so broad it's felt to be acting like an "ideological Rorschach blot". ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 15:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll go further: The quality of GAs is extremely diverse, disregarding their ages. Do not point to "it has a green check mark" as some safety net in general. Izno (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

GAs also aren't forever protected from bad edits. DonIago (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

My reading of the above is that Nikki's statement of concerns regarding removing the statement aren't shared by other editors. I'll give it a few more days for additional comments or additional concerns to be raised before I remove the statement in question. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Done DonIago (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

CCI case wrapup

Hello from CCI! this case recently wrapped up at CCI. The page is courtesy blanked, but the previous revision contains the full record of articles and their removals. I am letting you know since this case largely concerned film and its related BLPs. The removals weren't as harsh as others, luckily. Hopefully the content can be restored in full confidence of the copyright policy. Happy editing, and kind regards, Sennecaster (What now?) 03:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move for Midsommar

I have proposed a move for the article for the film Midsommar. If you are interested, please contribute to the discussion here. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 23:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Mildly interesting

Comparing biopics to WP-articles. Trend?

Are sources needed for runtimes?

I'm in the middle of a GAN for Zombie Nightmare and it was brought up that the run time should be sourced. I have never had that brought up as an issue and don't think run times should have sources. Are runtimes supposed to have sources to them or are they, as the reviewer puts it, "original research"? GamerPro64 15:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think sourcing is needed if the runtime is noncontroversial. From what I've seen, some editors go over the top in sourcing runtimes (as if that was more controversial than sourcing a film's director). Sourcing would be appropriate if there was an obvious conflict in information based on cuts or perhaps co-producing countries where the length varies depending NTSC/PAL systems. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

It is fairly common for runtimes to vary from country to country, and even version to version, so I think it is often useful to provide a source if possible. For example, the article says 89 minutes (which matches the time at IMDB) but Amazon states the runtime is 83 minutes. The BBFC has the PAL video down at 80 minutes, which accounting for PAL speedup would also equate to 83 minutes. So the question here is where does the 89 minute runtime come from? I think it is reasonable to ask for a source in this case. Betty Logan (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the VHS tape (pre-Internet) says 89 minutes here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

To what end? I think the runtime is a noncontroversial thing, and can be safely left in the article without a source, but maybe a cn tag. If someone is asking for it to meet the criteria for, say, GA or FA status, then absolutely it needs it. But I wouldn't get bent out of shape over it missing. It can be tagged and left in the article. --Jayron 32 16:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd argue you should have a citation for a running time. This becomes particularly relevant for older films (for example, early screenings of The Testament of Dr. Mabuse) report running times which do not match current home video versions (their run times are longer) suggesting parts of the film are missing. Following this per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, " the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." In short, if its in the infobox and not mentioned in the prose, you should have a source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we really fight for sources when editors and cinematographers aren't mentioned in the article body... it comes down to minor differences which do not matter in a major way. If we had some kind of rounding system, like by the half hour (e.g., ~90 minutes), then it wouldn't matter if a film was 83 minutes or 89 minutes. As a reader, I only care about a ballpark figure for roughly how long a film is. But I guess if we are being this exact, and differences exist, sources can help. Unless the sources conflict, then it seems like a waste of time quibbling about the specific minutes. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

List of films considered the worst

Is List of films considered the worst/Removed films appropriate for article mainspace? It seems more like a non-encyclopedic subpage of List of films considered the worst to retain some of its previous history. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Annual award ceremony navboxes instead of extensive see also lists

It was brought up last year that the "see also" lists on articles like the 73rd British Academy Film Awards are too long. I suggested at the time a list article about ceremonies in a given year with some prose on e.g. repeated wins, but other editors felt it would be too similar to the 2020 in film article. Seeing the issue again this year, I boldly created the Template:2021 Film award ceremonies that I feel can be used to replace the long see also list, and hopefully the year in film articles will be able to handle any prose about repeated wins. Would it be valuable to create similar navboxes for previous years, and for television? Kingsif (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Shortening film names

Is it acceptable after establishing something like Raiders of the Lost Ark to alternately refer to it as just Raiders later on for brevity? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

If it's a common abbreviation that sources generally use, then yes, but don't invent abbreviations. In this case, I've seen Raiders of the Lost Ark shortened to Raiders plenty of times. —El Millo (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Probably depends on the title and if reliable sources routinely shorten it. Your example seems kind of in the gray area where it's not quite that long of a title, yet long enough that it could technically be shortened. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Raiders of the Lost Ark is technically a official film title name. So I don't think it should have shortened film names. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

All film titles are official film title name[s]. The editor is asking about shortening it in the body of the article in order not to constantly repeat it in long form. —El Millo (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water...? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

As long as it appears to be a commonly used shorthand, that should be fine. Alternatively, I also think it's acceptable for film's with subtitles to just use the subtile names at various points. So saying The Force Awakens in spots on Star Wars: The Force Awakens is ok in my opinion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Fair points. It just felt awkward constantly reiterating "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and it obviously balloons the word count over time. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Hmm...I think it's possible to do that as long as the shorthand names are commonly used, Like "Empire Strikes Back" (Star Wars: Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back) or "Temple of Doom" (Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom). BattleshipMan (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Here to echo above sentiments: common shorthand names are fine after first use. Kingsif (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Ivory Tower (1998 film)

Hi. This film is at AfD. If anyone can help with sourcing, or agrees with deletion, please comment there. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Raiders of the Lost Ark FAC

This is a neutral notice that Raiders of the Lost Ark is up at FAC because it is relevant to this project. It's unlikely but it'd be nice if it could get enough attention to improve/pass it before it's 40th anniversary on June 12 so could maybe swing it to the Featured Article of the day. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

Can others please review Special:Contributions/José Moreno Téllez? They are screwing up films' release years and are adding film companies. The latter behavior reminds me of similar behavior in the past. Is this a sockpuppet of a previous vandal? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

You can open an investigation at WP:SPI.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I know, but I think some editors here have a good sense of recognizing which sockpuppet a vandal may be. In any case, working on getting the editor blocked for disruptive editing. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Issue with Exit Wounds

There's an edit war going on with the film Exit Wounds. There's been an edit war with addition of Jill Hennessy's character Annette Mulcahy was killed in the car chase scene that is kept being removed and brought back by various users, including IP users and such, in the plot summary. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I can use a response about what I said above. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan: if it's clearly an important part of the plot and those removing it are IPs or newly created users who have no intention of discussing and don't even leave edit summaries, you can request temporary semi-protection at WP:RPP. —El Millo (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Gut check, WP:NFF and Development of Star Trek 4

Development of Star Trek 4 seems like an end-run around WP:NFF by calling itself "development" instead of the film itself (which has no official title) and is not anywhere near close to actually entering production. Shouldn't this just be merged into the List of Star Trek films article? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't find WP:NFF to mean an automatic rejection of a planned film if the development history is substantial (and worthwhile, not just fluffed up). There can be rare exceptions. Some films' development histories are long and sordid. Like if Watchmen or Jurassic World never got produced at long last, the development histories of these would be notable enough to be standalone articles, IMO. This instance seems newer, so it's not as strong of a case. At the same time, there is more than enough content to avoid a "permanent stub" per WP:PAGEDECIDE, unlike something like Shantaram (novel)#Movie adaptation, which is only three paragraphs, and with the TV series, likely to only ever be that long. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Opening sentence in Sound of Metal

Regarding Sound of Metal, there is a dispute about what should go in the opening sentence. Please see the discussion here: Talk:Sound of Metal#Opening sentence. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

User not responding to concerns and advice about list cruft and WP:FILMOGRAPHY deviations

If you will, have a look at User talk:Adtigpta01. Cyphoidbomb, Ab207 and I have all tried talking with Adtigpta01 in the pages' contribution histories and on their talk page. Fylindfotberserk has tried in the contribution history. Example exchange: [7] Adtigpta01 seems to ignore us. They add back their changes no matter what we say. Any advice? For example, does the Jennifer Garner page really need all those films in the introduction? Film Bio Legacy (talk) 07:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

User unresponsive/ignoring suggestions on their talk page. This discussion should be opened at WP:ANI, imo. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks like a case of another mobile editor who may not even be aware they have messages on their talk page. If you open an ANI case I'd recommend referencing the recent issues with User:CejeroC, which resulted in a short-term followed by indefinite block to avoid disruption and an ongoing discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales because the issue with mobile editors having difficulty seeing/being aware of their Talk pages is just that bad. DonIago (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

As the above-referenced ANI case is still open, I've mentioned we may have a similar issue here, but I don't know whether it would be considered preferable to open a new case or not. DonIago (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Doniago for bringing this to our notice. But unlike CejeroC who uses Android app, Adtigpta01 makes their edits on mobile web. As an ocassional of mobile web, I don't think there's a problem of communication here. There are quite a few mobile web editors who interacted with me on talk pages. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I think Adtigpta01 knows about us. In February, after their changes were turned away by Cyphoidbomb at the Grace Antony page (diffs:[8][9]), they added back some stuff and said, "These films are announced and confirmed by the producers." And then, on the 17th of this month, when I said a change they made to the Angelina Jolie page is ungrammatical, it looks like they tried to fix it. It's still ungrammatical because I didn't want to fix their edit for them when I don't accept it. The user's changes are still being turned away by others. One example is Kailash29792, who turned away Adtigpta01's changes twice (diffs:[10][11]), maybe more. Another example is Gautham offl (diff:[12]), whose reason for turning away Adtigpta01's changes is like a reason I provided at Jolie page. Film Bio Legacy (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

If the editor is actively restoring their edits when they have been removed then they are edit-warring. If you revert more than once, WP:BRD recommends that you engage in discussion. If an editor opts to restore an edit then it is reasonable to expect them to check the article history to seek an explanation. I presume you have provided explanatory edit summaries? If so, and this continues, then the editor is edit-warring and it is entirely reasonable for you to report them at WP:AN3. However, if you choose to go down this route please ensure you have started a discussion on the talk pages of the articles you are reporting them over. It is a requirement to start a discussion and you could find yourself facing a block if you have not. Also make sure you have formally warned the editor with a {{An3-notice}}. Betty Logan (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Abuse of WP:ELRC

Lately, I've been seeing Some Dude From North Carolina and Chompy Ace remove external links to Box Office Mojo, Metacritic, and Rotten Tomatoes, citing WP:ELRC. Some Dude From North Carolina is already aware that RT can serve as an exhaustive list of reviews from a template discussion here but persists in removing the RT ELs anyway.

Per MOS:FILM#External links, "Some external links may benefit readers in a way that the Wikipedia article cannot accommodate. For example, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic can provide listings of more reviews than sampled in the article body." Now, if we had to narrow it down, we could simply use RT and not MC, since MC's reviews are likely covered by RT anyway. Due to the ongoing overzealous behavior, I want to check in with other members of WikiProject Film to see what is preferred by others. I've never found Allmovie to be a unique resource as an EL and would be fine with it vanishing from EL sections. Box Office Mojo, I would have advocated for it as an EL before with so much data beyond the opening weekend and total grosses, but now most of its data is paywalled, so I'd be fine with excising BOM too. I don't think TCM or AFI are unique resources to have as EL. I find RT to be the most important one because it has two distinct roles: 1.) inline citation to provide score and consensus, and 2.) listing the largest set of reviews out there. Readers shouldn't have to track down the RT link in a "References" section (especially with dozens or hundres of citations) to get to the RT page for the reviews. Thoughts from others on RT and the other EL templates? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I've been removing Box Office Mojo and Metacritic lately for the reasons above. However, I have started to add "/reviews" to the Rotten Tomatoes template, per consensus. Readers don't usually have to search for the RT citation in #References, as it can usually be expected at #Reception. I also don't see an issue with TCM and AFI, especially if they are not cited in the article, and the rest go against WP:ELRC. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Pit and the Pendulum

I have nominated The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Release year of Roe v. Wade (film)

Some outside input would be appreciated at Talk:Roe v. Wade (film)#Release date as to whether the film should be considered a 2020 film after its premiere at the VIFF Vienna Independent Film Festival or a 2021 film based on its theatrical/streaming release date. BOVINEBOY2008 18:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Release dates sourced from Box Office Mojo

Should we use Box Office Mojo to cite release dates? I've come across the issue that the release date information seems to be just pulled from IMDb (see the discussion on the topic Talk:Friday_the_13th_Part_2#Release_Date here.) Basically it boils down to Box Office Mojo stating the release date is April 31, but doing some searching on Newspapers.com I found six release dates confirming its release on May 1 (which is Friday, which would make more logical sense) and the AFI also backs up that it premiered in New York and Los Angeles on May 1. As Box Office Mojo appears to be pulling this date from IMDb (which states April 31), I feel we shouldn't be using Box Office Mojo for anything but, well, box office info per WP:RS/IMDb. Do we have some more thoughts on the topic? Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Might be worth being more skeptical of this as a reliable source for older films. Not sure if IMDb has anything to do with it since I'm sure the film had a page on Box Office Mojo before IMDb acquired it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I think Box Office Mojo may just take the date from when they start logging box-office, which may preclude premieres, festivals and countries they don't have data for. That's just a hunch though. It may be ok for general sourcing but I wouldn't regard it as authoritative. Betty Logan (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Definitely be more sketchy on older films, but whats the cut off point for older films? I'm assuming pre-common use of internet? Along the lines of 1997ish? If so, should this be widely applied? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

MOS:FILM says to use Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic with caution for films that came out before the websites existed. Box Office Mojo was founded in 1998, so yeah, around before then. Though it's possible there were some less commercial late-1990s or early-2000s films that BOM may not have recorded at the time if it was still growing. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The-Numbers has both dates. They have the release day listed as April 30, but on the box office page for the weekend it says May 1. Now, that is when the weekend started. The question in F13's case, is did it have an early release in some areas first, but mainstream release was that Friday? I don't know, but I'll check my books (I own a few of the BTS books that cover the franchise) when I get home to see if they say anything about it. As for BOM, i don't think there is a problem with current films for sure. They are readily available. The question is older films, and then that just starts to bring into question more and more films and where the information was acquired in the first place if we're using any online source. That newspaper site you had was pretty cool, and certainly helps in this particular case. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Probably midnight screenings or something like that. Betty Logan (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I have 2 different dates in 2 different books in this particular case. LOL. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The thing is, I can't find any sort of midnight screning information, and you'd think that would be something promoted in a paper to actually get the word out for such a thing. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about plot section word limit

We are having a talk about whether to decrease the minimum word limit determined by WP:FILMPLOT. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#PLOT word minimum to comment. 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Ordination of film awards

I've run into a bit of a dilemma with the titling of our annual articles about a film award ceremony — but it's one without an easy or straightforward answer, so I wanted to ask for some input into the best way forward.

As of last year, all of our articles about the Canadian Jutra/Iris Award ceremonies, up to and including the 22nd, were ordinated correctly per the ordinal number assigned by their media coverage at the time. However, because last year's award gala was cancelled for the obvious reason and replaced on the fly with a webcast to announce the winners, the presenting organization seems to have retroactively decided that it didn't count as a "gala" — and so instead of calling this years' ceremony the 23rd gala because it's being held the year after the 22nd awards, they seem as far as I can tell to have kicked last year's not-a-gala out of line so that they can call this year's awards the 22nd gala again. Basically, even though last year's awards were called the 22nd at the time, they now seem to have declared that last year was a special outlier, not to be ordinated at all because they're counting "number of times that physical galas have been held in an auditorium" instead of "number of times that awards have been given out".

But what that means is that we're now out of phase with the "official" numbering of the awards: the upcoming 2021 ceremony is the 23rd time that awards have been presented, but is officially now the 22nd awards because it will be only the 22nd time there's been an actual public event instead of just a livestream.

So I don't know what to do about this:

Leave everything alone, and just accept that we're now going to be permanently out of phase with the official numbering of the ceremonies?
Rename 22nd Quebec Cinema Awards and 23rd Quebec Cinema Awards to "22nd Quebec Cinema Awards (2020)" and "22nd Quebec Cinema Awards (2021)" so that everything stays in line with the numbering it was given at the time?
Bump 22 to some special unordinated title so that 23 can just have an undisambiguated 22?
Scratch the ordinal numbering entirely, and move them all to "YYYY" instead of an ordinal number, even though that's not ordinarily standard practice for most film awards, because it's the least shitty alternative left?

Any ideas? Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd go with #2 - if the organizers want to give two ceremonies the same number, then there are two ceremonies with the same number (as its "name"), disambiguate by year. Kingsif (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Any other input? I'd certainly prefer to hear from more than just one person on this. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Editor has begun editing without following WP:MOS

@Rusted AutoParts: received two messages on his talk page about his recent edits that have begun going against the Manual of Style. They have started adding citations using "publisher" (for sources from The Hollywood Reporter and Deadline Hollywood) and have skipped over my comments to try following MOS:CURLY. Their edits are also frequent so following and fixing them would be hard to do alone. Should they be reported since I've already sent a message? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Some Dude From North Carolina: Sorry, when did you message me? I don't know if I saw that. Regardless I really don't see what a report would be necessary for. Rusted AutoParts 21:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: May 5. Thanks for responding on my talk page. Complaint withdrawn. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

FLCR notice

I have nominated List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 02:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

RFC

Due to my failure to get participation from more than just one person when I posted here two weeks ago, I've posted a full RFC to Talk:23rd Quebec Cinema Awards for input on how to handle a titling problem. I'd appreciate, if possible, if some people could actually read my RFC and offer their thoughts, because it's not an issue that we can just ignore and do nothing about — it's an issue that needs to be resolved somehow. Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Student Assignment

Hi everyone, I am a student currently enrolled in a subject which requires the improvement of a stub article. I am writing on the 2017 Elvis Presley documentary 'The King'. I would really appreciate your advice and feedback over the coming weeks as our edits and contributions will make up our final grades for the subject. Thank you so much! Husseyp

@Husseyp: You need to add the appropriate tag to the talk page of The King (2017 American film), then, but be careful with sourcing. The biggest warning to give is not to turn it into an essay about the film; student editors are prone to write essay-style, something much easier to accidentally do with media pages. No reviewing it, or adding ones own analysis is appropriate. I would, therefore, recommend sticking to production facts and neutrally presenting what reliable professional critics have said. Kingsif (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

AFD

An AFD for the film Boat Trip 3D has been started here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boat Trip 3D. MarnetteD|Talk 19:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose

Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Destination Marfa (film)

Would someone mind taking a look at Destination Marfa (film) and assessing it, in particular to see whether the {{COI}} template is needed? I came across this article at WP:THQ#Destination Marfa Page which is the start of a series of Teahouse posts between the article's creator and others about WP:PAID, WP:COI among other things. I have no reason to believe the creator is not telling the truth about not being a "paid contributor" and I'm willing to even give him (he seems to be identifying as being male) the benefit of doubt when it comes to the apparent COI; however, if someone from this WikiProject could just look over the article and then remove the COI template if everything is OK, then that would be great. If someone could also assess this as to whether it might be a case of WP:TOOSOON#Notability for films and WP:NFF, then that would be appreciated as well. The film hasn't been released yet, but a release date has been announced for August 2021. I'm assuming that mean that the film has for the most part been shot and is right now just going through the post-production phase. I'm not sure what any of that means in terms of WP:NFILM so perhaps someone more familiar with those criteria would be better off assessing the Wikipedia notability. FWIW, the article was approved via WP:AFC, but the reviewer seems to have felt that at least WP:GNG was being met. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

List of films that pass the Bechdel test at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Assessment needs some love

Any WikiProject Film members with 10 minutes spare could make a dent at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment#New requests, which seems to have otherwise been left to decay a bit. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Piranha (1978) - Comedy?

Anyone willing to take a look at this edit to Piranha (1978 film)? AllMovie lists the film as a comedy horror film, but we have an editor claiming that TCM and Rotten Tomatoes do not list it as such. It doesn't make a big deal to me, but I would like a better understanding of whether TCM or RT are considered reliable sources for genre classification. I'm leaning toward No on RT, but I don't know much about TCM. Thanks for your help! DonIago (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Considering that genre can be subjective and fluid, it could be considered both. Database entries are not necessarily the most authoritative and do not have a ton of nuance. For example, AllMovie shows the main genres to be comedy and horror. Rotten Tomatoes shows only horror, where for Scream it shows "horror, comedy", which reflects that it does not deal in subgenres like "horror comedy" per se. I would probably look at prose-based sources in Google Books and Google Scholar to see if "horror" is more preferred than "horror comedy". Even other genres come into play; the book Dark Romance: Sexuality in the Horror Film says, "Though an obvious imitator of Jaws (1975), Piranha is effective as both thriller and comedy." Another possible approach is to simply call it "horror film" upfront but share the comedic elements in the next few sentences. We can't frontload the first opening sentence with all possible genres and can try to spread out the thematic detail instead. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems like "piranha" "1978" intitle:horror has more Google Books results here than "piranha" "1978" intitle:comedy here, though this does support at least mentioning it as a "horror comedy" somewhere. I would probably support calling it a "horror film" upfront and unpacking comedy-related commentary later. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The AFI categorises it as solely "horror" too. It is a Joe Dante film meaning it is stuffed with dark humor, but that doesn't necessarily mean it follows the conventions of the comedy genre. I have never seen it but Allmovie (as good as it usually is) seems to be an outlier in this regard. Betty Logan (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wasn't planning to challenge it unless there were strong arguments in favor of restoring "comedy" here, which there don't seem to be. I still have reservations about TCM and RT as genre sources, which I don't feel we've exactly addressed here, but I'm not involved in enough disputes where those sources come up to be especially concerned. I do wonder whether another editor will reinsert "comedy" at some point, but if that happens I think I might just steer clear. DonIago (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

To reply about TCM and RT, I think they can be good starting points in general, but I doubt that any of the staff puts in a lot of thought into populating the parameters. They could crib it from somewhere, or it could be one person making an on-the-fly gut-feeling decision. Looking at prose-based sources gets a little closer to a more intentional consideration of how a film fits in what genre. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Eric. That all makes sense to me. DonIago (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Films by storyline?

Hi all. I'm struggling on the best way to fix an article, or perhaps to determine if it is unfixable, and was hoping others may have thoughts. The page List of LGBT-related films by storyline is currently entirely uncited, and held up what seems to be only by OR and individual editor discretion. It has a more straightforward section of lesbian and gay relationships (although these aren't necessarily "storylines" in many cases) and quite a number of entirely arbitrary categories. While these could be deemed "storylines," there's not really any set standard for how that is determined -- what prompts whether a film goes under "with tragedy" or "persecution" or "historical event" or just "with LGBT characters"? When in the relationship a storyline, vs. being a biographical LGBT film?

I'm wondering if:

A) are there other "by storyline" pages that may be helpful for guidance? I'm not finding any, which isn't a shock as it would likely suffer from the same issues -- how does one decide if in a list of "Action movie storylines" a film should be "international crime" or "terrorists" or "familial revenge" or "premeditated kidnapping" (bonus points for naming the movie!)? Is a romance storyline "tragedy" or "violence-driven" or "forbidden-love?"

B) Any good suggestions to improve? Or is this AFD material?

To be very clear, I am not proposing a problem with lists of LGBT films -- we have List of LGBT-related films (although there are issues there on sourcing what counts as LGBT-related, by year, with women directors, as TV films, etc. All things that can be sourced and not rely on OR and editor judgement. But the "list by storyline" concept seems tricky to fix, and perhaps not solvable.

Appreciate any thoughts!--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

My not-very-nice gut reaction, sight unseen, is that the list sounds like it needs a machete taken to it to cull out the unsourced material, especially if it's been tagged previously. List of disaster films may be a worthwhile example...it does subcategorize films by the type of disaster, and used to be largely unsourced, but in the last few months/years I think it's gotten a lot better. The problem with these types of lists is that editors who aren't familiar with WP:LISTV will come in and add films with no regard for sourcing, and you end up needing to do regular maintenance, though it sounds as though the List you're concerned with is probably updated less frequently.

I don't really know enough about LGBT-related films as a genre to say whether there are recognized subgenres. You probably could find sources such as "The Top 10 LGBT Romance Films", but I'm not sure that makes a strong case for this list; it would just indicate where on the list to place the films in question.

In the end, I think it's worth asking whether categorization is a more effective way to deal with this situation than a list article. Hope this is helpful! DonIago (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's a bad idea for a list, and I don't even think categories are necessary. Maybe categorizing LGBT films by subgenre, like LGBT action films, is worthwhile, but not by storyline. Kingsif (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Assessment for importance of American films inducted into the National Registry

I posted a few months ago on the talk page of the American cinema task force a question regarding the assessment of the importance of the American films inducted to the National Film Registry. It went unnoticed ever since, so I'm here to try to bring some attention to it and maybe some comments.--GDuwenHoller! 21:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/The 40-Year-Old Virgin/archive1

Can someone please leave comments for this? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Order of fields in the infobox

Hi. Incase anyone hasn't seen this discussion, and there's an RfC too. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Most viewed stub in this Wikiproject

Run (2020 American film) 581,093 19,369 Stub--Coin945 (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

B movie FAR

I have nominated B movie for featured article review at Wikipedia:Featured article review/B movie/archive2. Please join the discussion! 👨x🐱 (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Gotti

Please see the discussion at Talk:Gotti (1996 film)#Franzese reverts as to whether to include non-film critics in reception section where YouTube is primary source. Thanks, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Films and Filming magazine

I'm no expert in film, but I read about this magazine and believe it warranted an article (it was already a redirect). If anyone here has any more information on the magazine I would appreciate their help. Thank you! --Bangalamania (talk) 10:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at this person's edits?

Hello all, stumbled on ZIGMUND_JHAEY's edits while doing recent change patrol and honestly I lack the background with film/movies to evaluated/research these effectively. They mostly seem to be making edits around release dates and changing the names/captions of movie posters, etc. If all of these edits are good, great! I just thought that a set or two of eyes that are familiar with the material would be helpful. zchrykng (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo#Requested move 30 May 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo#Requested move 30 May 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Marvel Cinematic Universe task force has been created

The Marvel Cinematic Universe task force, a joint task force between WikiProject Film and WikiProject Television, has just been created. Please join if you wish! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Robert Taylor (American actor), Robert Taylor (actor) or Robert Taylor (the primary topic of the Robert Taylor disambiguation page)?

A discussion regarding the most intuitive form for the main title header of Taylor's entry is currently active at Talk:Robert Taylor (actor)#Requested move 7 June 2021. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Fake film credits

I initially posted this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents but nobody seemed to want to dive in and help.

I stumbled on an editor or editors who put the same wall of fake credits into numerous articles. So far I have found:

Examples of the edits:

I thought it would be a good idea to notify the project to keep an eye out for these edits. The vandal appears to enjoy adding Jessica Lundy and Alex Mckenna to acting credits. Those come up a lot. Also adding William Brent Bell and Rick Friedberg to production credits as fake writers and/or directors.

There may be more. I am slowly working my way through by using one of the names in their list and seeing what articles it is linked in. It is a very slow process but if anyone wants to help I would appreciate it. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, ANI sometimes moves at a rather "deliberate" pace, especially when not dealing with immediately pressing problems. I don't think it's fair to them to say nobody wants to help when this is still a fairly new issue. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The Climb (2019 film) timeline

The article says that the film proceeds linearly, with the third segment following the first two. However, I think that the first two segments are current, with everything else taking place in the past. For example, the character Kyle talks about how in a previous relationship, Marissa (who we later find out is his ex-wife) made him get a "Rob Thomas haircut." HiImDannyGanz (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Tabulated data

Does the project have an opinion on a new style of film data introduced by Bhushan m bhandari, for example here and here? I've raised the issue at User talk:Bhushan m bhandari# Film tables but it's possible that they can't hear me. Certes (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd revert it immediately for lacking sources, personally. I also think the appearance is suboptimal. DonIago (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. To be fair, it's mainly a reformatting of text which already lacked sources. I'm still inclined to revert, as we generally prefer prose to an infobox-like table of item-value pairs. However, I'm not a film buff, and wanted to check that there's no local consensus that we should (or can) do things this way. Certes (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

To put it diplomatically: Not that I'm aware of. :)

If the info was there before but unsourced, I'd probably tag it instead of doing an outright delete...though I suspect nobody will provide sources and you or another editor will eventually end up deleting it in any case. Still, sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised and sources surface. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Edits duly reverted, and mostly re-added. Rather than edit war, I'll leave it for an expert to take any further action. Certes (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Their edits are actually getting worse. They insist on readding a WP:TRIVIA section to Yudh (film) entitled "15 Unknown facts about this movie" that is completely unreferenced. Notfrompedro (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Now blanking articles and talk pages. My AIV report was removed after an hour as stale. Bhushan mohan bhandari also exists. Certes (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Steven Universe: The Movie § Split soundtrack into its own article

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Steven Universe: The Movie § Split soundtrack into its own article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Date format of 1988 film Action Jackson

The date format of Action Jackson (1988 film) is on DMY format. It should be MDY format since it's an American film. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. I checked the edit history and couldn't see any back-and-fourth reverts to the format, so I assume it was just an oversight. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Personally I think we should just adopt the ISO date format across the board on what is essentially an international encyclopedia. Betty Logan (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Classical Hollywood cinema

Hello, all. I've opened a discussion at Talk:Classical Hollywood cinema#Proposed deletion of excessive listings. As project members, please feel free to take part. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Rating table

So Bovineboy2008 (talk · contribs) recently removed the rating template in the reception section of Living in the Age of Airplanes, stating it is against consensus to put it. And in his talk page, he stated it was a long-ago discussion, and that it could be revisited, considering tempus fugit. And so here. What do you think regarding the film rating templates (review scores, not MPAA)? Gerald WL 02:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

In essence, is it best to include something like {{Video game reviews}} in a reception section for film? BOVINEBOY2008 02:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Additional context: Such a template once existed at {{Film reviews}} but was deleted. BOVINEBOY2008 17:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

One problem, as I see it is that you can't quantify most film reviews. Alaney2k (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: BTW, the template doc says it should have refs for every entry. Alaney2k (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The template is {{Film and game ratings}} more specifically {{Film ratings}}. From the [usage report] you can see that only a handful of film articles use this template. (Several of which were recently added by Gerald Waldo Luis.) IIRC the issue was WP:PROSE. (I think some people may have also complained that they were "reductive" but that's Rotten Tomatoes for you.) The template does strenuously warn that they are supposed to be only in addition to the text, but it was too easy and {{Video game reviews}} was added to just about every Video game article indiscriminately, often without any Reception section. I got the impression that Project Games accepted the de facto reality of these tables not that they actively encouraged them either. ~~(The Project Games style guidelines for Reception sections warns against~~ As far as I can see Gerald Waldo Luis has been careful and only added the template to articles that had proper reception sections, but I doubt others will be as careful. I'd love to believe tables like these could offer some consistency but I think they are a step in the wrong direction from creating an encyclopaedia, away from summarizing meaningful prose from notable sources. -- 109.78.194.208 (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The template has a "noprose" parameter, which would allow editors to tag that the reception section only has the table and no prose. And either way, people will misuse certain things; ^{[citation needed]} exists and people will just spam it everywhere, for example. I have trouble understanding your last stance; the ratings are from notable sources, and the rating compilation gives a compact, unique look at what critics think of it. Video games aren't films, okay, but they have few differences, and if video game articles can have ratings, how are film ratings detrimental to Wikipedia? Gerald WL 02:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

In theory this template could give a consistent summary of the reception section in tidy little box, I understand that. In practice I don't think it will work out that way. I don't think people will use it carefully. I believe it will be misused, and abused, so much so that it would be better to not use it at all.

Alaney2k above pointed out the difficulty of quantizing a review. That problem is already visible. Gerald used the template in the article Living in the Age of Airplanes [13] and in the table included the Variety review as: "40/100 (Metacritic interpretation)". I do not think it is appropriate to substitute the Metacritic number, when a publication has not provided a numerical grade.

If editors actually do want to change and start using {{Film ratings}} more, I hope the guidelines and documentation will be made a lot clearer about what is recommended and what is not. -- 109.78.194.208 (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Still, the fact that anything can be abused is not a justification to disallow a template for good. I can remove the Metacritic scores if you insist, but the others are officially from the critics itself, and to disregard them can be detrimental. Also, what would you like the /doc to be more clear of, if I may ask? Gerald WL 06:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Update: I've removed the MC scores. Also pinging Bovineboy2008, Alaney2k, and Betty Logan for additional input, maybe. Gerald WL 06:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment The Film project has been consistently opposed to a Film ratings aggregator box down the years. The reason being is that there will always be disagreement over which reviews warrant inclusion and whether the selection is representative of the critical consensus. Consensus can change over time, but that is a good reason for starting a discussion about whether the consensus still stands; I don't think it is a reasonable justification for simply ignoring a long-standing consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 05:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Comment Did I make the rating table? I think I made the TV-by-season one and users requested film, but knowing the objections I tried to make a merge with video games? Either way, I don't have a fish in the game as far as that's concerned.

Now, if we're going to, as Betty suggests, discuss if there is value, I'll compare to video games again. On the one hand, video game reviews don't have something like Rotten Tomatoes to aggregate reviews. But, on the other, there is a sizable and growing objection to using Rotten Tomatoes %age ratings as-is because they don't necessarily reflect the critical ratings (WP generally only mentions the %age positive-negative) - Metacritic solves that by using weighted average, but is also contentious. A table could solve those issues by using critics from reliable sources (per our own source guidelines, not e.g. top critics or Metacritic choice) and displaying the native score. Kingsif (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Kingsif, hmmm... but Metacritic does aggregate video games. For example, see FS2020#Reception. Gerald WL 11:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

But like I said, Metacritic doesn't use native scores and is even contentious here for games... but the point was that the video game articles may be better suited to having tables because they don't have RT like films do - so are you wanting to say video games do have that option but the tables are still fine despite it? I do think using native scores rather than aggregates without explanation of their limits is better, but it can keep Metacritic if you want. Kingsif (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Kingsif, ah I see, i thought "whaa why are we talking bout MC?" But as you can see above, there's a discussion about the problem with quantifying reviews; I agreed with that (MC often does errors too) so I removed the MC interpretation scores. Gerald WL 13:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment - I don't know that we should be in a place of deciding what reviews warrant inclusion in the table. It forces us out of a neutral perspective because then we are placing weighted value to certain reviewers. If you don't do that, then you have a fight over a never-ending table of reviews as everyone wants to include "their" favorite reviewer, or debates over the value of another reviewer's placement. Then, you also force people into more tabular, non-prose sections which goes against our principles for writing articles. We already recommend that people not simply quote reviews, but provide a summary of the overall information. A table seems to move us away from that by providing out of context star/number ratings that don't necessarily reflect what the review says (hence the same criticism of RT now). As such, I lean toward not including them. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is not entirely clear to me. Editors have commented generally but not said that they are opposed to including film ratings tables but also they have not proposed how things should be done properly if such tables were allowed. Would editors please make it clear if the recommendation is to remove the tables that Gerald Waldo Luis (or others) have added, or are editors are going to actively encourage their use by providing clearer guidelines on how best to include these ratings tables in film articles? -- 109.79.179.206 (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

As the discussion stands I don't think there is clear enough consensus to allow me to delete these kinds of tables. Gerald Waldo Luis seems to still think the matter is open because he restored his recent addition of such a table to a {{Featured article}}, specifically Hellraiser: Judgment. Featured articles are a defacto example of best practice, if they aren't removed then they are effectively approved. -- 109.79.175.162 (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

#Tabulated data below discusses a similar issue with cast, earnings, etc. rather than ratings. Certes (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that below discussion is particularly similar, it is much more clearly wrong WP:CASTLIST. A Table shouldn't be used when a list would do, and list shouldn't be used when WP:PROSE is possible. -- 109.79.175.162 (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be getting nowhere; I think an RfC would do better. @Bovineboy2008, Alaney2k, Betty Logan, Kingsif, and Bignole:, would like to notify you all of Template talk:Film and game ratings, where I have placed an RfC. Gerald WL 05:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

RFC for Template:Film and game ratings

Can be found at Template talk:Film and game ratings#RfC about existence of Film and game ratings template. Betty Logan (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Doomsday Prophecy at deletion

Additional viewpoints would be appreciated: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Doomsday_Prophecy. BOVINEBOY2008 13:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Sign-language films

Hi. Please see this discussion at CfD. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Holiday Engagement at deletion

Additional perspectives are appreciated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holiday Engagement. BOVINEBOY2008 16:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Template idea (ping to notify)

I have an idea to put Wikipedia:WikiProject Film#Tasks and Wikipedia:WikiProject Film#Announcements and open tasks into Template:WikiProject Film, in order to increase awareness of what stuff is going on, like GANs, FACs and particularly PRs, which gets little attention. Template:WikiProject Video games has done this, and their PR sees faster response rate. Gerald WL 16:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The Gamers: Hands of Fate at deletion

Additional perspectives are appreciated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gamers: Hands of Fate. BOVINEBOY2008 01:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Plot explanation

It was me who was adding the story of Ejen Ali The Movie: Mission Neo, with all those strange, and lengthy IP addresses. I think that it is almost more than half year since the movie is released. I prefer "EVERYONE" to first read the story, and then edit concisely. It is really "pain straining" job for me to adjust within the word limit, as the editor (probably an administrator), Arjayay removed the "extra phrases". I tell you, the long plot template was even put up by me. So, how can you follow that template, but not keep patience to first complete the plot summary, and then concise it? Utkarsh555 (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I have a very hard time believing in principle that a 97-minute film requires a plot summary that's 1,000 words long, especially when we have shorter summaries for longer films. That said, I'm unfamiliar with this specific film, so I'd be willing to defer to editors who feel that this film really does require that level of plot description. DonIago (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Top 1,000 films?

If a film is included on a listing of the best one thousand movies ever made, does that merit inclusion in the article for the film as shown here? DonIago (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I think WP:NOTEVERYTHING ("Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful.") applies here. The Legacy section of Notorious is rather silly now, with so many "number X on list Y" examples. It would be good to cull such lists of lists to the three (say) most significant. Being on a list of 1000 does not seem sufficiently significant for inclusion, unless this is the only size list one can find a film on (as is far from the case for Notorious). Doctormatt (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I think these lists are very crucial for assessing a film's significance over time. Reducing the number of lists mentioned in the article can underplay the value of that film. I agree that being on a list of Top 1000 may seem insignificant but keep in mind that in total near 1000 films are being released every year from all over the world. So it takes enough merit to get on a list of Top 1000 of all time 🙂🙂🙂😅 বিড়ালতপা চক্কোত্তি (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone else has an opinion to share. Doniago? -- Doctormatt (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think necessarily "these lists are very crucial for assessing a film's significance over time", but when a highly regarded source such as NYT includes a film on such a list, it does merit inclusion. Sam Sailor 22:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I think a list of 1,000 films isn't necessarily very WP:DISCRIMINATE; certainly not compared to a Top Ten or Top 100 list, and especially when it's merely a list with no discussion as to what makes the films enduring. Also, the list is from 2002, which makes it substantially dated. If there's an article for a film on this list and the reception section of that article doesn't have a lot of other "Top Ten" list type material, then including this list may be useful. If a film article's reception section already has significant discussion of Top Ten lists and the like, especially if they're lists that discuss why the film is highly-regarded, then NYT or not, I don't see how adding such a relatively broad list adds much. DonIago (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree. A 2002 list with 1,000 entries is stretching significance to the point that it breaches NOTEVERYTHING and DISCRIMINATE, both stated above. I would limit mention of such lists to two per article. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I am in agreement too. If you were to add this name-check to all 1,000 films it would probably constitute spam. If a film is ranked outside of the top 100 or on an un-ranked list of more than 100 films you need to think seriously about adding a mention to the article. If there was nothing else in the section I would probably support its inclusion, but there are plenty of other prominent surveys mentioned in the section which convey the film's stature. What extra do we learn about the film's reputation by adding this list to the article? Betty Logan (talk) 05:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

1000 films in any year is going to be a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Even though it is in the NYT the question is who composed the list? Was it compiled by film critics and scholars? This looks to me as though it was one of those "a group of editors sat around and named a bunch of films they has seen" situation. IMO it does not add anything to a readers appreciation of a film. MarnetteD|Talk 18:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I see your 1,000 and raise you! But this does echo MarnetteD's comment of a group of people sitting around and picking their fave films. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Nice one Lugnuts. I had a faint bell tolling away in my memory that there was a collection with 1000 (now 1001) in the title and you found it :-) MarnetteD|Talk 22:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Joking aside, it's actually a decent book to have. It gets updated every couple of years or so, but once you've got one copy that's all you need. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks folks. It seems that we have a general consensus on this even if our specific reasons may vary. I'll give it a few more days for additional comments before I take any further actions. Thanks again! DonIago (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Question about "produced by" categories

Are the categories for "produced by", (for example, Category:Films produced by Andrea Sperling), intended to strictly refer to producer credits, or are EP credits included, as well? BOTTO_(T•C) 11:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Question of notability

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attack of the Sabretooth, we are having the discussion of notability. Specifically, does a star rating from a reliable source like Allmovie constitute that the film meets notability guidelines for a stand-alone article. Additionally viewpoints would be appreciated. BOVINEBOY2008 18:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal for AFI Awards

Hey everyone, I've opened a proposal to merge the articles for individual AFI Award ceremonies into a single article. If you're interested, any comments would be much appreciated at Talk:American Film Institute#Merger proposal for AFI Awards. Thanks! RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

One-shot film

Opinions are sought here about whether lists of one-shot films should be confined only to notable examples, such as those that can either cite a source or link to a Wikipedia article. Meticulo (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

More editors needed for consensus

This is about film article Creep 2. As can be seen in the history and, later on, the talk page for that article, user User:Bluerules and I engaged in a discussion about our respective edits in order to avoid edit warring.

This is a sequel to an earlier film about a clever, quirky serial killer who toys with his victims passive-aggressively before killing them. He is compulsively mendacious, manipulative and prone to projecting a deceptive air of vulnerability in both films. Thus a fundamental leitmotiv throughout the series is the impossibility of knowing when, if at all, he is being sincere. Reducing the number of potential interpretations of the killer's intentions would diminish the number of potential outcomes of his actions--and that impacts the plot directly.

My edits in the Plot section were aimed at describing the events of the film from a skeptical distance, avoiding particular interpretations and taking into account the aforementioned character's inscrutability. User Bluerules erased most of those edits and in our subsequent discussion proved that their reason for doing so was the fact that a number of motivations on the killer's behalf, notably this film's plot centerpiece which was his alleged midlife crisis, is a blatant, established fact that admits no discussion. I contend it could very well be as much of a lie as the cancer diagnosis in the first film, and that every single one of the killer's statements or mannerisms could be deceptive.

By taking the killer's statements at face value without questioning them, this user was summarily reducing the entire gamut of potential interpretations of the character to his or her own restrictive interpretation. The killer, I emphasize, is a sociopath, a compulsive liar, a master manipulator and a narcissist who films his exploits and edits them into warped "dramas" for his own enjoyment; user Bluerules believes that such behavior is not enough evidence and if the serial killer states (to his victims or to the camera) that he is going through a midlife crisis, then there is no reason to doubt it. Equally important is the fact that user Bluerules then proceeds to draw what they believe is an incontrovertible line between truth and lie in other instances of the killer's behavior, not just this one. I have tried to convince Bluerules that they had molded the plot to THEIR interpretation of the film, not to an aseptic plot contemplating all interpretations of such a complex and unreliable character, but so far this task has proved useless.

In short, we need more opinions and more editors here. I have taken the matter to Dispute Resolution and have been redirected here by a volunteer. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 08:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Interview: Patrick Brice Talks About Creep and His New Netflix Slasher - Patrick Brice: "We [Mark Duplass and I] loved the idea of a serial killer having a mid-life crisis. Especially one as emotionally articulate as Mark's character."

The writer-director has flat-out said that the midlife crisis is real. Therefore, it is real. Bluerules (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I thought, at least according to your reasoning, that the film had a life of its own and that we were not supposed to use the real world as a frame of reference for the fictional events of the film. Be that as it may, they loved the premise but that doesn't mean they both expected their character (whom they call a "pathological liar" in the same interview) to be sincere about it once they actually made the film. A certain famous 1982 film comes to mind where the director and the lead actor are not even in agreement on whether or the protagonist is a replicant, and that shouldn't prevent you from drawing your own conclusions. Hitchcock used to say one shouldn't make films featuring children or animals, and in "The birds" he filmed lots of animals attacking lots of children. Focus on the film and leave interviews for the marketing department. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no arguing this. The creator of the film, the individual in direct control of the fictional events of the film, is outright stating the midlife crisis is real. Once again, your argument against concrete evidence is based on theoreticals, hypotheticals, and other films that have no bearing on Creep 2. You did not make the film - Patrick Brice did. If the director outright says it and there is nothing to contest the director's statement (which there isn't), then it is accepted as true. Bluerules (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

No he's not. Read that paragraph of the interview again, put the comments in context and think outside of the box before writing. He's not laying out the entire character development strategy devised by him and Duplass in front of the interviewer. He's discussing a premise, a germ of an idea that led them to make the film, and he never loses perspective on what kind of character they're dealing with and what's to be expected from him. A premise is not a product. I love the idea of making a an omelette now but it may very well come out as scrambled eggs. If you cannot distinguish between a premise and an output perhaps it's best if you relax and let other users chime in. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, he is. The interviewer asks Brice about the character's midlife crisis and Brice says it emerged alongside the idea of pairing him with a woman. Brice says nothing about changing the film's premise, which leads to the product. In fact, the next question is about the ideas and directions he abandoned and Brice never says he abandoned the midlife crisis. It is what he and Duplass specifically explored in the second film - "We loved the idea of a serial killer having a mid-life crisis. Especially one as emotionally articulate as Mark’s character." If you cannot accept what the filmmaker himself says, perhaps it's best if you relax and step back from editing. Bluerules (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

He says nothing about changing the film's premise because he assumes his film will appeal to an intelligent audience who will understand what he says and what he doesn't say--not to rudimentary, slow-track intellects bent on entrenching themselves into rigid preconceptions. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

He says nothing about changing the film's premise because he didn't change the film's premise. You are contesting a direct quote from a direct source with original research, which is not how Wikipedia works. Bluerules (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Walter Hill once said in an interview that "every film I've done has been a Western", but I look at the Wikipedia articles for "Streets of fire" or "The Warriors" and the word "Western" does not appear in any of the categories at the end of each article. I'm not really your friend but I'm going to give you some friendly advice: you really need to stay off that keyboard for a while. None of this reflects well on you.AnyDosMilVint (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

That's Walter Hill, not Patrick Brice. What Walter Hill says about his films has no bearing on what Patrick Brice says about his films. If you don't have any actual evidence to contest what Brice said, you're just wasting everyone's time. Bluerules (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2021 (U/TC)

It does have a bearing because I'm testing your same "logic" on another example. The fact I'm applying it to another director may be intimidating (it's always difficult at the beginning to think outside of a box) but that doesn't make it less useful. I think they call it analogy. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not the same logic. You're comparing how a director interprets the genre of his films against a director giving information on plot point of his film. Hill is giving a generalized statement meant to provoke discussion about genre / Westerns, Brice is explaining a specific aspect of his film. This is a fallacious analogy that continues to advocate for original research, a clear violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Bluerules (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Those examples aren't comparable to this situation. First of all, Hitchcock saying one shouldn't make films featuring children or animals is unsourced and I haven't found any indication of it, either by Google search, in the Alfred Hitchcock article, or in The Birds article. Second, if there's disagreement between a director and an actor, then it's clear the director's opinion has more weight. —El Millo (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Interview with Jules Dassin [14]: “Alright, now go ahead. Go make a film, but never work with children, animals, or Charles Laughton”. Also Hampton Fancher wrote Deckard to be a human (thereby agreeing with Ford) but wanted the possibility of him being a replicant to be open. I insist that if we start invoking interviews as a frame of reference for films then any semblance of a constructive debate disappears. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

It still doesn't apply to this case. Do we have a clear change of mind here from a creative? Do we have a disagreement between the creators of a film? If we do, and it is relevant, on Wikipedia we don't take sides and decides "the correct one", but state both sides, as we do in Themes in Blade Runner#Deckard: human or replicant?. We can't just disregard interviews about the film when talking about the film. The assessments we editors do have basically no weight compared to whatever a director, writer, producer, or actor may say in an interview. We shouldn't have a constructive debate to decide for ourselves what we use to describe him if we have interviews from creatives that we can use. If this is a more complex matter, where different creatives disagree, then it doesn't belong in the plot at all, and should be addressed elsewhere in the article. —El Millo (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not disregarding an interview, I am just putting it in its rightful place which is outside of the plot. I am not even in favor of listing one, two or several sides in the plot for Creep 2. The Brice interview states they liked the premise, but in no way or form concludes they stuck with the idea and adopted it to be the only version of the truth. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

You are disregarding the interview from the individual who created the plot because you're not accepting what the director said. The interviewer asked Brice about the midlife crisis featured in the film, Brice discusses how it was conceptualized alongside a female character. He does not "correct" the interviewer by saying the mid-life crisis was eliminated. Nothing he says in the interview - an interview where he specifically discusses what was eliminated from the final product - indicates that he and Duplass moved away from the midlife crisis. Once again, this interpretation is original research. Bluerules (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The "midlife crisis" aspect of it seems to be quite relevant. Other reliable sources, this time secondary, highlight it in their reviews. The Hollywood Reporter states: Mark Duplass is a serial killer facing a midlife crisis,^[1] Decider includes it in the title of the article: ‘Creep 2’: Mark Duplass Is A Serial Killer In The Midst Of A Midlife Crisis In This Psychologically Mesmerizing Sequel,^[2] GQ states: Creep 2 takes the slasher sequel to a logical next step—one I've never seen before: the serial killer midlife crisis.^[3] If it's not mentioned in the plot, it seems like it should be mentioned somewhere else. We could use the proposed alternative has become dissatisfied with his killings after turning 40 in the plot though, and I think it wouldn't make much of a difference. —El Millo (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

References

The problem with saying "turning 40" is the character gives contradictory information about his age - he tells one individual that he just turned 40, he tells another that he's about to turn 40. That's why I opted for "mid-life crisis" because aside from being supported by the writer-director, it's one of the consistent things he says. Bluerules (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, then "midlife crisis" is the most accurate one. Both the director (and writer) and reliable secondary sources mention it. —El Millo (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

It's a bit more complicated than that and I repeatedly tried to explain it to Bluerules:

First of all, not only does he give different age intervals to different characters, but the chronological order of the two ages given don't match that of the film. That means either he's lying once (or twice) about his ages, or he is not and he meets Dave after meeting Sara. That adds uncertainty to a number of things (e.g. Sara perhaps doesn't kill him with the shovel blow, he probably kills her in the end, he probably lies about everything, etc) and it's best not to stick to any single interpretation.
Second of all, his compulsive lying affects crucial aspects of the midlife crisis as well. Bluerules was unable to understand this example despite how often I mentioned it. Aaron tells Sara that he decided to embrace his (alleged) decline after reading an interview where Francis Ford Coppola explained how he had embraced his own artistic decadence. An hour later Sara tries to use the same interview with this director to make a point in another conversation and Aaron doesn't even know what she's talking about. This scene reminded me of the one in "Henry, the portrait of a serial killer" where Henry states he shot his mother and a while later he says he stabbed her instead. You cannot trust the statements of a person like this.
Thirdly, if you read the interchange in the talk page you will realize that the interview with Brice was not mentioned at all (Bluerules probably rescued it in a desperate last-minute keyword Google search after I opened this section) and that the only argument they had to draw a line between true and false in Aaron's statements was, well, because. No backing argument at all. Changing goalposts whenever necessary (real life has bearing in this but does not have bearing in that, etc) and liberal use of the word "blatant". You don't have to take my word for it, just take your time to read that talk page.
Lastly, you're right: the "midlife crisis" aspect does seem relevant. So does a number of things Bluerings summarily erased in earlier edits (e.g. Aaron's alleged first murder, Aaron's intentions when he originally dug the hole he presents Sara with, Dave's murder where he first mentions the midlife crisis and where he first murders someone incontrovertibly, ...) on account of Bluerings' opinion that they had no "bearing" on the actual plot. This is not about writing a comprehensive, interpretation-free, aseptic plot for a complex and intelligent film, this is Bluerings' pet project in moulding a plot to their restrictive interpretation. For the record, I do think (and I said it in the talk page) Aaron is having the closest thing someone like him can have to a midlife crisis, but I acknowledge this is my own interpretation.
I'm fully aware that one shouldn't try to get between a dog and its bone, and that insisting on this will only reaffirm Bluerings in their position, but I just find it sad that a film as nuanced and subtle as this has to end up having such a poor plot section, that's all. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

As I have repeatedly tried to explain to AnyDosMilVint, alternate interpretations do not go into a plot section. The plot section is a recap of what takes place in the film. Anything ambiguous goes into the themes and analysis section, with the appropriate sources.

Aaron's comments may add uncertainty about his age, but they do not add uncertainty about everything he says. Aaron says he is a serial killer and this is directly confirmed by both Creep films. Therefore, there are viewpoints that are not mere "interpretations" (e.g. Aaron being a serial killer) and the notion that "he probably lies about everything" is wrong.
AnyDosMilVint is unable to understand the purpose of the film's prologue. The midlife crisis is revealed by Aaron (the killer) during the prologue where he is confessing his true nature to an unsuspecting victim. He admits that he stalked Dave, the victim, and is secretly recording him, both blatant truths. Then Aaron reveals that he is losing his passion for killing as he gets older, which is demonstrated by his frustrated reaction to killing Dave. This prologue exists to set up Aaron's current mental state, which plays an important role in the story - Aaron changes his approach with his new victim. AnyDosMilVint continues to doubt the midlife crisis simply on the grounds of Aaron having "compulsive lying", while ignoring the blatant truths from the character. As demonstrated, the only arguments against the midlife crisis are hypotheticals and theoreticals - a.k.a. original research.
I did not mention the interview because I did not need it to support my argument. I used it here in an attempt to bring this discussion to a short end, which unfortunately has not occurred due to AnyDosMilVint's refusal to accept a direct source. Claiming I "rescued it in a desperate last-minute keyword Google search" does not change its weight in proving what the director intended. Contrary to AnyDosMilVint's false allegations of me having "no backing argument at all" and "changing goalposts whenever necessary" (real-life midlife crises don't impact a film, the real-life director does), my arguments are based on the presence / importance of the prologue, Aaron's midlife crisis comments being made while he also makes blatantly true reveals (which are blatantly true, even if AnyDosMilVint won't accept them), and how the midlife crisis impacts the story. Aaron's actions support his words and if that isn't proof enough, Patrick Brice's comments end this discussion. All AnyDosMilVint has is original research that isn't permitted on the page.
The director himself supporting my "interpretation" demonstrating that I am not treating the page as "pet project in moulding a plot to their restrictive interpretation". I am making certain the page is factually correct because the midlife crisis is factually correct. The midlife crisis directly impacts the story. Everything AnyDosMilVint added does not have bearing on the story. It's awkwardly-written, superfluous content that only exists to bloat the plot and confuse the reader. The fact that the plot section flows just fine without these details demonstrates that they do not have bearing on the story, contrary to his assertion.
If AnyDosMilVint truly believes this is a complex and intelligent film, he should be working on a themes and analysis section to demonstrate its nuances and subtleties. He would rather make a poor plot section that becomes unreadable. Can't get between a dog and its bone, I guess. Bluerules (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment – The arguments from both sides seem a little silly to me when comparing the current version (289 words) to the proposed version (495 words). They're not all that fundamentally different, and it would seem if we start with the proposed version and prune it back some, there should be plenty of room to find common ground here. In the proposed version, the opening and closing paragraphs may warrant additional discussion, but I think the middle 3 paragraphs are just fine, with the exception of "which may perhaps situate the events of the prologue after those of the remainder of the film" and "(incidentally, to defend himself from another murderer)", both of which should be rephrased or dropped altogether. I actually prefer the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the proposed version over the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the current. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Totally agreed on the "which may perhaps situate..." bit, as said in the talk page. Maybe it's just the fact that English is my third language, but it's hard to make that damn sentence look right. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I have to disagree. If we start with the proposed version and prune it back, it's going to look nearly identical to the current version. The proposed version doesn't add anything necessary to the story and upsets the word flow of the current version. Bluerules (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Bluerules: TBH, they don't look all that dissimilar now, hence my previous comments. And really, we should be shooting for at least 400 words per WP:FILMPLOT. In essence, most plot summaries could be reduced to 100 words or less if we sifted out all the frivolous details (to borrow lightly from a recent plot summary discussion), but doing so, of course, robs the reader of any meaningful context. In this situation, I would lean in favor of retaining a few descriptive details that perhaps aren't crucial to the plot's understanding but aid in plot transitions, suspense, and/or climax, given we're dealing with the horror genre. You could even decide to retain a few non-essential details covered by critic reviews listed in the critical response section. My 2¢ --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The shorter plot summary for this film is on account two factors: the short length of the film (80 minutes) and not much happening in the way of content; it's mostly dialogue-driven between two characters. I'm in favor of adding context when it benefits the summary, but in this case, the additions upset the word flow. Mentioning Dave, for example, doesn't add any necessary details and creates an awkward transition between the important information (Aaron's midlife crisis causing him to change his approach with his next victim). I think a themes and analysis section would be a good approach in adding more flavor to the article. Bluerules (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I get that it's a tad on the shorter side and doesn't carry the depth of say Moonlight, but it's still considered a feature film and should comply with the guideline in the absence of overriding local consensus. If we set aside the opening and closing for a moment, which seems to be rather contentious, maybe there's some wiggle room in the middle. I haven't seen the film, nor have I done a deep analysis of both arguments, but it would seem the details surrounding the climax in your version is a bit scarce. Take the suicide attempt, for example. In your version:

He eventually manages to horrify Sara by staging a suicide attempt, which almost causes her to leave. However, after Aaron reveals that his life was not in danger, she remains to hear Aaron share intimate details about himself, culminating in the two sharing a kiss.

Not too shabby, but it just feels like something's missing. Is Aaron's reassurance about his safety really the driving factor that gets her to stay? How does Sara truly get from one extreme to the other so easily (horrified about to leave vs. sharing a kiss)? Simply saying he shared intimate details without giving some examples doesn't really do the reader justice, or at least, that's my initial reaction. There's an extreme emotional shift going on within Sara, and we need a better glimpse into the catalyst that sparked the change. Skimp on the details early on, sure, but this is the perfect time to elaborate and fill in small gaps. Then there's the climax itself in the grave scene. Your version states:

Aaron brings Sara outside to announce that the documentary will end with them committing suicide together. Sara attempts to escape when she sees Aaron stab himself, but Aaron stabs her and drags her into an open grave he dug.

This has all the minimum elements required to understand what essentially happened. That's fair, but it lacks insight into Aaron's character. In the proposed version, we're told he's, "unsure whether the grave was intended for her or for himself" and that he stole a knife from Sara. Yes, we know serial killers aren't right in the head, but not all serial killers are alike. Revealing that he was facing some kind of internal conflict in deciding the ending, and the fact he steals a knife as opposed to coming prepared with one, can add some meaningful context about a character and the level of suspense. It would help ease the transition between the announcement and the stabbing. The proposed version also mentions being stabbed in the stomach, not just stabbed anywhere like the arm – a detail that helps describe the seriousness behind his intentions to commit suicide.

I wouldn't necessarily use the exact phrasing from the proposed version, but I'd take details like these into strong consideration for inclusion, especially when I know the plot summary is hanging at less than 300 words. A little excess can go a long way without going overboard. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

A key thing for me is word flow - how well the plot summary reads. I'm for adding new information if it's not an awkward point-by-point description of what takes place. With the two segments, fair enough on the first one. If we can word it properly, we could go into more detail. But for the second, it's already been established that Aaron has apparent internal conflict. The summary first says that he intends to let Sara live for 24 hours, then he says he wants Sara to kill him. Each of the first three paragraph expresses his changing plans (at least what is assumed as his plans), concurrent with how the film presents them. As for the stolen knife, I removed it because it wasn't integral to the story and I was having problems fitting it in naturally. I'm fine with adding the detail of him stabbing himself in the stomach, but we need to avoid mentioning nearly every detail in a scene. Bluerules (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

"I'm for adding new information if it's not an awkward point-by-point description of what takes place ... we need to avoid mentioning nearly every detail in a scene"

I agree, but the fact that a lot of details have already been excluded from the summary's opening paragraphs should be enough to cancel out what might seem excessive later on in the summary. In other words, you have plenty of room to work with for the climax and the build up to the climax. I wouldn't hesitate to be a little more descriptive in those areas. Remember, I don't have a horse in this race. I'm just providing a third opinion. It looks like you have a few ideas to go on that may bring the two sides closer to compromise. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

You've raised fair points about the plot summary; if the additional details are able to be added in a way that doesn't affect the readability, I'm in favor of it. I find the hardest part of writing the plot summaries to be balancing the important details with ensuring that it all flows together in a compact size. Bluerules (talk) 04:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Remember, I don't have a horse in this race: well neither do I because like I said above, bones are more adequate an analogy than races here. No edit or reasoning will satisfy this person, and to be honest it's not worth the effort. Better let them have this little victory here; by doing so goodness knows what headaches this will spare other people in real life. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

When you create these topics and contribute heavily to them, you do have a horse in the race. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort among editors and information must be factual and sourced - no original research. Hopefully, you'll recognize this in the future. Bluerules (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, the moment someone invokes the argument that a film deserves less than 300 words just because it's 80 minutes long, you know the disagreement is going to be chronic. According to that reasoning, "La Jetée" by Chris Marker would only deserve a paragraph-long plot.

What is essential in a film as multivariate as this is to describe what is going on while at the same time maintaining a distance with respect to the narrative basin of each particular interpretation. That entails plot sections that are not necessarily correlated to the film's length. Some might find this a frustrating paradox but this is one of the many limitations of the written medium that we have to cope with. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

You ignored the part where the shorter word count is also the result of less story content. Most of the film is conversations between characters as opposed to major plot events occurring throughout. La Jetée is not applicable because it is not a feature film and the guidelines for the word count clearly state "feature films".

If we clearly and concisely express all the important plot details in less than 400 words, then so be it. We shouldn't sacrifice readability just to meet a certain word count. Bluerules (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

GoneIn60, this is what I propose:

A prolific serial killer, identifying as Aaron after a previous victim, is nearing or already in his early forties and expressing dissatisfaction with his killings. The first person he relays this to onscreen is a young man named Dave, whom he murders immediately after revealing that he had been stalking him for some time.

Aaron's ad to be documented lures videographer Sara to his home. He takes a different approach from that of the first film, and admits he is a serial killer minutes after he meets Sara. He also delves more in detail into his midlife crisis narrative than in his conversation with Dave. Aaron promises he will let Sara live for the next 24 hours if she records a documentary on his life. Sara, who produces an unsuccessful web series about eccentric individuals she meets through Craigslist, accepts the request, doubting his revelation and seeing the documentary as an opportunity for interesting content.

Over the course of the day, Aaron struggles to intimidate Sara, who plays along with his various eccentricities out of disbelief that he truly is a serial killer. Aaron informs her that he intends to conclude the documentary by having her kill him. He eventually manages to horrify Sara by staging a suicide attempt, which almost causes her to leave. However, after Aaron reveals that his life was not in danger and claims that he has developed true fondness for her, she remains. Interspersed through the afternoon are Aaron's intimate and apparently honest accounts about himself, such as his first homicide at age fifteen and the fact that he is still a virgin. These confessions to Sara culminate in the two sharing what Aaron purports to be his first kiss.

Aaron brings Sara outside for his intended finale to the documentary, where he shows her an open grave. Aaron claims that he dug it before her arrival, and was originally unsure whether the grave was intended for her or for himself. However, he appears to have changed his plans somewhat along the way: using a knife that he stole from Sara, he stabs himself in the stomach and tells her that they will die together. Sara attempts to escape, but Aaron chases her, stabs her and drags her into the grave. As Aaron gives a closing monologue, he fails to notice a still-alive Sara emerging from the grave, who strikes Aaron on the back of the head with a shovel before fleeing.

Some time later, Sara is recorded in the streets of New York by an unidentified person. The stalker follows her to the subway and gradually gets her attention by whistling Aaron's favorite tune with the camera focused on her face. Sara seems distracted but when she finally looks directly at the source of the tune, her relaxed countenance immediately disappears and the camera abruptly cuts away. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

* "is nearing or already in his early forties and expressing dissatisfaction with his killings" - Conflicting information that will confuse the reader and bloating information already stated.

* "The first person he relays this to onscreen is a young man named Dave, whom he murders immediately after revealing that he had been stalking him for some time." - Superfluous information that doesn't impact the story. The information that impacts the story is Aaron's dissatisfaction / midlife crisis, which is already established.

* "Aaron's ad to be documented lures videographer Sara to his home. He takes a different approach from that of the first film, and admits he is a serial killer minutes after he meets Sara. He also delves more in detail into his midlife crisis narrative than in his conversation with Dave. Aaron promises he will let Sara live for the next 24 hours if she records a documentary on his life." - Poorly-flowing sentences, which is not helped by the unnecessary mentions of Dave. These can be condensed into shorter sentences that flow better. This also contains real world information, which negatively impacts the plot section, and an incorrect implication (Aaron's approach in the second film is different from all his past murders, not just the one depicted in the first film).

* "seeing the documentary as an opportunity for interesting content" - Incorrect. Her focus is on her series gaining attention, which she believes Aaron will accomplish.

* "Over the course of the day, Aaron struggles to intimidate Sara, who plays along with his various eccentricities out of disbelief that he truly is a serial killer. Aaron informs her that he intends to conclude the documentary by having her kill him." - By moving the information about Sara's continued doubt from the first sentence to the second, the first sentence becomes too long and the second is awkwardly-placed.

* "claims that he has developed true fondness for her" - Unnecessary, has no impact on the story.

* "Interspersed through the afternoon are Aaron's intimate and apparently honest accounts about himself, such as his first homicide at age fifteen and the fact that he is still a virgin." - Also has no impact on the story.

* "what Aaron purports to be his first kiss" - As with above, these details have no impact on the story and are merely assumptions.

* "Aaron brings Sara outside for his intended finale to the documentary, where he shows her an open grave. Aaron claims that he dug it before her arrival, and was originally unsure whether the grave was intended for her or for himself. However, he appears to have changed his plans somewhat along the way: using a knife that he stole from Sara, he stabs himself in the stomach and tells her that they will die together." - An over-lengthy description of this scene that tries to go detail-by-detail, which is not friendly to readers. The current paragraph says the same information in far less words.

* "Some time later, Sara is recorded in the streets of New York by an unidentified person. The stalker follows her to the subway and gradually gets her attention by whistling Aaron's favorite tune with the camera focused on her face. Sara seems distracted but when she finally looks directly at the source of the tune, her relaxed countenance immediately disappears and the camera abruptly cuts away." - Same as above, far too much detail with content that doesn't impact the story. The guidelines make it clear that the plot section is not intended to be a point-by-point recap. Bluerules (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm interested in other editors' opinions at this stage. We're at a point where you'd disagree with me even if I said 2+2=4. Fluid communication no longer possible. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

An ironic statement given that you disagreed with the midlife crisis being real after the director confirmed it. If you are going to contest cited information with original research, you need a better understanding of Wikipedia. Bluerules (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Executive producer field in the infobox

Hi. Please see this disucssion, which is also a RfC. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Two useful wikidata templates

I've developed two wikidata templates which can be useful for the film wikiproject : d:Template:Generic queries for filmmakers and d:Generic queries for actors. Both are embedded in d:Template:Item documentation.

Those templates gives access to useful SPARQL queries for filmmakers and actors. For instance, d:Template:Generic queries for filmmakers gives the list of actors who have played with the filmmaker, the list of places where movies takes place, etc.

Let me know if you want find it useful.

Feedback is welcome.

PAC2 (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Back to the Future soundtrack title

There's currently a WP:RM at Talk:Back to the Future (soundtrack)#Requested move 21 July 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. I think the topic merits a larger, more genral discussion about article titles of film soundtracks, but if this one in particular has a large amount of participant maybe it could set a precedent for the rest. —El Millo (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Love Begins at deletion

Love Begins is at deletion here and has now been relisted three times to generate more discussion and develop consensus. More opinions would be appreciated. BOVINEBOY2008 11:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

[1] ttps://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/creep-2-1051608

[2] ttps://decider.com/2017/10/24/creep-2-mark-duplass-killer-midlife-crisis-sequel/

[3] ttps://www.gq.com/story/creep-2-review

[1]

[2]

[3]