Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 81

Archive 75

←

Archive 79

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

Archive 83

→

Archive 85

Question About Two-Part Genre in Lede

There is a content about a film, and it has to do with the designation of the genre in the lede sentence. One editor wants a film designated as a "comedy mystery", but another wants it designated as a "mystery" and says that the designation of the genre in the lede should only identify one genre. So the question is whether the practice for film articles in general is that only a single genre should be listed in the lede sentence describing the film, or whether a two-part designation of the genre may be permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

There should only be one genre listed, but this can also be the main verifiable sub-genre. For example, Pretty Woman is described as a "romantic comedy", which can be verified at Allmovie. If there are sources describing the film as a "comedy mystery" then that should be ok, but editors shouldn't be apply WP:SYNTHESIS and compounding separate genres. Betty Logan (talk) 07:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The genre, like everything else, needs to be sourced from WP:RS with WP:DUE weight. From MOS:FILMGENRE - [a]t minimum, the opening sentence should identify the following elements: [...] the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified and then [g]enre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources. If the majority of the sources describe the film as just mystery then it should be that, or comedy mystery than it should be that, if there is no majority among the sources, then I would say go for a local consensus and normal WP:DR — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I concur with what others have said above. We have WP:FILMLEAD that covers this. It is WP:SYNTHESIS to take reliable sources only categorizing the film in one genre and sources categorizing it in another and drawing the novel conclusion that the film is a hybrid genre (or sub-genre or whatever). The first sentence is not the equivalent of a list of all relevant genres in a database entry. We are writing it in prose. That will tend to mean that what goes in the first sentence will be one genre or two connected genres (and I doubt three would be possible because most reliable sources simply don't get that detailed in describing a film). It is simpler and more direct because if having all possible genres in the first sentence is permissible, what is the upper limit? It's possible for there to be five or six or seven parts, which is way too much stuffed upfront. That said, it does not mean we cannot demonstrate other genre-related elements after this. Sometimes horror films have comedic moments throughout without actually being horror comedy films, but we could indicate later in the lead section that it has comedic elements (if reliable sources say so). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi all. This is actually in regards to a dispute on the Knives Out page, see the previous discussion here. Robert McClenon made this post here in response to a DRN request filed by the editor who initiated the dispute, see here. I would like to clarify that the crux of the matter is not really whether two genres should be allowed in the lead, but rather if "comedy mystery" is considered a singular subgenre rather than an arbitrary compound of two genres. If we agree that yes, "comedy mystery" is one genre and not two, then all is well and it is in accordance with WP:FILMGENRE. If not, "comedy mystery" should not be added to the lead. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, currently AllMovie lists the genres of the film as "Comedy, Crime", so if anything, it seems as though it could be appropriate to include comedy and inappropriate to include mystery, but I'm certainly not suggesting we go by one site's designation. DonIago (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Allmovies lists the two main genres as "crime" and comedy" and then lists one of the sub-genres as "crime comedy", so I would certainly be ok with describing it as a "crime comedy". It is listed as a sub-genre (so no synth from us) and the main genres qualify it as the primary sub-genre, as opposed to the other two sub-genres that are listed. It seems like a straightforward solution unless describing it as a "comedy" is an anomaly unique to Allmovie. Betty Logan (talk) 09:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• The primary genre or sub-genre can be a hybrid of sorts (e.g. romantic comedy), but I agree with comments above that we shouldn't be mashing these together unless sources are doing that. For starters, we typically check the genre classification at AFI, BFI, and AllMovie. While there tends to be some variation between them, you can usually find a cross-section of genres to help form a consensus, similar to how this was done for the Shrek franchise (see Primary genre across the franchise). Unfortunately Knives Out is an exception: there is no entry at AFI, BFI calls it a "murder mystery" listing thriller as the genre, and AllMovie lists comedy and crime. No common denominator. So moving on, we can see quite a few RS describing it as a murder mystery, including:

David Sims of The Atlantic – "Knives Out Is No Ordinary Murder Mystery ... While Knives Out is a more straightforward proposition, a murder mystery that ties up every loose end..."

Brian Truitt of USA Today – "Knives Out takes a smart stab at reinventing the murder mystery ... Rian Johnson brings the murder mystery back in vogue"

Clarisse Loughrey of The Independent – Rian Johnson has "fetched the murder mystery out of the attic and shaken off the dust ... It’s refreshing to see a murder mystery actually set in the present day, considering the history of the genre."

From the Britannica Online – "Knives Out (2019), a classic murder mystery leavened with sly social commentary"

And there are dozens more where that came from. To be fair, quite a few also cover the comedic elements, with some going as far as calling it a "comedic mystery", but that is less common. I think I'd favor "murder mystery" or "mystery" as the genre specified in the lead, with "comedic mystery" (not the mish-mash "comedy mystery") coming in as a distant third.

Regarding the talk page discussion, the GA and FA examples given are usually misleading, because they are taking the present state of the article into account. However, you really need to look at the version of the article when it was promoted. That is the version that was peer-reviewed. What you'll find is that the compiled list gets whittled down to the point of becoming irrelevant, not to mention that the film project has evolved significantly since 2009 (the cutoff of when most of those were promoted by). --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding to that, RS would have more due weight than that of catalogue lists like AFI, BFI or AllMovie, if the RS deviate from what is set in the lists — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Mmmm...my understanding was that AFI, BFI and AllMovie are usually considered the best options for genre determination and are considered RS for those purposes. Honestly, I've been hoping there'd be a discussion about updating the MoS in this regard for some time now, though I didn't want to be the one to poke that bear. DonIago (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I have no experience with AFI, BFI and AllMovie but I'd say [film] journalists, [reputed] critics and experts [in the field] gets higher reliability, just like how we determine reliability elsewhere in WP. I didn't find them at MOS:FILM. Are you referring to another MOS page? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

This is similar to what happened (is happening) with M3GAN here. Before the film was released it was regarded as a sci-fi horror/thriller film. Now that the film has been released most critics label it a comedy horror. Those elements are discussed under production and reception, but other editors insist the lead should be 'comedy-horror' since that's what RS were calling it. I changed it per the small discussion (now I see comedy horror has been removed. I'm not going back and forth with it anymore). These genre battles are getting more prominent on new films being released. Mike Allen 15:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The lack of their mention at the MOS is exactly what I was somewhat hoping a discussion might address. If you're unfamiliar with the three sites, I'm confused as to why you're asserting that they're inherently less reliable than the other options you mentioned. DonIago (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The truth is, many film articles do not follow WP:FILMGENRE or other film guidelines. Only articles that receive the most traffic, usually franchise films with large and dedicated fanbases, tend to be watched by enough experienced editors who are familiar with all of the guidelines established by the film project. It is thus easy for FILMGENRE (and FILMRUNTIME, FILMLANG, etc.) violations to be overlooked on articles that are not watched by many experienced editors. For what it's worth, I think M3GAN should be classified as a "horror comedy", that's the genre I've seen being used most widely, and I don't think anyone fully anticipated how much of a laugh riot this turned out to be. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I meant, prefer mainstream journalists+ over AFI+ if and when there is a deviation between them. IMO they are more reliable. But then again as you rightly pointed out, I'm unfamiliar with AFI+ so I could also be wrong ;) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think database genre categorizations should outweigh reviews or post-release coverage from publications and that it should be the other way around. Databases can be a catch-all and rarely singular, and I'm not quite sure that whoever keeps up such databases and categories actually digests each film every time. It seems more likely that the categories are distilled from other sources, so it could be several times removed. Whereas reviews and post-release coverage digest the film more directly and categorize it with more authority. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 04:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Doobledoop: GoneIn60 has demonstrated that many RS's classify Knives Out as a "mystery film". Do you have any evidence that contradicts this, i.e. do you have sources that classify the film as a "comedy film" or a "mystery comedy"? InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

These are three RS's that use variations on the phrase:

Samantha Ibrahim of the New York Post - "The sequel to the 2019 mystery comedy, “Glass Onion,” is set for a Netflix release next month...."

Gary M. Kramer of Salon - "twisty, entertaining film full of red herrings, evil doings, and humor. The comedy-mystery follows Marta (Ana de Armas), who was Harlan’s caregiver."

Clark Collis of Entertainment Weekly - 'The actress had no great expectations for the comedy-mystery-thriller...."

I find it noteworthy that Lionsgate submitted the film in "musical or comedy" to professional awards assocations, though of course that points to only one part of the subgenre.

In terms of the subgnere phrase "comedy mystery," there are also examples regarding the subsequent film, Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery:

Pop Culture Happy Hour, NPR- "There are many secrets at the heart of the comedy mystery Glass Onion...."

Tim Gray of Variety - "The editor, DP, production designer and composer worked hard to make the comedy-mystery look effortless."

Doobledoop (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as I stated earlier, there are some sources out there calling these types of films "comedic mysteries" (or some form of that label). It is a valid option. However, in my search on Knives Out, a clear majority of sources referred to it as simply a "mystery" or "murder mystery". That's only anecdotal of course; someone else's search may show otherwise. However, I do think it's interesting that BFI and Rotten Tomatoes call it a "murder mystery" in their synopsis, as well as the online encyclopedia Brittanica. Although the numbers are useful to look at, the fact that at least one tertiary source also supports "murder mystery" is interesting and worth taking into consideration. Perhaps it's one of those discussions that needs to escalate to a survey of !votes. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Just ran this search on Google News. There are approximately 6,750 hits. If you change "murder mystery" to the other forms mentioned above (i.e. "comedy mystery", "comedic mystery", "mystery comedy"), the total number of hits for all three combined is only about 1,000. Seems like "murder mystery" is the most common. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I think one broader problem we face is that genres in the lead are rarely sourced, at least until they become contentious, so if I see an editor changing a film's genre and it disagrees with what I've seen elsewhere, I have no way of knowing whether their update has any validity or whether they're applying their personal judgment. Typically I'll revert and request a source, but this seems likely to remain a perennial concern unless we begin requiring sources for genres. I honestly have no idea how contentious a proposal that would be, and at nearly-midnight for me it's not something I want to think about. DonIago (talk) 04:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It's the same that I've observed on many film articles in my watchlist. Most of them are unsourced. I personally add sources, at least on the articles that I work on. Requiring others to add sources is already a policy from WP:BURDEN. If they refuse to add sources despite being asked to, then it's a policy violation, and disruption if they continue to do so and can eventually lead to sanctions and/or blocks — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

My point is that if an editor changes an existing unsourced genre to a new, also unsourced, genre, then unless they provided an edit summary (ha) we don't inherently have any concrete way of knowing whether the new genre is more or less valid than the prior genre. I'll do some checking if I'm dubious, but I don't have time or the inclination to scrape the internet to see whether some source somewhere matched the editor's preferred genre classification.

Heck, this very discussion is a good example, where I pointed out that AllMovie's genre classification for Knives Out doesn't match what the article has said to this point. If I'd seen an editor change the genre to what's currently listed, I might have challenged it and requested a source.

That I'm well within my rights to request a source doesn't make me feel better about the possibility that I'm questioning a potentially perfectly valid choice and that there's no real hierarchy we can fall back on, especially if it was an IP editor that made the genre change and who may not be particularly likely to respond to a Talk page message. DonIago (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

There seems be rough consensus to use "mystery" instead of "comedy" or "mystery comedy/comedic mystery", but my core question of whether "comedy mystery" is classified as a singular subgenre or an arbitrary compound of two genres remains unaddressed. Part of the problem I think is that WP:FILMGENRE isn't clear on what it means by "sub-genre". To use M3GAN as an example, are "horror comedy" and "science fiction horror" considered a singular subgenre, or are we mashing two genres together? I'd say probably the former, but what about "martial arts comedy"? "Absurdist comedy-drama"? "Spy action"? "Action drama"? In my opinion, all of those are combinations of two genres and are thus in violation of FILMGENRE, but other editors may disagree. We might need a list of subgenres "officially" recognized by the film project... InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

To me, that language means that a reliable source has labeled the film with so-and-so genre or sub-genre. It's probably possible to verify all two-part genres (or hybrid genres) across the board. In other words, the entirety of the given genre categorization has shown up in a reliable source. So "comedy mystery" is verifiable with a source like NPR using it for Glass Onion. But is it as common in reliable sources as just "comedy" or "mystery"? Unlikely unless the combination is very, very agreed upon, hence the due-weight application. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the purpose of FILMGENRE is to avoid the situation where we are combining multiple genres: one source labels it "action", another labels it "drama", so an editor decides to go with "action drama". Instead, we prefer that sources form the combination for us, and that said combo has widespread support. When that happens, you can reasonably argue that the combo mashup exists as a singular genre or sub-genre, thus satisfying FILMGENRE. As Erik points out, "comedy mystery" is classified by sources for both Knives Out and Glass Onion, albeit to a lesser extent than just "mystery" or "murder mystery". --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

On the topic of genres, I've noticed on Space Jam and Who Framed Roger Rabbit that it opens with live-action/animated (sports comedy or comedy mystery). I don't think the live-action/animated thing is necessary, not in the first sentence anyway, it's something that would be mentioned as part of the production or premise. We don't mention when a live-action film is live-action, and live-action/animated just looks terrible. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 16:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that those opening sentences are among the worst offenders on the genre front, but it probably does need to be mentioned in the lead because in some sense the live action-animation blend is the most prominent aspect of the film. Avatar (2009 film) is probably a good model to follow, where it expands on the 3D techniques and motion capture in the second paragraph. Betty Logan (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Malaikottai Valiban#Requested move 21 January 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Malaikottai Valiban#Requested move 21 January 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret (film)#Requested move 21 January 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret (film)#Requested move 21 January 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Mike Allen 16:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:

year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

• 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
• 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
• FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles

Solar System 2007 FA J. K. Rowling 2007 FA June 26, 2022 TFA Antarctica 2006 FA Joan of Arc 2006 FA Speed of light 2010 FA

All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

• Biology
• Physics and astronomy
• Warfare
• Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

• Literature and theatre
• Engineering and technology
• Religion, mysticism and mythology
• Media
• Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O) Topic area Delisted Kept Total Reviewed Ratio Kept to Delisted (overall 0.62) Remaining to review for 2004–7 promotions Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19 Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67 Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2 Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7 Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0 Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8 Education 22 1 23 0.05 3 Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5 Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3 Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22 Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1 Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5 Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6 History 27 14 41 0.52 38 Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3 Law 11 1 12 0.09 3 Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24 Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3 Media 14 10 24 0.71 40 Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31 Music 27 8 35 0.30 55 Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2 Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24 Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9 Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8 Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44 Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39 Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11 Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23 Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31 Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536 Noting some minor differences in tallies: A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for. B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

• Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
• Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
• Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
• Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
• Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

1. Branded to Kill
2. But I'm a Cheerleader
3. Casino Royale (2006 film)
4. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
5. Jason Voorhees
6. Lage Raho Munna Bhai
7. Mom and Dad (1945 film)
8. Rob-B-Hood
9. Trembling Before G-d
10. Witchfinder General (film)

Requested move at Star Wars (film)

There is a requested move for Star Wars (film) to Star Wars: A New Hope. See the discussion at Talk:Star Wars (film)#Requested move (January 2023). ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Film length

Some IP replaced the (unsourced) runtime for Beauty's Worth (from 112 min. to 75) based on what appears to be an OR calculation and a claim that TCM says so, which it doesn't.[1] All I can find is the number and length of reels, which I've put in place of the actual time. Is that okay? Clarityfiend (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I think so, yes. I have added a link to film reel, where readers can find more information about what the number of film reels (or physical length of film stock, for that matter) says about the actual runtime. TompaDompa (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Since projection speed was only standardized for synchronized sound it seems futile to express silent film length as a specific time. Reels are a far more preferential metric for silent films, if the information is available. Perhaps we should add a line to the infoxbox guidelines? Betty Logan (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Multiple DC-related discussions

 You are invited to participate in the following DC Studios-related discussions:

• Talk:DC Extended Universe § Requested move 31 January 2023
• Talk:DC Universe § Requested move 31 January 2023
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DC Universe (franchise)

 Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Production/distributing companies issues on Rambo 4

Trying avoid an edit war on Rambo (2008 film), so I reverted to the WP:QUO version until consensus is reached. Template:Infobox film states that AFI is a reliable database to use. AFI states that the distributors are Lionsgate, the Weinstein Company and Millennium Films [2]. I have added these edits since they came from a reliable secondary source [3]. However, @IAmNMFlores: reverted these saying that the poster, and his own claims, don't identify Millennium Films as one of the distributors [4]. For those curious, the full billing block is "Lionsgate and the Weinstein Company Present In Association with Millennium Films A Nu Image Production For Equity Pictures Medienfonds GmbH & Co. KG IV", per the poster billing [5]. This Variety review also states the billing block as such, but missing the Weinstein Company. How would we go about listing these to their respective infobox columns? Armegon (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources that identify distributors and production companies, then we use those. A film poster is a last resort for anything, as it's a marketing device and won't include everyone that is involved.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

This was something I brought up months ago, that although AFI is considered reliable, they sometimes present inaccurate info, especially outside their first 100 years.

Some examples:

• The Pirates: Band of Misfits puts Sony Pictures Animation as a distributor.
• Flushed Away has DreamWorks Animation and Aardman as distributors.
• Sinister 2 puts the original Sinister cast who don't appear in this one, put Brian Kavanaugh-Jones as a regular producer, puts IM Global as a distributor, and has Ken Blackwell as an editor.

IAmNMFlores (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not arguing the reliability of AFI; if anything I'm arguing for the non-reliableness of film posters. They are not things that should be used as the path of first resort, nor should they be used to supercede a reliable source that may differ from what they say. Posters are for marketing, they are done by a separate team, and they also frequently contain mistakes or lack certain information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

For cases like these, common sense should apply too where sources mix up distributors and producers. Besides Lionsgate, none of the other companies listed there are actual distributors. Some of them are well known and obvious like Weinstein company nothing was a production company and has never been a distributor. Right now there are very few actual distributors in North America: Disney (also using 20th and Searchlight); Universal (+Focus); Paramount, Sony, Lionsgate, A24. Almost everything else you see listed in addition to one of these is going to be a production or financing company.— Starforce¹³ 19:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, note saying "presents" doesn't translate to distributor. In most cases, both producers and distributors are listed among presenters. In other cases, the producer is the presenter. Like MCU movies will usually say "Marvel Studios presents...." when it's obviously distributed by Disney. — Starforce¹³ 19:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah the "presents" and "in association with" ones can be a little confusing. However sometimes the presenter includes the distributor. One way you can tell if a presenter is simply a distributor is to look at an international poster (ex. For Killing Them Softly, domestic posters says "The Weinstein Company and Inferno presents" but in international ones says simply "Inferno presents"). In the case of Rambo, it says on domestic posters "Lionsgate and The Weinstein Company presents in association with Millennium Films" while internationally says "Millennium Films presents", deducting the former two as simply domestic distributors. IAmNMFlores (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Wait wait. The whole issue here is that AFI’s listing of Millennium Films as one of the distributors is inaccurate, according to you. Yet you admit that Millennium Films distributed the film in international markets, based on your own logic of citing the international poster’s billing block. So AFI’s listing is technically correct and sourcing it as such was justified. Armegon (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I never said Millenium distributed. They were just moved to presenter because the other distributors were presenters. The logos on the bottom of the UK poster show Sony Pictures' logo (which is accurate that theg distubetef there), while in Germnay the WB logo is shown (also accurate). Both for some reason didn't choose to be on the billing block. As I said the "presents" and "in association with" gets confusing. IAmNMFlores (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

No offense but you're making the matter all the more confusing by telling us what your interpretation of "presents" and "in association with" means; where in contrast, AFI's listing already makes it clear to us who the distributers are. Bignole said, and Template:Infobox film also confirms this, to use reliable sources to identify the companies and Template:Infobox film confirms that AFI is reliable. So, the article should reflect AFI's listing. Armegon (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Let me break it down:

• If a studio name in the domestic billing block doesn't appear in international studios' billing block, the studio is indeed only a domestic distributor.
  • In international billing blocks, the presenter may, not always, be replaced with their distributor OR shuffled with another presenter.
• Billing block are very difficult to tell who distributor is if lacked background knowledge.
• As I've proven with other examples, and can find more if needed, AFI is generally reliable, but also has plenty of missing or misinformation which makes it therefore NOT ALWAYS accurate despite being seen as reliable. I'm considering contesting how reliable the site truly is in a separate talk section.

IAmNMFlores (talk) 01:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

But again, we're just going off by your definition of the billing block, "presents" and "in association—". Perhaps AFI may not always have accurate info, but I believe this is the one case where it does have accurate info. Armegon (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Hold up I found another source that lists Lionsgate and The Weinstein Company as distributors here:

• "Weinstein Co is co-distributing Rambo with Lionsgate"
• "They licensed domestic rights to Lionsgate and LGF partnered with TWC"

IAmNMFlores (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems the Deadline source is very clear in this matter. I would use that over the AFI database. Also in my experience researching production data, AFI is not as accurate unless it comes from AFI Catalog of Feature Films (1893-1993). It's best to use as a guide for additional research or second to last resort (behind posters). It appears that Millennium Films is the production company (under Nu Image, which is already listed under studio). Mike Allen 17:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess this issue seems settled. Armegon (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

"Music" field in infobox for a musical film

There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Removal of music composers from infobox. Please feel free to join in. Thanks. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Who could help us make a change in the film infobox? Please. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I have started an RFC here. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Notability on the basis of awards

I've put forward some thoughts at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films) about beefing up and expanding how the guideline defines "notability on the basis of awards" for films, because I find that it's too vague and causes a lot of problems through subjective interpretation. Essentially, I'm suggesting that we be much more explicit that the "majorness" of film awards hinges on reliable sourceability than we currently are, which is really already the rule and just hasn't been formally codified as such in NFILM yet. I haven't put forward an exact wording for what I propose be added to NFILM, but I admittedly got a bit long-winded about explaining some of the considerations that would need to be taken into account.

So accordingly, I'm posting here to request some input and discussion. Bearcat (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ik Jind Ik Jaan#Requested move 20 January 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ik Jind Ik Jaan#Requested move 20 January 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 16:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Extra eyeballs at our MOS page regarding reception?

Hello everyone. Due to a specific IP editor who is determined, I have posed a question on the talk page of our MOS about the possibility of addressing "mixed-to-whatever" and how RT reception scores are reported. The articles that brought this up today both have content in the lead related to this, which is making it harder to edit around. If this was in dispute in an actual reception section, I'd normally just edit out the "mixed" text entirely and jump straight to the scores and reviews. But alas, not the case here. I'd appreciate any input on if we can update the MOS and if so how we should. Cheers. Millahnna (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Project-independent quality assessments. This proposes support for quality assessment at the article level, recorded in {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and inherited by the wikiproject banners. However, wikiprojects that prefer to use custom approaches to quality assessment can continue to do so. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

TSG Entertainment management

So I've started noticing stuff with the people behind TSG Entertainment. It's run mainly by IP users, who after adding films in the article don't source or say anything in their edit summaries. Films that have been released are accurate, but the upcoming releases seem more like crystal ball-ing. They often edit to put the supposed credit on the pages listed too.

Alson they seem confused about the use of the company's and Sony's TSG Entertainment II label. In the end credits of Bullet Train (some reason TSG was removed from both the film and company pages), it says "made in association with TSG Entertainment" while the copyright is to "TSG Entertainment II". I feel like if it was just the latter shown I could accept it being named as is on the infoboxes, but since the former appears it should be credited without the "II".

All in all, just thought we should all be noticed about this. IAmNMFlores (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Neutral notice that Terminator 2: Judgment Day is up for an FA promotion

Per title Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 12:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Runtimes

Just a quick question. Can someone clarify if we round down run-times or round to the nearest full minute? I had always assumed we rounded to the nearest minute (e.g. a film that runs 3:14:36 would round to 195 min, but it is being challenged at Titanic (1997 film). Betty Logan (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Whoever's challenging it clearly has little knowledge about editing film articles, since they're using IMDb as a reliable source when it's widely known it isn't within the film-articles-editing community. They were also uncivil in their edit summary (Take a math class?). Their challenge, both on arguments alone and judging by other factors, isn't to be taken very seriously. —El Millo (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there are other problematic aspects to their edit, I just wanted to clarify the rounding. We should probably make it clear at WP:FILMRUNTIME. Betty Logan (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Once you hit the first second of the next minute, it should be rounded up to that next minute. A film that's 41:03 would be a 42 minute film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know about that. It seems best to me to treat it as any other number and stick to whatever round number is closest to its actual runtime, just as we would do with a box office number. —El Millo (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with that comparison; we definitely shouldn't round $999,999,999 to $1 billion. I can see arguments for rounding runtimes consistently up, consistently down, or consistently to the nearest whole minute. TompaDompa (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, in that exceptional case, we would be doing whatever reliable sources did with that number. In virtually every other case, we would just round up. That could only be comparable to a hypothetical very reduced group of films longer than, e.g. 6 hours and a film that's 5:59 hours long. —El Millo (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

My point was just that rounding requires consideration of context. Sometimes rounding should be done to the nearest number, sometimes rounding should consistently be done up, and sometimes rounding should consistently be done down. And of course sometimes rounding simply shouldn't be done at all. TompaDompa (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I would also tend to agree to use standard rounding techniques as described at MOS:UNCERTAINTY; we should round to the nearest significant number dropping seconds or use the number that is most prevalent in reliable sources (when prevalence can be agreed upon). --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of South Park episodes § "Films"

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of South Park episodes § "Films". The discussion concerns how to list films as episodes for a television series, where films are considered major works and television episodes are considered minor works. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Awards and accessibility under Vector 2022

I noticed in a recent FLC I reviewed that the contrast between cell backgrounds and links did not meet the accessibility guidelines for contrast outlined in MOS:COLOR when the link colors from Vector 2022 are used. Those tables use a different background color from most awards lists, so I went ahead and checked other lists, and similar issues emerge for the yellow-gold hues used in many cases. For instance, the 95th Academy Awards uses a background color of #EEDD82 and Vector 2022's font color for unclicked links is #3366CC, like so: Best Picture. This fails WCAG's AA level. Not every list uses the exact same background color – for instance, the Academy Award for Best Picture article uses #FAEB86, which looks like this – but the accessibility issues are persistent across a range of shades. Since Vector 2010 uses #0645AD for links, the issues aren't present there. (I haven't checked accessibility for clicked links, but I suspect there are similar issues there.)

I suppose there are two questions at hand here: (1) do the background colors need to be changed, and (2) what would be an acceptable alternative? Since we would have to update many articles with new colors, I figured some form of consensus before making changes would be good. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Note: I have shared this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I would personally hold off on any changes to accommodate Vector 2022 until the RfC has concluded. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I considered that, but even if the default returns to Vector 2010, Vector 2022 will remain as an official alternate, so shouldn't we adjust something (either in the skin itself or within articles) to ensure accessibility? As far as I know, accessibility doesn't only apply to the default skin. (Obviously someone could come up with their own CSS or skin with crazy changes that we can't reasonably account for, but this doesn't feel like that.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The RfC is not just about whether to bring back the old default, it's also about what needs to be changed before the community is satisfied with Vector 2022 potentially being a default. The ill-advised changing of link colors is one of the recurring concerns I've seen raised, so I'm hoping the WMF will listen and restore the old link colors. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Vector 2022 uses the same colour (Vector 2010's interwiki link colour) for both interwiki and local links. I'd expect (hope) that this will be reverted if Vector 2022 remains default. Daß Wölf 11:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Or an intadmin could just go to MediaWiki:Vector-2022.css and change the colors back themselves, assuming they get community consensus first. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 05:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

We would need a separate discussion after the RfC closes to justify going behind the WMF's back. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of Cocaine Bear genre

Just informing people of a discussion at Talk:Cocaine Bear#Genre about what genre to call it in the lead. It can use some wider participation. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

"bottom release commitment"

Does anyone know what this is in the film industry?

Context is a film distribution rights being purchased, this is the quote "No money up front, bottom release commitment, and that was it." Tried Googling without success. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

No, i do not know either. But my guess would be something to do with the commitment agreement or maybe following through with a contract. Franklyn101 (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Consensus needed at Hellboy 2019 page

Hellboy (2019 film) is starting to steer towards an edit war. Which version of the lead should remain? Option A or Option B? Option A felt a little rough in need of a polish and that’s what I did but the IP keeps reverting it.

Consensus is desperately needed here to avoid an all-out edit war. Armegon (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Or perhaps we can come up with a third option that everyone agrees to? Armegon (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I think Option B is better. IAmNMFlores (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of CNET

This is a notice that per WP:RSN#Beware: CNet running AI-generated articles, byline "CNet Money", there is consensus that CNET is no longer considered a reliable source. Thank you for your attention. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Creative lists

I am flagging some top film lists here which have entries copied partially or fully from their source publication. I believe the community needs to have a discussion on the inclusion of such content since I feel at least some of them are blatant violations of WP:CLIST. However, I do not mean a discussion on the notability of the list articles itself, though arguments might be extended to address that too.

• 50 Documentaries to See Before You Die
• List of the 100 best films in the history of Ukrainian cinema
• BBC's 100 Greatest Films of the 21st Century
• BBC's 100 Greatest Foreign-Language Films
• List of Czech films considered the best
• Best in Film: The Greatest Movies of Our Time
• BFI Top 100 British films
• Bibliotheca Alexandrina's 100 Greatest Egyptian Films
• Cahiers du Cinéma's Annual Top 10 Lists
• Dallas–Fort Worth Film Critics Association: Top 10 Films
• Top 100 Egyptian films
• International Documentary Association top 25 documentaries
• National Board of Review: Top Ten Films
• National Board of Review: Top Ten Independent Films
• Sight and Sound
• The Sight & Sound Greatest Films of All Time 2012
• The Sight and Sound Greatest Films of All Time 2022
• The 100 Greatest Films of Argentine Cinema
• Time Out 100 best British films
• Top 10 Canadian Films of All Time
• Vatican's list of films

Note: Not including the lists from AFI 100 Years... series here since WP:TOP100 mentions that they are under suitable reuse license. Jovian Eclipse (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists. Jovian Eclipse (talk) 11:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Film short descriptions

Hello - I've seen many films have been given a short description in the format "[year] film by [director]" - this looks like a mass-add action that was done some years ago. Is there an easy way to request a bot to change this format to read "[year] film directed by [director]"? This would give sufficient context for non-film experts to understand what it means for a film to be "by" someone and would also correct a bias toward auteurism in our presentation of film information. Chubbles (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

This is currently auto generated by {{Infobox film}} and {{Infobox film/short description}}. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

And let's make it clear not to include a list of genres, please. Mike Allen 17:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Let me expand. I incorrectly remembered what the infobox auto generates. The short description there will in essence give the SD of "<year> <country> film". That is the current consensus for the project. Any other descriptions have overridden this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah, okay - is that a recent consensus? I am seeing some of the additions I was altering are 3-4 years old. Chubbles (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

A quick archive search pulls up [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_74#Short_descriptions this from December 2019 on this talk], and there was also [Template_talk:Infobox_film/Archive_32#Short_description_tweak_needed this on the infobox talk]. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Disruption by two IPs

I noticed that two IPs are making unconstructive and disruptive edits to various mockbuster-related articles, them being User:87.242.213.130 and User:88.111.88.121. I don't have the energy to look though all their edits so I hope someone here wants to do this. Thanks, Carpimaps (talk) 11:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television has an RFC

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Further opinions on article merger would be appreciated

Currently, there is a proposed merger of Libraries and librarians in fiction and Librarians in popular culture to a new page entitled Libraries and librarians in culture. But, it has been inactive since July 2022, so it would be great to get some more eyes on it, so there can a clearer consensus before moving forward. Thanks! Historyday01 (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of status of prestige films

There is a discussion on Talk:Prestige picture#Downfall discussion about how the wording of the article’s last paragraph can be improved. The sentence “in which audience behavior towards these types of films was altered into viewing them as Oscar bait, resulting in moviegoers refusing to see them in theaters” implies audiences did not see the films because of their perception as Oscar bait, though this was not stated in the articles referenced. The discussion can use some wider input from those familiar with the subject. Spectrallights (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Using trailers to verify cast lists

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force § Using trailers to verify cast lists

In Bagheera (film) and at the articles for actors Yuvarani and Yashika Aannand, two versions of the film's trailer are being cited to verify that they are in the film. Note that one trailer is from October 2021 and the other is from March 2023. It is not unusual for a trailer to include scenes and actors who do not appear in the final cut of the film. So far, I have not been able to find any published reliable sources to verify those actors are in the film.

My question for this community is: "Are trailers, on their own, suitable sources to verify an actor's appearance in a film?"  — Archer1234 (t·c) 19:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

References

 — Archer1234 (t·c) 20:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Not unless their names appear (e.g. in a billing block). Otherwise I'd consider it falling under OR, but shouldn't it be not difficult to find secondary sources that note their appearances? Nardog (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

shouldn't it be not difficult to find secondary sources that note their appearances? That's what I thought, but was not able to find anything. There are a lot of unreliable sources in the Indian cinema world, so it takes a fair amount of effort, sometimes, to find a source that is usable and that verifies the cast, especially for those that are not top-billed. The film was just released so maybe more sources will report on it.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 20:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Archer1234: There should be a different criteria for Indian films, imo. These films are filled with a ton of characters with names. If you want a source, you can cite the film's end credits (where her name would appear). It is difficult to find reliable sources other than the film itself. Also with Indian films (due to their length of 2 hours+) characters that appear in the trailer are in the film (the end credits in the film itself can be used for confirmation). DareshMohan (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I would note that even though this is the English Wikipedia and English sources are preferred, non-English ones are permitted provided they meet WP:RS citeria. Betty Logan (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Trailers should generally not be used to cite cast members. For an upcoming release, while it still shouldn't be used, in theory it could be a last resort if there truly are no reliable sources covering that person's inclusion. As noted, that would ultimately need to be replaced once the film has released or another source comes out that can be used confirming their inclusion in the final film. For films that have since released, there are better options than the marketing trailers to cite a cast member, such as the film itself and its cast list if necessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

As the film Yesterday proved, no , we can't use trailers for cast lists. --Masem (t) 05:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Just launched Talk:List of Asian Academy Award winners and nominees#Merger request about a merger with List of Academy Award winners and nominees of Asian descent. Your input would be appreciated. QuietHere (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Help with reverting page move

An editor has moved Under the Skin (2013 film) to Under the Skin (2014 film), but this is incorrect as, as explained in the article, the film premiered in 2013. I'm unable to revert the move — can anyone assist? Popcornfud (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Bloody Hell (2023 film)

Bloody Hell (film) is about a 2020 film. A 2023 film of the same name was premiered at the South by Southwest festival and has a 100% Tomatometer rating at Rotten Tomatoes. Should we put up a stub and a disambiguation page, moving the current Bloody Hell (film) to Bloody Hell (2020 film)? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

If it's got coverage in reliable sources, sure. It was reviewed in Variety, so signs point to yes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ssilvers Yes, please do. I see several reviews - Variety, The Daily Beast, Collider - to start with — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The Rock

The cast layout in the film The Rock should be talked about. I don't agree with the changes done by Jmg38. This diff cast section is what I think it should have since it has more notable actors who have uncredited cameos and such. Jmhh38 made the cast section like this, which takes away some necessary details needed in the cast sections. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Changed as explained in edit summary "MOS:CASTLIST - cast and order per closing tombstone stand-alone credits, roles per closing credits scroll", and further discussed in notes shared w/BattleshipMan, per longer explanation at MOS:CASTLIST that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". The edit made does already include "in addition" of characters played by actors Stuart Wilson (a strong representation of secondary military/Pentagon bit players) and David Marshall Grant (a strong representation of secondary executive branch bit players), as these two characters have longer narration than others in those two "sidebar areas" of the plot. This covered the collective high level aspects happening away from the director/producer's main cast of the plot, as defined by them in the main credits – the main cast driving plot at the prison and at the police/FBI/SEAL situation control center near the prison. A brief appearance from non-main credits performers – such as character actor Stanley Anderson, late in the film, or Anthony Clark, the barber for a lead character – are not "notable actors" nor plot synopsis "necessary details". Thus, all actors included in the main credits, plus two (not 15, as in original edit) of the more screen time/dialogue plot-representative actors from the remaining scroll, are included. Not brief appearances of barbers. Jmg38 (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Those credited in the billing block or main titles should be in a bulleted list, and everyone else should go in an "additionally" paragraph underneath. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

InfiniteNexus, by "everyone else should go in an "additionally" paragraph underneath", that would mean 64 actors listed in the cast section, with 14 bulleted main titles credited actors and 50 more closing scroll actors in the paragraph. Per MOS:CASTLIST that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", you do mean everyone else of note, beyond the main titles credits? If so, that has already happened, 14 bulleted main titles credited actors plus two notable "In addition" actors in the paragraph, as discussed in my comment above. Jmg38 (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Not everybody listed in the end credits, everybody who is notable. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jmg38: I pretty much agreed with InfiniteNexus. People are who are notable should also be listed in credits also. You act like you're dominating this wiki with your rule sticker ways and the messages you sent make you look like a robot. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

BattleshipMan, be calm and cool. Only looks dominating because it is a one sided conversation. You have not entered the discussion yet, only asked others to impose Admin rulings or asked others to arbitrate. Nothing to arbitrate until long after you step up with suggestions on who amongst the other 50 non-main credit actors should be included, and even then the help of others comes into play only if you and I are still in different places (though they have provided helpful guidance already in a number of threads you have started on this issue). I’ve laid out, in all the places you started this discussion, what criteria – rules and otherwise, such as including a couple of particular extras and the exclusion of the other bit players, such as the barber and the character actor who appears briefly near end of film – I followed in doing the edit. Still waiting for you to slow up on canvassing (the concern an admin raised, before they closed the AN) and actually enter this discussion with input on which secondary actors, their impact on plot, the major cameos by Academy Award winners, or whatever else is behind your thoughts, for a potential few more that might go in the "In addition… " paragraph, beyond "status quo" of original much longer list. Jmg38 (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

"In association with"

So I had been under the impression that a company labeled with the "in association with" credit was automatically applicable to the production companies section, of the infobox. However, a user claims that I shouldn't have put them there because it doesn't specifically labeled as "production company".

The two examples were (both British Film Institute sources):

• Hulk where Marvel Enterprises is put under "in association with", leading me to find some other source.
• Dawn of the Dead which puts Toho-Towa and Metropolitan Filmexport under "produced in association with", which also left me confused as it specifically put "produced".

These companies are definitely involved, and those credited with "in association with" have never been distributors and had usually been paired with other production companies for the longest time here like common practice, but I was wondering what y'all think. IAmNMFlores (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I've had disputes with this. Template:Infobox film says to use secondary sources, specifically databases. The problem with this is that many secondary sources inaccurately bundle a certain company or studio as one of the production companies and is typically not the case. When I disputed the issue at Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019 film), I argued that Legendary Pictures is the sole production company credited as such in the billing credits and that the infobox should reflect that.

But per Template:Infobox film, they added Toho and Wanda Qingdao Studios as the production companies (per a Variety review), despite the fact that Toho is only given an "associating with" credit and Wanda Qingdao Studios is never mentioned in the billing credits nor is it a production company, it's a filming facility.

I'd say there should be a complete reform on how production companies should be listed in the infobox (just use the poster billing block or the film's opening credits). But I doubt anyone is eager or enthusiastic as I am to make that change. Armegon (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I like that we can use secondary sources to point out uncredited production companies, but if there was a reform I feel they should be marked separately from the rest in some way. I also feel like those in credited under "in association with" must've produced a significant amount if they were to be named anyways so I feel they should be included anyways. IAmNMFlores (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the "In association with" credit automatically denotes a production company. It could also denote a financier or a rights-holder (which IIRC was the case with Hulk because Marvel had sold the film rights and wasn't actively involved in production), so drawing an inference from ambiguous text would be original research. The "In association with" credit is a bit like the "executive producer" credit—they can both denote a wide range of involvement. Sometimes secondary sources can get this things wrong so we shouldn't follow them blindly, but we must also avoid leaping to conclusions as far as primary sources are concerned. Betty Logan (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I guess it's just confusing since it's sandwiched with the distributors and production companies, like it's in limbo. There should probably be an "in association with" section or something IAmNMFlores (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I think you can add "in association with" in the lead. In the case of HULK (2003), it can read like "the film was a co-production between Valhalla Motion Pictures and Good Machine, in association with Marvel Enterprises." Or add a footnote in the infobox. Either way, both options are neither supported nor condemned by Wiki's guidelines/rules. Armegon (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm a bit late with this, but this article here goes into details about how funding works with these kind of credits. I believe different countries have their own rules on if a film can be claimed as part of the main country of production depending on how much finances were donated though. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Great info. Thanks for the PDF! Mike Allen 02:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I miss you 174.251.208.74 (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

A Link or Heading for info on Film's soundtracks and their writers?

I would love to see more information about the music in films when I look them up 2.103.49.55 (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

RfC on Creative lists

Would request editors to check the above section on #Creative lists which points towards possible policy violations. Multiple articles in Category:Top film lists may constitute policy violations of WP:CLIST and WP:TOP100. Jovian Eclipse (talk) 11:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Please word this better and present a proposal (why you've put this up as an RfC) and/or a solution. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Thanks for your suggestion. Tried to improve it. Jovian Eclipse (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Better, but still not specific enough so editors don't really know what to discuss. What do you want to point out, change, or accomplish with this RfC? Maybe blank this one and start over? thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: The discussion that I am looking forward to is mainly supposed to concern about how much copying (if any) must be allowed from lists which are inarguably non-factual and meant to represent the subjective opinions of a person or a group. I have explained my case in further detail in the above section #Creative lists. I hope editors also take notice of that. Will wait for others to comment. Jovian Eclipse (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I still don't really know what I'm discussing, even after reading the above. An RfC isn't just "be aware that there is a discussion ongoing / a topic needs to be discussion" but presents, like, some sort of proposed goal that is being discussed OR a matter of contention. It generally requires a discussion having taken place first, which clearly did not happen. It's inappropriate to open an RfC just to alert editors to something, and I think you should read WP:RFCBEFORE. And, again, I genuinely don't know what the matter at hand is even with the context of the above section. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe Jovian Eclipse is seeking confirmation on whether list articles in the list above should include the list items themselves. As this is a problem of non-free content, it is not a question for an RfC, though I appreciate that JE was seeking to draw eyeballs to the potential problem.

I have removed the RfC tag, and because I am not certain about the answer to JE’s question, and because this is not the best forum for the question, I strongly urge posting the same list and asking the question at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Something like “Do these lists violate WP:TOP100 or WP:CLIST?" will do. — HTGS (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Took my own advice: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 73#Potential violation of TOP100 and CLIST — HTGS (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@HTGS: Truly appreciate your help. Yeah, I wasn't aware of the right forum where I should have taken up this issue. Jovian Eclipse (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

FAR for But I'm a Cheerleader

I have nominated But I'm a Cheerleader for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It’s a rather thin article for FA, I’d have thought? MapReader (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It was promoted in 2007, when article standards across the board were much lower. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Notice of RfC re: Gene Kelly

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gene_Kelly#RfC_about_description_in_opening_of_article_and_infobox . -- Softlavender (talk) 06:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:John_Wick_(film)#Ford_Mustang_Mach_1

Talk:John_Wick_(film)#Ford_Mustang_Mach_1

Could I please get some neutral input on the above discussion involving myself and DiogenesNY. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• Commented. TompaDompa (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Allfilm

I don't know if this was a prank call from Allmovie.com, but allmovie has been listing the films with strange genres, for example, The Shining as an Action and Adventure film. Firefoxhd (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Their genre classifications appear to have become totally screwed up. Apparently, The Godfather was a crime film, but now it's a Drama thriller. Clearly this is not an improvement, and neither is the change to The Shining. I don't dare to look up Schindler's List. There really isn't much we can do about this, but I hope editors will have the good sense to not start adding unrelated genres to film articles. Hopefully this will be fixed in the next few days. Betty Logan (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Is a long string of 'micro-edits' disruptive?

I asked this at WT:DE yesterday but haven't heard back yet: Could other editors (perhaps admins) take a look at the editing history for 2012 (film) and advise as to whether the recent edits to the plot summary constitute disruptive editing? It's an exceedingly long string of what I'd call 'micro-edits' unaccompanied by edit summaries, and I personally find it nearly impossible to determine the net effect of the editor's changes or anticipate when they intend to be finished. I left them a note at their Talk page but I don't believe they've responded. I'm not pinging that editor at this time in case the prevailing view is that this doesn't constitute disruptive editing. Thanks for your input! DonIago (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

You can compare revisions to see the net changes made. I have seen this habit before, I'm curious if they're doing lots of small edits to hit autoconfirmed status. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 19:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Doubtful, as they're not a new editor. I agree in principle, but at this point we're talking about dozens or hundreds of small edits over days. Rollback wouldn't even be a practical option (not that I'm advocating for it) as other editors have slipped in other changes in the meantime. DonIago (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

If you had to, I would open a tab comparing the version from before the changes to the most recent, and in another tab edit the last good version and just put back in positive changes made by other editors. Oh wait, it's NeoBatFreak, yeah he does that. Straight away there are things like easter egging "Global catastrophic risk" behind "sequence of events" that need to go. He does tend to make constant micro edits to plot sections, I assume it's not malicious based on his history, just not focused enough to make one large edit. He does have a habit of WP: OR. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I was honestly considering whether this merits an ANI filing, especially as I did leave them a note at their Talk page that they've seemingly either failed to notice or openly ignored; I was coming here first (after trying at WT:DE) because if there was a strong sense that their edits are entirely above-board then I would try to let it go, but if they're slipping in OR in the process and it gets buried in the ream of tiny edits, that's a problem. Pinging NeoBatfreak (talk · contribs) so that they can weigh in at this point. DonIago (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I was trying to trim unnecessary details per Wikipedia plot rules. RIGHT NOT IT IS LESS TGAN 662 WORDS. NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The edits look reasonable to me at first glance. I think Doniago's concern is that the sheer quantity of your edits makes it difficult to evaluate what you have done. Is there a reason why you save your edits every few minutes? If you need to evaluate your work as you go along then the "Preview" function may be a better choice than saving every few minutes, and that will help prevent the edit history from becoming clogged up. Betty Logan (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I keep forgetting, and i will try to remember. It just I don't think we need excessive details, otherwise reader would have difficulty reading them. NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

But...your edits aren't really trimming excessive details, that I can see? As you said, right now the plot summary is ~660 words, which is still pretty hefty when the generally accepted maximum is 700. In any case, I think most editors would prefer fewer, well-summarized edits to the large number of small-scale edits that you're making without any clear indication as to your goal or at least an ETA...especially when, as has been noted, you may be inserting original research in the process. I've seen you do this in other articles as well, but not on the scale that you've been doing so here. Thank you for responding here and for understanding our concerns. If you'd like to speak up here or at my Talk page when you're done, I'd be happy to take a look over it. DonIago (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

One of Wikipedia's greatest strengths is its revision control system, and think it's fine to use it at whatever granularity that an editor is comfortable with. If it's other behavior that's the problem, such as including OR or the lack of edit summaries, then that should be the focus. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it kind of goes hand in hand...singular or small numbers of edits without edit summaries are easy to review for potential issues, but large numbers of non-consecutive edits make it harder to tell what's going on and whether or not there's any problems, especially when unaccompanied by edit summaries. DonIago (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I am going to stop; when I started it the summary was full of grammatic errors and even said " Adrian begs..." which was not accurate and suspecting it a racial attack on Chiwetel Ejiofor and his character. I AM GOING TO LEAVE IT TO Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors NeoBatfreak (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Notability of unreleased films

Comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)#Clarification on notability of films currently filming/in post-prod. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Hashtag in title issue

I am creating a draft article for the announced film Juror #2. However I am being prohibited from creating the draft in the correct namespace due to the hashtag being unsupported. Presently, I have it located at Draft:Juror No. 2, if there's a means of titling it to accurately reflect it's title, I would like to see that done. Rusted AutoParts 16:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

There isn't. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)#Forbidden characters. Nardog (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll keep it at the No. 2 and specify its stylized with a hashtag. Rusted AutoParts 17:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

If it can be useful, Action Comics 1 is a thing Redjedi23 (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm supportive of the "No. 2" approach. In spoken language, jurors (in the US, which is the scope of the film) are commonly referred to as "juror number X". (Comics too, in my experience, but I'm not going to go there if there's an already established convention.) Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Possible overcategorization?

I think this may be getting a bit out of hand... Category:English-language adventure drama films, Category:English-language fantasy drama films, Category:English-language Christmas comedy films NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The categorization of film articles has essentially become useless thanks to over-use of diffusing and intersecting categories. For example, you used to be able to bring up a list of Swedish films from 2016 using this "incategory" search, but now it's impossible to do. It is impossible to carry out very basic searches these days, which arguably renders categorization pointless. I used to push back against unhelpful diffusion and pointless intersecting categories but I just can't be bothered any more. Betty Logan (talk) 05:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

It's technically possible to use bots to fix categorization issues. That said, this has gone unchecked for so long that the number bot runs required to undo it all would probably be unrealistic. I'm not really sure what to do. Maybe all we can do is just complain about the modern world like a bunch of grumpy fossils? Music was better back before you kids were born, and you could go shopping with a single coin in your pocket and buy something! NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

You can also use WP:CFD to nominate these for upmerge (deletion). Gonnym (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Jason Voorhees headings

There is discussion on the appropriate headings for on the Jason Voorhees article. If anyone would like to weigh in, your input would be welcome. here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Spelling of Blane McDonough/McDonnagh's last name in the Pretty in Pink film

I've started a discussion on the spelling of Blane McDonough/McDonnagh's last name from the film Pretty in Pink talk page at Talk:Pretty in Pink#Spelling of Blane McDonough/McDonnagh's last name if anyone would like to weigh in to reach consensus. Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 02:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• Commented. TompaDompa (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Future film template

Is there a template for future films to slap on drafts so they don't get moved into main article space before their time? - UtherSRG (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Template:Film draft notice may help. Mike Allen 00:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Bingo! Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@UtherSRG: It won't help prevent someone coming by and trying to go through the article creation method, but it's something to point to if tried. Also within {{Draft article}}, use |noafc=yes, as that will suppress the "submit article button". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Understood. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Duplicate film articles

Resolved

We have a duplicated film topic. The Verse of Us and Iron Moon are the same film -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 04:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Western film (genre)#Requested move 25 April 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Western film (genre)#Requested move 25 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Anyone want to watch Blood Ransom?

I just cleaned up the Blood Ransom article, but it's not really my kind of film and the plot section needs a rewrite. Posting here in case anyone feels like watching a schlocky thriller vampire romance film. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

User_talk:Audiblefeast#April_2023

Would anyone be available to help a film director sort out what they're trying to do with an original film, recent directors' cut? The film in question is The Misadventures of the Dunderheads and there is some confusion about how to move forward. They're trying to edit within policy, and the second account was an accident. I'm not sure how to proceed as I don't edit in this content area and wasn't ure where else to send them. The PROD was challenged, but I don't feel comfortable at AfD given that I'm not sure how directors' cuts are handled with regard to the original film. Thanks! Star Mississippi 02:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Useless superhero character articles

I support superhero character articles, but... Is an article about Victor Stone (DC Extended Universe) or Steppenwolf (DC Extended Universe) necessary? I’m afraid it might be funcruft. What do you think about it? Redjedi23 (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Well this is funny, we were just discussing this at WT:MCU#Mystique (film series character)‎. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I will say that in those two cases it is a bit unnecessary, since they both appeared in essentially one film (two very versions of one film), and all the information on them can be contained within the articles on that film. —El Millo (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I've always looked at the growing Category:DC Extended Universe characters with concern, and I have suggested adopting a guideline similar to MCUCHARACTERS in the past (see Talk:DC Extended Universe/Archive 9#Naming superheroes), but that didn't happen. Courtesy ping @WuTang94, who created most of the DCEU character articles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I would agree with this. Neither of those characters would come close to qualifying for an article under our MCU criteria, which requires multiple substantial and/or tentpole appearances. BD2412 T 05:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't realize how many pages were in Category:DC Extended Universe characters. I'd argue Victor Stone, Steppenwolf, and the majority in the category probably don't need pages. But I'm also basing it on the MCU character requirements, which doesn't currently affect DC characters. -- Zoo (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Redjedi23 BD2412 While Steppenwolf and Victor Stone/Cyborg only had starring appearances in one work plus the director's cut of that work (and were given brief cameo appearances in another), the two characters' development were both notably affected by the troubled production of Justice League and were very different in the director's cut, and arguably are very different than their comics counterparts. Despite my initial hesitation in creating their pages but due to the unusual circumstances regarding their characters behind the scenes, I went ahead and created their pages.

The same argument could be made about Heath Ledger's Joker from The Dark Knight and Michelle Pfiefer's Selina Kyle/Catwoman, as both of those characters only appeared in that one film and no other films in their respective film series, but were still one of the most influential versions of the character in film history. These two would also fail the MCU standards, but there is merit to keeping their pages due to how influential they were in the real world.

If you guys really want to delete the pages, then I'd redirect to their sections in Characters of the DC Extended Universe, but move the content on their development to Production of Justice League (film). I would then also argue that many of the pages for other DC-related film characters, such as most of the character pages from the Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher Batman series (aside from Michael Keaton's Bruce Wayne / Batman) and General Zod (1978 film series character) and Supergirl (1984 film character) from the Donner/Salkind Superman series, would also then fail if Steppenwolf and Victor Stone fail using the current MCU criteria. Many of these in my opinion are unnecessary not just because they only appeared in one but have little to no real-world application. If you want my opinion of which pages I think are unnecessary I can provide a list. I'd also be careful of simply applying the MCU standards to all film characters, as you cannot simply compare apples to oranges.

InfiniteNexus The way I see it, the upcoming DC Universe, which is a reboot of the DCEU, will essentially be a different franchise, as all characters aside from Amanda Waller and select others will be a new incarnation from their DCEU counterparts. Thus a new category of DCU characters should be created, as the DCEU will not continue past this year and Characters of the DC Extended Universe likewise won't keep growing after Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom.--WuTang94 (talk) 07:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, we shouldn’t have either the Zod (both DCEU and Donnerverse) or the Supergirl page. Anyway, it should be ok to move the content of the Cyborg and Steppenwolf pages to the JL production one. I also think that we should define criteria for this kind of page, or we will get pages like Matt Murdock (2003 film character) one day. Redjedi23 (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Who knows, maybe Marvel will let Ben Affleck reprise his role from the 2003 film one day in a number of future MCU films, which would then allow the character to pass MCU standards... just kidding, that's WP:CRYSTAL, and as currently stands, I agree with you that there isn't enough material or notability on Affleck's Murdock/Daredevil to spin off from Daredevil (2003 film) or Daredevil (Marvel Comics character).

I think that the three appearances or more/starring role threshold that the wiki pages for Marvel's characters currently have is a good starting point, but would also argue that the distinctiveness/influence/social commentary/behind-the-scenes details of certain character portrayals that currently don't meet this criteria, such as any of the Jokers (yes, even Jared Leto's portrayal and, as I would argue, Arthur Fleck from Joker), arguably both Zods (the DCEU iteration will meet the three-appearance threshold by the time The Flash is released), Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor, and Danny Devito's Oswald Cobblepot/Penguin are notable enough to merit articles. Even Amber Heard's Mera, which won't meet the threshold until later this year, was notable due to Heard's controversial standing with Warner Bros. and the fanbase, though I can also see where it may be a bit iffy.

Other ones such as 1984 Supergirl, as well Vicki Vale, Poison Ivy, and Mr. Freeze from the Burton/Schumacher series (maybe even Jim Carrey's Riddler and Chris O'Donnell's Dick Grayson/Robin from that series, though I also see some value in those two), can be redirected in my opinion, unless the articles clarify why those performances were notable.

Either way, I'll revisit some of the other DCEU character pages such as Lois Lane (DC Extended Universe), and to answer InfiniteNexus's concern about why I haven't implemented a more organized system for the DCEU, I've been quite busy in real life and hadn't had as much time to devote to it. I'd be welcome to any help/advice in this regard, and also see merit in establishing a standard for the DCU once it picks up steam. WuTang94 (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

If there is to be a project-wide guideline, it wouldn't be exactly the same as MCUCHARACTERS. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

If we're talking about a project-wide guideline for separate articles on specific film-series adaptations of characters with articles on their original media versions, then I think it should not look too different from the MCU guidelines. BD2412 T 05:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the Joker from the Dark Knight is notable, but I don’t think that the two Zods, Lois Lane and Lex Luthor are encyclopedic. The information about the Amber Heard controversy might be put on the “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” page. Maybe we should define new criteria because there are some characters with a single apparition (i.e. Joker from The Dark Knight) more relevant than characters with 3+ apparitions (i.e. DCEU Zod). But this is just my opinion, maybe the MCU criteria could work for any other franchise, the important is that we decide to establish criteria. Redjedi23 (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Imo, we can start with these criteria (based on WP:MCUCHARACTERS):

• Notable original character.
• Character that has appeared with a titular/lead role in at least three films.

Any other case must be discussed in this Wikiproject.

I’m pretty sure that we have to change the criteria that I have just proposed, so let me know what you think about it. Redjedi23 (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like a good start, but rather than "three titular/lead roles", I think we should go with "three non-cameo appearances, including one in lead or titular capacities". InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

It should be fine. In this way we can keep pages such as Magneto (film character) (imo a notable character). Redjedi23 (talk) 08:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so for clearness the proposed criteria are:

• Notable original character.
• Character with three non-cameo appearances.

Any other case must be discussed in this Wikiproject.

What do you change? Redjedi23 (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a good start, but I'd also like to propose a third criterion (or rather a subset of "notable original character") being "notable interpretation of a character", especially if a certain interpretation is talked about and unique. This way, Heath Ledger's Joker, who really only had one appearance in film, can fit into this category.

For the "three appearances" criteria, would comics appearances count towards this?

Also, would these be DC-specific criteria, or for film characters in general? WuTang94 (talk) 05:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I guess these are for film characters in general. For the three appearances maybe, if it’s a tie-in I wouldn’t count the appearance, but if it is a notable comic book (such as Smallville Season 11) maybe it can be ok to count that appearance. Redjedi23 (talk) 08:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a comic appearance should count. Comics are not nearly as widespread as films and television currently. —El Millo (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I also agree comic appearances should not count, only film. Instead of "notable original character", I think we can just change it to "character has received extensive coverage and commentary from reliable sources". I'm hoping this guideline will be project-wide and cover everything from DC to X-Men to other adaptations (e.g. hypothetical spinoffs from Hercule Poirot, Alita (Battle Angel Alita), etc.) InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Survey

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

---

Should the following text be added to WP:NFILM or WP:NFICT regarding articles about film or television characters adapted from another medium or work?

If a film or television character was adapted from another medium or work, and the original incarnation of the character already has an article, a new article should not be created for the adptated version unless one of the following criteria has been met:

• This interpretation of the character has received extensive coverage and commentary from reliable sources. For example: Joker (The Dark Knight).
• This interpretation of the character has made three or more non-cameo appearances, including one in a lead or titular capacity. For example: Bruce Wayne (Dark Knight trilogy).

Please note that simply meeting the criteria above does not automatically mean an adapted character should have their own article. Before creating an article in the mainspace or moving a draft to the mainspace, please discuss on the draft's talk page, the film or television series' talk page, or relevant WikiProject talk pages to ensure the character is notable to justify a split of the original incarnation's article. Please also note that some franchises, such as the Marvel Cinematic Universe task force's WP:MCUCHARACTERS, have franchise-specific criteria which expand on this guideline.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support per the discussion above. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per the discussion above. Redjedi23 (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, I have a question. I the text will be added to NFILM, what we will do with the existing articles (such as General Zod (1978 film series character))? Redjedi23 (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  A discussion should be held here to determine whether to send those to draftspace, or a mass AfD should be started. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you. After the suvery I can try to report here all the articles that shouldn't meet the criteria. Redjedi23 (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for looking into this. I already have an idea of what to do with certain articles, such as potentially merging the two Zod articles into one such as General Zod in film, but we'll discuss then.--WuTang94 (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support per the discussion above. -- Zoo (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
• Generally support per the above. It's good to finally define standards for these articles, especially the one on extensive coverage.--WuTang94 (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment – I haven't really been following this discussion, but I just noticed WP:NFILM (a guideline) was crossed off, leaving only WP:NFICT (an essay). Was this discussed somewhere outside of an edit summary? I assume others are aware that essays don't have any teeth? If the goal is to eventually make changes to NFILM, it would be best to have the discussion at its talk page beforehand. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm aware NFILM is a guideline and NFICT is an essay, but I crossed NFILM off because that page seems to solely cover articles about individual films and not anything else (not film series articles, not soundtrack articles, and not character articles). Is that not correct? InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  The opening mentions "film-related" articles and topics, which would include examples being discussed here, although the rest of the guideline seems to be focused on film-only examples. The focus on the page may have diverted at some point, not sure, but ultimately an essay isn't going to enact any real change. Editors are free to ignore essays. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment – Pinging @BD2412, SNUGGUMS, Facu-el Millo, and Gonnym, who participated in the above discussion and/or the one at WT:MCU. Do you support this proposal? InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah sounds fine. I agree that this should be added to the film guideline (and cross linked from the essay) as an essay does not have any real meaning. If at any point in the future the essay becomes a guideline, then this can then move there. Gonnym (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support, provided that it is understood that being a part of a titular team (e.g., in the Justice League, Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, Defenders) constitutes a titular role. With respect to General Zod (1978 film series character), I'd be willing to bet that the character did in fact receive extensive coverage in reliable sources, probably primarily in books in print rather than websites. BD2412 T 17:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  We will probably need to AfD that article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  I poked around a bit looking for sources on that one and found that the results were a bit one-note, so I don't disagree. BD2412 T 04:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• We simply don't need more than one article for the same fictional character period, regardless of what incarnations they spawn, and I oppose the proposal's implication that those from Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy deserve some special exceptions/treatment. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's not giving it any special treatment. Ledger's portrayal of Joker was critically acclaimed and widely discussed by sources, and Bale headlined three films that were also critically acclaimed and widely discussed by sources. They are clearly notable for their own articles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Advocating for them to have separate pages actually is by itself a form of special treatment (or at the very least wanting to give this for them). I'm not going to sugarcoat how their existence is fancruft when the essentials can sufficiently be summed up with respective general Batman/Joker articles. Let's not be overly lenient here. Neither acclaim nor the sheer number of references can mask how unnecessarily redundant such pages are. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• The treatment is commensurate with the extensive coverage in reliable sources given to the medium-specific aspects of these characters as film characters portrayed by actors. There is nothing here that compares unfavorably with the coverage in Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama and US Senate career of Barack Obama as subjects separate from Barack Obama as a biography. BD2412 T 17:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support the proposal, it seems reasonable, it includes articles we already deem independently notable and it puts the threshold reasonably high yet reachable. —El Millo (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  Characters that might not meets the criteria:

  DCEU

  • Zod (DC Extended Universe)
  • Barry Allen (DC Extended Universe) (we do not count JL and ZSJL as two separate installments, right?)
  • Victor Stone (DC Extended Universe)
  • Steppenwolf (DC Extended Universe)
  • Lois Lane (DC Extended Universe)
  • Lex Luthor (DC Extended Universe)
  • Mera (DC Extended Universe)
  • Bruce Wayne (DC Extended Universe) (BvS and JL/ZSJL should be his only two non-cameo appearance)
  • Amanda Waller (DC Extended Universe) (not sure about that)

  Other DC characters

  • General Zod (1978 film series character)
  • Supergirl (1984 film character)

  Are there any characters that I forgot? Redjedi23 (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  Affleck's appearance in The Flash is not a cameo, and JL counts as a lead role. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  You're right. But does ZSJL counts as a different appearance than JL? Redjedi23 (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  I would say no. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, there are also:

  Sony

  • Gwen Stacy (The Amazing Spider-Man film series)
  • Otto Octavius (film character)
  • Harry Osborn (Sam Raimi film series)
  • Norman Osborn (Sam Raimi film series)
  • Mary Jane Watson (Sam Raimi film series)
  • Venom (Sony's Spider-Man Universe)

  Fox

  • Peter Maximoff

  Redjedi23 (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Maximoff was in three X-Men films (effectively as a member of the X-Men throughout), with celebrated scenes in two, plus cameos in two other media (a blink-of-an-eye appearance in Deadool 2, and a multi-episode arc on WandaVision). BD2412 T 01:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

    Wasn't the Maximoff in WandaVision (fake) Pietro Maximoff, though? Granted, played by the same actor (Evan Peters) who played Peter Maximoff in the Fox films, but not meant to be the X-Men films version of the character (although the casting was a deliberate, and ultimately vastly unsatisfying, stunt). —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

    Oh you're right. I forgot Dark Phoenix. Redjedi23 (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

    He was never a lead character in any of those films/projects. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

    They were X-Men films, and he was a member of the X-Men team. There is a degree of ensemble work within the films in which he is included, but his first two appearances at least were substantial roles. With respect to the WandaVision casting stunt, that is intentionally ambiguous on the part of the producers, again with a substantial role in the Halloween episode, at least. The ambiguity of the casting (and the coverage it received) makes a more involved explanation helpful to readers, which favors coverage in the freestanding article. An alternative solution might be to combine Peter Maximoff and Pietro Maximoff into a single article along the lines of Quicksilver in other media. BD2412 T 17:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support proposal. It's a concise way to manage which articles are notable and why, as not every version of a character is required to have one, though that doesn't mean ones with enough coverage of the subject itself cannot exist with reason. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Survey aftermath

What we have to do now with the articles that fails the new criteria?

DCEU

• Zod (DC Extended Universe)
• Barry Allen (DC Extended Universe)
• Victor Stone (DC Extended Universe)
• Steppenwolf (DC Extended Universe)
• Lois Lane (DC Extended Universe)
• Lex Luthor (DC Extended Universe)
• Mera (DC Extended Universe)
• Amanda Waller (DC Extended Universe)

Other DC characters

• General Zod (1978 film series character)
• Supergirl (1984 film character)

Sony

• Gwen Stacy (The Amazing Spider-Man film series)
• Otto Octavius (film character)
• Harry Osborn (Sam Raimi film series)
• Norman Osborn (Sam Raimi film series)
• Mary Jane Watson (Sam Raimi film series)
• Venom (Sony's Spider-Man Universe)

Fox

• Peter Maximoff

Redjedi23 (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I think everyone except for Barry Allen (DC Extended Universe), Amanda Waller (DC Extended Universe), and Venom (Sony's Spider-Man Universe) can be redirected/merged, as there's no point in draftifying them. Allen, Waller, and Venom can be moved to draftspace until they are eligible for mainspace, if ever. It has also been suggested to merge certain characters into XXX in other media or XXX in film (if they don't already exist), which is also an option. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Hold on, Norman Osborn (Sam Raimi film series) satisfies the first criterion of "extensive coverage" and should no be touched. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with both of your messages. Redjedi23 (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I concur with InfiniteNexus. Any notable info on the characters that don't meet the requirements can be moved to their respective media or film sections or separate "in media/film" articles where applicable. Gotta say, I'm not a fan of tons of in-universe information pages coming into this encyclopedia over the past few years, and an established system and process should help to ensure only what is notable will be included. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I expect that Amanda Waller (DC Extended Universe) and Otto Octavius (film character) meet the "extensive coverage" requirements. I think (per my earlier comments) that Peter Maximoff could be moved to Quicksilver in other media and combined with content on the Age of Ultron-specific Pietro Maximoff, and other non-comic Quicksilver depictions. BD2412 T 18:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe Otto Octavius can meet the criteria, but I don't think that DCEU Waller had an extensive coverage. Redjedi23 (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps not. Also, by the way, Barry Allen (DC Extended Universe) is four weeks away from being the lead character in a tentpole film, so I don't see much point to taking that article down in the interim. BD2412 T 19:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Barry have two non cameo appearance: JL/ZSJL and The Flash. Redjedi23 (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The character will almost certainly receive extensive coverage as centerpiece of what is probably the most controversial superhero film this decade. BD2412 T 21:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

What is the definition of extensive coverage? DCEU Waller has received relatively considerable character analysis even outside of the sources in the current article, such as here, here, and here, and here. I think what makes DCEU Waller's coverage especially notable is that is tends to analyze the character across a much larger context than just a single movie or franchise. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

We should keep in mind that there's a TV series centered around Waller in the works, so if the article happened not to qualify yet, it will surely qualify after that series is released. —El Millo (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

A bit late to register this in the survey, but I think the problem I have with this change is the idea that number of appearances somehow confers notability (you can have a single appearance like Heath Ledger's Joker that will get a ton of mainstream ink, and then multiple appearances that generate nothing but listicle coverage), and the fact that it encourages ruleslawyering about what counts as appearances. Whether or not significant sources exist about that incarnation of the character beyond the usual film coverage should be the only guide in that respect. The latter point just tacitly encourages these sorts of spinouts, which we should try to avoid as much as possible. And then we're left with the result that this is duplicating the basic inclusion criteria anyhow, or alternatively offering a way for the GNG to not apply. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

That's why I added Please note that simply meeting the criteria above does not automatically mean an adapted character should have their own article. to the guideline. Just like with WP:NFF, editors sometimes erroneously believe that just because a topic has met a certain threshold, an article must be created, which isn't true. In addition to satisfying the new WP:NFILMCHAR, topics must also meet GNG. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I think what's being stated here is that bullet point #1 essentially says the same thing as GNG: the article topic (i.e. the film character) must have significant coverage in reliable sources. But then bullet #2 offers an alternative: three or more non-cameo appearances, with one of those being in a lead role. So if this new guideline says you only need one of these criteria, it is essentially saying either pass GNG or pass this newly-formed bullet #2 that was agreed upon by a handful of editors at a WikiProject talk page.

NFILM is an extension of the Notability guideline, and as such, this proposal should have received more vetting through a published RfC at either WT:NFILM or at the village pump. In addition, some of the support offered above occurred after NFILM was crossed out. Not sure how it went from that to being inserted into NFILM. Did I miss something? --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

As @InfiniteNexus said, an article MUST meet GNG. Also: "Before creating an article in the mainspace or moving a draft to the mainspace, please discuss on the draft's talk page, the film or television series' talk page, or relevant WikiProject talk pages to ensure the character is notable to justify a split of the original incarnation's article."

Anyway, can we proceed to put to draftspace these articles:

• Amanda Waller (DC Extended Universe)
• Barry Allen (DC Extended Universe)
• Venom (Sony's Spider-Man Universe)

? I mean, maybe these characters will be relevant. I know that some of you stated that Waller is already relevant, but the article doesn't cite any source that make me think of that. Redjedi23 (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Redjedi23, I think you should re-read WP:NFILMCHAR more closely. It says verbatim that an article should not be created "unless one of the following criteria has been met". So back to my point, that means if an adapted character has not received extensive coverage (meaning it doesn't satisfy WP:GNG), but "the character has made three or more non-cameo appearances, including one in a lead or titular capacity", then the adapted character qualifies to have its own article. That is side-stepping GNG and should not be in WP:NFILM, at least not without significant review and vetting. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure but "Please note that simply meeting the criteria above does not automatically mean an adapted character should have their own article. Before creating an article in the mainspace or moving a draft to the mainspace, please discuss on the draft's talk page, the film or television series' talk page, or relevant WikiProject talk pages to ensure the character is notable to justify a split of the original incarnation's article." Redjedi23 (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Then explain what the "above criteria" is even doing. What is the point of having it? Why not just say, in order to create an adapted character article, it must be discussed first (which rubs up against WP:BOLD)? Essentially what's being said is that if you meet one of the criteria, then it can go to discussion and get approved. So if it meets bullet #2, but does not meet GNG, it can still go through eventually through discussion. That's sidestepping GNG no matter how you slice and dice it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

NFILMCHAR does not contravene GNG. "Extensive commentary" means an even greater level of coverage than GNG requires. Characters must still satisfy GNG in addition to NFILMCHAR; this new guideline builds on GNG, it doesn't replace or subvert it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Welcome back. So previously, I had asked how we went from crossing out NFILM mid-discussion to ultimately inserting it later on. Aside from being on the wrong talk, this wasn't even a published RfC. Did I miss something?

Secondly, GNG already says "significant coverage", so it would seem we are being repetitive here in bullet #1. You're splitting hairs if you're trying to say there's a difference between extensive and significant, or even between coverage and commentary. That confusion is a WP:CREEP concern. Others here have even noted the confusion. Was "commentary" even really discussed? In its current form with very little vetting, I doubt citing NFILMCHAR in an AfD holds much water. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:PGCHANGE doesn't stipulate a specific method for achieving consensus before adding or modifying existing PAGs, so I don't think an RfC or village pump discussion was strictly necessary. But to answer your question, no, you did not miss anything. The intended meaning of extensive coverage was a level of coverage comparable to what WP:ECREE demands. If there is confusion, we can do this instead (bolding denotes changes):

• This interpretation of the character has received extensive coverage and commentary from reliable sources, at a level that exceeds what is normally required by GNG. For example: Joker (The Dark Knight).
• This interpretation of the character has made three or more non-cameo appearances, including one in a lead or titular capacity, as long as notability can be proven for them. For example: Bruce Wayne (Dark Knight trilogy).

InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course anyone can modify a policy or guideline without an RfC, or even any discussion for that matter, but the recommendation is that the change is "faithfully reflecting the community's view" and is not "accidentally introducing new sources of error or confusion". Boldy editing P&Gs assumes you are documenting an already established "best practice" that most editors agree with. In cases like this one where you are introducing a new best practice, consensus through discussion is highly recommended, and the more participation that discussion has, the better.

Personally, I think NFILMCHAR is highly repetitive (and unnecessary) in a lot of respects. Adding more verbiage is the opposite of what I'm thinking needs to happen; less is more. I'm not going to challenge it here any further, but I plan to link to this discussion from its talk page for future reference. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Something that I have noticed with a lot of these fictional adaptation character articles is that they overindulge the reader with WP:FANCRUFT in-universe details while the reception, which I would argue should make up and aid in determining the notability, is lacking in many and only contain a small paragraph. I've raised some of my concerns at Talk:Wenwu#Why is this here?, and I personally believe these character adaptation articles are not what the encyclopedia should be focusing on, and yet, because of the lack of a clearly defined approach for directions on how to handle these articles has enabled editors to freely create them via AfC or other means without any formal evaluation. If NFILMCHAR being too specific is of concern, might I suggest implementing the general concerns of the community into the already established guidelines. Though, if we leave things too open for interpretation, things may go unchecked, thus resulting in the encyclopedia being populated by articles that can have their information covered elsewhere at the main film/series/game article or a list, rather than becoming akin to a fan wiki bloated with in-universe details over neutral, real world commentary and details. One or two appearances with little to no coverage from reliable sources doesn't seem to justify a separate article, especially when said articles lack enough commentary in a poor attempt to justify their existence. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

"One or two appearances with little to no coverage from reliable sources..." That topic would fail to pass WP:GNG, so NFILMCHAR is irrelevant in that situation. And the solution to other concerns raised is not to make NFILMCHAR, or any guideline for that matter, too prescriptive. Nobody reads the directions anyways, and making them too strict and overly-detailed leads to wikilawyering, confusion, and decreases the likelihood that they are even read in the first place.

You need to go the other direction by removing anything that simply repeats GNG and writing NFILMCHAR from a more broad perspective. Communicate the overall goal in way that doesn't drop red lines with arbitrary limits, such as the "three or more non-cameo appearances". That's a newly-formed suggestion that doesn't reflect an existing approach or practice, so it has no business being in NFILM. Instead, it might be more helpful to look at past AfD discussions and see what logic has been used to successfully delete unnecessary character articles. A brief summary of findings would then likely make a good NFILMCHAR guideline, assuming it's not simply repeating GNG. At the very least, those findings would be a good conversation starter. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

And yet we have articles such as Venom (Sony's Spider-Man Universe), Steppenwolf (DC Extended Universe), Kamala Khan (Marvel Cinematic Universe), Shang-Chi (Marvel Cinematic Universe), Marc Spector (Marvel Cinematic Universe), just to name a few, who have at the bare minimum one appearance (Venom has two non-cameo ones), and are mainly constituting in-universe details while their reception sections are lacking. Khan's is admittedly more put together for reception, but still does not pass GNG and is yet still an existing article. Clearly, whatever has been in place for a while now has not been effective in communicating the goals of the encyclopedia in relation to this information.

From what I have seen, unwanted character articles (especially MCU ones) have been left dormant with not much action taken to re-draftifying them outside of talk discussions that don't get much input. I must admit there are cracks in the MCU taskforce's approach and trying to formulate restrictions, though I'd much rather prefer stepping stones of sorts that guide people on what standards articles ought to meet to reach a certain point of acceptance and notability for a split, as they should be given what has been addressed in multiple AfC submissions. I don't believe the "Differences from the comics" or "Characterization and background" sections provide enough details or evidence of notability as a separate subject, as those are detailing the comics' characters histories and how they have been adapted and adjusted for the screen, and not about the separate subject itself. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Articles that fail GNG should be taken to AfD, and if the topic truly fails GNG, then it will result in a merge or delete. I'm confused as to how that applies to the concerns raised about NFILMCHAR. If you are looking for additional criteria (not already covered by GNG) to put in NFILM so you can win AfD arguments, that's the wrong approach. The reverse should happen. Win AfD arguments and document the unique criteria that has been successful, and then add that to NFILM. Remember, guidelines should reflect best practices that a vast majority of editors would agree with. The AfD process is a good way to test out proposed guidelines to see if they'll hold up. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

My concerns are mainly about these character articles overall and how they ought to be better handled. The AfD process works at times, but not always given some who participate in those discussions are not always familiar with GNG or already have implicit bias for these splits that are not always agreed upon. We need a confined direction in redraftifying and merging these as well as steps to instruct editors on what would be necessary to warrant a separate article as, evident by the sheer amount of these articles that exist, GNG has not been met or understood by those making these articles or has not been properly enforced. Both need to occur for everyone to have the same understanding and work from that. I don't think the current guidelines are necessarily the right approach to this. If people want full in-universe coverage of characters and events, that's better suited for a fan wiki rather than the encyclopedia, though we can definitely test the waters in AfD. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

If someone isn't following GNG, then they certainly aren't going to be following NFILMCHAR, which is buried even deeper. AfD may occasionally fail to produce the desired result due to limited participation, but it's the correct venue for that issue. When it doesn't work out as intended, consider dropping a note about the discussion here, preferably while the AfD discussion is still underway. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Much like how NFF requires that upcoming films start shooting before they can be considered for the mainspace, and how FILMMARKETING requires trailer commentary before trailer info can be added to an article, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a guideline that elaborates on how GNG applies to character articles. In a way, the current version of NFILMCHAR does reflect what is currently considered best practice, as MCU character articles have operated under WP:MCUCHARACTERS for ~2 years now, though I recognize that is ultimately an explantory supplement describing local consensus that has neither binding authority nor community-wide approval. I'm not opposed to rewriting NFILMCHAR in broader terms, but at the same time, if we're being too broad, nothing will change and editors will continue to rapidly create character articles or drafts that shouldn't exist.

As I noted to Trail on Talk:Wenwu, there have been many discussions in the past concerning character articles. Oftentimes, some editors will express their strong disdain for these FANCRUFTy creations while others will fiercely push back, arguing that satisfy GNG, blah blah blah. This extends beyond just superhero articles, beyond adapted characters, and even beyond film characters, actually. So if we're looking to describe the current consensus on NFILM, it would read: There is no consensus on what makes a character notable to justify the creation of a standalone article. Past AfDs (if you would like to read through them, they're here and here) are similarly all over the place. If an RfC is held on this topic, I suspect it will similarly produce no clear consensus, but of course we're free to give it a try. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

"...editors will continue to rapidly create character articles or drafts that shouldn't exist"

And it will continue to occur regardless. What you need is something that will gain traction in an AfD when cited. That's where the real change will occur. It sounds like you're aware of the implications of being too prescriptive, setting arbitrarily-chosen limits, and wasting space repeating elements of GNG. That's all I was hoping to get across in a nutshell. If what you have now works out, then great! I'm all for the effort to clean things up.

I'll just add that if there's no clear consensus over what is being added to NFILM, then that's a flawed approach that puts the cart before the horse. Guidelines should describe what already is, or at the very least believed to be, the community's stance on a particular issue. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Examples for review

Hello. There other DC characters that I haven't reported. We have:

• Vicki Vale (1989 film series character)
• Joker (Jack Napier)
• Oswald Cobblepot (Batman Returns)
• Selina Kyle (Batman Returns)
• Edward Nygma (Batman Forever)
• Harvey Dent (1989 film series character)
• Dick Grayson (1989 film series character)
• Victor Fries (Batman & Robin)
• Pamela Isley (Batman & Robin)

Redjedi23 (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

But also Peacemaker (DC Extended Universe). Redjedi23 (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Interestingly, all but 2 of those were created by BornonJune8. Also many of the refs aren't likely reliable, and you can see how some were cited inappropriately at Vicki Vale's article in this edit. Just a quick observation that probably needs more discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I would delete every single page that I mentioned. Redjedi23 (talk) 07:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Some of that cited information is legit encyclopedic coverage, so I assume in some cases, a short paragraph or two would be retained and merged into the main character article (or film article). Then change the article you're merging from into a redirect. Doesn't have to go to AfD necessarily if you believe it is uncontroversial per WP:CONRED (the article talk page is sufficient). However, for the more controversial redirects, or if you want to outright delete, take it to AfD and drop a discussion notice here using a template like {{Please see}}. That's how I'd approach it anyway. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Make Edits To Toxi Wikipedia Page

Hello. I would like to make some edits to the Toxi Wikipedia page. I want to edit some of the citations used. Several of the citations made do not provide specific page numbers from Heide Fehrenbach’s peer reviewed Race after Hitler: Black Occupation Children in Postwar Germany and America. I will edit the statements made as well to more reflect the accuracy of Fehrenbach’s work. In the Genre and Audience section of the Toxi Wikipedia page it would be important to include a slight backstory of the German agenda of racial hygiene and how this film is a response to that. TheNinthWave19 (talk) 06:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

RfC regarding Victor Salva mugshot use

Hi all, I think this RfC regarding whether Victor Salva's mugshots should be added to the infobox in his article might be of interest to this project. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Input request

Comments appreciated at Talk:List of plays adapted into feature films#Need for article split.4meter4 (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Budgets revisited / Caroline Reid and Forbes.com

Noticed some of the big budget films from the 2010s are being revisited by a Forbes contributor, Carolyn Reid. This has led to major budget updates at articles like Star Wars: The Force Awakens and Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. I'm not entirely sure if these new numbers include marketing/promotional costs that should be excluded per {{Infobox film}}. I noted this at Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens#Budget for anyone that would like to weigh in. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed these edits as they have been subject to discussion at Talk:Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania#Disney receives £30millions tax break for this movie/budget and has been used at other articles such as Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness and recently removed again from The Marvels, among other Marvel articles. In my experience with this contributor, which per WP:FORBESCON needs to be proven to be an expert on the subject for it to be considered reliable, I have not found reasonable undisputed support for their article's inclusions, especially when some of them discusses pre- or mid-production budgets that other editors mistake for the full budget. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Recently I reverted some edits, citing Forbes articles by Caroline Reid [6], as Forbes articles written by contributors are generally considered unreliable per WP:FORBESCON. There are many film (Star Wars: The Force Awakens) and List (List of most expensive films) articles where a Forbes article by Caroline Reid is used to cite budget of the film. Are these Articles reliable? Sid95Q (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but there are 2 points to consider here. First, Caroline Reid appears to be a subject matter expert. Her bio is here. Second, she links to her examples in the print edition of Forbes. If correct, both would seem to satisfy the concerns at WP:FORBESCON. Also see Betty's comments at Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens#Budget. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Caroline Reid is an established journalist who has written for a variety of high-profile news outlets on this subject such as this article from The Times. Like many British journalists, she extends her reach by publishing on Forbes. Her articles on Disney finance are fairly straightforward reporting: the British Government runs a tax credit scheme whereby production companies can receive up to a 20% tax credit on core expenditure. This includes pre-production, principal photography and post production, but excludes development and distribution costs.

The accounts are publicly available to anybody, and it does not require any great expertise to interpret them provided you have the code-name for the film production. The accounts are filed annually and it is basic arithmetic to add up the costs. We should just accept it for what it is—a unique glimpse into the secretive world of film finance. Budgets are often severely under-estimated by American trades (although Deadline sometimes gets pretty close) and it is a real shame that the American trades don't utilize these publicly available accounts for more accurate reporting. Part of the problem is that quite often invoices aren't filed until the following tax year, and then those invoices aren't filed to HMRC until a year after that, so there is often a 2–3 year lag before the accounts become available, and by then widely reported estimates have become embedded in our articles. I have to say as an editor who takes an interest in film finance it is especially frustrating to see editors remove factual figures from accounts audited by Government tax inspectors and replace them with vague estimates from places like Box Office Mojo. Barring tax fraud these are what the films cost to make.

Just to give you an example. The budgets we have down for Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame are $325–400m and $356–400m respectively, so $680–800 million for the two of them. According to the Film Tax Relief scheme, the films together (as a joint production) cost around $1.25 billion. That's quite a discrepancy, no? However, Joe Russo recently confirmed that each film cost "$500 million plus"—so over $1 billion. This is substantially higher than the figures we have in the articles, and consistent with the $1.25 billion figure from the audited accounts submitted to the HMRC (the British tax body). Betty Logan (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Great to have our own subject matter expert! Appreciate the detailed feedback. Settles the concerns I had! -- GoneIn60 (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Glad to get clarification on this! Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Just to note, the Quantumania one noted the $193.2 million cost of filming and pre-production, per the source, and the edits reverted there took that cost as part of the budget, which the source notes is not the case ("Theaters retain around 50% of its takings with the remainder going to Disney giving it around $235.5 million. This would be just enough to make a profit if its costs were capped at pre-production and filming but that is far from the case." in correlation to the $193.2 million) As for The Marvels revert, that cost was for the first few months of filming. I agree that the IW and Endgame, and other MCU budgets, ought to be updated with the most accurate financials and will bring up the points in this discussion to the attention of the MCU taskforce editors. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Any guidelines or Remake section in film articles?

Hi all. I flagged 3 weeks ago in Talk:Bride of Frankenstein that the current "Remake attempts" section for that film is full of promotional details of remakes which have never been made, and suggested this section should be removed entirely. To date, no comments from others. Bride of Frankenstein seems to me to be grossly inflated with information about remakes which have never happened.

Also, I notice the article for The Mole People (1956) has recently acquired a "Remake" section, referenced by publicity from UP saying "Universal Pictures...has acquired a pitch for a revamp" of that film, which is marketing puff.

Has there been any past discussion, or is there any guidance (especially on notability), about the inclusion of possible future remakes of films? Masato.harada (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Surely there is a Frankenstein franchise page where that kind of stuff should be going? Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Listing of country of origin for top grossing films beginning in 2020 + 2 other minor matters

For all page of yearly films beginning in 2020, I propose that the origin of the country should also be stated in the table of the top 10 grossing films. The reason is that since the onset of the pandemic, the country of origin for the top 10 highest grossing films for each year are becoming more diversified [whereas in the past, the top 10 is basically dominated by a single country (at most along another country which is in co-production)]. Therefore, I contend that we should not erase the achievements of other countries and recognize their achievements accordingly. There is also little dispute as to which country of origin of any particular movie as it is listed in every movie wiki page which gives a snapshot of the country/region of origin of the movie.

An example of the above proposal is in this edit history (which I contend is ideal and informative): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_in_film&oldid=1151439478

Shall my proposal above be accepted, I have two further minor changes that I would like to propose as follows:-

1. I submit that the flag of each country should go along with the name of the country. It is actually quite widely accepted and used that films do represent a country (or two for co-productions). Please refer to this page where the flags of countries of films are also displayed: List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best International Feature Film

2. The box office figure should be aligned to the right. The reason is because the display is much more user-friendly, neat and tidy compared to left alignment (especially not aligned uniformly if there are figures with different number of digits present in the same table (such as between 1,000,000,000 and 999,999,999). Pyruvate (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I categorically oppose the use of flags to denote country of origin for films outside of contexts where they officially represent that country. Films are formally submitted to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for the Academy Award for Best International Feature Film by some kind of official body representing the country's film industry. There is no corresponding process for films being released in cinemas for "competition" at the worldwide box office. Those situations are entirely dissimilar. TompaDompa (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Kindly refer to the page for the highest grossing films for China and the corresponding source:

List of highest-grossing films in China

https://www.endata.com.cn/BoxOffice/BO/History/Movie/Alltimedomestic.html

The countries for each film is listed in the table.

Similar for the UK: List of highest-grossing films in the United Kingdom

As the world and the film industry is steering towards diversified markets, we should not dismiss the milestone achievements of different countries and acknowledge them in the list of highest grossing films accordingly. I just want things to be fair and wikipedia should not be a medium in which we do not adjust to the evolving norms and therefore inadvertently suppress the success of emerging film markets. Please acknowledge them and consent to my proposal. Thanks! Pyruvate (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Just as Betty Logan below, I am of the opinion that less is more when it comes to tables. We could conceivably add a whole bunch of columns—budget, runtime, language, director, genre, and so on. We should stick to the information that is necessary, because if we include all the information that might be "nice to have", we will just end up with terrible bloat. When it comes to the articles for the highest-grossing films of the year, I would be more inclined to consistently remove a column (the distributor one—that's basically just for industry bragging rights) than to add one (and country wouldn't be my first choice anyway). Adding flags would be pure MOS:FLAGCRUFT; even in cases where distinguishing between films from the domestic industry versus abroad serves a purpose (such as List of highest-grossing films in Japan brought up below), that information would be better conveyed by other means such as cell shading. Your proposition sounds like it comes from a desire to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, but Wikipedia is not the place for that. Additionally, the box office side of Wikipedia has been plagued by WP:UPE and other bad-faith actors who want to promote "their" films/industries/whatever, and we should not be doing their job for them in this manner. TompaDompa (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I don't have a problem with right-alignment of numbers. As for including a column of countries, I don't think it is particularly relevant if all you are doing is listing the highest-grossing films of the year. There are some articles such as List of highest-grossing films in Japan that use flags to visually distinguish between native and foreign product, but that serves an encyclopedic purpose. I am not sure exactly what the encyclopedic purpose the country column serves at 2022 in film. When it comes to tables I have always been a "less is more" kind of person i.e. don't add information unless it is essential. If the decision is made to keep the column, I don't think it's necessary to have the flags next to the country names.

If retained the countries themselves need to be sourced. Other Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources per WP:CIRCULAR; what that means is that any non-trivial claim or fact that appears in the article should really be accompanied by a citation in the article.

Betty Logan (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Scope of List of highest-grossing films based on television series

On Talk:List of highest-grossing films based on television series, there's a question about what qualifies for inclusion on the list. Asking if anyone else has any input, or if they'd like to add to the discussion over there. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that this is one I want to wade into, but I do have some WP:SYNTH concerns when I look at that list. It's good to see that the grosses are sourced, but the list itself appears to be composited based on that data, which leaves me wondering whether in the final analysis it's erroneous. DonIago (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh dear, not another box office list based on no sources on the overarching topic. This is an absolute WP:SYNTH mess. TompaDompa (talk) 08:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

For what's it's worth, Box Office Mojo has a list of TV show adaptations, but only with the domestic gross. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

What it's worth is nothing, considering that's the same category of list as "Twentysomething Character", "Firefighter", and "Massachusetts". TompaDompa (talk) 05:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

If you wish, you can discuss the issues of the page over at the article’s talk page, as it might be more salient when discussed with the article’s creator. 12.239.13.147 (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Cinéfondation

Just wanted to note that when I came across our article about Cinéfondation about two hours ago, the year-by-year content had not been updated in four full years; even though the prize has continued to be presented, the winners table had not been updated since 2018 — I've added the prize winners for 2019, 2020 (yes, there were still winners that year), 2021 and 2022, along with proper reliable sources for the content I added — but the "residence" table still hasn't been updated at all, and I haven't yet added references to the prize table for the years that were already present in it.

I'd note as well that until I added the references for the award winners I added, the article was relying entirely on Cinéfondation's own self-published content about itself rather than any reliable third-party sourcing about it to properly establish that it's even notable in the first place, so it'll need some improvement on that score as well. I'm willing to add what I can, but I may have some limitations in getting the entire article up to scratch — I don't have very solid access to archived French media coverage, so I'd be limited mainly to what I can find on Google, and thus it would be good if somebody with more European database access than I've got can add some media sourcing for older parts of the article as well. Bearcat (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Shomin-geki#Requested move 8 May 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Shomin-geki#Requested move 8 May 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The Eddie Mannix ledger

While reading and editing articles about older films, I've frequently come across a standard citation for The Eddie Mannix ledger, a primary and offline unpublished source. There appear to be 925 instances where the exact phrase "the eddie mannix ledger" appears in the pedia, 890 in page space. Based on a clickthrough of the first 20 search occurrences 18 of them were inserted or pagecreated by (now blocked for unrelated copyvios) User:Dutchy85 in January 2014. The other two (formatted identically) were inserted by ips (possibly Dutchy85 editing while logged out). Here's an example diff. I dug a bit further; prior to January 7 2014, it seems Dutchy85 was using varying sources to cite box office figures, mostly pointing towards Variety lists. On that date they edited a page using this formatting for the first time. The rest of January the user made identical types of edits, utilizing numbers reportedly deriving from this offline and primary source. When asked in 2018, according to Dutchy85 they personally visited the library to access this resource. So up to this point we have AGF'd this material and it's not yet been verified. This is my concern. Each of these edits looks fine and has the appearance of coming from a reputable (if primary and unpublished) source. But it might just as well been invented. The sample numbers I checked did seem to agree with those quoted by a film scholar available via JSTOR. Perhaps it's not a concern at all. FA-class review might catch this, but I don't see a history of it happening (a solo occurrence) in the w-search. Should we do anything at all? Does this project have any opinion? BusterD (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I've come across the Eddie Mannix figures many times, and they've always looked prima facie right to me. By that I mean consistent with the Variety estimates of the time. I also have the Eddie Mannix figures for a handful of MGM films released between 1932 and 1937 (from when I was filling in missing years at the List of highest-grossing films about ten years ago) and can confirm that all of these figures for The Gorgeous Hussy are correct. If you come across any others from that timeframe that you'd like me to check, then if you leave the diffs here I can do that. Betty Logan (talk) 03:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The Angry Black Girl and Her Monster

I'm a vendor looking to get a page uploaded before June -- it's about a film coming out on June 9th called The Angry Black Girl and Her Monster. If anyone's willing to help out/review the article, please respond ASAP! Doodleferp (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

See WP:PROMO. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I've read over the section and I can say with certainty that this isn't a means of promoting the film. The draft for the page was originally finished in March and has been updated since as more info about the movie came out. I don't know what happened, but I never found an option for submitting the draft for review -- hence why I asked here. Doodleferp (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Removal of films from streaming platform: WP:NOTEWORTHY?

Is the date of removal of a film from a streaming platform WP:NOTEWORTHY? We did not use to say when films stopped playing in theatres. I reverted this edit. See also WP:RECENT. What do others think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

If the platform is where the film premiered and is the only one streaming it, then I can see how it might be relevant. However, removal can mean the studio is leasing the film to other platforms, in which case mentioning it might be overkill. Nardog (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the film can, of course, be sold or leased to other platforms, have a theatrical release, or go to home video. See this. Any of those "releases" ought to be mentioned, but I am doubtful that this film, and the numerous others that are removed from streaming platforms each year, need to state that. Indeed, it might give rise to the misleading implication that the films are simply in the trash bin. Since this is part of the brave new world of streaming platforms, we ought to add something about it to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film. How can that be accomplished? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

There's a tremendous difference between removing a film that already had a theatrical or other release and then was added to a streaming/VOD service, which is indeed a dime a dozen, and removing a film that was released exclusively on a platform owned by the studio that produced it, which is a relatively new and less common phenomenon. The latter is effectively pulling a film from circulation, which would be noteworthy. Nardog (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe there's a compromise approach where we mention it if a third-party source has covered it, much like we do for a lot of other notability questions. For example, I remember some articles in the past few months about the recent removal of original content from HBO Max. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

That goes without saying. What Ssilvers reverted was cited to a third-party RS. Nardog (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

My bad! In this case, I would be OK with retaining the edit because the RS has some substantial depth and context about the removal. Most articles will not; I see a lot of "50 Movies Leaving Netflix This Month!!" articles, and those wouldn't meet the bar IMO. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Notice: this topic has been presented by the OP in two places at once. I'll proceed to copy here the two messages that were originally placed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Removal of films from streaming platform: WP:NOTEWORTHY? after the OP's first message: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facu-el Millo (talk • contribs) 19:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so, unless it's relevant. I know in some film articles the length of theatre releases are written in regards to rereleases and box office. Beyond that, it's extra fluff not needed. Callmemirela 🍁 18:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that in this particular case it may be relevant, given that these are Disney+ originals that Disney is removing from their platforms when they wouldn't normally do that. According to Deadline, the removal is global and Disney is the latest media company to purge content from its streaming platforms in a cost-cutting measure as the industry is rethinking costs and strategy in that arena with a renewed focus on profitability. This is not a standard removal of a streaming service that held temporary streaming rights of a specific film or TV show, this is the production company itself removing the content from the only place they're available. Just as an example, both Raised by Wolves and The Time Traveler's Wife were removed from HBO Max in a similar fashion back in December 2022, and both articles include this in their lead sections. —El Millo (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I could see it being relevant if the series was platform exclusive, and effectively ending its airing altogether. For example, Hawkeye is only on Disney+, and I believe it's still being streamed. If they decided to remove its content, then yes it could be mentioned. However, it shouldn't apply to shows or films that originally aired on TV/theaters then streamed at a later date and then removed. For example, the latest Black Panthers film was released in theaters and then streamed on Disney+. If they decided to remove it off the platform, then it's not notable. If there is a reliable source, just update the streaming to write in the past with a source. Are we really going to add each time Friends was removed from platforms? I believe that show hopped between Netflix and then HBO Max. Callmemirela 🍁 19:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• I came to say similar to the above: case-by-case basis, we can't decide if a mention of removal is or isn't always noteworthy. Sometimes it will be, a lot of the time it won't be. If it is removed for a fresh reason, or if the removal is widely-discussed, those cases are obviously noteworthy, but there will likely be other cases, too. Kingsif (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• As a general rule of thumb, may I suggest that it is only potentially noteworthy if the withdrawal from a platform results in the film effectively being completely withdrawn from distribution i.e the theatrical window has also closed, no home video release, no licensing of TV rights etc. Even then it may not be noteworthy, but it is hard to make a case for including this information if I can order it off Amazon or it periodically plays on TV. There may sometimes be special circumstances as was the case with Gone with the Wind a couple of years ago when suddenly everyone decided it was racist. Betty Logan (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with Betty Logan. See also WP:RECENT. In addition, I would say that it should never go in the Lead section, just the release section. Note that, even if the sole distribution/ production was by, say, Netflix, they could still always sell or license the property in the future. As I said, in the old days, once a film left theatres, we very rarely stated that date even if RS's mentioned it. I wonder if there are any film FAs that include such info. Furthermore, a film is never "completely withdrawn from distribution", because the platform/producer can license it to other platforms, home video, etc., and Disney even said that it is likely to do so. See this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think that film releases are an apt comparison, because old films could/can still be obtained from distributors after the initial theatrical run; this is how second-run and art house theaters work. And then even in film, if a distributor does intentionally pull all copies of the film, that is notable (a good example being Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story). Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Audience reception: additional considerations

Generally, we discourage the inclusion of audience scores from user-generated sources like the scores published on Rotten Tomatoes (per WP:UGC and MOS:FILMAUDIENCE). That's pretty clear, but what's not clear is what do we do in situations when there are multiple reliable sources commenting on those unreliable scores?

Usually we'll see this in situations where the audience score is much higher (or lower) than the critics' score. Does it warrant inclusion when a significant number of sources are mentioning it? Does this become a WP:DUE concern that overrides the two guidelines I cited? I have my opinions but wanted to see what the general consensus was. Thanks in advance. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Note: A discussion notice was left at WT:RS. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Note: A discussion notice was left at WP:RSN. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Obviously it's going to depend on the exact balance of coverage on a case-by-case basis, but generally speaking, if RS are discussing the discrepancy in their coverage it becomes WP:DUE for us to mention. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

There are some editors who are zealous about removing all mention of user generated scores from the IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes, which I don't really understand. If reliable sources are discussing it, I think that's a reason to at least discuss inclusion. If an IMDb score with lots of existing votes drops from an 8.5 down to a 5, and then it shoots back up to a 7.5, that'd be odd, but we couldn't document it. Anything we said would be original research. If Variety or the BBC wrote an article that documented the cause, though, I'd include it – or, at least, I'd include the story. The scores themselves probably aren't all that incredibly important. I'd say something like "The IMDb score see-sawed sharply between positive and negative. Variety attributed this to concerned efforts by both fans and haters to manipulate the score, potentially involving thousands of bots." Some random film has an IMDb score of 6.5? Who cares. Thousands of dueling bots? Worth mentioning. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses so far. Just wanted to briefly add that for any given film, whether a discrepancy exists or not, you can easily find a dozen or so solid, reputable sources mentioning the audience score.

Once that door is opened, it won't be easy to close.

1. Maybe we want it opened at this point based on the significant coverage that's becoming more commonplace? Or maybe we want it closed, because out of thousands of articles published on each film, we know someone is bound to mention them?
2. Does the author's qualifications matter (e.g. journalist, industry research analyst, etc.)?
3. Does the source need to go beyond mere observation and speculation (author may not be aware of their inherent unreliability)?

--GoneIn60 (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Ratings are opinions, and are not a matter of fact. We don't trust user generated content in the sense of when a person was born, or who their wife is, or things like that. However, for widely reported user generated ratings and opinions, I don't see anything in conflict with Wikipedia policy like WP:RS: as long as we trust that the source like IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes is accurately reporting this opinion, only WP:DUE is a concern, and insofar as these are among the most widely used sources of review information, there's an acceptable argument to be made that they are due in a limited fashion. --Jayron32 11:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• The problem with user-generated content is that it is inherently unreliable. Even something like RT verified scores requires you to actively sign in and rate something. As statistical content, the concept is pretty bunk; only scientific, randomized polls like CinemaScore or PostTrak are reliable. If media is covering user-generated scores, that might be worth mentioning - we have articles that cover review-bombing campaigns, for example - but such mentions have to not be done with the idea user-generated scores are reliable, because they aren’t. Toa Nidhiki05 16:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• In order for us to include info on IMDb and RT audience scores, they would have to be WP:DUE, which in this case would mean exceptionally relevant, due to a review-bombing or something of that nature. If the threshold is just that they're covered by reliable sources, we'll have reliable sources occasionally mentioning how an audience score was high despite the critics' score being low, which is treating the audience scores as reliable when they're not, and would qualify as WP:FRUIT. —El Millo (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• User-generated ratings/votes can be gamed, which is why they should never be referred to in any Wikipedia article. If a reliable source which is independent of the subject mentions that a film was an audience hit while (perhaps) being a critical failure, we can state that and use that source as a citation. Softlavender (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you have an example here? Every critic in the business is aware of Metacritic audience ratings varying wildly from publication ratings -- generally because those audiences are sending them hate mail -- so I'm having a hard time thinking of a case where multiple publications will turn this very common situation into a story unless there is something genuinely noteworthy about a given case. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

If you cannot find any reliable source which is independent of the subject mentioning that a film was an audience hit while (perhaps) being a critical failure, then that conjecture does not belong in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia does list box office earnings and sometimes also rental and/or streaming amounts/earnings if those are mentioned in a reliable source which is independent of the subject. If people want to read user reviews or ratings then they go to sites where those are user-generated, not to Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 03:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

"If people want to read user reviews or ratings then they go to sites where those are user-generated, not to Wikipedia". — exactly where I stand on "audience ratings" being inserted into reception sections, unless it has significant coverage/analysis (not merely mentioning it) in independent third party sources. Mike Allen 04:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

This was meant as a bullet point reply to GoneIn60, I'm not sure why you indented it to look like a reply to you. I don't think we disagree on anything. Gnomingstuff (talk) 11:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on Talk:Holes (film)

There is a new discussion regarding the character names in the cast section on Holes (film). It can be found at Talk:Holes (film)#Character names in the cast section. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Warlock (1959 film)

Are any editors aware of any discussion in film criticism/history of a homoerotic subtext to the Quinn/Fonda relationship in the 1959 Western Warlock? Having seen the film for the first time, I thought the undertone was extraordinarily explicit for a movie made in 1959. Looking at our article, I see that there was some coverage, which was removed around 2009, with some mildly homophobic commentary. Looking for sources, there certainly is some discussion of the issue, though it appears to be largely in blogs. I’d be interested if any editors are aware of coverage in RS. I’ve also posted on the Westerns Project. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion on "the greatest film of all time"

Move discussion going on at Talk:Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles#Requested move 27 May 2023. Might be of interest to this WikiProject editors. _Jovian ^Eclipse 07:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Sky High

Hey, there. I'm thinking about bringing the Sky High (2005 film) article up to a potential GA (or FA) status. If this article is brought to FA, we can feature it as a TFA on the main page on July 29, 2025 (the 20th anniversary of the film's release). Any thoughts on what to do here? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Terminator 2 is at FAC again

Eight days and no comments if anyone is interested Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Some Like It Hot

Can more editors please take a look at Some Like It Hot and its talk page. An editor is removing the film's trailer and a couple long-term images from the page and I really can't figure out why, WP:OWN is being bandied about by both of us. I've asked why the free-use Some Like It Hot trailer sholdn't be used on the Some Like It Hot article and have gotten no answer aside from requests to cite policy and reverts. Thanks, outside help seems needed on this. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: Regarding this topic, everything is clear from the history of the page and is adequately explained in the latest discussion on the talk page. FYI, this user is the contributor who recently added the trailer and the long-term image. ภץאคгöร 10:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no such thing as adding a long-term image, that's called a revert. As for adding the trailer, "thank you" seems the proper response, since it should be on the page. Maybe you can answer why it shouldn't either here or there. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I've added back the Some Like It Hot trailer on the Some Like It Hot article per common sense and Nyxaros not explaining just why on Earth or Wikipedia the film's page shouldn't contain the film's free-use trailer. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Template:Sight and Sound Poll

Why was this deleted, it seemed a very good and useful navigational box. The sparsely attended Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 May 23#Template:Sight and Sound Poll was closed (one of the least watched areas of Wikipedia, this Wikiproject definitely should have been notified of the deletion attempt going on in a sub-basement of Wikipedia) and I'm sorry I missed it. This long-term navbox really was a great source and map for the world's most important film poll, and I'd suggest this Wikiproject get it back into mainspace. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk to Izno first, then WP:DRV second, if you do not like the results of a deletion discussion. Primefac (talk) 11:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging Izno, and will ping Woodensuperman who nominated the removal. At a bare minimum the nomination could have been relisted (it was so sparsely attended that a small table at a cafe could hold the participants) while at the same time this Wikiproject alerted. The Sight and Sound poll is the premium honored and accepted film poll in the world, and the navbox laid out perfectly the decade-by-decade progression of the honor. Can someone here start a DRV page if they agree, I'm not good at doing that. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

If you want to be kept more in the loop, watch Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Article_alerts#TfD which lists all film tagged templates. Gonnym (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't a suitable for a navbox, it's not a proper set. The information is there in the article, that's good enough. --woodensuperman 12:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The navbox seemed a perfect map to the topic. That's what navboxes are for, to navigate a topic in one easy place and in a readable map. This one did that very well. The article has nothing to do with the map, nav boxes are used to accent the topics of thousands of articles. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

And what the hey, might as well call in the three editors (two delete one keep) who commented on this table-top deletion discussion, WikiCleanerMan, Butlerblog, and Frietjes. I'd ask Izno to please reopen the discussion, it should have had a relisting and more of a notice on the relevant pages - it wasn't even listed on the Sight and Sound talk page which would have likely added more participation. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you that such minimal involvement would tend towards needing re-listing; but that's the trend on template deletion discussions - they don't often garner much response and tend to be closed as delete with minimal input. I wouldn't necessarily say that the close was improper, but it does raise concerns (at least for me). My primary issue with this deletion was that it's an example of "vote counting" which is not what consensus is supposed to be. The support for deletion is essentially opinion without policy or guideline support and would appear to contradict the established guideline. While guidelines are not engraved in stone, one would at least need to show some solid reason why it does not apply - at least in a deletion discussion that only has three voices. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The XfD was valid, the close was valid. Go to DRV if you disagree. For my 2p, I'd have chimed in to dump it too. Navboxes are a massive amount of clutter, and the Sight and Sound poll is not so vital a topic for any individual film it deserves that much real estate (and it's redundant with both the prose and categories.) It's not everyone else's responsibility to anticipate your complaints. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

"Navboxes are a massive amount of clutter". What? They are an important and wonderful way of mapping out Wikipedia articles. The Sight and Sound poll is the definitive poll, and that makes it vital for all involved films. Please read the navbox, lists, and categories page, which explains why categories, lists, and navboxes work as a team to guide interested readers to associated article. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Would it shock you to find that people disagree with your interpretation, hence the AfD? Just being a notable award doesn't mean it merits a navbox on every page that relates to it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

No, of course it doesn't shock me, why would it? My argument is that the AfD was held in a little-viewed corner of Wikipedia, was not promoted on this page nor the Sight and Sound talk page, hence it had the participation of not even a handful of editors (needs one for the thumb). Such a topic seems far too important to leave up to three editors, one who presented a very good 'Keep' response. Any film included in the polling through the decades does well by having had the navbox on its page, and if that's just my opinion it wouldn't be the first time, but I have a feeling it isn't. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Technically speaking, there was a TFD notice at each of the 60-odd pages the template was transcluded to. If anything, this navbox had a much wider "audience" than many that get nominated. Primefac (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Good point. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Two articles on the same film?

I just came across The Only Girl (film) which is apparently the same film as The Empress and I. Shouldn't these be in a single article?4meter4 (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Well that's a new one on me... I guess she's not the only girl after all... DonIago (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:NCFF, it would appear that the former article should trump the latter, though obviously quality material from the latter should be integrated into the former. DonIago (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

See Multiple-language version. AFAIK there's no guideline that says multiple-language versions of the same work must be covered in one article, so no, not unless either fails WP:NFILM. Nardog (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

AfD: List of Criterion Collection releases

Deletion discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Criterion Collection releases (2nd nomination). Might be of interest to this WikiProject editors. _Jovian ^Eclipse 17:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Template:Infobox character

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox character#Propose removal of the Color parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Pete Maverick

Not sure if this the right place to ask about this, but Pete Maverick is a character from the two Top Gun films. Maybe someone more familiar with articles about fictional characters could take a look at this and see if merits a stand-alone article or should just be a redirect to one of the two articles about the films. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Marchjuly I just took a look. I mean it's a stub page and the admin will deal with this as they see fit. I am unaware if the character deserves a full page or not. Is there enough published material on the character alone? Filmman3000 (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

That I don't know. There were two films it which the character appeared, but I don't think there's a lot of other things related to the character (e.g. comics, TV series, books, etc.) that might make a stand-alone article GNG worthy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Appearing in only two films doesn't necessarily mean the character doesn't met GNG. A character isn't required necessarily to appear in extended media. I don't know if the character is notable on his own, but just a couple of things I could quickly find that might be good to start looking for things if one really wants to explore that?

• Acting for America: Movie Stars of the 1980s, Rutgers University Press , pp. 94-95, discusses his construction as a rebel image?
• Cineaste's review of Top Gun spends some time at length discussing the character, with reference to the context of film and heroic archetypes of the 80s.
• Nicholson's Tom Cruise: Anatomy of an Actor (published by Cahiers du Cinema and Phaidon), according to a review from Slant discusses Cruise's relationship to the character.

I don't have time to really dig into this topic at the moment, but those seem like good starting places at least. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Here is another useful link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF1LXL6OOsM Betty Logan (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Superman (1978 film)

Superman (1978 film) has been nominated for a 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Re: Draft:Lilly Yokoi

The Draft is written by an anonymous contributor and the reviewers unfamiliar with the topic suggest it isn't notable and does not pass inclusion criteria. Would you concur with this judgment or do you have access to additional sources or policies that make the draft qualify for inclusion? I got a question about this draft and this is not my strong topic area. I would greatly appreciate your advice. Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 05:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I just looked into it the subject is notable enough even in the newspapers archives. Now the page created is not very good. I will pass it and you could flag it afterward so folks know. Filmman3000 (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Gryllida I will do a few fixe and we will rock that page into. Page I think it's a matter of milking these article and getting the appropriate info out of it. Filmman3000 (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits and for publishing the draft! Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 03:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@GryllidaThank you! Filmman3000 (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Repeated linking change at Manual of Style/Linking

See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#DL, sections, and mobile readers and change. Gonnym (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)