Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 83

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

Archive 83

Archive 84

Archive 85

Multiple-language version needs to be removed as the main article from Category:Multilingual films

I think that it is pretty clear from how editors are characterizing films that the understanding of multilingualism in films is the use of more than one language in a film. However, a multiple-language version film, is a film, especially from the early talkie era, produced in several different languages for international markets. Furthermore, multilingual film redirects to multiple-language version, which I also believe to be wrong.

I think that most would describe King of Hearts (1966 film) as a multilingual film, for example.

Thoughts & comments? Peaceray (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, I think WP:COMMONNAME is relevant here. Peaceray (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

RENAME: That is not and never has been the intent of these categories. The category name is indeed confusing, but changing the definition of the category is not what I was hoping for. My suggestion was to rename the categories to something like Category:Films with multiple-language versions, not to change the definition of the category itself, because then it would be the incorrect definition for films such as Atlantic, which is not "multilingual" according to Peaceray's definition but is a film that was produced in multiple different languages (exclusively). That is the purpose of these categories, so the categories should be renamed to reflect that and avoid confusion. Lists of such films are also present on pages using the term "multilingual" as defined by this Wikipedia category such as List of multilingual Indian films. Renaming that List of Indian films with multiple-language versions would be more accurate for what the article is describing.

There isn't really much need for any sort of category describing a film as "multilingual" according to Peaceray's definition because then there would be more films in the category than not in the category. There are very few films that don't include more than one language in them as some point, so the category would not be very informative or useful. More specific categories are already available for specifying the precise languages used in a film, such as including Category:French-language films and Category:German-language films in the same list of categories, and the different languages used in a particular film can also be seen in the infobox, from which it is clearly identifiable that it is a "multilingual" film according to Peaceray's definition, so I don't see how a new "Multilingual films" category for films in which more than one language happens to be spoken would add any information to Wikipedia that is not already available. Even if a justification could be made for the creation of such a category, the problem would still remain that the current category Category:Multilingual films still needs to be renamed to reflect the fact that it refers to films produced in multiple different language versions. That is the real problem that needs to be addressed, as I stated in my message on the talk page for that category: Category_talk:Multilingual_films. Nicholas0 (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that the initial solution would be to create the category/categories to Category:Films with multiple-language versions first, then go recatorize the films that belong to the new category names.

Removing films that are obviously multilingual out of multilingual film categories is too confusing. A category name should semantically reflect what it contains. Peaceray (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe make an RFC. I would support the change. Peaceray (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone know the proper word/name/term for the style of in-universe advertisements and news stories in Robocop?

Per title, they refer to them as media breaks but other editors want this to be clearer. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking at this video it seems the news program itself is called Mediabreak. Here is a Screen Rant article mentioning it in one of the games. Gonnym (talk) 10:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Gonnym Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

We might need someone familiar with Our Lips Are Sealed (2000) to do some edits

The page for the 2000 movie Our Lips Are Sealed has multiple issues with the plot summary (ie. characters are mentioned who are not established in the movie.) I fixed some grammatical errors but, as I've never seen the movie, I can't fix the larger issues. Anyone watched this movie and can give some tips? C26sm1 (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

List of films by box office admissions

There are lots of Chinese movies at top which does not even have Wikipedia page. Atleast there should be IMDB page to verify whether the movie existed. Vampswefg (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

As per WP:IMDBREF, IMDb is user generated content & therefore not a reliable source. Notablity needs to be verified by citations to reliable sources. Peaceray (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

But the movies listed in that page have no Wiki article, so then why movies that have no Notablity are listed there? It is strange that such highly popular movies have no wiki articles. --Vampswefg (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Just because a film doesn't have a Wikipedia article doesn't mean that one couldn't be created for it. What's important is whether there are sources to verify the information about the film, not whether the film has an article. DonIago (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The presence of these films on the list is verified by citations. Since this is a List of films by box office admissions, it would be silly to omit films that are on that list, even if we have not yet found the citations to fully establish the notability for items. We have many potential articles that are represented by redlinks.

I think that the Wikipedia is a work in progress is relevant here. Peaceray (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of University Heights (film) for deletion

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

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

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

Sock (tock talk) 17:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Film Festivals

Hi, I am surprised there is no article for Richmond International Film Festival and Northern Virginia International Film and Music Festival. Aren't these notable enough? Yann (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

They very well may be notable enough, but given that neither page has any record of deletion I don't imagine notability is the reason why they don't have articles. It's just a matter of whether someone opts to create articles for those festivals, and so far no one has. Sock (tock talk) 17:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Dispute in Falling from Grace (film) article

Since May of last year, I have had a dispute with Fourthords (talk · contribs) over the content on the Falling from Grace (film) article. It went from looking like this on September 20, 2020, to its current status today, it's almost a stub article. Granted, the September 2020 iteration of the article had its issues: the plot summary is a little long, the table for the cast is unnecessary, along with the character descriptions and there are entire paragraphs that were unreferenced in the reception section. But to completely revamp the article to its current status is a bit much. What's even more frustrating is that Fourthords hardly allows any constructive edits on the article. Even when I tried adding information from the film's own poster, he removes it because of "verifiability", even though adding such information like that is not controversial. Fourthords cites a rule here and a rule there, to justify his actions skating on WP:OWN territory. His dominance on the article says it all in the revision history, hardly any edits outside of his own are allowed. If any administrator sees this request, mediate it, please. QuasyBoy (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@QuasyBoy: if you need administrator intervention, this is not the place for it. Take your concerns to WP:ANI. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do that. QuasyBoy (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Question about concert films

Could editors weigh in on my question regarding synopsis of concert films at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film#Synopsis_for_concert_films? Thanks! starship.paint (RUN) 03:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Not My Life Featured article review

I have nominated Not My Life 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

{{Film draft notice}}

Should this template be edited to include a message that articles with it should be given dummy edits to prevent G13 deletion, and a new tracking category? I want to remove articles with this from Category:Promising draft articles, since they aren't meant to be taken to mainspace. Mach61 (talk) 05:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

If any editor believes it has promise, they should use this template and {{Promising draft}}. The film draft notice is just meant to alter editors to WP:NFF and why a yet-to-begin-filming film is not yet eligible for the mainspace. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

May I take this as support for my proposal? Or, alternatively, make the new tracking category a subcat of Promising draft articles. Mach61 (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

No. I don't actually understand what you're trying to accomplish. {{Film draft notice}} has its purpose, {{Promising draft}} has its. Not all film drafts require them to be promising drafts. The distinction should be made by active editors to the drafts if need be, by adding {{Promising draft}}. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about the function of {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} and similar Metacritic template

There is currently a discussion at {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} in regards to listing it as a substonly template that may interest editors of this WikiProject. The discussion can be found here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose has an RfC

Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose 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. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Off-site plagiarism of film theory articles

Hey everyone. It's my first time here, as I'm not currently very involved in the film side of Wikipedia. It recently came to my attention that (at least) three of our articles on film theory have been plagiarised by a YouTube video essayist. Specifically, these were the articles on Formalist, Marxist and Structuralist film theory. (See this video by Hbomberguy, who uncovered this, section starts at 2:34:24) This is concerning not only because of the plagiarism itself, but because many of the passages that were plagiarised were unsourced or poorly-sourced. I've already gone ahead and tagged the areas of the articles where citations are needed and have added a couple reliable sources I already know about to the article on Marxist film theory. I just wanted to highlight this here in case anyone involved in the project knows of further reliable sources on the matter that we can direct our readers to, or if anyone here would be interested in helping improve these articles. I may give a wee rewrite of Marxist film theory a go, if I can find the time for it. In any case, hope everyone here is doing well and all the best wishes for your continued editing. :) --Grnrchst (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Films in the public domain

Hi, Category:Films in the public domain was deleted. Now there isn't a single place here to list the films in the public domain, and that's a problem. Any solution? Yann (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The category can be problematic, because a film in the public domain in one country is not necessarily in the public domain in others. I can't think of any examples off-hand, but this is quite a common occurrence with books e.g. the James Bond novels are in the PD in Canada, but not in the UK. I personally think lists are a better option for public domain films. For example, there is the List of films in the public domain in the United States. Betty Logan (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Yaarukku Theriyum#Requested move 30 November 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Yaarukku Theriyum#Requested move 30 November 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

busts of mock variety (1)

(asking again because last time, it was archived with no answer)

i'd like to add an image to the article on mockbusters because it not having one is boring

to keep it from copyright violation issues, which one would be better?

• the cover of a mockbuster that already has its own article
• a side-by-side of a movie and its mockbuster
• keeping it boring and image-deprived for now
• a possible... other option i'm forgetting about, perhaps?

cogsan _{(give me attention) (see my deeds)} 20:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The process of trying to get an image accepted is difficult. To meet the requirements of WP:NFCC it would probably be best to try two images side-by-side, as "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." best of luck. -- 109.76.200.233 (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

in that case, i'll make a quick side-by-side of the little panda fighter and its inferior bootleg, since they both already have covers here

thanks cogsan _{(give me attention) (see my deeds)} 11:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Rather than making a whole new image I would advise using Template:Multiple image to put the two existing images side by side. If I recall correctly you will also need to edit each of the image pages File:The_Little_Panda_Fighter_(2008)_DVD_cover.jpg and File:Kungfupanda.jpg and add a second "Non-free use rationale" table/template to explain specifically that per WP:NFCC8 there is a specific need to allow this non free image usage. It's a byzantine process, it may take a while and repeated effort to get through the bureaucracy and pass all the necessary requirements. -- 109.76.200.233 (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@Cogsan Since the movie-posters probably can't be used, you could take, for example, the picture of Jeanne Carmen, with a caption like "Jeanna Carmen starred in The Monster of Piedras Blancas, an early mockbuster." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

probably can't be used that remains to be seen. It is a huge hassle to get a non-free image approved and I don't envy anyone trying to struggle through that process, but this really is a case where a picture (or two) would be worth a thousand words and give users an immediate understanding of the fraudulently similar visual presentation used by mockbusters to trick people into renting their titles. -- 109.76.200.233 (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

after a few instances of hardware issues (it seems paint 3d is too much for my work pc to handle) and a few edits to disambiguation pages, i finally got the side-by-side ready, since i believe it would be fair use

to be 100% sure before i fuck something up, can the image be uploaded from here, or does it have to be done from commons? cogsan _{(give me attention) (see my deeds)} 19:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Fair use is done from WP:FUW, "Upload a non-free file". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

thanks, i committed the action cogsan _{(give me attention) (see my deeds)} 20:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

{{Multiple image}} should be used in this instance since both these images already exist on Wikipedia as uploaded images, with added NFU templates for their use on Mockbuster. Don't use a wholly new image of the exact same things. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

(didn't see the notification before, sorry)

then i may or may not have done a little fucky wucky

i'll see if i can get that dealt with this night, when i'm on a pc that doesn't burn when i look at the time too hard cogsan _{(give me attention) (see my deeds)} 18:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

It's fine. Just use {{Multiple images}} with File:The_Little_Panda_Fighter_(2008)_DVD_cover.jpg and File:Kungfupanda.jpg and put additional {{Non-free use rationale}} templates at both those files for their use on Mockbuster. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Addition of Fred Berner page (Maestro producer)

This is my first Wikipedia submission. Fred is listed as a producer on the Maestro page, as well as several other film, television, and theater pages.

The entry has been in review for some time, and I’m unclear how to proceed. If anyone else is interested in moving this submission forward, please let me know if you have any advice for how to strengthen this submission and make it Wikipedia-quality.

Draft:Fred Berner Danielromeroprobstmcswain (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

What preposition goes after "spin-off"?

"To"? "From"? "Of"? All of the above? InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I think "from" is best, but I probably wouldn't make a point of changing "of". "To" sounds incorrect to me, though might be appropriate in certain contexts. DonIago (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, "to" has always seemed wrong to me. "from" is my preference but I wouldn't necessarily change "of" if I came across it. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

As a noun or a verb? I'm not sure, but I would probably use "from" when it's used as a verb and "of" when it's used as a noun—"X was spun off from Y" and "X is a spin-off of Y"—though I wouldn't change either to the other if I came across it. TompaDompa (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

We really need to be more involved in film Featured Article nominations

Surely the goal of this project is to get all notable film articles elevated but I never see much involvement from film project people which makes it take longer to get comments on the nominations and support or oppose them. If people nominate films let me know and I'm happy to take a look. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Film poster discussion

There is a discussion on the use of film posters over newspaper ads here that I think any members of this community may want to add their two cents too. Could potentially effect how we have images in the Infobox in the future. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Non-mobile link here: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 December 13#File:Les-levres-rouges.jpg. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

World of Reel

This site World of Reel is being used as a source for budget figures (the original source appears to have originated from here in July 2023; who got the budget for Beau is Afraid wrong). The website is owned by Jordan Ruimy and the about me page says he has written for The Playlist (last post in 2020), Awards Daily (2018), IndieWire (2019), and The Film Stage (2017?). This site seems similar to WP:WEGOTTHISCOVERED, which they have also written for. What are other editors thoughts on this website being a reliable source (and even for reviews)? Mike Allen 17:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I would say it falls into WP:BLOGS territory. If he is just harvesting budgets from third-party sources without any form of independent corroboration, I would say the site is emphatically not reliable. World of Reel came up at Talk:List_of_biggest_box-office_bombs#The_Flash, whereby an article on the site had simply reproduced a box-office loss figure from a box-office hobbyist on Twitter. There was no corroboration, and the figure was likely wrong in any case. Essentially, the site is using sources that do not meet Wikipedia's WP:Reliable source threshold, so it's a thumbs down from me. Betty Logan (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Major film navboxes up for deletion

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 December 15#AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies templates is attempting to delete these two informational navboxes. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Punctuation in titles, period.

For years various editors have been asserting that the film "Crazy, Stupid, Love" should strictly be written as "Crazy, Stupid, Love." and include a period at the end (or full stop for non-American readers). There have been several discussions about this, including a failed page move proposal. Recently User:InfiniteNexus changed the article to include the period in the title and throughout the article(diff). As this was a contentious change (and included multiple errors such as changing quoted text) I restored the status quo, and believe there should at least a discussion and preferably consensus. If this is in fact the "official name" I can understand including the full punctuation maybe once in an article, but repeating it over and over again is completely contrary to what real life publications and reviews actually do and the period is almost always omitted. (Examples, review from Roger Ebert[1] Review from Variety[2]) It seems contrary to proper English grammar and punctuation to include a period mid sentence. Do this encyclopedia prioritize strict use of the official title or does good writing standard punctuation come first.

This might also apply to films like Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret. (film) but again even if the title does include the period, in normal usage reviewers like trade journal Variety do not repeat the period over and over again.[3] The film Emma (2020 film) was stylized as "Emma." to that version of the title including the period is used only once in the article. Emma. Talk:Emma_(2020_film)#Title_of_film,_styled_as_Emma._with_a_fullstop. discussion points to a few other examples.

It seems incorrect for this encyclopedia to repeat the period at the end of a film title throughout an entire article.
Am. I. wrong.? -- 109.77.196.243 (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't slavishly reproduce unusual stylizations or other quirks in names. Attempting to reproduce stylization produces inconsistent and illogical text, and as you identify, there is rarely consistency in how these names are reproduced in sources (even primary sources like posters, press releases etc). Popcornfud (talk) 13:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the other editor believes that this is more than mere stylization and that the "official title" somehow carries more importance. I try to think about the ordinary reader, imagine what a screenreader would do to this kind of over-punctuation. Is there perhaps an existing guideline that already encapsulates this? -- 109.77.196.243 (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

MOS:CONFORMTITLE Generally, the guidelines on typographic conformity in quoted material also apply to titles of works, including normalization of dashes and quotation marks, conversion of various emphasis techniques, cleanup of punctuation, and use of italics for things like scientific names of species.

"But it's the official name!" is a common mistake. Wikipedia doesn't necessarily care what the "official name" is. We factor in lots of considerations, such as stylization and common use. Popcornfud (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Usually the WP:COMMONNAME takes precedence over the official title, so we prefer what reliable secondary sources use to refer to a film over whatever the official title is. —El Millo (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

More at WP:NCFILM. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

As noted at Talk:Crazy, Stupid, Love, AT and COMMONNAME only govern article titles, which are independent from the actual contents of an article. The RM for that page, as well as any RMs that may occur in the future, are irrelevant and have no bearing on this discussion. The core concern being raised is that a period in the middle of a sentence is somehow grammatically incorrect or confusing. Periods may be rare for titles of works, but plenty of them end with other terminal punctuation marks, specifically an exclamation point or a question mark. And yet we don't omit the punctuation from those titles, whether in the article title or in the body. Why should periods be treated differently? If it were something like a comma or a colon, then I would perhaps agree with its omission, but a period (or question mark or exclamation point) at the end of a phrase is grammatically correct. What "other sources" use is also irrelevant to this conversation, as again, this is a matter of styling rather than naming. Other sources have their own manuals of style; we have ours, and nothing in WP:MOS, MOS:TITLES, or MOS:TM states that we should omit terminal punctuation from titles of works. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

MOS:TM does say "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words or letters (e.g., "♥" used for "love", "!" used for "i") or for normal punctuation, unless a significant majority of reliable sources that are independent of the subject consistently include the special character in the subject's name." The trailing period is "normal punctuation", and in this case we can see that the majority of reliable source do drop the period when discussing the film and using the title as part of a paragraph of other text. Including the full precise official title once might make sense, repeating it though the article seems to contradict that section of MOS:TM. -- 109.76.192.204 (talk) 02:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, I would point to the many, many articles that end with an exclamation point or question mark: Jeopardy!, Airplane!, What If...? (TV series), Where's Wally?, Mamma Mia! (musical), Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (film), Tick, Tick... Boom! (film), etc. And what about periods in the cases of Super Mario Bros. (film), Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., Love, Inc. (TV series), etc.? Claiming that a period attached to a title creates confusion does not seem like a convincing argument. To reiterate, what "other sources" use is irrelevant — Wikipedia follows our in-house manual of style; other publishers have their own. We look at sources to determine what to use as an article's title, not how to refer to the article subject in prose. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

InfiniteNexus said "what "other sources" use is irrelevant" but the guideline MOS:TM I quoted already clearly say otherwise "unless a significant majority of reliable sources that are independent of the subject consistently include the special character in the subject's name" and in the case of Crazy Stupid Love most sources do not include the period. Mario Bros. is an abbreviation, Bros being short for Brothers, including the period is normal usage, Love Inc. is again an abbreviation. In general when the title is an acronym like S.H.I.E.L.D. the periods do seem to be included in normal writing by most external sources (although in that particular case it frequently gets written as SHIELD for simplicity, after the first usage). When titles include exclamation points or question marks it seems to vary, but leans towards inclusion more often than not.) As usual, the Wikipedia rules aren't particularly clear or definitive, leaving things wide open for exceptions and deciding things on a case by case basis. While I understand the desire for consistency (see below, about rounding numbers consistently) it isn't clear to me that being strict and including the extra period in Crazy, Stupid, Love does anything to actually improve the article for ordinary readers (and seems like it would make it worse for people using screen readers). -- 109.76.197.251 (talk) 12:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

It can be reasonably assumed that the "special characters" at MOS:TM is referring to characters other than common punctuation. Per WP:TSC, the only special characters we should actively avoid in article titles are Characters not on a standard keyboard, Quotation marks, Symbols, and Characters not supported on all browsers. MOS:TITLEPUNCT specifically lists O Brother, Where Art Thou? as an example; it does not call for the question mark to be removed. And what about Anderson .Paak? There are no grounds for truncating a name or title in prose simply because it would "break" punctuation rules. The fact that the period is directly attached to the title should tell the reader that it is part of the title. There is no risk of confusion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

InfiniteNexus has pointed to contractions, acronyms, and question marks. That does not seem a like-for-like comparison. InfiniteNexus has pointed to the guideline WP:TSC but that guideline specifically applies to article titles but (based on the inciting edit (diff)) I thought this discussion was about usage throughout the article, not the page name or title. The example of musician "Anderson .Paak" doesn't seem an appropriate comparison, as he is referred by that stage name in the article title and once at the start of the article, the rest of the article refers to him as "Anderson".) If you propose to include the "official" (or stylized) title only once that does not seem unreasonable, but repeating it throughout an article would seem to contradict the recommendation of MOS:TM to follow how "a significant majority of reliable sources" use the films name within prose. -- 109.76.201.96 (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

MOS:TM does not say that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

We seem to be interpreting the same guidelines quite differently, the greentext was quoted directly. It is as if we reliving old arguments asking of WP:PRECISION trumps WP:TRADEMARK (For example Archived discussion from 2012 over the band Fun.). I'm still not seeing anything in the guidelines or past discussion that convinces me that the full official title should be included more than once. InfiniteNexus remains unconvinced by the guidelines we have pointed to or opinions of other editors such as User:Popcornfud or El Millo. So what next? -- 109.76.201.77 (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We should not be looking for a guideline that says to keep the period; we should be looking for a guideline that says to omit it. MOS:TM does not say anything about removing terminal punctuation at the end of titles of works; on the contrary, MOS:TITLEPUNCT explicitly lists O Brother, Where Art Thou? as an example while retaining the question mark. MOS:TM says choose the style that most closely resembles standard English; a period after a phrase is 100% normal English. A significant majority of reliable sources is being used in reference to symbols and other characters not found on a keyboard, not common punctuation marks. If it were considered best practice to omit "confusing" punctuation marks from article titles, then Airplane! and Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? would have long dropped theirs; there is no reason periods should be given a special exemption. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus, you keep trying to refute the IPs reasons for not including the period, but what are the actual arguments in favor of its inclusion? The period is a stylization that isn't consistently used by secondary reliable sources, and not even its current official website ([4]) uses it. Those examples that end in periods you previously brought up aren't comparable, because those come up after either abbreviations or acronyms, where ommitting them would actually be grammatically incorrect, and thus could not cause said confusion. Including sentence-ending periods in titles is non-standard, so there should be a good justification for its inclusion, with its exclusion being the default position given it's already been decided the article is titled that way and that neither official nor secondary reliable sources use the period consistently. —El Millo (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Whether the period is commonly used in sources is not relevant as WP:COMMONNAME is part of WP:AT and only governs the article title, which I am not contesting. I think it is perfectly reasonable to omit the period in the article title, but there is no justification for excluding it in prose. I'm not seeing how the period would create confusion, as it is clearly attached to an italicized title, coforms to MOS:TITLEPUNCT, and is consistent with other articles where the title ends with terminal punctuation. And it's a period, not an unusually long deviation from the common name that would not make sense to be repeated across the article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, you don't cite any good reason in favor of including it. Why should it be included? Is it part of the official title? Because the official Warner Bros. page doesn't use it. Is it consistently used by reliable sources? It doesn't seem like it is. Wikipedia policies and guidelines don't function as real-life laws, something not being prohibited by policies and guidelines isn't justification enough for doing it. —El Millo (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there is no reason to include it in running text. Also the italicized "?" and "!" in other titles with terminal punctuation are fairly obvious that they are part of the title whereas an italicized "." does not appear any differently from a non-italicized ".". Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, it is the official title and not merely something the marketing department came up with as a means of stylization. See the billing block, the MPAA certificate, etc. And I should note that there are sources that include the period: EW, Collider, Huffington Post, Decider, Slant Magazine, etc. The period is also present on Rotten Tomatoes, Box Office Mojo, IMDb (not a reliable source, but still useful to look at), and the BFI catalog. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

With all that being said, since consensus seems to be leaning toward omitting the period, at the very least, I think it is appropriate to include the period once in the first sentence of the lead. This conforms to MOS:FIRST: When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not against including it in its first occurrence, perhaps we could add a source next to it that corroborates it being the official title. —El Millo (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Including the full official title with punctuation once does seem to be within existing Wikipedia policies. At the start of the discussion I did not exclude that possibility. -- 109.79.64.252 (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Normal rounding of numbers and inconsistency

I am seeing a lot of recurring problems with box office grosses in film articles. This project decided it was best for readability to round the box office gross figures, but this is either being done inconsistently or editors are truncating instead of rounding for reasons that are unclear.

1. Can we clarify that MOS:LARGENUM also applies to Wikipedia film articles? Numbers should be rounded in the normal way (ie the numbers 0...4 round down to 0 and the numbers 5...9 round up to 1)
2. Can we agree with the guideline WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE? the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose
3. Can we agree that MOS:LEAD should "usually repeat information that is in the body"

1. It would be easy to simply use the same box office gross figure consistently in all three places, the Infobox, the lead section and the box office section in article body, but some editors do not do this. Doing so would help avoid mistakes occurring when editors seem to have difficulty with rounding numbers in the normal way. Some editors are inconsistently rounding or truncating box office gross figures (e.g. truncating $150.5 million to $150 million which is misleading and inaccurate), including different figures in the lead section compared to the Infobox and box office section of the very same article. Also MOS:LARGENUM states Avoid using "approximately", "about", and similar terms with figures that have merely been approximated or rounded in a normal and expected way, unless the reader might otherwise be misled. but despite this warning some editors persist in using the qualifier "over" instead of rounding in the normal way (e.g. over $150 million), a qualifier that wouldn't even be necessary if they used the same level of decimal place precision for the box office gross in all three places. 2. MOS:LARGENUM is fundamentally the most important point but I also mention WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE for emphasis. Most editors normally make sure that the Infobox box office gross figures do match the article body. I understand editors sometimes forget to update the figures in all three places but I do not understand when editors who have updated in all three places deliberately choose not to use the same figures and the same level of rounding consistently and seem to be truncating the figure for no apparent reason. (There are some older articles that used the full and exact box office gross figures in the article body but a rounded figure in the edit summary, but I am specifically talking editors using rounded figures in the article body but truncating or using a different level of decimal precision in the lead section.) 3. Again it would seem as if there is no good reason for the WP:LEAD not to match the article body and Infobox.

Unless editors have particular disagreements with the existing rules and guidelines, or there is something exceptional about film articles, I hope that we can agree to follow the simple normal rounding of numbers and avoid inconsistently truncating figures. The easiest way to do that is to please use the same box office gross figures consistently throughout the article. Maybe MOS:FILMBOXOFFICE the style guideline should specifically mention normal rounding of numbers and consistency with the Infobox and lead sections? -- 109.77.196.243 (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Box office figures should not be rounded up uncritically, for the same reason that times in races should not be rounded down – it exaggerates the accomplishment. This is particularly inappropriate when it comes to records and milestones. A rather unlikely but hopefully illustrative example is that a film that has grossed $999,999,999 has not in fact grossed $1 billion. If consistency is given primacy, consistently rounding down/truncating is the preferable option. Records must never be rounded to a more impressive figure. TompaDompa (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but that is a little different from what I was saying. I am not saying editors shouldn't use discretion in exceptional cases, but that normally, the normal rules of rounding should apply the same way in the Infobox, the lead section and the article body. If there is an exceptional case as in your example, and editors think $999.9 million is the most appropriate rounding level then that same level of rounding and precision should continue to be used consistently through the article and not truncated to "over $999 million" in some places but not others. -- 109.77.196.243 (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

A specific example from October ([5]) in case reading diff makes it clearer to anyone. This isn't about any one editor, there seem to several editors doing this sort of thing. It is not clear how intentional or deliberate the behavior is, or if people are just in good faith following the style of the most prolific and active editors. -- 109.77.196.243 (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was responding mainly to your point #1 above, in particular the Numbers should be rounded in the normal way (ie the numbers 0...4 round down to 0 and the numbers 5...9 round up to 1) part. TompaDompa (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not discounting that there are a few rare exceptions, but that is not the normal case. I don't think anyone has at any point disagreed that there will be occasional exceptions and those edge cases were considered from the start when project film moved to using rounded figures more often. Here is another example from today ([6]) of an editor putting $136.6 million in the Infobox (and article body) but for no apparent reason truncating that figure to $136 million in the lead section, instead of using either $136.6 million or $137 million consistently in all three places. -- 109.77.196.243 (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's self-evident that different levels of precision being used in different places in the same article is necessarily a problem, even if I do agree that it is somewhat peculiar. TompaDompa (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

It is bizarre, just using the same number 3 times would be easier! Why overcomplicate it? -- 109.77.196.243 (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiments of the point. Obviously the handling of figures certainly in prose should conform to standard rounding practices, unless of course the level of precision is material to the setting of a notable record. There may also be an issue when presenting composite amounts e.g. 40.6 + 50.6 million = 91.2 million, but a rounded version would look like 41 + 51 million = 91 million which looks numerically incorrect, so an editor may opt for the more precise version to avoid the appearance of numerical error, but that perhaps should not preclude rounding to $91 million in the lead or infobox. Is this related to a specific issue? Betty Logan (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Above I pointed to an example from October and from December, this is definitely an ongoing and recurring issue across multiple different film articles, and by different editors. Editing the article The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes an aggressive editor accused me[7] of disruptive editing merely for following the rules, my edit (diff) rounded the numbers correctly and consistently (as the article had done only days before). There seem to be several different editors who put one box office gross figure in the Infobox and change the lead section to inaccurately truncate the box office gross by another decimal place and insist on using the unnecessary qualifier "over" (in this case[8] deliberately truncating $206.8 million to "over $206 million"). I have no issue with editors rounding to 3 significant figures or 4 significant figures so long as they do so consistently. I do think writing "over" is silly (we never say "under" and) MOS:LARGENUM says to avoid similar qualifiers when numbers are rounded in the normal way. Either way it seems easier to write the same number three times than to do it differently in the lead section. It is confusing to me that people seem to be actively ignoring the guidelines choosing to make things more difficult for themselves and deliberately inconsistent and misleading by truncating when normal rounding would be expected. -- 109.76.200.233 (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

This inconsistency and truncating of figures is resulting in errors, some editors do not seem to understand normal rounding of numbers. I think it is strange to truncate the figure and write "over" but it seems instead of correcting and using numbers rounded in the normal way editors think it is appropriate to write that film a has "grossed under $252 million" (diff) C'mon! Seriously? -- 109.76.197.251 (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Your edits have been reverted by MULTIPLE editors. You kept going instead of opening a discussion and waiting for any response in the first place. The page you cite as the basis for your argument, MOS:LARGENUM, states: $8.5 million (not $8,462,247.63), and therefore the film gross (right now $246,612,890) should be $246.6 million, not $247 million. Try to make constructive contributions, do not focus on editors. ภץאคгöร 07:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

My edits have not been reverted by multiple editors, and if that was actually true Nyxaros/Sebastien would provide specific diffs, but he isn't going to do that because he is persistently hostile and WP:UNCIVIL. (User Legobro99 WP:HOUNDING me was not a good faith revert BTW.) Nyxaros/Sebastien aggressively asserts that the guidelines mean exactly 1 decimal place is absolutely required, but also chooses to ignore that the same guidelines say nothing about truncating instead of rounding, and clearly advise against using qualifiers (similar to "over"). There are certainly editors have made updates to the box office gross and changed things to their preferred style, (which Nyxaros/Sebastien did in this diff) but this broad claim that my edits were reverted is inaccurate. Nyxaros/Sebastien is also arguing at cross purposes, if an editor believes it is appropriate to use the figures to another decimal place consistently that is one thing, but that is not what he did. (Please do look at the diff.) In the Infobox he updated the figure to $206.8 million, and change the lead section to "over $206 million" which misleading truncates the figure instead of rounding in the normal way or matching the same level of decimal precision as the Infobox. If he had written either $207 million or $206.8 million in consistently cases I would not have had a problem with it, but there is no apparent reason for deliberately writing the same figure two different ways. "Try to make constructive contributions, do not focus on editors" That is entirely disingenuous, I am not the one making this personal, I have no interest about making this about one particular editor, the examples diffs I provided above were from three separate editors all doing this for no apparent reason (only one of whom thought it appropriate to threaten me over it). I have not made it about one person, I have asked for an explanation of why people have been doing this. Using the same figures consistently should be the easy option, why actively change an article to use a misleadingly truncated figure? It would be constructive if someone could actually explain why they believe this inconsistency is necessary or beneficial. -- 109.76.197.251 (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Nxyaros formerly known as User:Sebastian James (see the rename request log on that page) is literally making it personal and instead of simply answering the question of why round inconsistently? He follows me to another page (User talk:BusterD to complain diff and deny he used to go by a different username) and to make it personal. Admins can check his unpleasant track record (that has just about managed to stay within the rules). I have no interest in making this personal but when faced by an aggressive editor who persistently tries to make a straw-man argument I'm not going to pretend he hasn't been doing this sort of thing for years now. If anyone is actually willing to explain or discuss why there might be some reason to truncate the numbers instead of rounding in the normal way I would be interested to learn why they think this is better, and discuss further.

-- 109.76.197.251 (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with writing $206.8 million. Instead of "over $206 million" in the text, why not just write "$206.8 million" there as well? I don't think it makes a difference personally, but it would make it consistent. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the situation is about whether it is "over" or not. I think both "over $206" and "$206.8" are fine. There is clearly an IP who is trying to attack other editors who don't even care about them and distort what MOS:LARGENUM states. As I wrote above, it explicitly mentions $8.5 million (not $8,462,247.63), which is not the IP wants to use. It's also written "Avoid using "approximately", "about", and similar terms", which the IP twists "similar terms" as "under" or "over" instead of "about, approximately, approximately about, around, roughly, roughly about". I see nothing else to discuss in this discussion except an IP attacking users and trying to discredit them by lying and making false accusations. ภץאคгöร 19:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Erik, thanks. That's what I've been trying to say, I'd be happy with just a little more consistency. Truncating "$206.8 million" down to $206 million seems misleading to me. (Or possibly it is a rounding error, but if it is an error then it would be better to present the numbers in a way that avoids an unnecessary error occurring.) I have tried to make this discussion impersonal, my examples came from three different editors (at least two different films). Should I try and bring other specific editors into this discussion? -- 109.76.201.96 (talk) 13:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Last week I invited User:Evope to comment on this discussion, as someone I noticed changing articles to do this on occasion, but my impression is that they mostly follow update box office gross figures in whatever way the article is using. There seems to only be a few prolific editor that seem to be truncating or rounding inconsistently (and writing "over"). Again I thought existing guidelines essentially already covered this. Besides the one user who has made their opinion abundantly clear already (I find it difficult to understand how someone would take pointing to a guideline as a personal attack) do any other editors really think my reading of MOS:LARGENUM "Avoid using "approximately", "about", and similar terms" is wrong, inaccurate? I did not think it was a stretch to say qualifiers like over and under were similarly unnecessary for numbers rounded in the normal way. Anyway when a film finishes at the box office the figures generally do seem to settle down to something more consistent (some editors favor different levels of decimal precision when it is all finished, but my point was always about consistency not to insist on any specific level of decimal places just that whatever an editor felt was appropriate was used in all three places).

From this discussion I hope it is reasonable to conclude that most editors accept that keeping the box office gross figures [consistent] is generally preferable. -- 109.79.64.252 (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

"The Other Girl"

There is a discussion here about whether or not to move The Other Girl (song) to The Other Girl. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Categories and TV miniseries

Hello, WikiProject Film,

I was just looking at a category that is nominated at CFD and came upon World War III (miniseries) that is in this particular category and was surprised to see that it is categorized in all of these "Film" categories even though it was a TV miniseries. These seem like two different category trees so I was wondering if you could help me understand whether or not this is typical. I'm not even sure if TV movies should be in a Film category, much less miniseries. Thanks for any insight you can offer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Academy Award Shortlist

Like Here Many users are adding Academy award entries to "Awards and Nominations/Accolades" section after the announcement of Shortlists of some categories By Academy. They look like WP:INDISCRIMINATE and we generally add only Wins and nominations. Are these notable for inclusion. Sid95Q (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Content in the lead intro

I remember several discussions here about providing the most important info to readers first in the lead intro, which, for most films, is the genre(s), director, writer and cast. If a director or writer also produced, that's typically mentioned in the intro too. There are certain types of films, such as Marvel and DC films, whose production companies carry more weight than who the hired director is, so the studio is mentioned first. I don't believe this made it to a guideline or suggestion on WP:FILMLEAD or WP:FILM. Is there a discussion or consensus on this that can be pointed to?

Please refer to this recent example on the 2023 film Maestro, where someone is choosing to mention the director in the second sentence, after the film's synopsis. And then a string of six producers, before mentioning the lead cast, which includes the director. Lapadite (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Fresh eyes requested at Blade Runner

Hi everyone. There's been a back and forth of additions and reversions for the last month or so in the lead at Blade Runner. Outside opinions would be greatly appreciated here Scribolt (talk) 11:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Need more people to reach a consensus for Talk:Napoleon (2023 film)#Distributors

If anyone has the time, we need at least a third party member to help with this discussion at Talk:Napoleon (2023 film)#Distributors. It's just me and one other guy and we can't come up with a consensus. IAmNMFlores (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

"Revealed", date proseline, unnecessary dating, and misuse of dates making our material itself unencyclopedic

We really need an organized cleanup effort to go through our film and TV articles and fix some recurrent and related problems, and address these matters directly in the style guide. In summary, nearly every time someone writes "On 2 December 2023, Smith revealed that the second teaser trailer would be released in January 2024", they are making a mistake.

• Infotainment news bits are not "revelations". This not a religion. Stop saying that, especially multiple times per article and about unimportant trivia.
• Not every trivial announcement or bit of detail confirmation needs a date attached to it in our prose. This just bloats our material, writes a timeline instead of an article, and is redundant with the dates in the citations in the first place.
• Dates are generally not relevant at all for when things were announced after they have already happened, except perhaps for major casting and other production decisions, and even then a month and year are almost always sufficient. E.g. it does not matter, after the show is already out, when so-and-so was confirmed in the press as having been chosen as the composer; what is enclopedically relevant is that they were the composer (and perhaps when the composing took place might be of interest to someone; but not the date of first E! magazine mention). And some of these awful constructions are pure WP:OR and probably wrong. If news comes out on April 10 that I. P. Frehley is confirmed to be playing a role in the show, it is not correct to write "Frehley joined the cast on April 10"; that decision was almost certainly made before it was announced in the entertainment press.

There are lots of other issues like this, but I want to just focus on a narrow set of closely related writing faults for now. Even a couple of minutes of tweaking can markedly improve an article in this regard, e.g. [9] (yes, I already fixed the repeated-words typo).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree. This problem is being caused by certain editors who try to be the first to "start" film articles who are unduly wordy in this way. I endorse cleaning this up, but the editors should be prompted to do better. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

In the interest of good faith, I see dates mostly added by editors who are adding recent events to existing articles. But perhaps most importantly, this isn't a film-specific issue at all; it happens everywhere, and I also try to clean that up wherever I see it. If effort is made to prompt editors to do elsewise, it might be better spent somewhere with a broader scope, like WP:NOTNEWS. We should aim for fewer instances of film-specific MOS forking, not more. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I think all of this should be uncontroversial, but in case it turns out I'm mistaken it may be worth adding it to MOS:FILM (or wherever) to have somewhere "official" to point to when it comes up. Probably shouldn't add it if it isn't necessary however, keeping WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP in mind. TompaDompa (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

100% agreed on these being problems. It's the kind of content I'm often removing. Same problem for video game and music articles. Popcornfud (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Comedy actor categories

Please note that I've initiated a CfD regarding multiple "comedy actor" categories. You are welcome to join the discussion. DonIago (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Spider-Man: Lotus for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Spider-Man: Lotus is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Spider-Man: Lotus until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

Proposal for Steamboat Willie as POTD

Courtesy notice: There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day#Steamboat Willie, proposing to feature Steamboat Willie (1928) as the main page POTD on January 1 when it's public domain. Interested editors are welcome to comment there. Adumbrativus (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposed article split for Rattle and Hum

I'm proposing an article split for Rattle and Hum and would like some feedback. The subject in question is both an album and documentary film by U2, and the article currently covers both topics. While there is some overlap between the two, I think they should each have their own articles. We're looking for some feedback at Talk:Rattle and Hum#Propose to split into two articles. Thanks. –Dream out loud (talk) 09:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

What is the standard for various "controversies" categories?

I noticed a while back that there are some IPs that seem to add an awful lot of movies to "controversies" articles. Here's an example today, at the article for Master Harold...and the Boys (2010 film). The article makes no mention of any controversy whatsoever. It is about apartheid, but that's the subject not a controversy about the movie. I feel like I see this regularly, but don't always know what the expectations are about these categories.

Let's look at another example, Brokeback Mountain, which is in 7 "controversies" categories, some of which are probably due. But obscenity? The word "obscenity"/"obscene" isn't mentioned in the article. China didn't distribute it and was accused of censorship, but didn't rule that it's obscene (and it's already in the censored films category). So what is required for us to label something a "controversy" or, more specifically, to say that the kind of controversy was "obscenity"? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

If it's not a defining characteristic that's well-sourced in the prose, the article shouldn't be in that category. Anyone can claim a film was controversial, obscene, banned, or whatever. Interestingly, this is a common tactic used to bolster a film's reputation among cinephiles. I think I added a bit about this to cult film. What the sources said was that fans would spuriously claim that their favorite films had been banned so that the films seemed much cooler to the other other cinephiles. This also bleeds over into the marketing, for the same reason. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The Marvels - "box office bomb" discussion

There's been a discussion going on here regarding the sources, the wording, WP:OR, etc. Even though the discussion is a bit less contentious than when it first started, it probably wouldn't hurt to get a few more eyes and opinions on it. Thanks! Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Anne-Sophie Dutoit

Hi, Do you think Anne-Sophie Dutoit is notable enough for an article? 690.000 results on Google. Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB. Yann (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Yann, it's not if we think she is notable it's if you can find coverage of her in reliable sources to justify the article existing (note you can't use IMDb as a source because it is user edited and so considered unreliable). If you can find coverage of her to cover things like her life and career then it's plausible an article could be notable. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

AMBA (animated film)

I came across AMBA (animated film) and I'm unsure what the correct disambiguation the article should use. According to the article this isn't one film but two short films, so "film" is not correct here. Should it just be a simple plural "AMBA (animated films)" or something else? Gonnym (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

If it's two parts of one film then animated film is OK I guess? Either that or AMBA (animation)? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

"Attributed to multiple references"

The phrase "attributed to multiple references" is used in some places where many references are collected into one footnote. See e.g. Saving Private Ryan#Notes. The construct immediately strikes me as odd, and I raised local related discussions on talk pages here, here and here. Most of the about 150 occurrences of the phrase on Wikipedia are related to film.

I think that the phrase might be frowned upon for three reasons:

• It doesn't distinguish between source and reference. A reference points the way to the source, where the facts are found.

• "Attributed" seems less than perfect. It carries agency – who is doing the attributing? And it sounds, perhaps, a bit subjective: "We, the editors, regard the information as coming from these sources."

• It's unnecessarily cumbersome. Wouldn't just "Sources:" do the job?

—St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 14:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

At first blush I would agree; something simpler, such as sources or "Found in: " would be better. I assume it's just a game of telephone usage from the prescriptions at WP:REFBUNDLE and then people just copied the examples they found so it propagated? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

St.Nerol, it generally isn't a good idea to start so many concurrent discussions over the same topic. This debate originated at Talk:The Dark Knight, where you were directed to the relevant guidelines (namely, MOS:VAR, WP:CITEBUNDLE, and MOS:ACCLAIMED), and where the discussion should have probably been centralized. I don't think "attributed to multiple references" is that problematic: a source is basically synonymous with a reference (even if the technical definitions differ), and "attributed" just means the claim is verified through these references. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it's an unnecessary, redundant phrase. If you're bundling citations together, there's no need tell readers the obvious that they can see: "Here are the references: [1][2][3]", which is essentially what that phrase is doing. Readers (and editors looking through the references section) would be better served by briefly stating what content the citation bundle is supporting; for instance, "Height of the Eiffel Tower: [1][2][3]". Lapadite (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Number of citations used at Oppenheimer for critically acclaimed

More editor input is appreciated at the discussion here, specifically regarding the amount of citations used for critically acclaimed. When multiple sources are already cited (in this case four), can there be an agreement on an arbitrary number of extra citations needed for a widely-supported statement? Lapadite (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Lapadite Would it be better for the discussion to be centered here (as in the above thread) or in the original discussion (in Talk:The Dark Knight#"Attributed to multiple references" as mentioned by InfiniteNexus above) instead? It's confusing when three other discussions are opened in different articles (including Oppenheimer) but they all refer to the same topic. Jolly1253 (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jolly1253: That's a separate discussion about the use of the note "Attributed to multiple references" next to a citation bundle, and it spawned from the Dark Knight article. St.nerol mentioned that on the Opppenheimer talk page, but the Oppenheimer discussion is focused on the number of citations that would satisfy the MOS for a "critically acclaimed" statement, which is what my input request here is for. I just created a subsection on the Oppenheimer talk page to separate the topic. Lapadite (talk) 07:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a subtopic of the same discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Exactly what I had written above. The number of concurrent discussions is making things confusing. For those trying to keep track, the discussions are:

• Talk:The Dark Knight#"Attributed to multiple references"
• Talk:Oppenheimer (film)#"Attributed to multiple references"
• Talk:Godzilla Minus One#"Universal" critical acclaim
• This discussion (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#"Attributed to multiple references")

InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the confusion with multiple discussions. There was an initial local consensus at Godzilla Minus One and Oppenheimer, and then disagreement at The Dark Knight. Perhaps this is the best place to reach some kind of principal agreement? –—St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 10:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

One or two editors not being familiar with project-wide/sitewide guidelines is not "local consensus". InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Superlatives, and in a much more general sense Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:PUFFERY.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

To summarize what I wrote at Talk:Oppenheimer (film):

• Exceptional/contentious/PEACOCK claims such as "critically acclaimed" must be attributed to multiple reliable sources, per MOS:ACCLAIMED and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. There is no consensus on how many qualify as "multiple", but I have seen anywhere from five to fifteen (not just on film articles). Around 10 seems to be the sweet spot, though that is not a requirement. So if an article already has 11 refs, there is nothing wrong or uncommon with that and we shouldn't be intentionally removing sources.
• There are many ways to bundle these citations to avoid WP:CITEKILL. Some articles use bullet points (which don't work for articles with list-defined references), some articles simply nest refs in an efn note, and some article use "attributed to multiple references" or similar wording. Any of these methods are acceptable, so per MOS:VAR they should be left alone. There shouldn't be a concerted effort to remove all 159 instances (not just limited to film) of "attributed to multiple references" just because some people don't like it.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, it comes down to some people misinterpreting the defintion of attributed since it has multiple uses.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I've given several reasons for why I frown upon the phrase "attributed to multiple references" in the main discussion above. Please respond to them there, if you will. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 23:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

There are more aspects to WP:CITEKILL than whether the citations are bundled or not. Anything in excess will be frowned upon. Just like we dont want our articles overly long, I guess that we don't want longer rows of sources than needed and reasonably expected.

Even if 12 sources meet the bar for a claim, some will be more notable and of higher quality than others. It would make sense to pick the best ones, rather than undifferentiatedly let them disappear in a large group. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 23:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

ICTFSOURCES comment

There is a discussion going on to revisit the reliability of sources listed in WP:ICTFSOURCES, which was last done 8 years ago. All comments are welcome. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:A Guilty Conscience (2023 film)#Requested move 5 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:A Guilty Conscience (2023 film)#Requested move 5 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

This is yet another RM that seeks to challenge/undermine WP:PFILM. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Phir Subah Hogi#Requested move 7 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Phir Subah Hogi#Requested move 7 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Lili (film)#Requested move 8 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lili (film)#Requested move 8 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Terrifier (franchise)#Requested move 8 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Terrifier (franchise)#Requested move 8 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Retroactive credits

At Batman Returns the film is credited as based on characters by Bob Kane and published in DC Comics. I've kept it this way and added a hidden note explaining that in 2015 Bill Finger was retroactively identified as the co-creator of many Batman characters and Bob Kane just took all the credit. I've done it this way because I don't like retrospectively modifying credits if it's not how the film was credited at the time (I don't know if this is updated in more modern releases) but I'm wondering if I'm being a bit intransient so I wanted second opinions. Given that we now know that Bill Finger was involved in these characters, should we retroactively update this information for the infobox or retain it as is? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with the situation, but it seems comparable to the blacklisted writers who had their credits restored e.g. Dalton Trumbo for Roman Holiday. I think if they are now officially credited, then going forward Wikipedia should reflect this fact, perhaps with a footnote explaining that the person wasn't credited at time of the release. Some of these people endured a terrible injustice, being deprived of income and acknowledgment of their work, and Wikipedia shouldn't perpetuate that injustice. The revisionism was really at the time of the film's release, not by us correcting the factual record. This is an entirely different scenario to uncredited writers, who normally aren't added to the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Betty, that's definitely the way I was leaning. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Baptism of Fire#Requested move 12 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Baptism of Fire#Requested move 12 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:$pent#Requested move 13 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:$pent#Requested move 13 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding images to articles without images

Hi everyone. Can I just check I'm doing something right? I don't want to screw things up! If an article's Talk page has (for example) Category:British cinema articles needing an image, and I then add an image to the article, is the process to then edit the Talk page and remove needs-image=yes from the {{Film|British-task-force=yes}} template? Similarly, if I find an article which already has an image, yet strangely also hasneeds-image=yes , to again simply remove that bit from the template? Thanks! Tobyhoward (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Tobyhoward, I think that is how it works or simply replace yes with no? Did you find any clarification about this? If yes please consider sharing it here. Thank you. 456legendtalk 03:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, add an image and remove |needs-image=. Gonnym (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@456legend @Gonnym Thanks both. I haven't been able to find any other clarification, so thank you. I had been hoping to use Category:British cinema articles needing an image to help me find articles without images, but alas it hasn't worked out. Many articles with needs-image=yes on their Talk page have actually had images added – I guess because the editor adding the image didn't know to remove the needs-image. Tobyhoward (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Some of the maintenance categories could benefit from bots going over them and removing them if they no longer need to be there. But until we have those bots, we have to do it manually :) Gonnym (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Memento (film)

Memento (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. Z1720 (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Infobox original theatrical release poster

There is a discussion at Template talk:Infobox film#Original theatrical release poster that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Οἶδα (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Genre on Poor Things

There is discussion on how to apply genre to the lead in the Poor Things (film) article. If anyone is interested to add there thoughts here, it would be greatly appreciated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Genre articles

So, among our most linked to articles we have are on film genres. I've slowly been trying to re-work some of them into more stable formats (namely, Horror film, Thriller film, Mystery film and just now, Action film. I've seen very little feedback on this (except for Horror!) and I was curious if anyone had any suggestions on how to make these better or where we could go from here with these. I've made some talk about it on the action film talk page, but I figured I'd bring it to the attention of the WikiProject. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Documentary films

Are biographical documentary films considered as "cultural depictions"? I ask because I've noticed some inconsistencies in categorisation, e.g.:

• Pelé (2021 film) is in Category:Cultural depictions of Pelé, but
• Elton John: Tantrums & Tiaras is not in Category:Cultural depictions of Elton John

Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Depictions of people on film is sub-category of Category:Cultural depictions so the tree seems ok. Interisintgly, Category:Biographical works by subject does not seem to be connected.

I'd also note that Category:Cultural depictions of Pelé has a few pages that should probably be placed in a Category:Works about Pelé category. Gonnym (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Thanks for the reply. DH85868993 (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Disney (disambiguation)#Requested move 24 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Disney (disambiguation)#Requested move 24 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion about Screen Rant reliability

A discussion is ongoing at Talk:Priscilla (film)#Vandalism about the reliability of using a Screen Rant article to support a box office break even amount. More input is appreciated. Mike Allen 02:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Commented. TompaDompa (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Sub-genre in Horror film article

There is discussion on the inclusion of a sub-genre on Talk:Horror film. The current discussion seems to be around whether a proposal for an added sub-genre is backed up by it's sources. Any additional commentary here would be helpful. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion about character name spelling at Beetlejuice

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Beetlejuice regarding the spelling of the titular character. The thread is Character name spelling. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Hollywood Reel Independent Film Festival

Anyone know anything about Hollywood Reel Independent Film Festival? I came across the claim that the latest Neil Breen nonsense won some awards there and figured I'd check it out. Our article has a lot of sources, nearly all of which are primary. The article was written by two users, one of whom has never edited anything else and the other has the same name as someone who won one of its awards. It seems like it exists, but I can find very little written about it that the organizers and winners didn't write themselves. Feels like one of those "industry awards" schemes, but maybe it's just so indie it doesn't even get noticed by the indie press. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It's definitely a red flag to see most of the citations be primary sources. Checking Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, the former mentions it in passing once, and the latter doesn't mention it at all. I don't think this festival is notable for a standalone article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I've listed it for AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollywood Reel Independent Film Festival. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Damascus International Film Festival shoehorned into Cinema of Syria

Hi all--I have a fairly simple question/dispute for you: should the content of Damascus International Film Festival be inserted into Cinema of Syria? I don't see why, there is no reason given for it, and the text (unacknowledged) for a local film festival is simply pasted into an article on a national cinema--but User:Thatsyrianitalian persists. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Allegro Non Troppo#Requested move 24 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Allegro Non Troppo#Requested move 24 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Film directors by genre

We currently have Category:Film directors by genre, with several subcategories. I have some concerns about this. Particularly, WP:PERFCAT is very clear that performers shouldn't be categorized by the genre(s) in which they've performed. Obviously directors aren't actors, but I'm not clear on why directors should be treated differently in this case. I was considering opening a CfD on the matter, but I thought I'd request opinions here first, as opening a multi-category CfD is a fair amount of effort, and if there are arguments I haven't considered, I'd rather hear them here first. Thanks for your thoughts! DonIago (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Millie De Chirico, former programmer and host of TCM Underground

I just made an article for Millie De Chirico, the former programmer and host of TCM Underground. Any help finding more sourcing would be appreciated! Thriley (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea

There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page for The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea regarding the credited names. It can be found at Talk:The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea#Tara Charendoff. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Help with improving article about Mania Akbari

The subject of the article Mania Akbari has written a list of things that need correcting or updating in her article - see User talk:Womanfeminist2024. I've worked on some of the items, but the article could use more help. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Ref missing from citation. Help?

I tried updating the Metacritic cite on Godzilla, King of the Monsters! but the ref is missing [10]. Am I doing something wrong? Armegon (talk) 02:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Armegon In order for the reference to appear when using the template, it requires "Metacritic ID" property to be defined on Wikidata. (per the template's documentation) I've added the property on Wikidata; the reference should appear now. Jolly1253 (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! Armegon (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Production budget versus cost?

For the Argylle (film) I believe it is misleading to knowingly present the cost paid by Apple like as if was the actual production budget. In December I first raised concerns about the sloppy reporting of costs Talk:Argylle#Budget,_cost,_or_price_paid?. (For example Apple bought CODA (2021 film) for $25 million, but the film itself had a production budget of $10 million. We do not yet have any official budget figures for Argylle, just the price Apple paid to buy the distribution rights.)

Including this information in the Production section attributed to the reliable sources and with context to explain is entirely appropriate but summarizing Apple's cost and putting them in the Infobox with the label buget is WP:UNDUE and misleading. User:TropicAces takes a different view and insist that is appropriate to put these numbers in the Infobox. I believe this encyclopedia should be more cautious and take greater care not to mislead readers, or highlight figures that the director has disputed. Do other editors think caution is necessary with these disputed figures or do they think highlighting these figures with the label "budget" in the Infobox is appropriate and consistent with existing guidelines? See Talk:Argylle#Budget,_cost,_or_price_paid? -- 109.79.74.142 (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Aadarsam#Requested move 5 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Aadarsam#Requested move 5 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikiproject Film banner applicable to actor filmography articles?

The guidance on banners says:

Remove the {{WikiProject Film}} banner and/or any cinema parameters from the talk pages of {{WikiProject Biography}} articles.

But when an actor's filmography is moved from the actor's biography article to its own separate article is it appropriate or not to apply the {{WikiProject Film}} banner since the filmography article is not a {{WikiProject Biography}} article? See, for example, Talk:Aishwarya_Rai_Bachchan_filmography?  — Archer1234 (t·c) 02:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

A filmography article is technically a sub-article of the actor article that is split off due to size limits. So I think the banner approach should carry over -- continuing to use the biography banner and never using the film banner. We would not put the film banner in an actor's article if they had a filmography short enough not to be split off. The underlying linchpin of a filmography article is the actor (or the crew member). For film series, companies, etc, the underlying linchpin isn't a person. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

"See You On Venus" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect See You On Venus has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 29 § See You On Venus until a consensus is reached.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 16:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Due to the lack of response, the request for discussion of See You On Venus has been relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_6#See_You_On_Venus. Readers of this page are encouraged to comment on the redirect there.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 21:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Feedback Requested for Draft on '+380 | Kyiv, Ukraine'.

I've drafted an article on '+380 | Kyiv, Ukraine,' a 2022 short film by Andrew Opryshko, notable for its storytelling and non-verbal acting. I seek feedback on content accuracy, formatting, and presentation to align with Wikipedia standards. Insights on emphasizing its contribution to Ukrainian cinema would also be valuable.

Draft link: Draft:+380 Kyiv, Ukraine

Thanks for your support, BrickWik ~~~~ BrickWik (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

~~~~BrickWik BrickWik (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Distributors of Mission Impossible - Fallout

I hate films. Just say "Distributed by"

A few people have removed Skydance as distributor from the article. I have followed the opening credits which gives Paramount and SkyDance the Presented By credit at this Variety review which says "A Paramount Pictures release, presented with Skydance" and these companies had a co-financing, production and distribution agreement from 2009 to about 2021, which reads, to me, that they're both involved even if it's just SkyDance's financing. Both companies provided financing and worked together, only TC Productions and Bad Robot Productions are listed as production companies. The end credits say "Copyright Paramount" but I'm unsure what that means or if that is anything to do with distribution. I need some input so there is a bar set for the article please. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

"A Paramount Pictures release, presented with Skydance" sounds like Paramount is doing the releasing on its own, which would make it the sole distributor. This article covers the deal between the two companies that Fallout was made under and it is not explicit, but it refers to Skydance as producing and the only mention of distribution is Paramount distributing Skydance's animated films (doesn't say co-distributing). This article is from after Fallout opened and is once again not explicit, but it refers to Skydance as "the film's financier" and seems to refer to Paramount as "the distributor". - adamstom97 (talk) 06:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Reference Help Needed - Hilary Harris "Organism 1975"

Dear wiki film fellows,

I have been trying for a few weeks to publish a page on Organism (1975) a pioneer film by Hilary Harris. I am struggling big times to find good enough sources for the page to be accepted, even though, we are talking about a milestone in avant-garde cinema.

Draft:Organism (1975)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAQVP-3U_UQ

Can anyone help out? Maybe you know of a strong article or book about/mentioning the film.

Thanks! Cinematic Poetry (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cinematic Poetry Have you tried digging in the [11]? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Something:[12] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång wow! thank you so much for the tip! I'll look deeply into it. Cinematic Poetry (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cinematic Poetry Also, with 514 edits to your name, I think you have access to this:[13]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Yes, you are right, it's a new tool for me I'll dig in both. Thank you. Cinematic Poetry (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Tusen tack, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång! :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I'll count that as my article, now. ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Cast list for a short film

I'm trying to find a source to verify the cast list at Don't Be a Sucker, but I'm not having any luck. The video doesn't even have on screen credits. Is there anyone here with tips on how to find info about short films like this, or for cast lists for things other than feature films and TV episodes? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

What's wrong with taking the sentence, "It stars Paul Lukas, Felix Bressart, and Kurt Kreuger, and it is narrated by Lloyd Nolan," and using the three starring names in a "Cast" section? It doesn't have to be that long. Also, in my research, I found that Richard Collins may have written and/or directed it, so perhaps the article could cover that too. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

If it's just three names without additional detail, a bulleted list isn't necessary (MOS:PROSE). Good catch on Collins, added. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Chinese Ip Man movies

These movies are not listed on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ip_Man_(film_series) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt21028848/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12567246/ 89.147.81.224 (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The first IMDb link is Ip Man: The Awakening while the second link is Ip Man: Kung Fu Master. The latter one is listed in the Ip Man template under "Other films", which means it is not in the film series and therefore shouldn't be included in the article mentioned above. (The Awakening does not have an article on this Wikipedia, but even so, it should be listed in "Other films" instead.) Jolly1253 (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Guidance on unrealized projects

A bunch of material has been added to the encyclopedia regarding "unrealized" projects associated with film directors. The Ohio IP Special:Contributions/69.171.196.80 and Philadelphia IP range Special:Contributions/2601:4A:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 have been involved, and the user named ZanderAlbatraz1145. The recent series of additions started in November 2022. The Ohio IP got blocked twice for adding improperly supported material.[14]

The problem here is twofold: sometimes text is being added which is not supported by the cites. The cites talk about current projects, but the users here are looking back with hindsight, classifying them as unrealized. That's a problem with WP:Verifiability which demands that "the cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article." And multiple sources are being thrown together to create a new conclusion not found in any of the individual sources. That's a violation of WP:SYNTH.

This kind of stuff can be added with appropriate cites. For instance, the now-retired editor Hitcher vs. Candyman started the article David Gordon Green's unrealized projects in 2019, based on the valid source https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/the-lost-unmade-abandoned-projects-of-director-david-gordon-green-87145/. There were some problems with synthesis, but at least the foundation was there. One of the Philadelphia IPs began the draft article Wes Craven's unrealized projects in January 2023,[15] based on a valid source: https://screenrant.com/unmade-wes-craven-horror-movie-projects/. Again, there were problems with synthesis.

In May 2023, ZanderAlbatraz1145 made a substantial expansion to the Peter Bogdanovich biography, adding a long paragraph about the project Wait for Me. This paragraph described the project as one of Bogdanovich's "final hopes" even though the sourcing is contemporary, lacking any objectivity about whether the project ever got filmed, or how it fits into Bogdanovich's oeuvre. The material violates WP:V because it is not being presented the same way it appears in the source. And there was entirely too much detail relative to the importance of this unrealized project.

I would like to ask WikiProject Film to compose guidance for unrealized projects appearing in various forms on Wikipedia. Feel free to comment on the following suggestions.

• 1: Unrealized projects can be contained in their own list articles if the entries are adequately cited as being incomplete/canceled/unrealized or lost in development hell. We should not assemble such lists with contemporary reports of the film project underway.
• 2: Unrealized projects can be added to the biographies of film directors, producers, actors, etc., if and only if the media describe such projects as unrealized.
• 3: Contemporary citations describing the project as ongoing or future should only be used to add detail on top of a foundation citation that says the project was canceled.
• 4: In all cases, the material should be presented with due WP:WEIGHT; that is, it should not be considered as important as realized projects unless the media describe it that way. In a typical biography, realized projects are much more important than unrealized projects. We would rarely need detailed descriptions of unrealized projects.

Thanks for your consideration. 16:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I would like to say that I used to be User:Hitcher vs. Candyman (I retired per WP:CLEANSTART). In my previous account, I did create “unrealized projects” articles on John Hughes, Terry Gilliam, David Gordon Green (as User:Binksternet aforementioned) and Michael Cimino (which has been redirected to article of said filmmaker). At the time I created those pages, I was unaware of WP:LISTN.

That being said, ever since I became The Film Creator, I’ve created more “unrealized projects” articles using the LISTN protocol. Basically, I encourage that if there are multiple reliable sources that show a list of unrealized projects from a said filmmaker, it can be eligible for article creation. The Film Creator (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, when it comes to an “Unrealized projects” section on a page about a certain filmmaker…

Take these for example:

John Badham#Unrealized projects

Noel Black#Unrealized projects

Cameron Crowe#Unrealized projects

Frank Oz#Unrealized projects

Alexander Payne#Unrealized projects

Nicolas Winding Refn#Unrealized projects

If there is not one reliable source that covers the list of unrealized projects as a set for each of those six filmmakers, the sections ought to be removed per WP:SYNTH.

Now take a section like Terry Zwigoff#Unrealized projects for example. That section (on the Zwigoff page) should not be removed because there is a link from, in this case, ThePlaylist.net, that mentions the list of Zwigoff’s unrealized projects as a whole.

Therefore, if there’s only one reliable source that mentions the list as a set, it should be eligible for a section on the page of said filmmaker. If there’s more than one reliable source, that can be eligible for an article itself per WP:LISTN. That’s how I think information concerning a filmmaker’s unrealized projects should be addressed on Wikipedia. The Film Creator (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

One last thing, I would like to add: if there’s more than one reliable source that mentions the list of unrealized projects as a set, the reliable sources have to be different from each other. I’ll use Sergio Leone for example: if you look at these links from IndieWire and ThePlaylist.net, it’s the same word-for-word article written by the same author, Oliver Lyttleton. Therefore, in the case of Leone, that would be eligible for a section in Leone’s page and not an article creation IMO. The Film Creator (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. One reliable WP:SECONDARY source: paragraph in biography, or possibly a section considering weight. Two sources: list article can be created per LISTN. What do you think of this? Each of the list article entries should be based on at least one source describing the project as unrealized. No entries can be based on contemporary news items by themselves, describing the project as ongoing or future. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is a good topic to discuss! First, it is worth noting that this WikiProject focuses on just films, where WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers would be more appropriate. Though I do recognize that the latter lacks a MOS (and really should have one).

Even so, I think we can discuss this topic a bit more broadly. The concept of "unrealized projects" could be beyond directors too, with some studios trying to finally produce certain development-hell films. The Logan's Run remake comes to mind. Or some films have sequel plans announced with no follow-up. Ace Ventura: Pet Detective has (had?) a planned reboot with screenwriters attached in 2021 with no update since. It's hard to know when to frame it in retrospect when we don't know what is going on or not going on. Obviously reliable sources reporting in retrospect "unrealized" projects is an excellent qualifier, especially for endorsing standalone lists.

I'm less sure of requiring "unrealized" for more passing mentions. Sometimes directors go from one project to another with a false start in between, and bio articles can have a rough chronological flow that can encompass that. Like saying Director A joined X project but moved on, being replaced by Director B. Maybe that sentence seems boring, but I think a lot of projects tend to have basis in source material (may it be books or original films or other IP), so having that sentence means a reader can click the "X project" link and see a fuller history of it at the source material's article and see how that director fit into the history of the attempt to make a film.

Maybe this line of thinking is getting away from a director's unrealized project which may be more of a personal passion project? Thinking back for myself, I know for Neil Marshall, I was diligently listing his future projects up to back in 2015 as seen here before removing them (and linking the diff on the talk page). Maybe if I ideally overhauled that article, I'd think of how to weave some details back in, if they fit, like Burst 3D was covered from 2009 to as late as 2012. It's not like the director just had some idea in their head; there is unseen conceptualization, writing, and development going on that never gets fulfilled. So I'm not opposed to touching on these efforts as part of a biographical flow, like keeping it to a sentence or sentence fragment. Open to thoughts and critiques. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Erik It’s interesting you said “The concept of ‘unrealized projects’ could be beyond directors too…” because I would have thought the page Unpublished and uncollected works by Stephen King would also count as an “unrealized projects” list article. Sure, King directed only one film in his career, but like you said, the concept could be beyond directors. The Film Creator (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Erik, I would be okay with a chronological telling of a person's film career that includes a brief mention of an unmade film. Like the person finished a film, then was reported working on an ultimately unsuccessful project, then started the next successful film. Very brief, unless the media describe the failure in depth. Binksternet (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Would the following sources be suitable enough to re-create the 'Michael Cimino's unrealized projects' page? The first article, while written in French, does discuss five projects as a group of films that were not made. Plus, there are sections in these other two articles that break down and discuss some of his unrealized projects as a group. I included quotes in the last two to make it easier:

ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Those look like solid sources to satisfy LISTN. Binksternet (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I also would like to know what should be the correct number of unrealized projects necessary for either a section or an article itself. If you look at Cameron Crowe#Unrealized projects, there are only two listed (the cancelled biopics of Phil Spector and Marvin Gaye respectively). I personally think that two projects is not enough. Plus, when I created Christopher Nolan's unrealized projects, there were only three projects mentioned in sources provided by IndieWire, MovieWeb and Screen Rant. Since three projects is not enough, Nolan’s unrealized projects became a redirect. Therefore, how many unrealized projects should be on the list per filmmaker? The Film Creator (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to pose this question: would it be appropriate to include said information the article without giving it it's own 'Unrealized projects' section? I don't see the problem with just including that information in Crowe's career bio. Same thing goes for Nicolas Winding Refn#Unrealized projects. Agreed that the information present should not be given its own section, but some projects I feel should definitely be included with his bio, as they were major parts of career, rather than deleted, removed entirely from existence and forgotten forever. If it's apart of a director's history, then it's apart of film history. And I think that at least is worthy of inclusion. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I don't know if this is appropriate, but the Screen Rant article for Nolan does discuss a fourth project: Larry Mahoney. Plus, Nolan has been circling to direct a James Bond film for a WHILE, and has spoken publicly of his interest in doing so, even though he may not want to anymore; mentioned here, here, here, and here. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Treatment of film awards

Had a question I wanted to ask about film awards: specifically, does the project have any rule that some awards are so uniquely important that they warrant dual mention in the lead section of the article and in the awards table while other awards are somehow not?

A Canadian short film called Invincible got an Oscar nomination for best short film last week, and while obviously that's reflected in its awards table and nobody's been questioning that, another user has also been insisting that the Oscar nomination also belongs in the lead. But the thing is, the film already has several wins of other film awards under its belt, including best short film at the Prix Iris. In other words, it is not notable because of an Oscar nomination, it's a film that was already notable because it has already won the second most important film award in its own native country — so an Oscar nomination is just a bonus, not the central fact that made it notable in the first place. (And while I'm not psychic, its performance so far suggests that it's likely also a near-lock for a Canadian Screen Award nomination when those come out in a few more weeks, i.e. the only film award in its own native country that's even more important and more nailing-notability-to-the-wall than the Iris, though obviously that remains to be seen.)

And for added bonus, even though the film's Academy Award nomination is already properly sourced in the awards table, the user is adding it to the lead with primary sourcing to the Oscars' own self-published website, which is not proper format: the question of whether a film award is notable enough to be listed in the article in the first place hinges specifically on whether it's an award that gets media coverage to establish the notability of said award or not, so the source for an award nomination has to be media coverage in order to establish that the award is notable enough to merit mention. And for the icing on the cake, the last time they reverted me they even tried to order me to just obey them and not to take the question to any talk pages for any discussion on it, which is obviously not how Wikipedia works.

So the question is, are the Oscars really considered such a uniquely special case that a mere nomination for that award requires special treatment over and above any other awards? Are they really so special that an Oscar nomination needs to be dual-mentioned in both the introduction and the awards table, while the Iris (and CSA if it gets there) are somehow restricted to just the table? Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I would say, generally speaking, the Oscars can be argued as the mostly commonly known/recognized award for films in the United States so that does throw some weight behind including such in the lead. However, as you noted, that shouldn't be the only single awards mention given the short film has won other notable/prestigious awards. My recommendation is just a summary sentence such as "Invincible has been nominated for best short film, winning a Prix Iris award and being nominated for an Academy Award." adding in additional notable awards as applicable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I've gone with that. We'll see if it finally dies down, or if the user tries to revert me on the grounds that the Oscar is somehow more special than anything else. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

In some instances, a film's Oscar nom is it's only "major" one, hence many editors trying to have it (and only it) mentioned in the lead. That is not the case here, so a neutral sentence as I suggested (and you've implemented) is the way to go on that article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The Oscars are certainly the most coveted peer-based honor in the industry, regardless of which country you come from. If you are an aspiring British actor, you don't dream of giving your Bafta acceptance speech, let's put it that way. I think I would generally put major oscar wins/nominations in the lead in most cases, but it's not set in stone. If someone had compelling reasons for not covering the oscars in the lead I would approach the discussion with an open mind, but at the end of the day the lead should be summarising why the subject of the article is notable, and it is difficult to make a case that getting an oscar nom is not one of the most notable aspects of a film's reception. Betty Logan (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Nobody said that an Oscar nomination wasn't noteworthy at all — the question was whether it's somehow the only noteworthy thing about a film that has already won another notable award. Bearcat (talk) 05:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:High Tension#Requested move 14 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:High Tension#Requested move 14 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Jumanji

There's a discussion regarding the final scene of Jumanji at Talk:Jumanji#Girls in the final scene. Any additional comment from project members would be helpful. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Santa Clause (franchise)#Requested move 8 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Santa Clause (franchise)#Requested move 8 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Savaari (2020 film)#Requested move 18 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Savaari (2020 film)#Requested move 18 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Een Vreemde Liefde

The article Een Vreemde Liefde has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wholly unreferenced for 14.79 years, and lacking any evidence of notability.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I redirected it. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Film awards task force § The format of all BAFTA occurences

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Film awards task force § The format of all BAFTA occurences. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Referencing in filmographies – one reference for each single entry or one reference for all?

Article in question: Ineko Arima

User 55go has repeatedly added references for each single entry in filmographies in the past. To reduce clutter per WP:CITEKILL WP:ILCLUTTER, I've swapped the dozen+ single references with one in said article, here using the Kinenote/Kinema Junpo website which should be sufficient as a WP:RELIABLE.

55go has reversed my edit without consulting me for e.g. finding consensus, even blaming me for "rendering the efforts of others futile" in the edit commentary (others meaning himself, as 55go has no problem with "rendering futile" other editors' work). As 55go is not even above of making block threats against other editors (see here) who are of a different opininion – which he isn't entitled to as being a non-admin, but says a lot otherwise –, I've taken this question directly here for discussion and finding consensus. I know some editors do not agree in citing WP:ILCLUTTER here, but I think referencing filmographies with one reliable source instead of individual referencing prevents needless bloating of both the reference section and the text in the editing window (just imagine filmographies with 50 or more entries, not just a dozen as is the case here). Robert Kerber (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Conduct issues aside: I would consider citing each entry separately and using a dedicated "references" column best practices. I don't consider the argument that using a single reference reduces clutter a particularly strong one—the clutter when doing it the other way is minimal—and I think the benefits of explicitly citing each individual entry outweigh any potential drawbacks. It significantly reduces the vulnerability to incorrect or not-properly-sourced material creeping in at a later point in time, for one thing. It's also not entirely uncommon for a single source to cover almost an entire filmography (or similar), but with one or a few missing entries. We don't have to imagine what it would be like with more than 50 entries: William S. Hart filmography has approximately 70 entries, each cited separately, and it was promoted to WP:Featured list as recently as August of last year. TompaDompa (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually, your given example only proves my point regarding the extent of the reference section which is anything but "minimal", and a plethora of references is all the more vulnerable to inreliabilities (with each single one to be marked, if necessary, as "unreliable", "better source needed" etc.) instead of using a single source which has proven reliable in the past – and in case if it suddenly weren't, only a single "unreliable" or "better source needed" tag would be needed. Regards, Robert Kerber (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

If all sources in play are reliable, and we can do more with less, then I see no reason why we can't condense citations. "To make it easier to identify misinformation" means nothing to me. In general, any person could add false information with a seemingly authentic source. If anything, it's easier to look at the Kinenote source to compare to the wiki list rather than check each source individually. And regarding what TompaDompa said, I agree that some filmography sources may not be complete, but it's possible to combine multiple filmography sources. Furthermore, per WP:REFBOMB, it also helps indicate the true value of the references and perhaps that more substance is needed for this topic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's make sure we're talking about the same thing. There are at least two aspects here: whether to prefer a higher or lower number of sources, and whether to prefer a higher or lower number of references (or inline citations). Sources can be reused, after all. I'm saying that regardless of the number of sources, a reference for each entry is preferable (an argument could be made that when there is only one source used, citing it once is preferable to citing it for each individual entry; I don't particularly agree but the case against it is also not as strong as when multiple sources are used). I would also hardly consider a lengthy reference section at the end of an article "clutter", but I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. TompaDompa (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, I see this as initially comparable to how we have agreed that only one cite for a cast list in a movie is fine, or one cite for a particular set of awards.

But to be fair, filmographies may be different. There may not always be one official reliable reference for these; I mean, an individual's official website is usually the best, but then it may exclude work the individual wants to distance themselves from (David Fincher's website, for instance, would give you no idea he was involved with Alien 3 in any way). So what might be an authoritative source for a filmography that can be cited in a prefatory sentence and not for every succeeding work mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Case (talk • contribs)

I don't agree that an individual's site is usually the best, for the exact reason you gave. In any case, the specific issue here involves a generally reliable secondary source (or so I'm told) so malicious unreliability shouldn't be a factor here. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Isn't this already handled by WP:LISTVERIFY? We don't need to add inline citations to every single claim, and if one source is sufficient to verify a bunch of stuff all at once, we allow one citation to verify many things at once, and general references are also allowed. For this specific case, I see no value in creating a bunch of different citations to different sub-pages of a list, when the list itself is all that is needed to verify the claim. And I don't agree with the claim that providing individual references makes verification easier; if someone wanted to add a bogus entry, then the single list will verify it just as reliably as an individual page. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

A regularly recurring situation is that a film person dies, and the thing that's keeping us from posting it to WP:Recent deaths is that the filmography is unsourced. In my experience, it is then typically necessary to combine multiple sources to cover all the entries. In this scenario, I think it's way better to indicate which entries can be verified by which source(s) rather than citing the sources without doing so. This is an example of when verification is made a lot easier by citing individual entries—if multiple sources are used, one would otherwise potentially have to check all of them to verify any given entry, and to discover that an entry fails verification it would indeed be necessary to check all of them. TompaDompa (talk) 06:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

For context, could you give an example of that? I do see a current situation developing for Chita Rivera, but I'll note that the article doesn't have any citations for the filmography at all, which I also agree is bad practice. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Orange Suede Sofa: Sorry about the late response, I completely missed your comment. Off the top of my head, I seem to recall Sam Lloyd not having a properly sourced filmography at the time of his death, nor did Anne Rice have a properly sourced bibliography at the time of her death. TompaDompa (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to get back to the discussion's original subject, which is still unresolved, if a filmography, if it is sourced, has to be sourced with an individual source for each entry, or if one reliable source isn't more reasonable (I vote for the latter for reasons I've given above). It would be great if future discussions or dissents on artists' (filmmakers, writers, actors) sites could be cut short thanks to a consensus or a decision among editors (and even better a decision which finds its way into a WP:ESSAY). Robert Kerber (talk) 09:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Every entry having a different source is not an end in itself, and in many cases runs contrary to the principle of using the best source(s). Every entry having the same (singular) source is also not an end in itself, and in many cases comes with certain drawbacks. Every entry having a separate reference, which might be reused for multiple entries in the list, is on the other hand a good thing for several reasons. TompaDompa (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to make sure that we're talking about the same thing: I'm talking about a filmography where each entry is referenced, using the same source (e.g. Kinenote, a reliable source, in a Japanese artist's filmography), which I consider a good thing (a: reliable, b: shorter reflist, c: more quickly changed when reliability issues occur). Can you give an example for what you mean with your third suggestion ("Every entry having a separate reference, which might be reused for multiple entries in the list"), meaning, an article, when you want to make a distinction here? Robert Kerber (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Yasujirō Ozu#Filmography does not have separate references for each entry – while there are two sources used, the references are in the table header. Ineko Arima#Television, on the other hand, does have separate references for each entry – while only a single source is used, it is explicitly cited for each individual entry (and thus reused multiple times). TompaDompa (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I see. I'd agree that the filmography in the Yasujirō Ozu article is a good and reasonable solution, while the solution in the Ineko Arima cinema filmography is not. I condensed the source/referencing in the Ineko Arima article, which user 55go reverted with the argument that I would interfere with their work, which I find questionable both in working method and conduct – and which is why I opened this thread to find a working method which users agree on.

That's the opposite of what I'm saying. The approach in the Ozu article is terrible—there is no way of telling which entry is verified by which source. Imagine if the header had had fourteen sources instead of just two. TompaDompa (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Let's rather say, it's the opposite of what you meant, it wasn't clear from your statement which solution you prefer. Well, I definitely tend to the Ozu solution. At least the Ineko Arima TV filmography reduces the size of the Reflist, agreed, while the Ineko Arima cinema filmography unnecessarily blows it up. Maybe some other users might give their opinion on these two (or three, to be precise) examples? User:Erik User:Daniel Case User: Orange Suede Sofa. This discussion has sadly slowed down a bit. Robert Kerber (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what needs to be decided here, but I don't love the Ozu approach. It makes me think of having two paragraphs of text, and an inline citation at the end of the second paragraph that purportedly covers both paragraphs. (Hence why we'd just duplicate the citation tag.) If it was something like a top-ten list like at Gothic film, I'd be fine with one citation tag preceding the list. But filmographies aren't as "set" and may vary in importance. So ultimately, I'd prefer a citation tag for each entry, and grouped if possible, like at William Hoy (film editor), which is a blend of two filmography-type sources plus others filling in gaps. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I've lost the plot as well (looks like it started as an edit war), but here are my final thoughts: there are many variables that make an article readable, maintainable, and ultimately reliable. Maximizing fine-grained citations may be one of those, but it's not one warrants content disputes. We're not even required to ensure that sources are online, or in English, or anything else other than simply verifiable, so tilting hard into one specific approach feels counter-productive. We already have clear guidelines to handle these kinds of situations and I haven't yet seen a compelling argument to demand anything more from editors. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm following the above discussion well enough, and maybe it's a moot point by now, but here are my thoughts...

There is nothing inherently wrong with using inline citations in a list, and clutter is not really a concern when there is only 1 or 2 inline citations per list entry. List entries are subject to the same Verifiability requirements as regular prose. If there is a concern about clutter, a dedicated reference column can make inline citations more visually appealing, as shown in the Ineko Arima example. Of course, you can always move sources to the end of a list instead of using inline citations, as you would with paragraph citations, as long as all sources in question support every entry in the list; readers should not be expected to fish for the source that supports the entry they are trying to verify.

As for the separate topic of reducing the number of sources, that's goes back to Verifiability. The list is stronger and more relevant with a wide variety of sources, but at minimum, one or two sources is sufficient. Reducing to one or two sources isn't necessarily better, however. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Help needed (Ayres/Silent films/1914)

Hello, various films by Sydney Ayres would need attention (mostly sources), including A Man's Way. If someone has time and interest, thanks! @Justinkrivers, pinging you as I think you could help, hope you don't mind. Thank you. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

alrighty i'll take a look Justinkrivers (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Cunard has vastly improved A Man's Way so that that very article does not need urgent attention anymore. Thanks. (Other films by Ayres may still be improved (euphemism) if anyone has time.)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Mushy Yank (talk · contribs)! The Internet Archive is a very good place to find sources for silent films. I found all of these sources through this Internet Archive search (for the film's name and director: "A Man's Way" "Sydney Ayres") and this Internet Archive search (for "A Man's Way" filtered by the year the film was released, 1914). Cunard (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Nice work, Mushy Yank (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I very modestly improved a few, thanks to you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Jumanji § Timelines in the film

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jumanji § Timelines in the film. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Madame Web listed budget

On the Madame Web infobox, there is a disagreement on how to list the reported budgets. Two publications list the cost as high as $100 million or as low as the reported $80 million, with neither noting the $100 million is specifically before any taxe breaks. So by Wiki’s film article cherrypick guidelines, the budget should be listed as simply “$80–100 million”.

Two specific users have done seemingly own-research/ignored the cited articles and saying the $100 million number is exclusively a gross cost, and trying to list as such. Would love a fresh pair of eyes on there to avoid a further edit war (I started a Talk tab a few days back). Cheers! TropicAces (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Deadline is quite specific, it does not use any range. It says about Madame Web that "a $52M global opening here means this reported $80M net production will not break even, but not suffer as much as originally feared". https://deadline.com/2024/02/box-office-bob-marley-one-love-madame-web-1235828289/

So what is this " $80M net production" Deadline is reporting? This is clearer in an other version of the article that you can find bellow the same page, where it says "I’m also told Sony reigned it under net $100M with Massachusetts tax credits and post production London tax credits, where the VFX were handled".

So Deadline is being very specific about what it is saying, it is a "$80M net production". This is more common than you think, nowadays many studios search for specific places that give them tax credits which makes the cost of their productions get less expensive. The same thing was reported about The Marvels, its budget of 220 million could have been way more expensive, without tax credits the Marvels would have costed 270 million. You can see this on The Marvels WP page. So range is used when publications are not specific about the budget of a movie, but Deadline is quite specific at least about its net/final value, it says it is a "$80M net production" (as I mentioned above with a link).  :) Solit.act (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

But aren't most reported budgets gross? Nardog (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. Usually if there is information about tax credits we mention that in prose but we don't update the budget param in the infobox to reflect the net budget. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Request to merge two similar categories

Hello. I'm the Wikimedian-In-Residence for AfroCreatives WikiProject. While checking to improve the categorization of African film and television on English Wikipedia, I noticed African film festivals and Film festivals in Africa‎ literally contain the same things. Is it possible for African film festivals to be collapsed into Film festivals in Africa‎? Ceslause (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

They're not the same thing. Category:Film festivals in Africa is for film festivals that take place in Africa, while Category:African film festivals is for festivals devoted to the subject of African cinema which could be taking place anywhere on earth.

For instance, there's an African film festival in my city in North America — it's obviously not happening in Africa, but it's devoted to the subject of African and African-diaspora films. Certainly some film festivals might genuinely be both things at the same time — but a film festival can also be based in Africa while not being devoted exclusively to African films per se, and a film festival devoted to African films can also be staged in Italy, France, Germany, Canada, Australia or any other country outside of Africa too.

So the "African film festivals" category could potentially be renamed to something else for added clarity, and I've listed it for discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 20#Category:African film festivals, but merging the two categories isn't appropriate because they're not actually the same thing. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)#Requested move 13 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)#Requested move 13 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Potential movie theater task force

I noticed that there is currently no task force for movie theaters and think that it would be a worthwhile addition. There seems to be a good amount of wiki editors interested in movie theaters, and by extension a lot of movie theater articles. Sewageboy (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dune (2021 film)#Requested move 21 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dune (2021 film)#Requested move 21 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. -- ZooBlazer 22:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:John Wick (film)#Requested move 24 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:John Wick (film)#Requested move 24 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. -- ZooBlazer 23:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

"Alien 2" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Alien 2 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 10 § Alien 2 until a consensus is reached.

The !votes have been all over the place on this one, so additional input from the film project would be appreciated. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:John Wick#Requested move 24 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:John Wick#Requested move 24 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. -- ZooBlazer 00:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Treatment of Display resolution, Graphics display resolution and Computer display standard

Since this related to digital cinema and modern movie theaters, I'll notify here as well. I've started a discussion about how to handle these seemingly overlapping articles. Input appreciated. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Seeking input on process (discussion about whether to have a discussion)

In the last half of 2023, there were several discussions of whether to capitalize Westerns as a genre.[16][17][18] followed by a move review [19] and yet another RM [20] They were move requests for individual articles related to subgenre article titles. The end result was a slight lean towards upper case "Westerns". I fully expect this discussion to come up again because the MOS participants generally circle back around on a regular basis (and already had, if you note that last link). The reason I bring this up here is that it mostly affects the Film project (although some TV as well), and that the move requests leave us inconsistent if done on the articles these discussions occurred at, making it a backdoor to changing capitalization all around (although there is some inconsistency already). I believe that it would be better to have a broader discussion about the genre's capitalization or lowercasing as a whole, one that incorporates participation from the projects it affects. The two key points of past debate tend to center around the following:

1. Both sides (uppercase "Western" and lowercase "western") have used the same guideline as support, depending on the interpretation: MOS:GENRECAPS. Genre is generally lowercased unless it is a proper noun. The lowercase crowd takes that at face value, and that "Western" is "Western civilization" while "western" is the genre. The uppercase crowd points out that the name of the "Western" genre comes specifically from "the American West" and the "Wild West shows" of the 1870s, such as the sourced description from Western film: Western films derive from the Wild West shows that began in the 1870s. Originally referred to as "Wild West dramas", the shortened term "Western" came to describe the genre.
2. Capitalization in sources is split. The MOS crowd generally uses a lot of ngrams to support their position. However, in some of the previous discussions, these were accused of cherry picking and other inaccuracies. The fact is, it's inconsistent in sources - even across highly reliable ones (for example, uppercase in the The Oxford Encyclopedia of American Cultural and Intellectual History and in some academic film texts, while lowercase in others, including the AFI). The fact is, it's about dead even across the board with a slight edge in one direction or the other depending on the sources looked at and the context.

Previous discussion was very close, and somewhat contentious, which is why I expect this will come up again until there is a thorough discussion attended by more than just MOS editors that results in a clear consensus one way or the other. The question is one of venue and process. Should this be an RfC? Where should it take place to generate the widest possible participation that includes editors who participate in the genre (and are thus informed on it) and how to avoid degenerating into the bludgeoning that previous discussions have had? Is that the Western (genre) article? Or, since it affects primarily the Western film genre the most, should it happen here? Looking for some input from film project participants all around. TIA. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I support capitalization, and have since this first came up. My feeling is the discussion focuses on the film genre because Wiki biases in that direction (its coverage of the literary Western is thin at best, and TV isn't much better), but I don't believe that's the correct place to have the discussion. The genre article feels like a better choice to me because it removes the artificial spotlight from films and redirects it to the parent genre. There were Westerns both on stage and in print well before motion pictures. As an aside, I find the "Western civilization" argument rather spurious (and often advanced by editors who either don't know much about the genre or have another agenda). Intothatdarkness 15:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Dictionaries seem split ("Western": [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]; "western": [27] [28] [29] [30]), but lean toward capping. AP style and BuzzFeed specify capping, The Guardian specifies lowercase, and every other style guide I looked at was silent. Ngrams show "Western" leading. Too many times do editors think "sources" only means news publications and books. MOS:GENRECAPS also supports this; it states that genres are capitalized if they contain a proper name, and "Western" contains the proper name American West/Wild West, which itself is capitalized per MOS:COMPASS. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Old project pages

I happened to swing by the WikiProject homepage and noticed the tab header. Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Coordinators and Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Spotlight are both severely out-of-date, having been last updated substantively in 2011. (We have a "spotlight department"?!) They should be marked {{historical}} and removed from the tab header. Looking at the other pages, Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Outreach is also very old, and I'm not sure if anyone reads it anymore, but the newsletter doesn't exist anymore — the "current" issue has been stuck in January 2012 for a decade (if anyone would like to bring this one back, I would support that, but someone would need to step up). Pinging the three "coordinators" who are still around: @Erik, Bovineboy2008, Karthikndr, and MikeAllen. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Yes, I support marking them as historical and retiring them from the project scope (but still keep a link to them somewhere). WikiProject Film has changed over the years. My personal take is that editors tend to work on topics of their own interest, and there is rarely collaboration. I find the most important aspect of WikiProject Film to be the MOS. In terms of engagement, I hope that editors can at least be willing to resolve content disputes that are brought up here. Oftentimes there is a dispute between two editors in some random film article, and having third and fourth opinions can help resolve that (usually). Beyond these considerations, I am not sure if there is much desire for collaboration and upkeep. We can probably instead emphasize the automated pages, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Popular pages and Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Article alerts. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Superman (1978 film)#Requested move 1 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Superman (1978 film)#Requested move 1 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

RM notice — Bruce Wayne (1989 film series character)

An editor has requested that Bruce Wayne (1989 film series character) be moved to Bruce Wayne (1989 film series), which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redjedi23 (talk • contribs) 15:39, March 2, 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Meek's Cutoff (film)#Requested move 4 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Meek's Cutoff (film)#Requested move 4 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Deletion attempt at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 February 29#Template:Cahiers du Cinéma's Top Ten Films

May be of great interest to this Wikiproject. Here is the navbox under discussion: {{Cahiers du Cinéma's Top Ten Films}}. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 81#Template:Sight and Sound Poll for context. --woodensuperman 14:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Content exists in other forms such as a list article Cahiers du Cinéma's Annual Top 10 Lists. It would not be a loss to delete a redundant table of links that almost half of users never even see and is usually further hidden from those few who are even shown it. Good riddance to yet another unnecessary Navbox. -- 109.76.131.136 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

As long as comments are being allowed here, this top ten list is one of the two most credible lists (the first, the Sight and Sound poll template, was removed by two "votes" and will be deletion reviewed), and is valuable for readers of the film's pages to contrast and compare among the other films listed as top tens. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Tarzan (1999 film)

There's a discussion about the plot summary for Tarzan (1999 film). Please see the thread here: Talk:Tarzan (1999 film)#Plot rewrite. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Star Wars

Hello, I'm a new editor and have been doing a lot of work on the Star Wars page. I've been having a discussion with other editors about the "Cinematic and literary allusions" section. I feel it has a lot of issues, but I'm having trouble communicating to the others what the problems are. I'm beginning to wonder whether I'm wrong, and the issues I've identified are not problems at all. Instead of trying to list all the issues here, I'm wondering whether an experienced editor would be willing to read through the section and offer their perspective, so I have a better sense of whether my views are correct or not. Thank you! Wafflewombat (talk) 08:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the thread you have started at the article's talk page is the right approach. I would focus that discussion on the more controversial changes, such as wording that you think should be removed entirely. If you keep your suggestions to the point and don't get any responses still then there is nothing wrong with being bold and making the changes, they can always be reverted and discussed later if needed. For the wording that is presented as fact but is actually an opinion in the sources, I would recommend rewording it rather than removing it entirely. Hope that helps. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm just feeling frustrated because people tell me to post potential edits on the talk page instead of just making them, but then nobody replies to the talk page post! It seems like the only time people want to discuss edits is when I make one that upsets them. Wafflewombat (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Twentieth Century-Fox

I'm working on the page for Star Wars, which was produced by Twentieth Century-Fox (this is the spelling, including the hyphen, that was used at the time). Some parts of the article use the name "20th Century-Fox." Which is correct? So far, I've been using the first version, because that's how it's spelled on its Wikipedia page. Wafflewombat (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Atreides#RfC on the infobox image has an RfC

Talk:Paul Atreides#RfC on the infobox image 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. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

2014 films by country

As everybody here knows, the project's standard practice is that a country gets one base list of its films first, with separate by-year lists spun off only when that base list has become too large and needs to be chunked out for size management purposes -- but specifically in 2014, one user undertook a misguided project of creating standalone "list of country films of 2014" for every single country where they could find even one film to list, which has never otherwise been done for any other year before or since. So where all other "Lists of YYYY films by country" categories have about 25 articles in them, Category:Lists of 2014 films by country alone has 80.

Obviously, a country should have a 2014 list only if it's also got a more complete set for other years alongside it — if the country otherwise only has by-decade lists, then the 2014 list should be merged to "List of country films of the 2010s", and if the country otherwise only has one base list, then the 2014 list should be merged there. And even where a list is justifiable, some of them are separating the films on a "major releases" vs. "minor releases" distinction that seems awfully point of view to me (as in, what's the criterion for distinguishing "major" from "minor" here?) and probably should be kiboshed.

I've started tackling some of the unnecessary lists with merger or deletion discussions, but this is obviously a big project and I could use some help. So I wanted to ask if anybody is willing to help go through Category:Lists of 2014 films by country to identify and deal with some of the more unwarranted pages. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sammarinese films of 2014 (where there's no viable merge target, because even a base list of Sammarinese films doesn't exist at all) has additionally seen some support for the idea that we could legitimately just mass-merge or mass-delete them without having to individually discuss each one, but of course each editor's personal comfort level with just acting on their own needs to be taken into consideration. So feel free to initiate a merger or deletion discussion if you'd prefer, or just be bold if you're comfortable with that — but this problem has been lingering for a decade, so it's time that we did something to fix it. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Sony Spider-Man Universe

Although the franchise “Spider-Man” has the Sony Spider Universe under its category, shouldn’t the Sony Spider-Man universe have its own heading in the top 25 highest grossing superhero franchises as it contains its own “universe”? Pathaan2024 (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

From a real-world perspective it is the same franchise from the same film studio, regardless of what fictional "universe" the films are set in. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Determining the "year" of a film

Not sure if this is discussed anywhere, but if a film premieres in 1982, but isn't released into theaters until 1983, is it considered a "1982 film" or a "1983 film"? Specifically, I'm referring to Koyaanisqatsi. IMDb lists it as a 1982 film [31] but other sources consider it a 1983 film: Criterion BFI AFI. I don't know what the standards are so I would appreciate some input. Thanks. –Dream out loud (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The premiere year is sufficient. I think the idea is that the film is "completed" at that point and has been seen by people outside of the production (even if it's not the moviegoing audience). Like I see that The New York Times reviewed it in 1982 here. This happened with A Quiet Place Part II, premiering in 2020 before the pandemic hit, and the consensus there is to stick with 2020 even though its theatrical release was 2021. No issue with mentioning 1983 relatively upfront in Koyaanisqatsi's lead section, though. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Different sources have different practices, and you can even find some sources that will classify films as "year that the film was in production" even if they were never publicly screened until one or more years after that, so our consensus has always been to go with the year of the original (often, but not always, festival) premiere. For instance, a film that premiered at the 2023 Cannes Film Festival would be a 2023 film even if it takes until 2025 for it to actually screen anywhere else. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

As stated above, WP consensus is to use the year a film first premiered, i.e was publicly screened. If there's noteworthy info about a film's premiere and/or release schedule that can be mentioned in the lead. Lapadite (talk) 07:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

More deletion attempts of AFI poll navboxes

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 March 1#AFI templates. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

These should have been speedy deleted anyway due to prior consensus at this discussion and recent deletion of similar navboxes here. --woodensuperman 16:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Since comments seems to be allowed here, these navboxes cover topics of much interest to Wikipedia's film fans and film readers, and we basically should be making all edits in favor of the readers. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

If they're eligible for G4, why did you send them to RfD? InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Is The Crow a superhero film?

I think the use of "superhero" as a genre has been plenty abused on Wikipedia but is the Crow really a superhero film? This seems to be purely based on films being based on comics, although Darkman is also apparently a superhero film. There's a discussion at Talk:The_Crow_(1994_film) for further input. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Snow White and the Huntsman#Requested move 6 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Snow White and the Huntsman#Requested move 6 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Killarnee (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Accolades

Hi, I'm working on this page and I noticed that many of the awards listed in the large table are also listed in prose. Should they be listed twice? Should I remove the prose mentions? Also, should I add to the table the awards that aren't currently in it? Wafflewombat (talk) 06:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion that article should decide what style it wants, prose or table and yes, not duplicate it. I can see a reason sometimes to duplicate a specific mention if there is additional context, this is not what's been done there. Gonnym (talk) 07:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Wafflewombat (talk) 07:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of BFI for country of production

IP user 2600:1002:B0EC:304A:0:36:E682:6901 (talk · contribs) has been amending a few film articles to include Japan as a country of production based on listings at the BFI (for example The Thing [32], which does indeed have USA and Japan as production country at the BFI [33] but not Canada as also listed at the article).

The inclusion of Japan seems to be based on the involvement of a company called Dentsu, which appears to be solely an advertising company with no mention of film production in their article.

Has there been any previous discussion on the reliability of the BFI for sourcing production countries? Barry Wom (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should assume a database like BFI is "perfect". It's always possible for any database to get it wrong. I think for some crew members, the BFI database's filmography has been spotty. That said, when that happens, we have to sort through on a case-by-case basis. The Lumiere database states US and CA for the film here, and AFI Catalog shows just US here. There are three companies in the film's billing block: Universal Pictures, Morgan Creek Productions, and Strike Entertainment, which seem all US-based. Dentsu is not a production company, and that false inclusion triggers the improper Japanese categorization. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

This is why it is good to look at multiple sources. A good example of this would be Subspecies (film series). For a long time it was listed as "American-Romanian", but I finally went through the sources and the was only 1 film that ever listed "Romanian" as a country, and that film didn't have "Romanian" listed on any other website. American was the only one listed for the rest of the films and for the first film beyond that one website, which I believe was in fact BFI.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

"Dentsu is not a production company"

So it would be safe to revert the addition of Japan as a production country if the only reason for its inclusion is the appearance of Dentsu in the BFI listings and/or the credits?

The user has now amended approaching 30 articles and it would be a tad dispiriting to have to through them all checking for multiple sources to refute the inclusion of Japan. Barry Wom (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment at Template:Infobox_film#Country is interesting. BFI is mentioned as one of the country sources that makes their own determinations of nationality based on their own research and criteria. Dentsu's involvement appears to be financial only, not creative. They do get an "In association with" credit on some films. Changes in nationality for a film should depend on more than just a listing in one country's database particularly for articles with long standing stability in how nationality is stated. Conflicting sources should be discussed in the article talk page to form a consensus on how we note film nationality. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Remember that the attributed nationality of a film is determined according to the balance of multiple RS, not according to any editor’s OR nor to the conclusion of any single website. It’s still the case that too many editors think that their own OR based on the financing of the film or the geographical locations, or ownership, of the production companies involved, can override RS descriptions of from which nationality the creative input originated. MapReader (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• BFI is reliable, they have a consistent methodology for assigning nationalities. Many countries have different legalistic ways of assigning nationality for the purpose of tax credits etc. The question is more one of WP:WEIGHT and the context. For example, if a country listing is anomalous I would overlook it, unless it is relevant to the context in some way e.g. the UK has legal criteria for the nationality of a film, so the British law is relevant if you are logging box-office takings in that particular country. However, at international level, national laws are irrelevant, unless our sources give sufficient weighting to such national designations. Betty Logan (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• For years that most of these articles have been created, the company Dentsu has never been included. The IP is also changing to the Country parameter to Japan. It seems like the BFI page has been updated recently? This shows that the "production country" is USA/Japan, but if you look at the top right corner of page, it states the copyright is to USA. Also Dentsu is credited with "Presented in association with". The IP seems to be misrepresenting the source and massively editing pages in a disruptive manner. PS. They are now undoing edits and adding to more articles as 2600:1002:B0C9:6A1:0:2D:5D1F:5301 (talk · contribs). I have invited them to this discussion. Mike Allen 16:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Mike. I see you've been reverting these additions; please consider putting a link to this discussion in your edit summaries rather than using the auto-generated language with the vague "unconstructive" comment. To most editors (as it did to me) it will otherwise look like misuse of Rollback and an incorrect reversion of properly sourced info. Thanks for directing me to this for the necessary context. Grandpallama (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Generally edits in the range Special:Contributions/2600:1002:B000::/40. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

John Mahoney

About a month ago, an anonymous IP made an edit to actor John Mahoney's article, following up on the statement in the "Personal life" section that "To the surprise of much of the public, when he died, many tributes noted that he had lived privately as a gay man and was a well-known fixture on the Chicago LGBTQ scene" with the strange assertion that this was likely a lie concocted by LGBTQ activists due to "opposition" to the heteromasculinity of Martin Crane.

Now, firstly, LGBTQ people have very real issues sometimes with how we are portrayed in film and television, but there has never in all of recorded history been even one single, solitary example of the LGBTQ community ever being "opposed" to the basic existence of heterosexual characters. And even more importantly, it's frickin' Frasier — why on earth would LGBTQ people ever have to make up lies about the sexuality of John Mahoney just to get LGBTQ representation out of a show that already had David Hyde Pierce, Dan Butler and Edward Hibbert in it? Not to mention that John Mahoney himself also appeared in the gay-themed film The Broken Hearts Club, and played a gay character in an episode of ER, so why would we ever need to make stuff up about him just because of Frasier? And besides, I've known more than a few gay men in my day who openly wished their own father had been like Martin Crane, because he unconditionally loved his sons even if he didn't always understand them. Why would LGBTQ people ever have a problem with that? So the statement just doesn't make much sense at all, and obviously wasn't supported by sourcing for it.

Obviously I've removed the claptrap, but the fact that it survived a month in the article without getting noticed implies that it slipped a lot of watchlisters' attentions. So I just wanted to ask if a few more people could help look out for this in case somebody tries to readd it in the future. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Stuart Kinder

Could I please have some help woth this rejected draft on an early British filmmaker? FloridaArmy (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment on reliability of entertainment coverage of the New York Post (including Decider and Page Six)

There is a request for comment on the reliability of entertainment coverage of the New York Post and its sub-publications Decider and Page Six. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § RfC: Entertainment coverage of the New York Post (including Decider and Page Six). — Newslinger talk 22:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Edited to add Page Six — Newslinger talk 03:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Historical accuracy of Gladiator

Hi, I'm not sure where to post this, so I'm putting it here. The Gladiator page needs a Historical Accuracy section, because the film takes many liberties with history. I removed the previous Historical Accuracy section because it was completely unsourced. I spent a lot of time editing the Gladiator page over the past few months, but I don't have the time or energy for this task. I posted a thread on the talk page with a little more info. Wafflewombat (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

It appears that Historical accuracy of Gladiator (2000 film) was merged into the film article, so those details should be there unless someone removed them. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Like I said above, I removed them because they were completely unsourced. Someone who wants to put in the work could retrieve those unsourced segments to create a skeleton structure for the section, but they will still have to do the research of finding sources to back up the claims. Wafflewombat (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

This shows sources that can be used, it's just that that version was drowned out by armchair historians. Gladiator: Film and History looks like it should be a key source. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that! Wafflewombat (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Marvel_Cinematic_Universe#Marvel_at_Madame_Tussauds

Your view is welcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The Woman King

There is a content dispute at The Woman King. Please see discussion thread here: Talk:The Woman King § Problematic edits. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

More has happened on this front. Editors are invited to review the content dispute and share thoughts about what content to include or exclude. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

This content dispute is continuing. Editors are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Puck News

I am inquiring into the reliability or usage of Puck News. I have been seeing it cited on a few film articles recently. Rusted AutoParts 03:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Applying WP:USEBYOTHERS, I see that it is covered by Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker, and CNN. It seems fine, as far as I can tell. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I have used Puck as a source for various film and entertainment business news in my editing and have found many of their articles to be quite reputable. Their authors all have prior experience with major trades and news orgs. I see nothing that could cast sufficient doubt on their reliability. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)