Talk:List of films: A

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 June 2020. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Film

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles

Guidelines for adding new entries

These are guidelines for adding new films to the lists. Following them helps the functionality and maintenance of the list.

The list is in alphabetical order, ignoring article, (e.g. "a", "an", "the", "le", "la", "les", "der", "die", "das", "il", "gli", "el", etc.), unless the entire title of the film consists only of those articles, or the word, as used in the title, is not an article, e.g. the word 'Die' in Die Hard would only be an article (and thus ignored) if the movie had been in German. This is why Das Boot appears in List of films: B, and A Clockwork Orange appears in List of films: C. In the rest of the title, ignore additionally minor words such as "and", "&", "in", "of". If such words are included, use the next word in the title for sorting purposes.
If the first word of the title (excluding an article) is a number, it is placed in List of films: numbers. If it is a "spelled" number, it is placed both there, and under the alphabetical entry. Thus 2001: A Space Odyssey would appear only in List of films: numbers, while Seven would appear both there and in List of films: S.
Entries should only be full articles, or film sections - i.e. films which are only covered in a separate section of the article linked as in: ''[[The Seventh Cross#Film Adaptation|The Seventh Cross]]''.
After the title, please include the year the film was released. The recommended way is as the example:

''[[Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story]]'' (2004)

which displays: Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story (2004)

For television films (this includes films that debut on television networks, not films being played on movie channels in syndication), after the film's year release, please include: ([[television movie|TV]]), like this:

''[[On Hostile Ground]]'' (2000) ([[television movie|TV]])

which displays: On Hostile Ground (2000) (TV)

For series of films, list the common title of the series, and then include "series:" after it. Then indent the rest of the films in the series, following the normal format. For example:
- Lethal Weapon series:
  - Lethal Weapon (1987)
  - Lethal Weapon 2 (1989)
  - Lethal Weapon 3 (1992)
  - Lethal Weapon 4 (1998)
Multiple titles of the same name that are not part of the same series should be listed individually. If they are part of the same series (e.g. Halloween (1978) and Halloween (2018)), they should be listed in accordance with the guideline above on series of films. For films related in name only, follow this example:
- Coco (2009)
- Coco (2017)

RfC: Multiple titles of the same name

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached to list films related in name only as individual titles, rather than group them together in a single bullet point entry. —Matthew - (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the current guidelines for lists of films indexed alphabetically, "Multiple titles of the same name should be listed where the year the film was released takes place of the title name. The title is listed once followed by a colon." The following is provided as an example:

''Alive'': ([[Alive (1993 film)|1993]], [[Alive (2002 film)|2002]] & [[Alive (2006 film)|2006]])

Should this format be maintained? —Matthew - (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List each film instead. I feel that the current format for multiple films with the same name wrongly implies a connection (beyond sharing titles) between completely unrelated movies. For example, the 1942 film Cat People and its 1982 remake are listed as follows: "Cat People: (1942 & 1982)". However, the 2009 film Coco and the 2017 film Coco, which are related in name only, are listed in the exact same fashion: "Coco (2009 & 2017)". Rather than listing them like that, I propose that they be listed like this:

Cat People (1942)
Cat People (1982)

...

Coco (2009)
Coco (2017)

...and so on. Such a change would eliminate any confusion that could result from the current format. Additionally, I think the current format's use of "&" may violate MOS:AMP, but I'm not entirely sure about that. —Matthew - (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List each film instead - I agree that each film should be listed separately. Mixing them in one bullet is misleading because it implies that it's one item when in fact they're different items, completely unrelated. — Starforce¹³ 22:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
List each film instead to be consistent per MOS:LIST. There is no need to "roll up" films with the same title because they are not always connected and because separate listings mean it is easier to eyeball the years. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
List each film instead per Starforce and Erik. It's misleading, the linking of the films as their respective years is confusing and there's no need to "summarize" a list like that. El Millo (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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